Posted on 02/15/2006 1:24:33 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
It is clearly civil negligence. Anytime you fire a gun, you are responsible for where it hits. Firearms give strict liability - you are absolutely responsible for what you hit.
Criminal liablity, on the other hand, would be a quite a stretch. An argument could be made, but it's probably a loser.
On the bar exam you have to make it. But then you also have to explain why it's a loser.
BTW, when are you set to sit?
I still have 2.5 semesters left. (Dang, that felt good to say.) Frankly, I can't wait to get this over with.
I continue to think that there was no negligence on Cheney's part SINCE the man hit was part of a team; a participation that carried certain expectations with it.
That mitigates.
Especially, if as I've read, the man was in brush in an area that he as a team memeber knew he should not be occupying. I see no negligence on Cheney's part, if words have any meaning at all.
There is a no fault accident or the other hunter was negligent
I see that he has learned nothing from his over-preening during his failed race for Dallas County DA four years ago.
You should go another few years just so you can talk about it in the future.
(Just kidding...we'll be praying for you.)
Mitigates, yes. Absolves, no. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that, if the lawyer was at all negligent, it releases Cheney from liability.
In the old days (perhaps Marlowe took the bar under this system?), if the victim's own negligence contributed to his harm, he could not recover for the negligence of the defendant. Today, the plaintiff's award is simply reduced by the amount his negligence contributed to his harms.
In more simple terms, if the lawyer was 25% to blame, and Cheney 75% (numbers which I would consider reasonable), then the civil award would be 75% of the lawyer's damages.
A hunting accident, clear and simple; when has anybody EVER been charged when that happens? Of course DUmmies don't know about hunting!
Oh, for cryin' out loud, Cheney has stated the fault is his. You can stop spinning otherwise.
I don't care what Cheney says. He's a really decent human being and is overcome by feelings of guilt for having shot a friend.
I'm not spinning at all. See my #157.
Gawd, you are comparing military situations to hunting?
Cheney clearly stated where he errored. He's right. Leave it at that instead of trying to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the person pulling the trigger in a hunting accident bears primary responsibility 99 percent of the time.
Jude, it's like football.
The tackle jumps offside before the snap. He is personally and totally responsible. If the q-back uncharacteristically changes the rhythm of his signal calling, then the q-back bears some responsibility for the offside.
The lawyer was offside and got shot for his mistake. In the absence of evidence showing that Cheney participated in the man's mistake, or that Cheney operated other than according to the rules of team hunting, then Cheney is off he hook entirely in my military view of this.
At least you realize I'm not spinning. That's good enough for me.
I do think that the team member was at fault. I immediately thought so on my reading of the details of the accident yesterday.
If further info comes out about the incident itself, then I'll gladly change my mind. As it stands, though, were I the prosecutor or the Grand Jury, I'd never let this get out of the chute.
Someone earlier suggested that res ipsa loquitur would apply, and in a criminal prosecution no less. That is so wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start. It's a really just another way of trying to warp negligence into strict liability.
Due to the lesser standard of proof, I believe Cheney might be found liable in a civil proceeding for negligently inflicting injury. With a vigorous defense he might beat it, too.
I stand by my earlier assertion that Cheney would not be convicted of negligent manslaughter if Whittington were to die. The higher standard of proof coupled with the fact that the evidence would be heard by a Texas jury persuades me that it would be a quick acquittal, based on the evidence I have been made aware of.
Is there anything in the constitution that requires a homicidal maniac to resign? I don't think so. Wouldn't Congress first have to hold some kind of insanity hearing or something like that?
Anyone interested in judicial legislation and judicial activism needs to read Li V. Yellow Cab. For 104 years California Civil Code section 1714 established contributory negligence as a bar to recovery. Many other states had passed laws which allowed recovery on a contributory basis, but California was dragging its feet and not following the trend. So, instead of waiting for the legislature to act, the California Supreme Court legislated from the bench a law that allowed the negligent party to recover on a contributory basis, a basis which was completely foreign to all legal principles at the time the legislature enacted Civil Code section 1714.
This decision, like Roe v. Wade politicized the judiciary by making it a super legislature. It was a boon to the legal profession, but then what should you expect from a legislature comprised solely of lawyers?
Read it and weep.
Somebody's gotta win this Powerball. I'll take my chance on the odds.
Time to diversify ...........
When I win Saturday night...........
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.