Hmmmm
I have put some thought into the Whittington assault and I think I have an answer for all those that wonder why there was an 18 hour delay in Cheney getting the story out.
I think it is because they did not know if Whittington would die or not.
It seems that you have to handle the story differently depending on if Cheney shoot a man vs. Cheney killed a man. So with that in mind, I think it was not possible to firm up the Cheney version of events until his handlers knew whether the victim was dead or merely wounded.
What say ye all?
posted by Zen Bubba @ 2/16/2006 11:37:00 AM
12 Comments:
Oh so now it is an "assault" huh... Didn't realise quail were hunted with "assault" rifles. That rat shot is hardly enough to kill a bird, or injure an old man. Don't get me wrong I'm sure it stings like hell, but were it me I would be so mad as to take the gun from the offender and boot fuck them with it.
The cospiracy theorists are in overdrive right now... So Typical. and hysterical. Bill you are now officially a KOOK.
"I have put some thought into the Whittington assault and I think I have an answer for all those that wonder why there was an 18 hour delay in Cheney getting the story out."
Brook he said assault. How can that interpreted differantly?
No, as a matter of fact Monkeyboy, I AM SAYING IT'S AN ASSAULT. Hell fire and damnation it sure as fuck is an assault. It is not an intentional one, but it most certainly is an assault none the less. Let's ask Blacks Law dictionary:
assault: "The threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact"
Yep that sounds like getting shot in the face with a shot gun to me, It sure as fuck does!
Now I realize that to a big he man like yourself, or any crack pot right winger, being shot with bird shot by the Vice President would seem like a little love tickle, more like foreplay than anything else, but Mr. Whittington seems to still be in the ICU over it.
So don't interpret my words differently, I said assault, I meant assault, the VP of the US assaulted a citizen thereof is exactly what I meant. Because that is what happened. Deal with it.
(but thanks to Brook for coming to my defense! we gots to stick together out there!)
And I agree on Matlin; everytime they bring her out the press always tempers whatever bad news she brings with "How are things at the Carville household?"
I fail to see how looking at the specific evidence (they waited 18 hours) and coming up with a reasonable explanation for it (seeing whether Whittington was gonna pull through) makes somebody a conspiracy theorist. It looks just like an example of good ol' inductive reasoning to me.
i'm sticking to the wish to avoid the sunday morning talk show cycle reasoning.
I'm sure if the guy had died it would have come out as self-defense.
bill is right, assault is assault no matter what the definition of is is. the conspiracy is that no one is really using the right word: "negligence". look that up lawyer types...actually, don't bother, here it is: "3. Law (definition). Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party."
i think the other real conspiracy lies in what dick said to the fox guy about his executive order allowing the vp to declassify docs and the fact that there is no real hunt to get to the bottom of that shit.
we have a presidency with two heads, no brain and no heart or soul...
i almost forgot to add:
10 years ago, if al gore would have assaulted some one with clean air and sunshine he would have been in gitmo by monday after.
remember folks: Dick IS the tie breaker in the senate! he should be the tie breaker in terre haute!
and yes i mean when Ted Kaczynski needs some other inmate to settle an argument with Ramsi Yousef over who is the biggest terrorist, it outta be dick fucking cheney.
Right you are TNT, but Assault is an intentional tort, not a negligent one. Now, by intent we don't mean the intent to shoot someone, just that the gun was intentionally fired.
Continuing your negligence definition, it has 5 parts under common law; 1) a duty of care, 2) breach of that duty, 3) the breach being the cause in fact of the ultimate harm, 4) the breach being the proximate or legal cause of the harm, and 5) actual harm.
It would be easy to get all of those here, but assault is not an act of negligence so you don't have to. You don't negligently assault someone. You could have both assault, it's partner battery (which goes to the actual harm) and the tortious behavior of negligence altogether, but I was refering to just the assault.
So while you are right, it is on a different subject and I didn't really intend to go there.
I just think it's neat how easy it is to get a rise out of right wingers when you say assault. You get called a "KOOK" before they even know what you are talking about....
So you admit it was just wordplay to get a rise out of people who might have the good judgement to say "Wait a minute. that's an irresponsible thing to say".
There are kooks on both sides and both are equally annoying.
Nope it was an accurate statement of events, one that happened to get a rise out of people. That it was provocative does not mean it isn't true and accurate.
caveat huntor:
"if you hunt with a dick,
expect to get shot."
bill, thanks for the this and that.
Nice,,,
how about: "Do you trust your daughters out loving nature with Dick?"
or
"Despite it all, the NRA still loves Dick?"
or
"Which is a greater assault on American values, giving an Oscar to Brokeback or Dick hunting?"
Post a Comment
<< Home