The internets are full of conflicting stories. Was Cheney interviewed by the police or not?

One thing is clear: Whittington wasn't--the sources seem to agere on that. Which seems very strange. A hunting accident and the victim isn't asked for a statement? Can you imagine that on Law and Order? Either he was incapacitated and unable to speak (which means his injuries were severe), or the police were discouraged from speaking to him. Sounds like a cover-up.

Does anyone know the nature of wounds you'd likely get at that range from that gun and the actual injuries Whittington suffered?

Those are important questions the press doesn't seem to be asking, in its obsession with timelines.

I just don't understand Cheney. We weren't there, and we can't know what happened--except that Cheney shot shomeone while hunting. Why does Cheney need to have subordinates go out and claim that he was not at fault? Perhaps he wasn't, and perhaps the person he shot stepped out unsafely in the wrong place. Wouldn't it be better, however, for Cheney to apologize, to say that, whatever the actions of the other hunter, I made a mistake and shot without making sure I wouldn't hurt anyone? If the other hunter were truly at fault, he could then come forward and say no apology was necessary? This would surely make it easier for Cheney to avoid responsibility for shooting someone. Here again the administration seems to be making strength and aggression such a virtue that logic has disappeared.

For an administration that likes things so "black and white", this is a little puzzling. A "hunter" swings around and discharges a weapon outside of his range of vision -- no sure what is no in that line of sight that he has turned away from -- would appear to be clearly at fault. It would seem, logically, that if one is to pull a trigger then one must be certain of where that shot will be going. Oh, sorry. I forgot we're talking about the Bush administration where logic, careful thought, facts and accountability are myths of the past.

i really am already amazed that this story is being so reported on....it is such a non-issue, and so insignificant, it is only going to give conservatives ammo to say that dems/liberals will attack them for anything...because, let's face it, this is NOT a big deal...it was an accident and the guy lived....let's leave it at that before we look liek a bunch of idiots...

Granted I've never been hunting, but it would seem to me that if a man is aiming at a bird in flight, wouldn't he have his gun pointed up toward the sky?

Iam not suggesting this was not an accident, but according to the reports Mr. Whittington was shot in the face and chest so it seems that the gun was aimed fairly low to be shooting at a bird in flight? Can anyone explain, like I said I've never been hunting.

I'm pretty sure that quail fly low to the ground.

Cheney and a couple of other hunters were standing in a line, facing one way, probably east. Some birds were flushed in front of them and flew over their heads. Cheney wheeled around, 180 degrees, and fired, blinded by the late-afternoon sun in the west, thus hitting Harry Whittington, who was standing behind him.

Cheney broke Rule Number One of hunting in the field: A hunter must never, ever, ever turn, wheel, spin, reel, whatever and shoot out of the bounds of his original field of vision.

If you don't hit a bird while it's in your standing field of vision, you LET IT GO! Period.

It sounds like he had his finger on the trigger as he was turning around, which is another stupid mistake. He could have just as easily shot another hunter who was standing in his shooting line.

This goes beyond "hunter's judgment." It was extremely reckless behavior on Cheney's part. So of course the republicans are blaming their victim. That's their M.O.