Vick: A new dog could help my rehabilitation

[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.