Posted on 02/15/2006 1:24:33 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
If lawyer dies, Cheney could face negligent homicide charges
02/15/2006 02:42:17 PM
DALLAS (AP) -- If the man wounded by Dick Cheney dies, the vice president could -- in theory at least -- face criminal charges, even though the shooting was an accident.
Dallas defense attorney David Finn, who has been a state and a federal prosecutor, said Wednesday that a Texas grand jury could bring a charge of criminally negligent homicide if there is evidence the vice president knew or should have known "there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in him shooting a fellow hunter."
"The risk must be of such a nature and degree that it got to be pretty outrageous -- that a reasonable person would have to say, `I am not pulling the trigger because this other guy might be in front of me,"' Finn said. *
The charge carries up to two years behind bars, but with no previous felonies Cheney would be eligible for probation, the former prosecutor said.
Mark Skurka, first assistant district attorney of the three-county area where the shooting took place, said prosecutors did not have an investigation under way.
"If something unfortunate happens, then we'll decide what to do, then we'll decide whether we're going to have an investigation or not," Skurka said.
Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old lawyer, was struck in the face, neck and chest with shotgun pellets over the weekend while Cheney was shooting at quail. Whittington suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday after a pellet traveled to his heart.
But on Wednesday, hospital officials said he had a normal heart rhythm again and was sitting up in a chair, eating regular food and planned to do some legal work in his hospital room. Doctors said they are highly optimistic he will recover.
In the only other case of someone being shot by a vice president, Aaron Burr was indicted on murder charges in New York and New Jersey for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, but he was never tried and finished out his term in office.
Ha ha,
No, the law states that the victim of a homicide must die from the wounds within a year and a day of the time of the incident. If Mr. Whittington makes it to next Valentine's day, then Cheney is in the clear.
In any event a jury would only be 20 minutes before returning an acquittal. Ain't happening, jack.
Even if the old gent dies 10 years from now of an overdose of Viagra, Cheney will be blamed-somehow.
I'd hunt with the Dick Cheney before I'd ride with the Chappaquidick D**k.
"If Ted Kennedy dies, the Vodka and Vodka importing industries may plunge into a depression from which they may never recover."
TK will not die, he will spontaneously burst into flames and burn for week like a 400 lb blob of sterno.
Depends on the jury.
Texas Penal Code Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
~ (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
After reviewing the Statute you are probably right. Under the Texas Penal Code the negligence must be "criminal negligence", which I suspect must include the breaking of a law, such as speeding, drunk driving, fighting.
So in this case there is virtually no chance he will be charged.
As I often say, I've been wrong before. Here's an example.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
So now if Mr. Whittington dies and the Vice President isn't charged, it will be a cover up by the "vast right-wing" conspiracy.
This discussion is an intellectual exercise, however, because the guy is not likely to die. Cheney got lucky here. He needs remedial hunters safety instruction.
When I hit the powerball tonight, I will just keep on doing what I have been doing until I use it all up (I mean, it's worked so far and it's all I know).
I'm sure Whittington has an excellent civil claim against Cheney. He probably also has a claim against the landowner. I suspect there is a lot of insurance between the two of them that will help to ease his pain.
Indeed this news is very sad for the DUmmies and the Looney Liberal Left, and some DemonRATS.
A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.I haven't found any Texas cases on point. There were a couple of interesting ones where playing with a firearm constituted "criminal negligence." Accidentally shooting quail during a quail hunt seems to be a little less "negligent" than playing with guns.
My own conclusion is that it would be a stretch to argue that Cheney was criminally negligent. At the very least, it would be an uphill battle all the way for the prosecutor - even if Mr. Cheney was a clerk at the local WalMart, and not the Vice President. But - and this could just be a 2L's hubris - I think, if I absolutely had to, I could make the argument. (I would almost certainly lose, however.)
It's the military thing in me and being peripherally involved in two friendly fire incidents on the battlefield. I remember in the Panama invasion when I was approached by a Ranger Chaplain. It was the first time I ever saw the guy in my life, and his first words to me were, "Your guys killed my guys." I didn't know what to say because it was the first I'd heard of it. As it turned out, it wasn't that simple. There was an investigation that revealed a dual responsibility. Their forward observer had marked their forward team back further than they actually were. Our guy began a gun run ahead of the line, but he wasn't supposed to run his guns to the target. He was supposed to direct aim and shoot the actual target. Their being out of place and his failure to follow directions for that mission caused the death of some Rangers.
There was mutual negligence, but there were no charges.
In another case, a young 82d troop got forward of his advancing team, and he took a friendly round in the spine.
One could call the shooter negligent, because he didn't identify his target, but the troop wasn't supposed to be there.
Similarly, Dick Cheney was part of a team hunt. Each team member has a responsibility...especially with a quick target like quail. They are not supposed to get ahead of the line of fire. I understand that this man did.
Quick reaction bird required quick reaction firing. Cheney fired and the man was hit BECAUSE he was where he wasn't where he was supposed to be. (I hear he was even in some brush at the time.)
I don't see how it's possible to call that negligence. Cheney did what was expected.
It was the other guy who was negligent, or it was a no-fault accident.
ping to #157
ping to #157
I don't think a Repub has to have a tin foil hat to believe the "Party of Death" wouldn't be above taking out Harry just to bring down Cheney - seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.