Vick indicted

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: dud

I just came across this news artcile and all I could say is "Give me a break!":

African American Community Divided Over Vick Plea Deal


Excerpt: "Fans at Playmakers Barber Shop in Midtown said they still support Vick, because they feel he is innocent, and that he is a victim of a racist judicial system."


Some people just go through life with their eyes wide-shut. I guess it must be tough for African-Americans in todays society. Even with all the evidence (and guilty plea) some people just cannot stand to face the truth. I guess it's all about celebrity ... forget about those innocent animals that he "executed".

there's your answer. it has nothing to do with whether he is innocent or guilty, they think any black person being accused of anything is because the system is racist.

 

[GenHoth]

10 lbs is not bulk

 

[rbV5]

Dogfighting is like any other abusive perversion. It takes a special person to enjoy animal abuse, particularly to man's best friend

It's no surprise to me Vick appologists want to pull the race card and sweep it under the rug. Other deviant groups like NAMBLA have their supporters as well...same thing.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dud

I just came across this news artcile and all I could say is "Give me a break!":

African American Community Divided Over Vick Plea Deal


Excerpt: "Fans at Playmakers Barber Shop in Midtown said they still support Vick, because they feel he is innocent, and that he is a victim of a racist judicial system."


Some people just go through life with their eyes wide-shut. I guess it must be tough for African-Americans in todays society. Even with all the evidence (and guilty plea) some people just cannot stand to face the truth. I guess it's all about celebrity ... forget about those innocent animals that he "executed".

Just look at any thread involving animal cruelty on this board. There are those that feel any amount of cruelty and suffering to an animal is not worthy of any concern. In this case you have that division of viewpoints plus the inevitable race factor which always lurks in the background of any case involving a prominent person who also happens to be in an officially sanctioned minority group.

 

[theeedude]

Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

 

[Injury]

Clearly it's a racial issue, because when Peyton Manning had an illegal dog-fighting ring they retro-actively legalized it to save a down-home country boy like Peyton.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Just look at any thread involving animal cruelty on this board. There are those that feel any amount of cruelty and suffering to an animal is not worthy of any concern.

and on the flip side, you have those that think animal life is greater value than human life

i think something in the middle is probably the right answer

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

 

[fallenangel99]

I can't believe race is being brought into this issue, but what else is new.

Why is hunting allowed? Yes you are not slamming the animal to the ground or electrocuting it, but you are just as well by taking a shotgun and shooting it. Yeah, his methods and gambling operation across state lines (why feds are involved) is bad, but hunting other animals (would ppl be ok with hunting dogs) are popular out in the mid west.. or wherever those hicks live!

I think the feds are really involved because of the gambling and intra-state operations. Of course, people/media follow the "bred to kill" story (wrong in my opinion - Vick got what he deserves)

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Gneisenau

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

Still don't see what the role for the federal government is. Don't they have terrorists to catch?

It's only the Feds in this case because the dogs were transported accross state lines. Otherwise it would have been a local issue. I would be disappointed if they dropped the ball because "they had more important things to do." Sure if they let a terrorist through becuase they were focused on this that wouldn't be good, but on the other hand I don't really want someone there deciding what cases to toss in the garbage because they fall below some minimum crime level.

I didn't know you couldn't bring your own dogs across state lines.
I see it all the time, the feds say they aren't doing this or that because they don't have the resources due to WoT, but they seem to have time to go after dog owners and pot smoking sick people in SF. The Federal government should stick to crimes with actual human victims.

It's not illegal to take your dog across state lines. According to our constitution, however, the minute something (in this case a dog) is transported across state lines the federal government can take over jurisdiction.

Maybe you don't understand, but the government has hundreds of attorneys. Their job is to prosecute crimes that are brought to their attention by investigators. Now, investigators raided one of Vick's houses looking for drugs. They quickly discovered evidence of dog-fighting and turned brought this to the attention of the federal prosecutor. This happens every day. Thousands of cases proceed through federal court. Some are big-time cases, others are basically nothing. The point is, the fed prosecutors are just doing their job.

I can't believe you'd be callous enough to say you don't care about animals. Look, I don't want to give them the right to sue or testify in court, but let's be honest here. Vick wasn't putting dogs down like your kennel does, he was brutally torturing and murdering them. That's like saying someone shouldn?t be prosecuted in Texas for torturing, raping, and killing someone because the state government also executes people.

edit: This case is only a big deal because it involves someone who is a big deal. People who say "let's concentrate on real crimes" are fools. Of course the government is prosecuting 'real' crimes, but they would also be prosecuting this case if Michael Vick was a pro athlete or a joe nobody at McDonald's. What our society needs to realize is that 'small' things like this or DUIs or whatever are made big deals when they involve famous people. If a senator gets arrested for a DUI, that's a much bigger deal than the 1,000 other people who got arrested for the same crime on the same day.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

Still don't see what the role for the federal government is. Don't they have terrorists to catch?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Injury
Clearly it's a racial issue, because when Peyton Manning had an illegal dog-fighting ring they retro-actively legalized it to save a down-home country boy like Peyton.

is my sarcasm meter broken?

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

Still don't see what the role for the federal government is. Don't they have terrorists to catch?

If the dogs are fighting the terrorists win.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Injury
Clearly it's a racial issue, because when Peyton Manning had an illegal dog-fighting ring they retro-actively legalized it to save a down-home country boy like Peyton.

is my sarcasm meter broken?

yes

 

[mh47g]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Injury
Clearly it's a racial issue, because when Peyton Manning had an illegal dog-fighting ring they retro-actively legalized it to save a down-home country boy like Peyton.

is my sarcasm meter broken?

yes

That's why I traded in my battery powered sarcasm meter for one you plug into the wall. I was changing batteries 3 times a day because I thought the batteries were bad Talk about saving money!

 

[yuppiejr]

First OJ, then Michael Jackson, now Vick.. I tell you, that damn racist legal system... Slashing your wife's head off and killing her lover, inviting young boys into your bed or running an illegal gambling/racketeering operating that involves abuse of animals is beside the point in all of these cases - it's obviously all "the man" out to get them for being black.

 

[slsmnaz]

Try living in the city where he grew up. I am amazed at some of the comments I hear on a daily basis.

Local boards

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

Still don't see what the role for the federal government is. Don't they have terrorists to catch?

It's only the Feds in this case because the dogs were transported accross state lines. Otherwise it would have been a local issue. I would be disappointed if they dropped the ball because "they had more important things to do." Sure if they let a terrorist through becuase they were focused on this that wouldn't be good, but on the other hand I don't really want someone there deciding what cases to toss in the garbage because they fall below some minimum crime level.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Gneisenau

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, he's guilty of killing his dogs, but even animal control would kill dogs that are that violent.
I think the whole thing is just stupid, if the federal government has nothing better to do than protect dogs from their owners.

The animals didn't get that violent on their own.

Still don't see what the role for the federal government is. Don't they have terrorists to catch?

It's only the Feds in this case because the dogs were transported accross state lines. Otherwise it would have been a local issue. I would be disappointed if they dropped the ball because "they had more important things to do." Sure if they let a terrorist through becuase they were focused on this that wouldn't be good, but on the other hand I don't really want someone there deciding what cases to toss in the garbage because they fall below some minimum crime level.

I didn't know you couldn't bring your own dogs across state lines.
I see it all the time, the feds say they aren't doing this or that because they don't have the resources due to WoT, but they seem to have time to go after dog owners and pot smoking sick people in SF. The Federal government should stick to crimes with actual human victims.

Jesus Christ dude, you can't run and finance an illegal gambling racket across state lines, which is probably the heaviest charge and certainly the most pertinent to his future prospects of pro football.

Also, sorry but the public at large has deemed animal fighting as cruel, and it's been passed into law as a crime. Further, the methods by which he killed the losing and unfit animals were cruel and unusual, another crime. Animal control uses strict and humane methods.

Basically what you have here is interstate organized crime, and I personally think the feds are dropping the ball if all he's looking at is 12 to 18 months.

Nobody is saying this is more important then fighting terrorism or catching murderers....but it is a crime, for which the feds have evidence and certainly should pursue like they did.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Just look at any thread involving animal cruelty on this board. There are those that feel any amount of cruelty and suffering to an animal is not worthy of any concern.

I've never observed that. The only real disagreement I've seen was two sides arguing between euthanizing a suffering animal immediately vs. taking it to a vet.

 

[Turin39789]

It seems like in this case you have people who are willing to excuse him/ belittle the crime because they percieve that he is being targeted due to his race.

You also have people who are willing to excuse him/ belittle the crime because they worship at the sports alter and believe that sports > *.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: fallenangel99
Why is hunting allowed? Yes you are not slamming the animal to the ground or electrocuting it, but you are just as well by taking a shotgun and shooting it.

There is a big difference between hunting and killing dogs in this manner.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: dud

I just came across this news artcile and all I could say is "Give me a break!":

African American Community Divided Over Vick Plea Deal


Excerpt: "Fans at Playmakers Barber Shop in Midtown said they still support Vick, because they feel he is innocent, and that he is a victim of a racist judicial system."


Some people just go through life with their eyes wide-shut. I guess it must be tough for African-Americans in todays society. Even with all the evidence (and guilty plea) some people just cannot stand to face the truth. I guess it's all about celebrity ... forget about those innocent animals that he "executed".

there's your answer. it has nothing to do with whether he is innocent or guilty, they think any black person being accused of anything is because the system is racist.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they think black criminals are pursued more vigorously than white criminals. In this case I think he was pursued more vigorously because he is a celebrity. Not that I am defending him.

 

[jandrews]

its complicated, accepting a plea bargain and an agreement to plead guilty does not necessarily coincide with you accepting guilt for your crime. If you were to go to court and plead guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the court that is a different kind of guilty than accepting a plea bargain and submitting a guilty plea.

 

[Haui]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

Are you even old enough to be on a jury?

24