Oh pshaw.
You just made my point by saying that she was almost hit by a bullet from a careless hunter,but it could have been a safe hunter also.
Oh, please. The shooter was by definition engaging in UNSAFE practices, to-wit, firing UP, over a hill, with NO backstop. Talk about a serial rule-buster!
And strangely, the police don't seem to see it YOUR way. Go figure.
This happens and there is no solution I can see.
Well, in that case, it's a good thing you're not in charge of Hunter Safety curricula, eh?
For one thing, NEVER SHOOT OVER A HILL! For another thing, ALWAYS be SURE of your target! And, make SURE you have a SOLID BACKSTOP.
This is not rocket science. Not even close.
I do not like guns, and I cannot stomach people that do not read the post or understand what is being pointed out.
OK, well now we're getting somewhere! You're doing what's called in the jargon, "talking through your hat", i.e., speaking authoritatively on a subject upon which you have no working knowledge. There are other terms for this practice, which, while more descriptive, are less palatable.
This old man failed to obey the rules and ended up in the line of fire as testified to by those in attendance.
My, how are the mighty fallen!
A respected attorney, a "Friend of the VP", is now contemptuously termed, "this old man"? What a positively telling statement!
VP Cheney does not have eyes in the back of his head,
I can't help but notice the rapid segue to the term of respect for the politician. "In this cornah, This Old Man; and in this cornah, we have The Vice President of The Yoo-knighted States of A-Merica!"
LOL!
But, I digress.
You point out a significant fact -- the politican cannot see what's behind him. This is sort of an awkward moment, because it seems to suggest that he was either shooting "over his shoulder", or, if, somehow he was looking where he was aiming (but then why your "back of his head" comment?), he wasn't paying attention when he pulled the trigger.
This is known as a "negligent discharge", particularly when it results in moving projectiles encountering human flesh.
and as I said before if I was cheney and this man did this to me so that I was not able to react, then it was his fault as the witnesses stated.
"The witnesses", LOL!
Let's go back to my near-fatal "not-my-fault" car wreck for a moment.
Let's say that some... nay, let's say that ALL "of the witnesses" told the police officer that "it was HIS fault that she hit his car!"
Does that mean that I should have been ticketed? (I wasn't!) Does it mean MY insurance rates should have gone up? (They didn't!)
I'll cut to the chase. No, it means nothing of the sort.
If you walk up to me on the corner of 42nd and B'way, and proceed to plant a .45 slug in the back of my head, and ALL of "the witnesses" tell the police "He had it coming -- he really asked for it!" -- does that mean that the police would tell you, "Oh, well, in that case, sorry to bother you, Ma'am; you have yourself a fine day now! Oh, and nice shooting!"
No, LOL! I don't think so!
So, "the witnesses" said that it was the victim's fault that Cheney shot him? LOL, that scene had to be SO bloody intense that I'd love to have owned a "Change of Pants, $250, Cash" trailer to pull up to the scene of the "accident". So, I have a feeling that "The Witnesses" said whatever they were "advised" to say.
Would YOU want to "say the wrong thing" when the VP/USA had just SHOT a man? Would YOU want to piss him off? Would YOU want to have the IRS star-drilling your life into the concrete? Every gov't agency you ever heard of, and a scad more you never heard of, all descending to "make your life 'interesting'"?
I think these are the feelings and thoughts that must have been running through those poor folks minds, even faster than their lunch was running into their pants, as they stood there, not making any sudden moves, waiting for someone to tell them "what to say."
This story ain't gonna go away. I think we'll be hearing a lot more about it in weeks and months and years to come. Make no mistake, it WILL be in all the history books.
You are mixing apples and oranges. I referred to two different things. One that innocent People that live near wooded Hunting areas can be injured and sometimes it is nobody's fault.
An "ND" is always SOMEBODY'S fault!
I don't know why you can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept. It's not very complicated. If you screw up, it's YOUR FAULT!
If you are leaning out the window to get a good look at the Goodyear Blimp, with NO malice in mind, and, you "accidentally" push a large clay flowerpot off the ledge, and it then falls down and kills a bystander on the sidewalk, do you REALLY think you will get a pass on the "accident" because "it wasn't my fault, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, blah blah blah?"
PLEASE tell me the concept is finally beginning to jell in your mind!
Two that if I am in the same position as VP was and did everything right and the man walked into my firing line it is his fault for not following the rules.
Oh Good Lord you are really stuck in a groove!
Look up "argumentum ad nauseam", will you? No matter HOW many times you repeat that assertion, it will NOT become fact!
Reread the post it is making two points not one altogether. What do you want to do restrict Hunters from hunting, that is left wing stuff and counterproductive.
AIEEEEE!!!!!
I -- a hunter for over thirty years -- am being lectured on my alleged ANTI-hunter tendencies, by a self-admitted "I do not like guns" person!
I feel like I am discussing this with Chuckie Schumer.
That is remarkable, because I feel like I'm debating with Charlie McCarthy!
Argh!
Oh, please. The shooter was by definition engaging in UNSAFE practices, to-wit, firing UP,
Don't most bird hunters fire upward?