NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got this email from my little bro. What do you think? Has he put it together accurately?

It seems that the average 28 gauge #8 shot shell would
have 3/4 ounce with something like 275 pellets per
ounce. So, that would mean 206 pellets per load.
So, media accounts of cheney's victim say over 200
pellets hit him, and that the shot was 30 yards. Does
this compute? Looking at

http://www.chambermates.com/28gauge.htm

I get the idea that at 30 yards, we're expecting only
57% in a 30 inch circle (much wider than a person's
head, neck, and chest). Even if they all hit, that
would mean about only 114 pellets.
So, was the shot much closer? Like maybe 15 yards - a
virtually inexcusable distance? And, cheney said he
could see the guy fall. Now, this was at dusk, in
tall brush with the victim standing (not above the
brush like a bird), and the guy with thick glasses saw
the other guy fall at 30 yards?
It's unscientific speculation, but it looks to me like
something's amiss with the report.

I believe that Cheney shot the guy as a deliberate warning to all who oppose him, a sort of "if I can do this to my friend, imagine what I can do to my enemies" type statement.

I believe that Cheney shot the guy as a deliberate warning to all who oppose him, a sort of "if I can do this to my friend, imagine what I can do to my enemies" type statement.

you honestly believe that?

you honestly believe that?
Sure, have you seen the guy? He's pure evil, like the anti-Christ or something...

I just got this email from my little bro. What do you think? Has he put it together accurately?
I don't know jack about guns, but this isn't the first place I've heard similar conjecture, and the argument seems to be the same. One place I heard the theory also noted that it would be nearly impossible for that size of birdshot to get through three layers of clothing plus the tissue necessary to lodge in Whittington's heart.

I don't know jack about guns, but this isn't the first place I've heard similar conjecture, and the argument seems to be the same. One place I heard the theory also noted that it would be nearly impossible for that size of birdshot to get through three layers of clothing plus the tissue necessary to lodge in Whittington's heart.

Really though, if dick wanted to off someone, I think he'd have access to better methods than just loading for big game and shooting the fucker in the face.

It all seems a little tin foil hatted.

Really though, if dick wanted to off someone, I think he'd have access to better methods than just loading for big game and shooting the fucker in the face.

It all seems a little tin foil hatted.
It still could have been an accident, or at the least, negligence. I'm still not saying that Cheney was trying to off the guy--just that, as has been habit with members with this administration, they tried to make it seem not as bad as it actually was, in hopes of avoiding embarassment. I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion.

I never actually really read up on the story, was it just Cheney and the guy he shot or was there anyone else with them?

I never actually really read up on the story, was it just Cheney and the guy he shot or was there anyone else with them?
There were other people there, but from what I understand, none of the eyewitnesses were interviewed until well after the incident, and the woman who has been out front on the story, Armstrong, wasn't actually an eyewitness.

Again, none of this proves malice, just an overwhelming desire for secrecy and the willingness to go to great lengths to control it.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is quite reasonable that it happened as reported.

Ya see, I shot my cousin in the face with a 10 gauge shotgun, but it was from about 90 yards, 3 times the distance, and shotguns lose velocity quite quickly .

It STILL drew blood on his cheek. And where he was standing a pellet lodged a quarter inch into the limb of a tree.

Now, what I shot at him was #4 shot, which is twice as big as #8 shot, but still formidable when coming from the barrel of a shotgun, and considering that Cheney has $$$, I'm sure it was a Magnum shell he was using.

So yeah, at 30 yards, a direct shot would have the velocity to penetrate the clothing you'd wear hunting in southern Texas (it's hot there) and IF it didn't his directly on bone, it could go through enough flesh to reach close to the heart. I know at 20 yards, it will blow through plywood.


Also, the Doctors stated at the news conference that they DO NOT have an exact count of the BB's that hit him.


(more details about my accident if asked)

It still could have been an accident, or at the least, negligence. I'm still not saying that Cheney was trying to off the guy--just that, as has been habit with members with this administration, they tried to make it seem not as bad as it actually was, in hopes of avoiding embarassment. I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion.

Well look, I am of the opinion that this was just an accident, nothing more. And I fully understand why dick was sheepish about coming on TV and talking about how he shot a 78 year old man in the face.

But all I get from this, is don't go hunting with dick, it's dangerous.

There are other things, far, far more important to me. And other things the executive branch does that worries me far, far more. If anything, this was sort of a Warren G. Hardingesque type event, mildly amusing in a black comedy sort of way, nothing more.

I am also pissed that my two senators are spending the week waffling about this, instead of trying to get money for the tappan zee bridge rail extension program. But it's anything but actually do their job with those two.

Well look, I am of the opinion that this was just an accident, nothing more. And I fully understand why dick was sheepish about coming on TV and talking about how he shot a 78 year old man in the face.

But all I get from this, is don't go hunting with dick, it's dangerous.

There are other things, far, far more important to me. And other things the executive branch does that worries me far, far more. If anything, this was sort of a Warren G. Hardingesque type event, mildly amusing in a black comedy sort of way, nothing more.
I tend to agree--it probably was just an accident, and at the most, just negligence on Cheney's part by not making sure his field of fire was clear before he pulled the trigger. What the incident proves to me, however, is that Cheney is so used to getting the press to not actually question him that he thought he could just ignore this and it would blow over, no real questions asked, and that didn't happen this time. It's a sign of arrogance, I guess is what I'm saying, sort of like the Sheehan fiasco in Texas. If Cheney had come out from the beginning and faced it, this would have been a one-day story, just as if Bush had come out and talked to Sheehan, it would have been a one day story. But they delayed and now it's become this big issue, this much ado about (probably) nothing. Who the hell is handling public relations in that White House?

The tin hats really have to work overtime to get a conspiracy out of this one. See, every eyewitness says it was an accident, the victim himself says it was an accident, the official investigation says it was an accident, plus there is no motive for it to be anything but an accident.

The tin hats really have to work overtime to get a conspiracy out of this one. See, every eyewitness says it was an accident, the victim himself says it was an accident, the official investigation says it was an accident, plus there is no motive for it to be anything but an accident.
Never stopped the Left wing (http://michaelmoore.com/)before.

The tin hats really have to work overtime to get a conspiracy out of this one. See, every eyewitness says it was an accident, the victim himself says it was an accident, the official investigation says it was an accident, plus there is no motive for it to be anything but an accident.
Every eyewitness? You mean the guy that was shot, the VP of the flipping United States that shot him, and two other people who were buddies with the veep?

BTW, just so everyone knows, my brother is an avid bird hunter. My dad, also an avid hunter with many years of experience, has said he'thinks there's something wonky about the distances as well.

I suspect, as has been mentioned, that it was just an accident, and that it's being swept under the rug simply due to the embarassment factor. That the conspiracy crowd has grabbed it, embellished it, and run, doesn't mean that there isn't something fishy going on.

Anyway, can anyone who knows what they're talking about confirm or knock the figures? (That's the question here.)

My only comment is this: The last and only other time a sitting Vice President shot anyone was in a duel between Aaron Burr & (former Secretary of the Treasury) Alexander Hamilton in 1804.

So: Vice Presidents don't kill people. But husbands who come home early do. :D

The figures sound about right, however I don't see how the media accounts put over 200 pellets in the man, considering the doctors themselves have stated in a news conference that they never counted them.

Like I stated earlier, it is entirely possible for the shot to penetrate his chest, considering it is design to penetrate flesh. And at 30 yards, the pellets have just left the wadding, and still have most of the velocity they had at the muzzle.


Think about it this way. You know those pump bb guns? Imagine having 100 people pump them up to ten pumps and shoot you at 30 yards. There would be blood and pain, I assure you. And they shoot at about 600-700 fps, compared to 1250 fps from a 28 gauge.

Long version: I conclude the target was within 10 or 15 yards, at most, of Dick and possibly as
close as 5 yards. My reasons for saying this are algebraic.
Seems like the press reports the target had 40 pellets taken out of him. The press also reported
Dick was using a 28 gauge - a good quail gun if you're dedicating one gun to quail. He’s a serious
wingshooter and wealthy (28 gas are not common and usually only really expensive models), so
we can safely assume he does. (N.B. The gauge of a shotgun is a number designating the
number of equal-sized lead spheres which could be made from a pound of lead; the diameter of
those spheres is then the diameter of the shotgun’s bore. A 12 gauge bore is 0.730 inches, a 20
gauge about 0.57 inches. The higher the number, the smaller the bore diameter.)
A quick visit to Cabelas’ (“The World’s Largest Outfitter”)web site reveals the standard load in a
28 ga. is about 3/4 to 7/8 ounce of shot, up to 1 ounce. The standard quail shell uses small
birdshot, #8 or #9. There's about 410 # 8 pellets in 1 ounce (more pellets if it's #9, with shotgun
pellets the bigger the number (a) the smaller the pellet and (b) therefore the more per ounce).
(Funny, Wikipedia’s acting up right about now and being inaccessible....)
To keep the math easy, let’s say one ounce, about 400 #8 pellets. This is also an assumption
favorable to the shooter because using a lighter load (less pellets) would indicate closer/more
accurate firing into his target. I.e., we know how many pellets hit the target; to get that number
for a lighter load, the shooting would have to have been more accurate or from a closer range.
Because shotgun patterns spread. Further, assuming one ounce of pellets allows us to remove
the possibility of misreporting the identity of the gun, that the shotgun was 20 gauge instead of
28, because a very standard quail load for a 20 gauge is also 1 ounce of #8 pellets. On the other
hand, if Dick was using #9 pellets, there would be a significant increase in the number of pellets,
to about 600 per ounce.
So, about a tenth of the load in a standard 28 ga. #8 quail shell wound up in the target. So far so
good, but the reports also say the pellets were all in the guy's face, shoulder, neck and chest, but
not in his eyes. It seems like he was caught pretty squarely, and at close range if there was a
demarcation like that. There would likely be a rougher edge to the pattern if it was at longer
range.
This area on the target’s body is an area roughly the size of one dinner plate, all in all
((12/2)*(12/2)*3.14)= 112 in. sq. Note, this is also an assumption favorable to the shooter. If we
assume the impact area is smaller than the rough equivalent of a dinner plate (and it probably is),
that leads to the conclusion that the pattern was more concentrated when it struck. On the other
hand, for areas larger than a dinner plate it makes the distances farther. I’m not going to do a
sensitivity analysis, but I’ll thumbnail it at about 3/4 of a percent change in distance per square
inch in area change.
Standard pattern density for a 28 ga would likely be about 40% of the pellets inside a 30 inch
diameter circle at 40 yards for a cylinder bore choke and 50% inside the same 30 inch circle at 40
yards for an improved cylinder choke. These chokes are favored for quail, as they are more open,
i.e., the pattern is spread more widely for a small, speedy target like quail. (See, e.g.,
http://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/101-StoriesReviews/shotg... ) Tighter patterns
and chokes (modified = 60% in the circle and full = 70% in the circle) are used for larger birds,
like pheasants and such. At 40 yards, all the pellets should fall within a circle of 80 inches
diameter, as a rule of thumb is that shot patterns expand radially about one inch per yard
downrange. 40 yards = 40 inches radius = 80 inches diameter.
For what it’s worth, as a side note (but it’s important), a 30 inch diameter circle at 40 yards, i.e.,
the pattern circle, looks a little smaller than (subtends a slightly smaller angle than) a dime held
at arm’s length. And that isn’t big.
Here’s the math:
30 inch = 2.5 ft.
40 yd. = 120 ft.
X diameter hand-held at arm’s length
30 inch distance eye to object hand-held at arm’s length
(2.5 ft. dia./120 ft. dist.) = (X in.dia./30 in. dist.)
solve for X: X in.= 30*2.5/120 = 75/120 in. = .625 in. (i.e. 5/8 inch)
Diameter of a dime = approx. .710 inches
Now, on to calculating the density of shot in the patterns.
Doing the math for both patterns, inside the pattern circle:
Cylinder: (0.40*400)/(15*15*3.14) = (160)/(225*3.14) = 1pellet/4.41 inches sq. @ 40 yds.
Improved cylinder: (0.50*400)/(15*15*3.14) = (200)/(225*3.14) = 1pellet/3.53 inches sq.@ 40
yards.
Outside the pattern circle:
cyl.: ((1-0.40)*400)pellets/((40*40*3.14)-(15*15*3.14)in sq.) = ((.60)*(400)pellets)/((1600-
225)*3.14 in. sq.) = (240 pellets)/(4317.5 in sq.)= 1 pellet/17.98 inches sq. @ 40 yds.
imp. cyl.: ((1-0.50)*400)pellets/((40*40*3.14)-(15*15*3.14)in. sq.)= (200 pellets)/(4317.5 in.
sq.) = 1pellet/21.58 inches sq.@ 40 yards.
This exemplifies the purpose of choking a shotgun; it concentrates a much higher percentage of
the pellets in a specified area, giving a better chance of hitting the target.
Now, we need to look at the actual density of pellets removed from the target’s body. 40 pellets
removed from his face, shoulder, and neck, an area approximately the size of a dinner plate,
about 112 square inches. Once we calculate that density, we compare it to the pattern density of
the shell. This can give us a fairly good idea of how far away the shotgun was when fired. N.B.
Some pellets may have grazed his face, fallen out of a wound or even bounced off, such that a
higher number of pellets actually struck him. Only those reported as being removed are being
counted for purposes of this analysis.
The actual target density is 40 pellets/112 in. sq. or 1 pellet /2.8 in. sq.
If he hit the target with the center of the pattern, then the shot density in the center of the pattern
yields the following ranges:
Cylinder: 25.4 yd.
Improved Cylinder:31.73 yd.
Here’s the math:
Cyl. 1 pellet/4.41 inches sq. @ 40 yds.
((1/2.8)/(1/4.41))= 4.41/2.8= 1.575 times closer
40/1.575 = 25.4 yd.
Imp. Cyl. 1pellet/3.53 inches sq.@ 40 yards.
((1/2.8)/(1/3.53))= 3.53/2.8= 1.261 times closer
40/1.261 = 31.73 yd.
If he hit the target with the part of the patterns outside its center (i.e., the pellets which would
strike the patterning target outside the 30 inch circle - grazing the target with the edge of the
pattern, as it were, which would be more consistent with an accidental swing into the other
hunter), then the shot density in that outer part of the pattern yields the following ranges:
Cylinder: 6.23 yd.
Improved Cylinder: 5.19 yd.
Here’s the math:
Cyl.= 1 pellet/17.98 inches sq. @ 40 yds.
((1/2.8)/(1/17.98))= 17.98/2.8= 6.421 times closer
40 yd./6.421 = 6.23 yd.
Imp. Cyl. = 1pellet/21.58 inches sq.@ 40 yards.
((1/2.8)/(1/21.58))= 21.58/2.8= 7.707 times closer
40 yd./7.707 = 5.19 yd.
* * * *



This is the math on the birdshot used in a 28 gauge shotgun by sellitman from Democratic Underground

The tin hats really have to work overtime to get a conspiracy out of this one. See, every eyewitness says it was an accident, the victim himself says it was an accident, the official investigation says it was an accident, plus there is no motive for it to be anything but an accident.No one I know is implying with any seriousness that Cheney shot a huge financial supporter of the GOP on purpose.

But it does seem that the usual spin doctors are working overtime to minimize or distort the negligence involved in the incident.

A bunch of half drunk good ole boys were hunting in Texas and one goofs up big time and shoots one of his buddies. Familiar story, except this time the fuck up is the VP of the United States of America. So this time it's a 'tragic accident' and the story is tweaked a bit to make him seem like less of a screw up. The distance is stretched, alcohol is erased from the equation, they even go as far as hint that it might have been the victims fault.


Yeah people screw up and they shouldn't have their whole lives judged by one incident. But if you screw the pooch, don't try to play innocent when you still have your dick in the dog.

You know what? Forget politics, a man shooting another in that situation is asking for a whole bunch of jail-time.

(Now, apart from someone almost dying) I find this to almost be amusing. The VP of the cockiest country in the world (real, not NS) is running about at free will shooting people with his little bird-gun. I mean, I'd expect it from Bush, but Dick is in a little over his head.

But so much for the quail. Another day, another chance to be mistaken for a bird and shot. *sigh*. You must admit, Mother Nature sure has a sense of humor, making people enjoy tin-foil hats...:p

You know what? Forget politics, a man shooting another in that situation is asking for a whole bunch of jail-time.

(Now, apart from someone almost dying) I find this to almost be amusing. The VP of the cockiest country in the world (real, not NS) is running about at free will shooting people with his little bird-gun. I mean, I'd expect it from Bush, but Dick is in a little over his head.

But so much for the quail. Another day, another chance to be mistaken for a bird and shot. *sigh*. You must admit, Mother Nature sure has a sense of humor, making people enjoy tin-foil hats...:p


aside from your other comments....i will assume you have never been quail hunting?
jail time for a hunting accident?
please....happens all the time,and with deer hunters,that are shooting from a blind or stand...against an animal the size/weight of a human.

quail/pheasant/bird hunting is fast and furious...which is why so many like it!

with deer..you use buckshot or slugs..very heavy shot to knock down a heavy animal...bird hunting is opposite,you spray small pellets towards a quick moving bird that changes direction quickly,it reguires quick reaction times and dare i say a hair trigger.

i have been sprayed with pellets pheasant hunting..more times then i care to remember,part of the game.

and his buddy should have announced his presence..not condoning anything here(i also think cheney is evil incarnate..and has oil instead of bloood)but it was an accident in a fast paced shooting engagement.
it is not spot and stalk hunting..it is flutter...react...shoot!

bird hunting is probably the most dangerous type of hunting,next to trapesing thru africa trailing a wounded lion.

just with birds..the danger is other hunters,not critters.

i dont hunt anymore,not for 20 odd years now...but i would rather track a wounded bear with a rifle,or sit in a stand..then go bird flushing with my buddies.

at least b/h the pellets are tiny..like bb's...instead of buck or ball..or cheney's buddy would not have a head period!

and for the tin foilers...what if cheney got knicked by his buddy?coulda happened quite as easily...then what would everyone say..other then hooray(at another person being shot:confused: )

that is something i will take issue with,and i am no where near a fan of the bush whitehouse.

all you peaceloving..we hate bush/cheney cause he is a violent war monger and promotes violence and intolerance...all gleefully jump at the chance to ridicule(wrongly i might add)an accident involving a man being shot accidently.

wow...talk about the pot calling the kettle black..i want no one shot..yet the left is coming in there collective pants so they can rub cheney/bush's face in it?
and it was a freaking accident..happens all the time,and like i said..if reversed..what then...he deserves to be shot anyway?..kinda goes against the peaceloving thing everyone who hates them spouts.
i realise,that last bit is conjecture..but i dare say accurate.

and i hate bush/cheney ..neocons as much as i hate leftist hypocrites.

what if kerry(doing his nra photo op)shot someone by accident..jail for him?or it was an accident...who am i kidding...kerry probably didn't have the balls to have the gun loaded...and if he did shoot someone by accident..then he would have to file for a purple heart for emotional scars..lol

j/k..yanking you lefties chain a bit...i do the same to the right when they are full of shit as well.

There were other people there, but from what I understand, none of the eyewitnesses were interviewed until well after the incident, and the woman who has been out front on the story, Armstrong, wasn't actually an eyewitness.

Again, none of this proves malice, just an overwhelming desire for secrecy and the willingness to go to great lengths to control it.
The reason for that is simple.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney4.html

The police report is found there.

Because an ex-sheriff was on the scene, the sheriff decided to wait until the following day to perform an official interview with the people involved.

I just got this email from my little bro. What do you think? Has he put it together accurately?

We can also point out other inaccuracies in the news stories - they said that the pellet removed from the victim was 5mm, which is impossible - more like 0.5mm for someone shooting quail with a 28 gauge.

It's possible that the gun has a very tight full choke, and that the victim was closer. Usually, unless someone gets out a tape measure, measurements in a field like that are going to be wild ass guesses.

I do think that it's a matter of negligence, not accident or malice.

Thanks all.

Tanara, do you have a linky for that, to pass on to my bro and dad?


No one I know is implying with any seriousness that Cheney shot a huge financial supporter of the GOP on purpose.

But it does seem that the usual spin doctors are working overtime to minimize or distort the negligence involved in the incident.

A bunch of half drunk good ole boys were hunting in Texas and one goofs up big time and shoots one of his buddies. Familiar story, except this time the fuck up is the VP of the United States of America. So this time it's a 'tragic accident' and the story is tweaked a bit to make him seem like less of a screw up. The distance is stretched, alcohol is erased from the equation, they even go as far as hint that it might have been the victims fault.


Yeah people screw up and they shouldn't have their whole lives judged by one incident. But if you screw the pooch, don't try to play innocent when you still have your dick in the dog.


That's what it sounds like to me. Stupid pride to try and cover it up seems to be the worst problem to me.