If Cheney shot someone out of self-defense, I wouldn't have started the argument in the first place, ]-[ellequin. The simple fact of the matter is, your example contains no accident. By definition, for an accident to occur, there must be neglect.

Stop making open ended statements, then changing them.

You said Someone getting shot is proof enough of neglect.

I was shot. Was there neglect? No. YOU WERE WRONG.

And neglect is not always required for an accident. Have you accidently knocked over a cup of something? Were you neglectful, or was it merely an accident? What if someone pushed you? Or if there was an earthquake?

Free, you're wrong. Just admit it and walk away with what very little dignity you have left.

If you're hunting with two other people, and one of them knocks a quail out of the sky and goes to retrieve it, you wait until he gets back. Since you can't see through the tall grass, you must assume someone could be hit if you can't see them.

In such low visibility conditions, I would consider taking ANY shot, without knowing where your hunting companions are, to be negligent. Period.

Lucky for the rest of humanity that no one gives a s**t about what you think.

I argue with your stupidity no more.

Oh Jesus, Hellequin and many others have you back into a corner. You are beaten. Accept it.

Just because there are more of them than me that all agree doesn't mean they're right. I will admit I'm beaten when they prove I'm beaten. They have yet to come even close.

No it doesn't, pity that they are though.

No, but the points we come up with that destroy your stance (as we have already done with your "vehicular manslaughter" example) does. Also--neglect DOES have to be there--but it's not neccessarily neglect on Cheney's side. The guy forgot to signal.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, but the points we come up with that destroy your stance (as we have already done with your "vehicular manslaughter" example) does. Also--neglect DOES have to be there--but it's not neccessarily neglect on Cheney's side. The guy forgot to signal.[/QUOTE]

That's an excuse to shift the blame onto the victim. The shot should have never been fired at all.



Because saying someone is right makes it so.

Maybe it shouldn't have, but it's still the guy's fault for not signalling or wearing the required orange vest. It may scare birds away, but I'd rather have a few less birds killed than a gunshot wound.

He got shot. it was an accident. The guy didnt make his position known. Maybe Cheney should look for a smarter hunting companion?