Vick: A new dog could help my rehabilitation

[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.