1. I prefer Logic. Much more absolute. Commonsense says the Earth is Flat, Logic says it is round.good job, tim. you completely evaded all common sense.
2. You have said numerous times in my post things that I didn't say.
No it isn't. I guess you don't hunt, otherwise you would know that hunting has a much more broad term of accident than you think or some city slicker lawyer whose never hunted claims.1, a "hunting accident" isn't a true accident until everyone involved was being a responsible hunter and used their guns according to safety rules. that didn't happen in this case, so it is therefore not a hunting accident. rather, it is negligence.
Now, I know you have never hunted, at least not quail or dove. Hunters get pelted with buckshot regularly. Last year, I was hit by it, again....shooting in another hunter's direction is reckless and puts that hunter in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
also, cheney would have had to have had some idea where whittington was as whittington said that he ran out to get a downed bird.
1. Whittington moved to get a down bird. Cheney and the rest of the hunting party moved on in search of other coveys.
2. Whittington didn't follow hunting guidelines and double back returning to the jump off point (where he left to get his bird, and Cheney and party left to seek other birds) and then follow the path to the hunting party that the hunting party took. Instead he took a short cut and the most direct route.
3. Whittington did not follow safety guidelines and announce his return/presence.
4. Have you ever been to that area of Texas? I have, and I can tell you that the grass and growth is 4-6 feet tall. So even someone in a orange vest will disappear very quickly.
5. Speculation: I have been peppered by buckshot from a seperate hunter 30 yards away who didn't hear us moving, because the wind was coming to us from him. He didn't hear us and when a bird flew he popped a round at the bird and hit us. He only heard us when we yelled.
All these factors aided in the loss of SA. Not Negilgence, but accident.
You may think so, but that just isn't the case, it doesn't sound like you have hunted much in your life. Birds move across the horizon very fast and you track it and fire and sometimes that means you moved 180 degrees depending on the birds movement. Heck, I used to be good enough to pop 3 rounds at birds flying by and it took 180 degrees many times.if he didn't, that is also irresponsible and negligent because you're never supposed to shoot without knowing or surveying your 170 degree frame of shooting area; to go past the 170 degree frame is reckless, irresponsible, and unsafe practice.
As said earlier, even surveying someone in that area of Texas doesn't mean squat when you consider the growth is 4-6 feet, a slight dip that might not be noticable and you have an invisible person. Heck, it happened in Fredricksburg during the Civil War. A small dip in the corn field hid the North from the South and allowed the North to break the line of the CSA which never would have been assaultable otherwise.
Wrong! He had the license:also, cheney never had a permit to even hunt the quail, as far as i understand it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... dent_x.htmCheney did violate one small legal requirement, however. His office said Monday that while Cheney had a $125-dollar non-resident Texas hunting license, he lacked a required $7 stamp to hunt upland game birds such as quail. In a statement, his office said Cheney has mailed a $7 check for the stamp.
Why did he only send $7 for breaking the law? Wasn't there a fine? NO!
The stamp only was enacted this season and is so new that many of the stores forget to ask hunters about the stamp. Because the Game Wardens know that is an issue, the policy stated that warnings would only be issued this season.
Basically, it was the fault of the store owner and an honest mistake at that.
It is such a new rule that the owners of the ranch didn't even know about it.
Basically, the game wardens said he had the right to be out there and it was an honest mistake that has occurred often this year.
I'm sorry, I may just be stupid, but can you please quote to me where I said anything about trials by Jury?2, without the right to a defense to prove your innocence in the face of a jury of peers, you lose one of the most valued rights this country has to offer it's citizens.
Did I say that, anywhere in my post? Can you point it out to me.
It isn't there? Oh, so while I am "evading" commonsense, you're making things up about what I said.
Ironically, one is Conservative and one is Liberal, but lets not get facts in the way of something you don't know about.. whether or not your partisan author friends care to agree or disagree is beside the point.
Again, I hate to make you look like an idiot, but can you please read my post and list anywhere I talked about a jury?once our guilt and innocence is decided by someone else without the ability to defend ourselves, we've lost any sense of freedom we once had.
So let me get this straight. I defend Cheney on logic, but you condemn him by talking about made up safety rules and such (especially when you don't know that regions terrain and growth). Seems you're the partisan. Even more funny is a quote two authors, both who have experience in the legal field, and which one is from each side of the political spectrum, as being partisan.you think i like the fact that most white-collar criminals (like your buddy cheney) will probably never be tried in court?
Even funnier is that you talk about him as a White-Collar Criminal, which he has had no scandal of the such.
Now, the Democrats had plenty of ties to Enron. Don't believe me:
Time Magazine
Both the Nation and Common Dreams.org, both Left of the political aisle:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020408/greider
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm
I'll tell you what. If you can find the term: Lawyer anywhere in the Constitution, I'll donate 5 bucks to your favorite charity.we have the right to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers and we have the right to an attourny to help defend us if we are incapable of defending ourselves in a court of law and it is unconstitutional for our government or any american governing body to deny us those rights
If you say this is the term for lawyer: Assistance of Counsel
You are historically mistaken, historically, this meant anything from a Pastor to a doctor, basically anyone that was educated.
But this gets back to the reality that until the last 100 years laws were written so a commoner could read them. It was historically accepted that laws were to be written so anyone could read and comprehend them. In fact, they specifically wrote the Constitution with that in mind, unlike the EU Constitution that takes up 700 pages, they intended for laws to be understandable and based on Natural Law.
This is why The Constitution more closely resembles the Scriptures than it does Modern Law and why Theologians have more right to speak about interpretation of the Constitution than Lawyers do.
Again, I sure would like to know where I can find my comments on Juries in that post. I must be missing it.and it probably never will be. however, the fact that we have other people in this country from various walks of life and that there is never a rash that spells out "guilty" on the foreheads of those who commit crimes so we can pick out who's innocent and who's not, we have to treat everyone as equals (as the constitution states) and not convict based solely on evidence, testimony, and probability without your case being presented to a jury of peers.
Now, I will tell you that you are wrong (no big shock) that Trial's by Jury are a must in a free society. For years we didn't have trial's by Jury. Sure the Feds did, but not the states. There have been numerous cases saying that the US Constitution doesn't ensure a trial by jury. Two that come to mind are:
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900) - This one said specifically that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to States.
Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) - This one said Grand Juries weren't required in State trials.
Seems you need to brush up on your Constitution. Then again, I bet you think that the Constitution applies to the States, it doesn't.
I suggest you read something on this topic:
http://www.extremeink.com/appendix.htm
Personally, I like Jury trials, I just hate lawyers.
