The Least Dangerous Game
Feb. 15th, 2006 08:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenWhen you think about it, shooting a 78-year-old lawyer who isn't expecting it pretty much is the human equivalent of a canned quail hunt. (For those who missed that angle, Cheney's preferred hunting style involves having somebody else raise large numbers of game birds so they lose their fear of man, then releasing them en masse to blast away. Very much like the proverbial fish-in-a-barrel, and most serious hunters despise such 'canned hunts'. For those who missed the other angle, Whittington (the guy he shot) has had a 'minor heart attack' caused by birdshot pellets in the heart.)
I'm not terribly familiar with hunting etiquette, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything short of criminal negligence. Certainly Whittington was partly to blame - he wasn't where he was supposed to be, and didn't tell Cheney he was stepping out of line. But there's no way around the fact that Cheney pulled the trigger without a good idea of what his gun was pointing at. Maybe that sort of snap shooting is OK if you're hunting something dangerous that might kill you if you don't get in the first shot... or you're trying to feed your family, and not shooting might mean they don't eat. But when you've got hundreds of tame quail being released for your convenience, it ought to be a little easier to make sure.
On an unrelated note, Pharyngula just alerted me to the existence of a keyword-searchable Calvin and Hobbes database.
I'm not terribly familiar with hunting etiquette, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything short of criminal negligence. Certainly Whittington was partly to blame - he wasn't where he was supposed to be, and didn't tell Cheney he was stepping out of line. But there's no way around the fact that Cheney pulled the trigger without a good idea of what his gun was pointing at. Maybe that sort of snap shooting is OK if you're hunting something dangerous that might kill you if you don't get in the first shot... or you're trying to feed your family, and not shooting might mean they don't eat. But when you've got hundreds of tame quail being released for your convenience, it ought to be a little easier to make sure.
On an unrelated note, Pharyngula just alerted me to the existence of a keyword-searchable Calvin and Hobbes database.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 09:51 pm (UTC)There's a part of this story that we're not hearing... why did it take 18 hours to report this, and why did the owner of the ranch call the newspaper and break the story that way? Scott McClelland's WH press briefing yesterday was nothing short of comical, particularly when he claimed that Cheney authorized the information to be disseminated in that manner. It's like they're not even TRYING to make the lies believable anymore...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 10:14 pm (UTC)Although at least the animals killed in a slaughterhouse get eaten - with the kill counts reported back in 2003, it's hard to believe Cheney and his friends are going to eat all that. I'd never heard the drugged angle before, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
Cheney authorized the information to be disseminated in that manner.
I'd love to live in a world where I get to authorise how my screwups are to be reported :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 10:18 pm (UTC)I think the best spin I've heard on it so far was somebody on a comment board claiming the quail had bird flu, and Cheney had to shoot the guy because he was infected...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 04:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-15 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-14 10:32 pm (UTC)