Vick: A new dog could help my rehabilitation

[SlimPickens]

Un-F*cking-believable!

[mraynrand]

Leave us Alone!

[Joemailman]

Oh come on. Can't you teach a old dog owner new tricks?

[sheepshead]

I heard partial offered up his chihuahua

[sheepshead]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/heymike0308/Manwithchihuahua.jpg

[MJZiggy]

You have got to be freakin' kidding me!!!! Hopefully he's barred from owning dogs for life as part of his sentence.

[hoosier]

Too bad he didn't sign with the Browns. They could create a cheering section for him in the Dog Pound.

[Joemailman]

I heard partial offered up his chihuahua


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e102/heymike0308/Manwithchihuahua.jpg

Why did Partial give his chihuahua to Mad?

[mraynrand]

Too bad he didn't sign with the Browns. They could create a cheering section for him in the Dog Pound.

They would have renamed it the Pound Dogs. If Vick were here right now, I would bite him on one ankle and pee on the other.

[Iron Mike]

http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Main-Line-Vick-Ad.jpg

[Kiwon]

You guys don't seem very forgiving of someone who tortured, hanged, drowned and electrocuted dogs for sport.

Don't you know that he is a football player who can throw a ball a long way and run very fast? What else is more important than that?

[packerbacker1234]

You guys don't seem very forgiving of someone who tortured, hanged, drowned and electrocuted dogs for sport.

Don't you know that he is a football player who can throw a ball a long way and run very fast? What else is more important than that?


Sarcasm aside, dog fighting is a popular subculture sport that, in reality, is what it is because we're not allowed to do death matches with humans ala old gladiator games. Lets me real here: People like to watch shit beat eachother up for sport, and sicne we can't do that with people, dogs is a logical step. Not saying I am okay with what he did, I am saying that I understand the entertainment value in it. I get why he would be hooked.

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson. COuld be wrong, but so what if he wants a pet dog? Sometimes the best way to deal with your demons is to face it head on. He had a problem with dog abuse and fighting. Own up to it, get a new dog, and test your self control. Test your resolve and see if the urges for the old life are truly gone. I think it's a good move really. He should get a dog.

Whats going to happen to the dog? Torture? If he so much as swats it on the ass he'll get suspended.

[mraynrand]

You guys don't seem very forgiving of someone who tortured, hanged, drowned and electrocuted dogs for sport.

Don't you know that he is a football player who can throw a ball a long way and run very fast? What else is more important than that?


You should talk - you barbarians eat dogs over there.

[mraynrand]

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson. COuld be wrong

I agree - you could be wrong

[Packgator]

You have got to be freakin' kidding me!!!! Hopefully he's barred from owning dogs for life as part of his sentence.

He is barred. His sentence included a lifetime ban on owning a dog.

[Packgator]

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson.

Or....he could be a guy with massive debt who is saying all the right things in an attempt to get one last big contract. I guess only he knows for sure. With or without a dog....I just hope he doesn't end up with the Vikings.

[th87]

Do we know whether Vick actually personally tortured dogs? All we have is the testimony of a felon looking for a plea deal. Not to say that absolves him or anything, though.

However, he grew up in a culture where this was considered normal. Therefore, he was conditioned not to care about dogs like we don't care about rats.

I think his time to think about it may have deconditioned that sentiment. I'm happy for him and hope he continues on his positive path. He paid his dues and appears humbled.

[Gunakor]

It doesn't matter whether Vick was personally torturing and killing dogs or not. All that matters is the sentence handed down by the judge, and the efforts Vick has made to change his ways.

People really need to drop this already. Seriously. He wasn't handed a life sentence.

Suppose Vick were to get a new dog. I don't know whether he'd even be allowed to by law or not given the nature of the crimes he was convicted of, but suppose he did and he treated that new dog with all the love and care we'd treat our pets with. Suppose he really has changed his ways. Suppose he's really NOT a criminal.

He hasn't blown his second chance, yet society is quick to accuse him of additional crimes he hasn't committed and convict him of those crimes based on a history that may or may not be relevant to the present. If he ain't dogfighting anymore, he ain't a dogfighter anymore. If he is no longer committing crimes, perhaps he's no longer a criminal. That is the goal of our prison system when releasing an inmate. We should be proud.

When it comes to ourselves we demand that second chance to prove that we can change. But when it comes to other people, people we can't relate to, they are what they are and could never change. Their past will always loom larger than their present. True redemption is impossible to achieve. For others, but not for ourselves. Maybe that's the problem.

[SlimPickens]

Do we know whether Vick actually personally tortured dogs? All we have is the testimony of a felon looking for a plea deal. Not to say that absolves him or anything, though.

However, he grew up in a culture where this was considered normal. Therefore, he was conditioned not to care about dogs like we don't care about rats.

I think his time to think about it may have deconditioned that sentiment. I'm happy for him and hope he continues on his positive path. He paid his dues and appears humbled.

Of course this same felon was involved in a shooting this past June at Vick's birthday party. Changed man my ass! Same playground, same playmates you know, actions speak louder than words.

[SlimPickens]

Do we know whether Vick actually personally tortured dogs? All we have is the testimony of a felon looking for a plea deal. Not to say that absolves him or anything, though.

However, he grew up in a culture where this was considered normal. Therefore, he was conditioned not to care about dogs like we don't care about rats.

I think his time to think about it may have deconditioned that sentiment. I'm happy for him and hope he continues on his positive path. He paid his dues and appears humbled.

Do we know whether Hitler actually personally tortured and murdered anyone?

[Scott Campbell]

People really need to drop this already. Seriously. He wasn't handed a life sentence.




He won't be dog sitting for me, but the guy paid his debt to society. I'm a believer in redemption and hope he makes good on the opportunity he is getting. His issues obviously reached a lot further than just the dog fighting.

But other people are free to feel and say what they want about him.

[sheepshead]

Would you let Charlie Sheen date your daughter?

[mraynrand]

l. Therefore, he was conditioned not to care about dogs like we don't care about rats.

Shouldn't this be grounds for banning from the forum or something?

[mraynrand]

Would you let Charlie Sheen date your daughter?

The real question is would I let my daughter date Charlie Sheen. I thought people were generally against torture here. Hasn't Charlie suffered enough?

[Scott Campbell]

Would you let Charlie Sheen date your daughter?


I wouldn't let anybody date my daughters.

[Kiwon]

Vick was convicted and did his time. He also got himself ready and is playing pro football again. That's all good.

That said, he and his teammates need to get a clue and stop making all public comments relating to dogs. "I would love to get another dog in the future"......"Let Michael Vick off his leash".....etc. These are stupid things to say.

Yeah, certain groups conduct dog fights in America. Yeah, certain groups tend to excuse and forgive criminal activity, like cruelty to animals, more easily than others. However, at this time in society, the majority of people find Vick’s actions reprehensible and can't help but believe that those actions reflect upon the true character of the person who did them.

People are hypocritical and fickle. Vick's recent success and popularity can vanish in an instant. He should realize this, ignore all the reporters' questions and keep everything publicly on the field. Vick, a.k.a. Ron Mexico, was a jerk in many people's eyes BEFORE the dog scandal broke. He was an arrogant, bird-flipping SOB who was an expert at playing the excuse and victim cards. The Virginia locals were going to let the dog fighting and drug charges float away. Once again, he was going to get away with something. Vick only got serious when the Feds got involved and exposed a multistate dog fighting and gambling operation. It took blowing his big contract and doing prison time to finally deflate his enormous ego.

Now that Vick is back in the limelight he should wise up and shut up and remember that popular culture loves to create heroes and then loves to watch them crash and burn. Any insinuation by Vick or anyone else that he is a victim is BS. He's used to playing that card and he better learn to avoid those who want to suddenly make him into "St. Michael."

[th87]

It doesn't matter whether Vick was personally torturing and killing dogs or not. All that matters is the sentence handed down by the judge, and the efforts Vick has made to change his ways.

People really need to drop this already. Seriously. He wasn't handed a life sentence.

Suppose Vick were to get a new dog. I don't know whether he'd even be allowed to by law or not given the nature of the crimes he was convicted of, but suppose he did and he treated that new dog with all the love and care we'd treat our pets with. Suppose he really has changed his ways. Suppose he's really NOT a criminal.

He hasn't blown his second chance, yet society is quick to accuse him of additional crimes he hasn't committed and convict him of those crimes based on a history that may or may not be relevant to the present. If he ain't dogfighting anymore, he ain't a dogfighter anymore. If he is no longer committing crimes, perhaps he's no longer a criminal. That is the goal of our prison system when releasing an inmate. We should be proud.

When it comes to ourselves we demand that second chance to prove that we can change. But when it comes to other people, people we can't relate to, they are what they are and could never change. Their past will always loom larger than their present. True redemption is impossible to achieve. For others, but not for ourselves. Maybe that's the problem.

Excellent post, man. I hope he stays humble.

[th87]

Of course this same felon was involved in a shooting this past June at Vick's birthday party. Changed man my ass! Same playground, same playmates you know, actions speak louder than words.

What actions since prison? Going out for his birthday? How can he control who shows up?

And wow, I don't consider a bloodsport and the Holocaust to be anywhere near comparable.

Where was your outrage when Leonard Little killed a woman and drove drunk again?

[sheepshead]

I wouldn't let anybody date my daughters.

Thats right, that whisper when you meet them "I can make this look like an accident" usually does the trick

[MichiganPackerFan]

...

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson. COuld be wrong, but so what if he wants a pet dog? Sometimes the best way to deal with your demons is to face it head on. He had a problem with dog abuse and fighting. Own up to it, get a new dog, and test your self control. Test your resolve and see if the urges for the old life are truly gone. I think it's a good move really. He should get a dog.

Completely agree. The man has paid his debt (and then some) its' time to heal, grow and move the fuck on.


...

I think his time to think about it may have deconditioned that sentiment. I'm happy for him and hope he continues on his positive path. He paid his dues and appears humbled.
Bingo


It doesn't matter whether Vick was personally torturing and killing dogs or not. All that matters is the sentence handed down by the judge, and the efforts Vick has made to change his ways.

People really need to drop this already. Seriously. He wasn't handed a life sentence.

Suppose Vick were to get a new dog. I don't know whether he'd even be allowed to by law or not given the nature of the crimes he was convicted of, but suppose he did and he treated that new dog with all the love and care we'd treat our pets with. Suppose he really has changed his ways. Suppose he's really NOT a criminal.

He hasn't blown his second chance, yet society is quick to accuse him of additional crimes he hasn't committed and convict him of those crimes based on a history that may or may not be relevant to the present. If he ain't dogfighting anymore, he ain't a dogfighter anymore. If he is no longer committing crimes, perhaps he's no longer a criminal. That is the goal of our prison system when releasing an inmate. We should be proud.

When it comes to ourselves we demand that second chance to prove that we can change. But when it comes to other people, people we can't relate to, they are what they are and could never change. Their past will always loom larger than their present. True redemption is impossible to achieve. For others, but not for ourselves. Maybe that's the problem.
Excellent post. The man did his time and has been on his best behavior.


Of course this same felon was involved in a shooting this past June at Vick's birthday party. Changed man my ass! Same playground, same playmates you know, actions speak louder than words.
Wasn't this shooting WELL AFTER Vick had left the club? Vick was guilty of coincidental bad timing. Nothing more. Move on. Nothing to see here.

I have no problem with Vick getting a dog. I hope the Judge removes the lifelong ban of dog ownership. Vick's comments on owning a dog were from the perspective of playing with it and his kids. Dogs tend to appeal to the soft spot one's heart and I believe Vick has been examining that part for the last few years and is ready to excercise it. Let the growth happen.

[bobblehead]

Sarcasm aside, dog fighting is a popular subculture sport that, in reality, is what it is because we're not allowed to do death matches with humans ala old gladiator games. Lets me real here: People like to watch shit beat eachother up for sport, and sicne we can't do that with people, dogs is a logical step. Not saying I am okay with what he did, I am saying that I understand the entertainment value in it. I get why he would be hooked.

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson. COuld be wrong, but so what if he wants a pet dog? Sometimes the best way to deal with your demons is to face it head on. He had a problem with dog abuse and fighting. Own up to it, get a new dog, and test your self control. Test your resolve and see if the urges for the old life are truly gone. I think it's a good move really. He should get a dog.

Whats going to happen to the dog? Torture? If he so much as swats it on the ass he'll get suspended.

I am all for such testing and second chances. I assume you will be letting the local child molester baby sit for you once in awhile to test his resolve and see if the urges for the old life are truly gone.

[bobblehead]

It doesn't matter whether Vick was personally torturing and killing dogs or not. All that matters is the sentence handed down by the judge, and the efforts Vick has made to change his ways.

People really need to drop this already. Seriously. He wasn't handed a life sentence.

Suppose Vick were to get a new dog. I don't know whether he'd even be allowed to by law or not given the nature of the crimes he was convicted of, but suppose he did and he treated that new dog with all the love and care we'd treat our pets with. Suppose he really has changed his ways. Suppose he's really NOT a criminal.

He hasn't blown his second chance, yet society is quick to accuse him of additional crimes he hasn't committed and convict him of those crimes based on a history that may or may not be relevant to the present. If he ain't dogfighting anymore, he ain't a dogfighter anymore. If he is no longer committing crimes, perhaps he's no longer a criminal. That is the goal of our prison system when releasing an inmate. We should be proud.

When it comes to ourselves we demand that second chance to prove that we can change. But when it comes to other people, people we can't relate to, they are what they are and could never change. Their past will always loom larger than their present. True redemption is impossible to achieve. For others, but not for ourselves. Maybe that's the problem.

A second chance is good and all, but innocents should still be protected. See my above post. Guys who embezzle don't get jobs in finance. Pedophiles don't get kindergarten teaching jobs. Felons don't get to own guns. Murderers never get out. Some crimes allow for a second chance with common sense conditions.

[Brandon494]

Give me a fucking break!

Dude wants to get a dog for his two daughters, do you really think if they let him get a dog he would involve it in dog fighting?

Then trying to compare his dog fighting to the holocust or a child molester. (rolling eyes)

Listen I don't agree with anything he did and I love my dog but at the end of the day its a FUCKING DOG! The guy gets more hate then NFL players who have taken a human life. He served time, lost millions, and it looks like he has turned his life around. WTF more do you want from the guy? Some people are going to hate no matter what and to those people I say STFU and worry about your own life.

[Sparkey]

Sarcasm aside, dog fighting is a popular subculture sport that, in reality, is what it is because we're not allowed to do death matches with humans ala old gladiator games. Lets me real here: People like to watch shit beat eachother up for sport, and sicne we can't do that with people, dogs is a logical step. Not saying I am okay with what he did, I am saying that I understand the entertainment value in it. I get why he would be hooked.

I also think he is a changed man. He is carrying himself differently than he use too. He speaks differently and just has an aura that hey, he learned his lesson. COuld be wrong, but so what if he wants a pet dog? Sometimes the best way to deal with your demons is to face it head on. He had a problem with dog abuse and fighting. Own up to it, get a new dog, and test your self control. Test your resolve and see if the urges for the old life are truly gone. I think it's a good move really. He should get a dog.

Whats going to happen to the dog? Torture? If he so much as swats it on the ass he'll get suspended.

Entertainment factor ? Are you referring to animals inflicting pain and torture on each other for enjoyment of others ? THAT IS FUCKED UP!

Anyone who has ever had a household pet, basically an extension of their family would think your statement is revolting. People that "enjoy" that shit are only a few steps away from enjoying watching humans being tortured and killed.

[mraynrand]

Then trying to compare his dog fighting to the holocust or a child molester. (rolling eyes)


You not too bright. Comparison with molester is how to treat a convicted criminal guilty of x. Not comparing dog fighter to molester. I'd bite your ankle if you were next to me right now.

[Brandon494]

You not too bright. Comparison with molester is how to treat a convicted criminal guilty of x. Not comparing dog fighter to molester. I'd bite your ankle if you were next to me right now.

So if I get a speeding ticket shouldnt be allowed to drive again? Now get the fuck off the couch

[mraynrand]

So if I get a speeding ticket shouldnt be allowed to drive again? Now get the fuck off the couch


You do catch on. That's analogous to what Bobble was talking about with the child molester. To address the point: depends on how fast and reckless you were driving, eh? Driving 15 over? 150 dollar fine. Driving 120 mph and kill someone? Never drive again. Attend a dog fight? Maybe get a fine and probation. Organize a series of brutal dog fights and kill dogs with your own hands? well, you should never be allowed within 50 yards of a dog again.

BTW, i got off your couch, but i left you a present

[Guiness]

You should talk - you barbarians eat dogs over there.

WAY out of line - showing quite an ignorance for Korean culture and way of life. The fact that some dogs are treated as livestock is just that - a fact. Unless you happen to be a Vegan, you can't say much considering it's not much different (and probably a lot better) than the treatment of the beef you buy in the supermarket here.

/rant

Ya, ya, I know, it's the dog persona talking, and 'he' would think it's barbaric.

[Scott Campbell]

Thats right, that whisper when you meet them "I can make this look like an accident" usually does the trick


Good one. I'll add that to my "I'm not afraid of going back to prison" line.

[Freak Out]

The Judge said no dogs in his future so he will have to be happy with his stuffed animals to keep him company. Sucks for his daughters but he'll have to explain to them why he isn't allowed to have one.

[SlimPickens]

What actions since prison? Going out for his birthday? How can he control who shows up?

And wow, I don't consider a bloodsport and the Holocaust to be anywhere near comparable.

Where was your outrage when Leonard Little killed a woman and drove drunk again?

It wasn't comparing bloodsport and the Holocaust it was comparing relative responsibility. If he learned his lesson you would think he would be more careful about adhering to the terms of his probation. Do you get that part, his associations are his responsibility. What is your stake in being a Vick ballwasher? And who the fuck says I wasn't outraged about Little? You? But then again that isn't the subject is it?

[steve823]

All I see here is people with different ideologies and opinions, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs.

The one point I want to make is this: The sentence on Vick includes a lifetime ban on owning a dog. If he somehow manages to get around this and get a dog, this will once again show how society favors sports players unfairly, and that they can continue to make mistakes because they won't be punished by the law or if they are, it won't be nearly as bad compared to the sentence of an average person (see Plexico burress, ray lewis, etc.).

[Iron Mike]

This thread needs a little levity--(which means don't watch if you're easily offended.)


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/fd-edffdbe5d6/michael_vicks_school_for_disobedient_dogs/

[MadtownPacker]

This guy is doing enough to stay out of the negative with me but a true punishment would have been having him work with animal shelters. Scooping crap would have test him. As it stands he is doing ok but should not be praised but maybe commended for coming thru correct after his mess. He has to keep it up and for some reason I get the feeling he will. I dont like him and I never have but he is being a man, probably for the first time in his life.

I do think his daughters should get a dog. Why should they be punished? Maybe cuz of their dad's mistake they will learn to not be cold like that. Maybe he will see them playing with the dog and think of what a fucked up thing he did. People can changed but not if you don't give them a chance.

[th87]

It wasn't comparing bloodsport and the Holocaust it was comparing relative responsibility. If he learned his lesson you would think he would be more careful about adhering to the terms of his probation. Do you get that part, his associations are his responsibility. What is your stake in being a Vick ballwasher? And who the fuck says I wasn't outraged about Little? You? But then again that isn't the subject is it?

He pays me to say nice things about him.

My question is why are you this outraged? He financed something that he was culturally conditioned not to consider a big deal. Now he appears to understand. Why do you care that he wants a dog now? How does it affect you or society? Do you think he'd hurt it? Or do you just want him not to enjoy having a dog, because you don't feel he deserves it?

[Fritz]

So what if a guy who was convicted of viewing child pornography said his rehab would be helped along if he were allowed to adopt a little girl?

[Brandon494]

It's a DOG! Stop trying to compare this to crimes against humans.

[Fritz]

Does this mean that Alec Baldwin can have a pet gerbil again???

[MadtownPacker]

So what if a guy who was convicted of viewing child pornography said his rehab would be helped along if he were allowed to adopt a little girl?We would put you in a dress and lock you up in the same room with him for believing there is comparision to vick and child molesters who should get thrown in a gas fire.

[sheepshead]

So if I get a speeding ticket shouldnt be allowed to drive again? Now get the fuck off the couch


funny stuff

[sheepshead]

Does this mean that Alec Baldwin can have a pet gerbil again???

and a long leash.

[Fritz]

We would put you in a dress and lock you up in the same room with him for believing there is comparision to vick and child molesters who should get thrown in a gas fire.

I'm getting you a gerbil for Christmas, Mad.

[mraynrand]

It's a DOG! Stop trying to compare this to crimes against humans.


Still don't get it, eh? They are not equating the crimes, they are comparing appropriate post-incarceration behaviour of the convicted criminals.

[mraynrand]

We would put you in a dress and lock you up in the same room with him for believing there is comparision to vick and child molesters who should get thrown in a gas fire.

You and Brandon should stop sharing the same brain. One of you needs the whole thing.

[SlimPickens]

It's a DOG! Stop trying to compare this to crimes against humans.

There are a lot of people lower than dogs in my opinion and Vick is one of them. I don't care how far he throws a football. Deviant behavior is deviant behavior. Why don't one of you research this type of behavior. I posted some references from the FBI that i guess have been ignored. Let's just say that his actions get him in the company with the likes of Dahmer. Torturing animals is what it is and there isn't a way around it nor should there be. It means you are psychologically fucked up and that's not an opinion.

[bobblehead]

Give me a fucking break!

Dude wants to get a dog for his two daughters, do you really think if they let him get a dog he would involve it in dog fighting?

Then trying to compare his dog fighting to the holocust or a child molester. (rolling eyes)

Listen I don't agree with anything he did and I love my dog but at the end of the day its a FUCKING DOG! The guy gets more hate then NFL players who have taken a human life. He served time, lost millions, and it looks like he has turned his life around. WTF more do you want from the guy? Some people are going to hate no matter what and to those people I say STFU and worry about your own life.

Rand already addressed most of this, but I'll add this. I enjoy watching vick play QB. I understand he is turning it around, and I respect that. I even get the "its a fucking dog" sentiment. I would never pay $1000 to a vet when I can end my dogs suffering for 50 cents and get new one at the shelter. However, I have to ask if he has really learned anything if he is dense enough to even consider this. Part of owning up to your mistakes is accepting the consequences of your actions. For vick that means staying away from dogs while donating some money to doggy shelters (at least he SHOULD). The simple fact that he is now trying to ignore/manipulate the consequences of his actions has made me lose some of the respect I had regained for him. Even making this a public issue shows a lack of judgement on his part. As for "hating" on him....no more than I do anyone else who isn't accepting the consequences of their actions. I have made mistakes in my life...some big ones even, but I have grown and owned up to them.

[bobblehead]

It's a DOG! Stop trying to compare this to crimes against humans.

Which is why we aren't saying take away his little girls....we are saying he can't have a dog. We are comparing the consequences of ones actions. We are in no way comparing the crimes, if we were we would be saying he should be chemically caterated....certainly you are a smart enough guy to get past your assumption that we are simply hating on michael vick and understand the crux of our argument.

[bobblehead]

We would put you in a dress and lock you up in the same room with him for believing there is comparision to vick and child molesters who should get thrown in a gas fire.

See above post and understand our point....not the Michael Vick strawman defense.

[pbmax]

You do catch on. That's analogous to what Bobble was talking about with the child molester. To address the point: depends on how fast and reckless you were driving, eh? Driving 15 over? 150 dollar fine. Driving 120 mph and kill someone? Never drive again. Attend a dog fight? Maybe get a fine and probation. Organize a series of brutal dog fights and kill dogs with your own hands? well, you should never be allowed within 50 yards of a dog again.

No, Bobble was commenting on tempting fate or recidivism, not just the appropriateness of the punishment as deterrent. As to say, if I am not willing to put a child in harms way with a convicted child molester then I cannot condone letting Vick own a dog.

That fails on three counts; a dog is not a human and should not be treated the same legally. The rate of recidivism with a dog fighter is not likely the same as the rate for as sexual predator. Vick would blow that curve anyway as he has financial resources and a career, enough to avoid trouble. And Vick, despite apparently not caring about his pit bulls welfare as long as they were fighting and winning for him, probably had other dogs around him that he would not send to the fight. While I did not adjudicate that trial, or counsel him and I am not Tony Dungy, I would not be surprised if he, even before the trouble, was capable of viewing a house pet differently from the dogs he fought.

By the way, the post above (not by Rand) about how Vick may not have personally tortured dogs is irrelevant. He paid for it to happen and knew about it. The whole operation was his.

[pbmax]

Which is why we aren't saying take away his little girls....we are saying he can't have a dog. We are comparing the consequences of ones actions. We are in no way comparing the crimes, if we were we would be saying he should be chemically caterated....certainly you are a smart enough guy to get past your assumption that we are simply hating on michael vick and understand the crux of our argument.

You were completely comparing the crimes. You asked if any of us would be comfortable with a child in the presence of a child molester to test whether recovery had happened. the crimes (and the person who commits them) are not similar enough to allow that comparison.

[Patler]

There are a lot of people lower than dogs in my opinion and Vick is one of them. I don't care how far he throws a football. Deviant behavior is deviant behavior. Why don't one of you research this type of behavior. I posted some references from the FBI that i guess have been ignored. Let's just say that his actions get him in the company with the likes of Dahmer. Torturing animals is what it is and there isn't a way around it nor should there be. It means you are psychologically fucked up and that's not an opinion.

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

You are a good example of this status. You wear glasses and clothing, and you post on Packerrats.

[Patler]

You are a good example of this status. You wear glasses and clothing, and you post on Packerrats.

ARF! Arf!

[mraynrand]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.


You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

[MJZiggy]

You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

So then working on your previous statement about post-incarceration behavior of convicted felons, and the ideas of repeating learned behavior, what happens when he gets his girls a dog and the thing keeps pooping on the good rug?

[mraynrand]

What's your point? Maybe Vick electrocutes his dog - or his girls. God knows. I think I would hit Vick on the nose with a rolled newspaper if I had an opposable thumb.

[bobblehead]

You were completely comparing the crimes. You asked if any of us would be comfortable with a child in the presence of a child molester to test whether recovery had happened. the crimes (and the person who commits them) are not similar enough to allow that comparison.

No, I was using the child molester comparison because it gets peoples attention. I was also using it to make you actually think about what you (he) were saying. The man was barbaric towards dogs. I am not comparing it to child molestation, I am comparing it to being barbaric to dogs, but to break through his preconceived idea that its no biggie I was pointing out that its a crime and has consequences like other crimes.

You say the crimes are not similar enough to make the comparison, I would say you are wrong. Actually, brutality escalates in most cases, not fades. It is "no biggie" for a guy who brutalized dogs to not be allowed to own one again. The consequences I am comparing are as equally "not similar" enough as the crime. My point is that when you commit crimes you suffer the consequences. I used child molester to provoke thought. No one would want a convicted child molester to adopt a child. NO ONE (except nambla). But on the other hand letting a dog fighter have a dog is "no biggie". You say the recidivism is "not likely" as high as child molesters. Back that up?? And its irrelevant, the law and his deal stated no dogs. It didn't say no dogs if recidivism is unlikely. A man kills his cheating wife is barred from ever owning a handgun again. The likely hood he kills again is very low. I would bet its less likely than dog fighting recidivism (I won't back that up either cuz I'm lazy).

Again, if I were TRULY comparing the crimes I would be advocating taking his kids away. I never even remotely suggested that. I would also say he should have served a tad more time. I didn't say that either. I said he shouldn't own a dog, a legitimate consequence for his crime.

PS...I specifically followed the post where I sarcastically address the "test his resolve" rubbish by stating redemption for crimes comes with CERTAIN restrictions....embezzlers working in finance and such.

[bobblehead]

I'm not sure what Vick did is the same thing at all. The deviant behavior seen in serial killers is torturing and killing animals for the thrill of doing it to them. Animal fighting is different, whether it be dogs, bulls, chickens or whatever. You can say what you want, but dog fighting is not that far removed from bull fighting; which had an honored status not long ago. Some will tell you that boxing and ultimate fighting satisfy the same primal urges in humans, previously satiated by gladiators.

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Vick's methods for culling his pack certainly bother a lot of people, but tolerated culling practices in animal husbandry often are not very pretty. For example, in some states hanging is an acceptable way to kill unwanted pigs, or at least it was not too long ago. Live chickens are thrown into macerators and chopped up. Acceptable butchering practices are often not much better, sometimes with conscious animals being bled to death. Then there is the end experienced by many lobsters!

People are repulsed by the way some of Vick's dogs were housed, but veal calves, chickens and many other animals are treated no better.

To Vick, his fighting dogs were not pets in the way we think of dogs, they were his product just like a farmer's animals. The treatment of all such animals is often quite rough to an outsider, but not at all barbaric to the farmer. It is simply what has to be done.

I think very few of us can understand the dog fighting culture, yet we are willing to condemn someone for it without understanding it, while similar treatment of other animals (bull fighting) is even revered by some.

It's a sticky distinction we make.

This is great in debating wether the law is just or not, but it IS the law. If you wish to lobby congress to change it, this is a very good start. If you wish to make the point that vick didn't break the law on the books and doesn't deserve to accept said punishment its a non factor.

[MJZiggy]

What's your point? Maybe Vick electrocutes his dog - or his girls. God knows. I think I would hit Vick on the nose with a rolled newspaper if I had an opposable thumb.

My point was that the best prediction of future behavior is past behavior. The behaviors and reactions that Vick has learned through his previous exposure to dogs are more likely to be repeated if the dog does something trying as all dogs do from time to time. I would duct tape the newspaper to your paw to give you the opportunity, but I'd rather you just bit his nose off for thinking of such a stupid idea as to publicly suggest something like this. He was a step beyond abusive toward the animals he had and I don't care if they're "just animals," they're conscious creatures who shouldn't have to be beaten, starved or electrocuted and part of his punishment for his behavior toward them is that he not be near them again. Think of it as a restraining order for our furry friends.

[Patler]

You may have forgotten that after his fighting dogs were no longer 'suitable' for the 'ring,' Vick and his cronies lustily engaged in electrocutions, hangings, and drawn out strangling of these 'leftover' dogs. I know a lot of farmers from my days in Iowa - can't say I knew any that treated their animals thusly.

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals.
- Hanging was and I believe is still an acceptable practice for killing large disabled or ill pigs in Iowa, sanctioned by the state.
- Hanging a large pig can result in death taking 4-5 minutes from strangulation, although some vets argue unconsciousness occurs in less than 1 minute. This is one of PETA's big fights at the present.
- Electrocutions are not uncommon in culling and slaughtering practices.
- Electrocutions were accepted forms of human executions.
- Not long ago drowning was used extensively for culling small newborn animals of many types. May still be, I don't know.
- Roosters hatched in large egg raising operations are thrown into shredders, while live.

I was born and raised on a farm and have relatives and friends still farming animals. When an animal is not suitable for its intended purpose, it is dispatched, usually as inexpensively as possible. Fifty years ago, when there was no market for selling bull calves born on a dairy farm (cows were bred every year to renew their lactation cycles), after a few days letting it nurse from the cow until the cow's milk was clear for sale, an accepted practice was to knock the calf in the head with a hammer and cut its neck. Efficient and inexpensive, even if a bit messy. How unconscious it was at the time depended on the diligence of the farmer. So long as it was submissive, some didn't care much.

Electrical stun guns are used in slaughtering animals like lambs and when the brain is desired for consumption. The animal is stunned, then bled. Who knows how unconscious it is at the time?

I read nothing about what Vick did to his dogs in keeping them and killing them that I didn't already know to be widely used for housing or culling animals of other types. Hanging, electrocution, strangulation were/are widely used. Live beheadings are used for butchering fowl, snapping necks when culling chicks.

I don't like what Vick did either. I am guilty of treating my dogs more like humans than a lot of people do. However, I understand that to some a dog is no different than a lamb, a pig, a chicken or a cow. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Emotionally, what Vick did bothers me a lot because of my personal feelings toward dogs. However, removing emotion and comparing it to the accepted treatment of other animals puts it in a somewhat different light.

I admit to having very mixed reactions to the whole Vick saga, with the emotional side of me battling the analytical side of me.

[Brandon494]

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals.
- Hanging was and I believe is still an acceptable practice for killing large disabled or ill pigs in Iowa, sanctioned by the state.
- Hanging a large pig can result in death taking 4-5 minutes from strangulation, although some vets argue unconsciousness occurs in less than 1 minute. This is one of PETA's big fights at the present.
- Electrocutions are not uncommon in culling and slaughtering practices.
- Electrocutions were accepted forms of human executions.
- Not long ago drowning was used extensively for culling small newborn animals of many types. May still be, I don't know.
- Roosters hatched in large egg raising operations are thrown into shredders, while live.

I was born and raised on a farm and have relatives and friends still farming animals. When an animal is not suitable for its intended purpose, it is dispatched, usually as inexpensively as possible. Fifty years ago, when there was no market for selling bull calves born on a dairy farm (cows were bred every year to renew their lactation cycles), after a few days letting it nurse from the cow until the cow's milk was clear for sale, an accepted practice was to knock the calf in the head with a hammer and cut its neck. Efficient and inexpensive, even if a bit messy. How unconscious it was at the time depended on the diligence of the farmer. So long as it was submissive, some didn't care much.

Electrical stun guns are used in slaughtering animals like lambs and when the brain is desired for consumption. The animal is stunned, then bled. Who knows how unconscious it is at the time?

I read nothing about what Vick did to his dogs in keeping them and killing them that I didn't already know to be widely used for housing or culling animals of other types. Hanging, electrocution, strangulation were/are widely used. Live beheadings are used for butchering fowl, snapping necks when culling chicks.

I don't like what Vick did either. I am guilty of treating my dogs more like humans than a lot of people do. However, I understand that to some a dog is no different than a lamb, a pig, a chicken or a cow. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Emotionally, what Vick did bothers me a lot because of my personal feelings toward dogs. However, removing emotion and comparing it to the accepted treatment of other animals puts it in a somewhat different light.

I admit to having very mixed reactions to the whole Vick saga, with the emotional side of me battling the analytical side of me.

Good post, exactly how I feel.

[Patler]

This is great in debating wether the law is just or not, but it IS the law. If you wish to lobby congress to change it, this is a very good start. If you wish to make the point that vick didn't break the law on the books and doesn't deserve to accept said punishment its a non factor.

I never suggested that he didn't break the law; but this thread and my comment were not about that. The thread was started based on Vick's desire for a change in his punishment. Murderers, rapists, molesters, thieves, embezzlers and political prisoners of various types have had sentences reduced or modified, and have been granted parole based on their perceived rehabilitation. The nature of the original crime, the suitability of the original punishment, the perpetrators rehabilitation, remorse and current demeanor and actions are all considered in parole and clemency hearings.

Is what Vick is asking for really any different than a "parole" from his original punishment?

[Freak Out]

So hog farmers and Vick really aren't so different after all.

[mraynrand]

Nope, I had not forgotten it at all, which is why I brought up accepted culling practices for various animals. Why is hanging, electrocuting or strangling a dog different than doing it to a pig, lamb or other animal?

Intent. Intent. Intent. That you can't make the distinction is stunning to me.

[Guiness]

Dogs have a status in our society that other animals do not, and behavior tolerated against some animals is repulsive to many when applied to a dog.

Well said Patler.

Until resonably recently, greyhound racing was a popular sport. The way the greyhounds were treated, and disposed of when their careers were over, was deplorable.

How did they get away with it? In a lot of states (I think it's still the case in Kansas) greyhounds were classified as livestock, so animal cruelty laws generally didn't apply to them.

Want to see what is likely the most in-humane treatment of animals by people? Look into egg-laying operations.

[Guiness]

Intent. Intent. Intent. That you can't make the distinction is stunning to me.

And also well put.

Vick did these things apparently because it brought him pleasure.

Farmers do it because it's efficient. I don't pretend to know why hanging pigs is efficient, but if a farmer knew of a quicker and cheaper way to do it, I'm sure he would.

[Patler]

Intent. Intent. Intent. That you can't make the distinction is stunning to me.

Do you REALLY know his intent? I sure don't.

[MJZiggy]

Do you REALLY know his intent? I sure don't.

Considering that a purebred pitbull is worth several hundred dollars alive and nothing dead, I can make a guess...If they have too many and needed to cull the dogs, why the rape stands? He was breeding them.

[mraynrand]

Do you REALLY know his intent? I sure don't.


It was pretty well established that he electrocuted and strangled the dogs for amusement. AMUSEMENT not for food - for AMUSEMENT - that's the goddamn intent. WAKE THE ---- UP.

[pbmax]

Does this mean that Alec Baldwin can have a pet gerbil again???

Did I miss a meme meeting or was there something in the news I passed by?

[bobblehead]

I never suggested that he didn't break the law; but this thread and my comment were not about that. The thread was started based on Vick's desire for a change in his punishment. Murderers, rapists, molesters, thieves, embezzlers and political prisoners of various types have had sentences reduced or modified, and have been granted parole based on their perceived rehabilitation. The nature of the original crime, the suitability of the original punishment, the perpetrators rehabilitation, remorse and current demeanor and actions are all considered in parole and clemency hearings.

Is what Vick is asking for really any different than a "parole" from his original punishment?

I believe (could be wrong) Vick also got parole. I NEVER once heard of a former embezzler working in any form of finance....not ONCE. Never once heard of a child molester working in a day care. Never heard of a violent offender buying a legal handgun. Yes, what he is asking is VERY different from parole....the fact he is asking it makes me wonder if he ever did come to grips with what he did and how it affected a lot of people. He certainly doesn't have the mental capacity to realize that uttering those words out loud is flat out dumb.

Have you ever looked at a hot chic from behind and had thoughts...only to have her turn around and be 16? If you have you certainly didn't turn to your friend and say "whoa, she had a nice ass". Common sense usually prevails.

Further more I agree with everything you said about farming practices. So what. Those things are considered acceptable (yet undesirable) in order to provide animal protein to the masses. Our society has decided that sport fighting animals is not acceptable to entertain people. You wish to change the law, I might fight side by side with you. You want to make an exception for a current criminal...I'm not so on board. I'm just a firm believer that if we don't start accepting responsibility in this country we are lost.

[pbmax]

1. No, I was using the child molester comparison because it gets peoples attention.

2. I used child molester to provoke thought. No one would want a convicted child molester to adopt a child.

3. But on the other hand letting a dog fighter have a dog is "no biggie".

4. You say the recidivism is "not likely" as high as child molesters. Back that up??

5. And its irrelevant, the law and his deal stated no dogs.

6. Again, if I were TRULY comparing the crimes I would be advocating taking his kids away.

7. I said he shouldn't own a dog, a legitimate consequence for his crime.

Using 1 and 2 to help make a point is simply throwing a rhetorical bomb into an argument. To do so to compare only the logic of the penalties is simply an invitation to make the argument emotional beyond all reason. It doesn't help anyone to see anything, except that you are liable to say anything to help make your point and carry the day through emotional triumphalism.

I never claimed #3, but a dog fighter later having a dog is not the same as a child molester being allowed to watch children. The crimes are not the same and the punishments should not be the same. Just because you see a logic between method of crime (matricide by gun), object of obsession (child molestation) and animal brutality (dog fighting and extermination of failed fighters) doesn't make them equivalent.

Number 4 I do not claim to have evidence for, which is why I said likely. But child predators are among the worst recidivists in the penal system. They would be hard to top. And Vick has many advantages not available to others who may leave prison. His odds will be better no matter.

5 and 7 I have no argument with. But my point was never that he MUST or SHOULD be allowed to own a dog. Only that I have no inherent objection and I do not believe he is as likely to commit the same crime as the molester of your example.

Number 6 makes no sense. If you were to assert that, you would be asserting equal punishment, not equivalent crime.

[MJZiggy]

Did I miss a meme meeting or was there something in the news I passed by?

I believe it was Richard Gere that Fritz meant...otherwise I'm missing it too.

[Patler]

I NEVER once heard of a former embezzler working in any form of finance....not ONCE.


Actually, I have, running private mortgage brokerages. There was a big to-do about it a year or so ago. I don't know that it was embezzlers specifically, may have been fraud or con schemes of some sort; but I know they had been convicted of money handling shenanigans. Yet, in one or more states, their convictions did not prevent them from running or even owning private mortgage businesses.

Are paroled murderers allowed to be around people?
Are paroled or released con artists allowed around people?
Can paroled or released rapists be around women, or work with them?
Can paroled or released arsonists own matches or cigarette lighters? Buy gasoline and other flamables?

Special treatment of child molesters is provided because children are a specially protected class. That is why the child molester never really pays his debt to society in full until he dies. I am more than OK with that. Animals do not have the same protected status.

I don't know Vick from the man in the moon. I don't know if he is a conniver and schemer, or if he is a straight up guy. However, I don't think it is impossible that he really has changed his outlook on the value of dogs in people lives. I have no problem with him asking a judge to reconsider that part of his sentence. I also have no problem with the judge looking into it and deciding either way.

[MJZiggy]

Are paroled murderers allowed to be around people?
Are paroled or released con artists allowed around people?
Can paroled or released rapists be around women, or work with them?




Yes, but they're not allowed to own them. Keeping an animal around makes it dependent and vulnerable.

[Patler]

Yes, but they're not allowed to own them. Keeping an animal around makes it dependent and vulnerable.

True, but they didn't own the people against whom they committed their original crimes either.

[MJZiggy]

True, but they didn't own the people against whom they committed their original crimes either.

If Vick didn't own his dogs when he committed his original crime, would he have abused them to begin with?

[Patler]

If Vick didn't own his dogs when he committed his original crime, would he have abused them to begin with?

That actually gets to the crux of the issue. Is he an animal abuser, or someone who got caught up in the culture of dog fighting? If he was an animal abuser at heart, wouldn't he have abused other animals? Dahmer and others acknowledged torturing and killing neighbors pets, strays, etc. I have not heard of Vick having done that. If removed from the culture of dog fighting, will he abuse his own dogs, or was the treatment of his fighting dogs just what the dog fighting culture accepted and even expected, so he did it?

[th87]

It was pretty well established that he electrocuted and strangled the dogs for amusement. AMUSEMENT not for food - for AMUSEMENT - that's the goddamn intent. WAKE THE ---- UP.

You don't know that. I think he ran the operation like a cold business. Dogs not useful to the business were discarded as in the farming examples that Patler gave.

It would be interesting to know whether Vick had dogs as house pets. I suspect he'd treat them very differently from his fight dogs.

[Patler]

It was pretty well established that he electrocuted and strangled the dogs for amusement. AMUSEMENT not for food - for AMUSEMENT - that's the goddamn intent. WAKE THE ---- UP.

Try and be a little analytical and not so emotional.

Vick electrocuted and strangled dogs that were bad fighters. They were not suitable animals for his purpose. Consequently, they were disposed of, just like the injured or diseased hogs that are hung and not used for food but simply discarded, the rooster chicks thrown into shredders while alive, and the bull calves that were killed because they served no useful purpose. The calves were buried, burned, or thrown into manure piles where they quickly decomposed. None of these animals are killed for food either, but because, like Vick's fighting dogs, they did not serve their owners' needs.

You can not look at Vick's fighting dogs as his pets. They were part of his business (albeit an illegal one), and like most other business animals, their continued existence depended on their usefulness in his business.

[Patler]

It was pretty well established that he electrocuted and strangled the dogs for amusement. AMUSEMENT not for food - for AMUSEMENT - that's the goddamn intent. WAKE THE ---- UP.

Even if he chose the form of killing for his personal entertainment or amusement, is that any different than, for example, the wild boar hunting conducted down south where the boar is cornered by dogs, and the "hunter" has many choices for the kill, including the use of various guns, spears, swords, hatchets and knives?

http://www.a-wild-boar-hog-hunting-florida-guide-service.com/

The form of killing is clearly for the entertainment of the hunter, and certainly not quick and easy for the boar when getting jabbed with a spear, stabbed with a knife or hacked with a hatchet. I suspect some suffer severe and painful injuries before the final kill is delivered.

As for killing for entertainment and not food, many animals are killed for the thrill of the hunt or the bagging of a trophy and not for the procurement of food. Others are killed as nuisances, not unlike an animal no longer serving its purpose to its owner.

I do not like or respect what Vick has done, but I am amazed at the unusual distinctions we make in acceptance for the treatment of different animals, seemingly depending on their perceived "cuddliness".

[Iron Mike]

Want to see what is likely the most in-humane treatment of animals by people? Look into egg-laying operations.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:W3kGARCkQC4M8M:http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh309/frescafreak123/napoleon-dynamite-400a111306.jpg&t=1

[MJZiggy]

I don't know about that, Patler. I don't think mice are cuddly at all, and though while I believe that every now and again, one needs to be removed, I don't kill them for sport. I trap them and release them in the park 1/2 mile away. The cat is another story. He amuses himself to their death...for this reason, I do not let my cat keep mice as pets.

I also don't find pit bulls to be particularly cuddly, but they are conscious creatures and I don't think he should be allowed to own one after what he's done to them. It's a logical extension of his sentence. Don't agree with the wild boar hunting or the old game hunts where they'd put large game on a small plot of land and allow people to "hunt" them. I think for food production, animals should be killed as humanely as possible and quite frankly, think that there should be better controls on poultry farms because I can't always get to the farmer's market to get local ones. (if you want a new adventure in smell, just drive past a chicken farm at night. Ewww...

[Patler]

I don't know about that, Patler. I don't think mice are cuddly at all, and though while I believe that every now and again, one needs to be removed, I don't kill them for sport. I trap them and release them in the park 1/2 mile away. The cat is another story. He amuses himself to their death...for this reason, I do not let my cat keep mice as pets.

I also don't find pit bulls to be particularly cuddly, but they are conscious creatures and I don't think he should be allowed to own one after what he's done to them. It's a logical extension of his sentence. Don't agree with the wild boar hunting or the old game hunts where they'd put large game on a small plot of land and allow people to "hunt" them. I think for food production, animals should be killed as humanely as possible and quite frankly, think that there should be better controls on poultry farms because I can't always get to the farmer's market to get local ones. (if you want a new adventure in smell, just drive past a chicken farm at night. Ewww...

But that's my point, many if not most people don't feel like you about mice (although they ARE sort of cute) rats, woodchucks, skunks, porcupines, etc.

As for chickens, always had about 100 on the farm. I know the smell well!

[bobblehead]

Actually, I have, running private mortgage brokerages. There was a big to-do about it a year or so ago. I don't know that it was embezzlers specifically, may have been fraud or con schemes of some sort; but I know they had been convicted of money handling shenanigans. Yet, in one or more states, their convictions did not prevent them from running or even owning private mortgage businesses.

Are paroled murderers allowed to be around people?
Are paroled or released con artists allowed around people?
Can paroled or released rapists be around women, or work with them?
Can paroled or released arsonists own matches or cigarette lighters? Buy gasoline and other flamables?

Special treatment of child molesters is provided because children are a specially protected class. That is why the child molester never really pays his debt to society in full until he dies. I am more than OK with that. Animals do not have the same protected status.

I don't know Vick from the man in the moon. I don't know if he is a conniver and schemer, or if he is a straight up guy. However, I don't think it is impossible that he really has changed his outlook on the value of dogs in people lives. I have no problem with him asking a judge to reconsider that part of his sentence. I also have no problem with the judge looking into it and deciding either way.

Not being around people is only possible through continued incarceration therefore its never a condition for release. Some murderers are never allowed to be around people except in prison. Paroled ones, obviously not. Paroled rapists have conditions they must meet as well. Registering as a sex offender and all. They are allowed around women, but with conditions. Arsonists in some cases are restricted from owning certain items as well, depends on the judge and state.

Specifically though, a judge ruled that Michael Vick can't own a dog. Even if we accept that this is a mere theoretical argument and no one actually thinks he should be allowed out of his penalty, I still think its reasonable that he not be allowed to own a dog. You said it yourself. He views them as livestock, its the reason he treated them as he did. For him to now claim that he values the companionship, or can view them differently is kinda ridiculous.

[bobblehead]

Using 1 and 2 to help make a point is simply throwing a rhetorical bomb into an argument. To do so to compare only the logic of the penalties is simply an invitation to make the argument emotional beyond all reason. It doesn't help anyone to see anything, except that you are liable to say anything to help make your point and carry the day through emotional triumphalism.

I never claimed #3, but a dog fighter later having a dog is not the same as a child molester being allowed to watch children. The crimes are not the same and the punishments should not be the same. Just because you see a logic between method of crime (matricide by gun), object of obsession (child molestation) and animal brutality (dog fighting and extermination of failed fighters) doesn't make them equivalent.

Number 4 I do not claim to have evidence for, which is why I said likely. But child predators are among the worst recidivists in the penal system. They would be hard to top. And Vick has many advantages not available to others who may leave prison. His odds will be better no matter.

5 and 7 I have no argument with. But my point was never that he MUST or SHOULD be allowed to own a dog. Only that I have no inherent objection and I do not believe he is as likely to commit the same crime as the molester of your example.

Number 6 makes no sense. If you were to assert that, you would be asserting equal punishment, not equivalent crime.

Again, without me using the child molester argument, many people would never get past their preconceived notions. I needed the bomb to make some on this site understand there was a reason/precedent/logic behind him not owning a dog. At present the argument was already emotional beyond reason for some....just in the wrong direction (siding with Vick). I needed to break through that emotion the other way....a way that they wouldn't sluff off.

You didn't claim 3, I think brando did, but it was central to my point.

As to 4, child molestation may be tops on the recidivism list, but recidivism is always more likely than someone committing a crime the first time....especially crimes of violence, which this was. Police often speak of the "escalation of violence". Occassionally you get a person who reforms....usually they don't go ask the judge to overturn the conditions of their parole quite so fast.

as to 5 and 7, I do believe he is likely to commit SOME crimes. Maybe not the same ones, but he obviously viewed dogs differently than most. Has he changed? No idea yet for any of us. Should we err on the side of caution, or the side of "testing" his resolve? What happens when the dog really gets under his skin. Does he lose his cool and kick it breaking its ribs? Does he decide he doesn't want it anymore? Is he more likely to bring it to a shelter, or kill and bury it and claim it ran away? I think his history makes these questions fair.

Number 6 makes perfect sense. Some are claiming I am trying to compare the crimes of molestation and dog fighting. I am merely pointing out that certain crimes (for good reason) have certain punishments. I can't really be any clearer on that. I am comparing the punishment with the adjacent crime, not the crimes themselves, or the punishments themselves. You are 0 for 2 on getting my point so it could be my explanation, but I'm at a loss to make it clearer.

[Fritz]

I believe it was Richard Gere that Fritz meant...otherwise I'm missing it too.

Richard Gere, Alec Baldwin...isn't that the same guy?

[Patler]

Not being around people is only possible through continued incarceration therefore its never a condition for release. Some murderers are never allowed to be around people except in prison. Paroled ones, obviously not. Paroled rapists have conditions they must meet as well. Registering as a sex offender and all. They are allowed around women, but with conditions. Arsonists in some cases are restricted from owning certain items as well, depends on the judge and state.

Specifically though, a judge ruled that Michael Vick can't own a dog. Even if we accept that this is a mere theoretical argument and no one actually thinks he should be allowed out of his penalty, I still think its reasonable that he not be allowed to own a dog. You said it yourself. He views them as livestock, its the reason he treated them as he did. For him to now claim that he values the companionship, or can view them differently is kinda ridiculous.

Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it anyway :lol:, you are actually making my point for me. Sure, some felons have stricter sentences and severe restrictions, but not all of them. Other felons have sentences changed and modified upon proving their rehabilitation. As I said, I see nothing inherently wrong with Vick asking for a change in his, and I see nothing wrong with a judge agreeing or disagreeing with Vick.

Vick may have treated his dogs like livestock, because to him in the culture of dog fighting they were livestock. I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that he has changed. After all, a goal of the penal system is rehabilitation. If a thief can learn that it is not right to steal, why can't Vick have learned that dogs provide companionship and can provide more than he thought previously?

[bobblehead]

Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it anyway :lol:, you are actually making my point for me. Sure, some felons have stricter sentences and severe restrictions, but not all of them. Other felons have sentences changed and modified upon proving their rehabilitation. As I said, I see nothing inherently wrong with Vick asking for a change in his, and I see nothing wrong with a judge agreeing or disagreeing with Vick.

Vick may have treated his dogs like livestock, because to him in the culture of dog fighting they were livestock. I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that he has changed. After all, a goal of the penal system is rehabilitation. If a thief can learn that it is not right to steal, why can't Vick have learned that dogs provide companionship and can provide more than he thought previously?

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

[Patler]

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

Sitting here with little or no first hand information, we can make a better determination that a judge hearing the request?

I happen to agree that Vick's timing is poor. I think he could have done a lot more things in an upcoming off season or two to demonstrate that he has changed, then filed a request.

Prisons are primarily to incarcerate and punish, as you said, as well as to protect society by removing the wrongdoer. However, a criminal sentence often includes much more than time in prison, such as counseling, restitution, community service and other activities having as a significant goal the rehabilitation of the person. It does not work as intended nearly often enough, but once in a while people do change. I agree that you can not make them change, but you can give them the opportunity and support to make that change. How do we know that Vick has not changed without letting him present his case that he has?

[MJZiggy]

OK, I concede he has a right to ask a judge to reconsider. I happen to think he is an idiot for doing so at this point. I also think a judge who grants his request to be stupid.

The goal of prison is incarceration and punishment. Only since the liberal left decided rehab is BETTER than punishment have we shifted that thought. I also disagree with that. A change of heart can only come from the individual. If someone wishes to rehabilitate I am all for aiding that person, but forcing a change of mentality on someone who does not express the desire to do so is a waste of time and money. I have known plenty of people addicted to gambling. I have helped a few break that addiction. The ones who expressed a desire to stop the self destructive behavior.

Not to make this a political discussion, but the liberal left didn't decided that, science did. But in context you're right. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want the rehab. On the other hand, you can't rehabilitate anyone by dumping them in a cell with no opportunities for rehabilitation. In Vick's case, he claims to have been rehabilitated to the point that he can own a dog. Based on what I know about behavior and owning animals, I just don't happen to believe him. Addiction is an interesting example, though I don't know that I'd go so far as to equate an addiction to someone who gets his kicks kicking pit bulls. In one the person loses control to the addiction, I don't think Vick ever lost control.

[th87]

Not to make this a political discussion, but the liberal left didn't decided that, science did. But in context you're right. You can't rehabilitate someone who doesn't want the rehab. On the other hand, you can't rehabilitate anyone by dumping them in a cell with no opportunities for rehabilitation. In Vick's case, he claims to have been rehabilitated to the point that he can own a dog. Based on what I know about behavior and owning animals, I just don't happen to believe him. Addiction is an interesting example, though I don't know that I'd go so far as to equate an addiction to someone who gets his kicks kicking pit bulls. In one the person loses control to the addiction, I don't think Vick ever lost control.

Again, it is an assumption that Vick got his kicks from the actual hurting of animals. All we know is that he was attempting to run a business. He may have gotten his kicks from the efficient and successful operation of his enterprise. Killing dogs was probably just an unpleasant necessity to the success of his business.

[MJZiggy]

Again, it is an assumption that Vick got his kicks from the actual hurting of animals. All we know is that he was attempting to run a business. He may have gotten his kicks from the efficient and successful operation of his enterprise. Killing dogs was probably just an unpleasant necessity to the success of his business.

He was killing dogs that were worth money. I don't buy your argument.

[th87]

Again, the main question to ask then is if Vick had pet dogs other than the fight dogs, and whether they were treated differently.

[Patler]

He was killing dogs that were worth money. I don't buy your argument.

I don't think he was. It was written that they killed the dogs that did poorly or did not show the willingness to fight in training. These dogs had no value in his operation. They were like the male chicks on an egg farm.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think he was. It was written that they killed the dogs that did poorly or did not show the willingness to fight in training. These dogs had no value in his operation. They were like the male chicks on an egg farm.

Dogs that aren't aggressive can be sold to men who want "badass" dogs and those who perform poorly can be sold for breeding stock. These are still purebred animals worth several hundred dollars apiece. A male chick on an egg farm, not so much.

[th87]

Dogs that aren't aggressive can be sold to men who want "badass" dogs and those who perform poorly can be sold for breeding stock. These are still purebred animals worth several hundred dollars apiece. A male chick on an egg farm, not so much.

They probably weren't interested in the money per se. Just a successful dog fighting operation. With the fiercest dogs, etc.

[pbmax]

Dogs that aren't aggressive can be sold to men who want "badass" dogs and those who perform poorly can be sold for breeding stock. These are still purebred animals worth several hundred dollars apiece. A male chick on an egg farm, not so much.

Given that the operation was covert and that the vast majority of people aware of it were dog fighting, I doubt Vick had much of a chance to market his unwanted dogs.

[Patler]

Dogs that aren't aggressive can be sold to men who want "badass" dogs and those who perform poorly can be sold for breeding stock. These are still purebred animals worth several hundred dollars apiece. A male chick on an egg farm, not so much.

It's in the dog fighters best interest to get poorly performing dogs out of the gene pool. Besides, they aren't going to sell it to a legitimate breeder and risk being found out, and they certainly don't want to breed it themselves.

They aren't going to sell a "wimp" as a "badass" dog and ruin their reputation.

[th87]

And it's unlikely that money played a factor, given Vick's wealth at the time. I think his interest was in breeding the best fighters.

[pbmax]

Again, without me using the child molester argument, many people would never get past their preconceived notions. I needed the bomb to make some on this site understand there was a reason/precedent/logic behind him not owning a dog.

No one needed to be reminded of child molesters to recognize the logic of a dog fighter not being allowed to own a dog.

[pbmax]

Does anyone know whether he owned any pets outside of the dog fighting operation?

[MJZiggy]

Does anyone know whether he owned any pets outside of the dog fighting operation?I looked and found nothing saying he did or didn't.

[Brandon494]

Some of you are letting your emotions get in the way of common sense. After everything that he has been through do you really think if a judge allowed him to own a dog that he would harm it in anyway? He wants a dog for his daughters, not another pit bull to train how to kill. I say let the man have a dog for his family and just have someone check up on the dog every once and awhile to make sure its being taken care of.