Dog Fighting

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't get the people who want him to work in a humane society or other shelter. Why would you want to do that to the animals there? Do you really think he's not going to be cruel to the animals where he deals with them? I can maybe see making him do some of the more nasty grunt work when there are no animals around, but personally I don't think he should be allowed to have anything at all to do with animals again.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


Humanity is judged by how we treat the defenseless, be they human or animal. And by how we punish those who mistreat them.

I really agree with that. :up:

This guy's career is pretty much dead, ban or no ban. He should voluntarily retire before he meets up with a player who really adores dogs.

toscano said:

What he did was horrible, but it's not like he took a HUMAN life.......

Why do they even have to be compared? No, dogs, pets, and animals aren't human. They're on a different level, but it's still critical to deal with all creatures in a respectful way. We eat animals, hunt them, and utilize them in our diets, but most of this is done with the intent to further humankind.

Abject cruelty is another matter entirely. As others have said, it strips humanity, and reduces our relationship with animals to something hateful. That's something that needs to be addressed.

indra said:
I don't get the people who want him to work in a humane society or other shelter. Why would you want to do that to the animals there? Do you really think he's not going to be cruel to the animals where he deals with them? I can maybe see making him do some of the more nasty grunt work when there are no animals around, but personally I don't think he should be allowed to have anything at all to do with animals again.

He needs some sort of cognitive therapy before that. A breakthrough of some kind. Maybe he was beaten as a child...who knows? He's got major issues.
 
indra said:
I don't get the people who want him to work in a humane society or other shelter. Why would you want to do that to the animals there? Do you really think he's not going to be cruel to the animals where he deals with them? I can maybe see making him do some of the more nasty grunt work when there are no animals around, but personally I don't think he should be allowed to have anything at all to do with animals again.

I don't know, I think being in a setting where he has to learn how to care for animals might change his perspective. Whereas, where he used to abuse the animals themselves and be done with them, if he worked with the spca he'd HAVE to care for an animal that has been abused. He might even grow attached to one after having to care for it. I think doing something where he is supposed to help animals who may end up there because of other cruel people just like him might make him rethink himself and the way he treats animals.
 
unico said:

I don't know, I think being in a setting where he has to learn how to care for animals might change his perspective. Whereas, where he used to abuse the animals themselves and be done with them, if he worked with the spca he'd HAVE to care for an animal that has been abused. He might even grow attached to one after having to care for it. I think doing something where he is supposed to help animals who may end up there because of other cruel people just like him might make him rethink himself and the way he treats animals.

I don't see it that way. I see it more akin (but obviously to a much lesser degree) to making a rapist work in a rape crisis center. Or a child abuser in a daycare center. The very thought of that makes me want to puke. You don't think he knew what he was doing was cruel? I believe people who do that know full well what they are doing -- they just get off on it. He can change if he wants to, but no way should an already abused or neglected animal have to be his guinea pig.
 
I'm sure he knew what he was doing was wrong. But at the same time, what enabled him to do such horrid things was that he doesn't care about these animals. I dunno...I just thought that if he HAD to take care of them he'd change his perspective. Instead of getting paid to torture them, he'd get paid to take care of them.

I see your point. But I'm also naive and hopelessly idealistic when it comes to giving people second chances. I know it is probably irrational, but it seemed like a good idea to me.

It's not like he'd be trusted to be completely alone with these animals. Of course he'd be under supervision. At least, that is how I saw it.
 
Last edited:
angelordevil said:



Why do they even have to be compared? No, dogs, pets, and animals aren't human. They're on a different level, but it's still critical to deal with all creatures in a respectful way. We eat animals, hunt them, and utilize them in our diets, but most of this is done with the intent to further humankind.

Abject cruelty is another matter entirely. As others have said, it strips humanity, and reduces our relationship with animals to something hateful. That's something that needs to be addressed.


Why ? Because like it or not, the impact of cruelty to animals is not the same as th eimpact on cruelty to humans. There ARE orders of magnitude at work here. Taking a human life in my book is orders of magnitude worse.

Using your logic and taking it a step further, swatting a fly, spraying ants, stepping on a spider who isn't hurting anyone except your aesthetic or getting your house tented are acts of cruelty also.

I hope Vick goes to jail, for a long time. I just think it's a travesty that the NFL takes this more seriously than they did Leonard Little or Lawrence Phillips.
 
unico said:


I don't know, I think being in a setting where he has to learn how to care for animals might change his perspective. Whereas, where he used to abuse the animals themselves and be done with them, if he worked with the spca he'd HAVE to care for an animal that has been abused. He might even grow attached to one after having to care for it. I think doing something where he is supposed to help animals who may end up there because of other cruel people just like him might make him rethink himself and the way he treats animals.

Exactly...he needs to form some form of emotional attachment. Maybe he's actually closer to that than he's shown.

I could be suffering from naivety, but I believe everyone has the possibility of realizing where they've gone wrong. Who knows what events transpired to turn him into the 'ugly' human the world sees? I'm not an expert, but I'm sure in many cases such acts are the results of repeated patterns of behavior--if not practiced, then witnessed. For example, maybe as a child, he grew up in an environment where animal abuse was accepted as 'normal.' That would never excuse him, of course, but it would help us understand him, and others like him.

unico said:

I see your point. But I'm also naive and hopelessly idealistic when it comes to giving people second chances. I know it is probably irrational, but it seemed like a good idea to me.

I had my reply typed before I read your comment above...great minds. Or naive minds. :wink:
 
toscano said:


Why ? Because like it or not, the impact of cruelty to animals is not the same as th eimpact on cruelty to humans. There ARE orders of magnitude at work here. Taking a human life in my book is orders of magnitude worse.

Using your logic and taking it a step further, swatting a fly, spraying ants, stepping on a spider who isn't hurting anyone except your aesthetic or getting your house tented are acts of cruelty also.

You seem bent on drawing black & white dividing lines, which I don't think is possible. 'Just a dog, not a human...therefore five years jail-time.' I'm not using that line of thinking at all. That simply diminishes what he's done, and the ramifications for further cruelty. The lines are blurred, and someone who commits this type of crime definitely has the potential to be hateful and hurtful to other humans.

Insects? That's an easy one. Or easier. For the most part, we only hunt insects down for a good squishing when they pose a direct or perceived threat to our health, safety, or happiness. There's a HUGE difference in that kind of reactionary, impulse behaviour and deliberately tracking down an innocent animal for slaughter.
 
angelordevil said:


You seem bent on drawing black & white dividing lines, which I don't think is possible. 'Just a dog, not a human...therefore five years jail-time.' I'm not using that line of thinking at all. That simply diminishes what he's done, and the ramifications for further cruelty. The lines are blurred, and someone who commits this type of crime definitely has the potential to be hateful and hurtful to other humans.

Insects? That's an easy one. Or easier. For the most part, we only hunt insects down for a good squishing when they pose a direct or perceived threat to our health, safety, or happiness. There's a HUGE difference in that kind of reactionary, impulse behaviour and deliberately tracking down an innocent animal for slaughter.

We can agree to disagree here

I see what Vick has done as cruel and despicable, but it's all relative and what the likes of Little has done is infintely worse. I guess our barometers just have different scales.

As for the "potential" to harm a human, well, minority Report was a great movie, but pre-crime isn't quite here yet. You can't jail him longer on potential.
 
toscano said:


We can agree to disagree here

As for the "potential" to harm a human, well, minority Report was a great movie, but pre-crime isn't quite here yet. You can't jail him longer on potential.

We'll agree...and I'm definitely not suggesting 'pre-crime.' But I really hate when people say just a dog, or insinuate it, because it creates an environment where horrible actions are tolerated because of classification.

A few months ago, I witnessed a dog get struck by a car on my street. The driver was going at least 100 kilometers per hour in a 30 km zone. The dog died in my arms, and I've thought about him every night since it happened. I've also thought about the owners he never returned home to that night. Just a dog, but the same mindset, the same ignorance and same behaviour could have equally harmed a child.
 
As reported by the US Presswire, one NFL Manager said the following:

“If he goes to prison, time will pass,” said the general manager, who spoke before news of a potential Vick plea agreement and asked not to be identified, claiming the NFL has asked current team officials not to publicly comment on the Vick case. “Months or years will pass, if he does go to jail. If he went to jail, and then left prison down the road, he’d still be relatively young, and there’d be a line of 15 to 20 teams waiting to sign him. Trust me on that. Teams are going to say, ‘F— PETA. F— the bad pub. This guy is one of the most talented players of the last 10 years. I’ll take my chances.’





I think he'll be back.
 
toscano said:


Why ? Because like it or not, the impact of cruelty to animals is not the same as th eimpact on cruelty to humans. There ARE orders of magnitude at work here. Taking a human life in my book is orders of magnitude worse.

It's not just about cruelty, though. Dogs bred to fight are extremely dangerous to people in the community. Dog fighting goes hand-in-hand with gambling, drugs, and other illegal activities. Typically, dogs bred and trained for fighting don't receive the proper (and in some locales, required) vaccines necessary to protect themselves, other dogs, and people from certain diseases and conditions. All of these things are punishable by law even without torturing and killing dogs.

I'm not sold on him being forced to work in an animal shelter. I work in one voluntarily and if you don't have a certain level of animal sense and experience, you will do more harm than good. I would not at all be comfortable working along side someone like him and if I were forced to, I'd find another organization.
 
Canadiens1160 said:
As reported by the US Presswire, one NFL Manager said the following:

“If he goes to prison, time will pass,” said the general manager, who spoke before news of a potential Vick plea agreement and asked not to be identified, claiming the NFL has asked current team officials not to publicly comment on the Vick case. “Months or years will pass, if he does go to jail. If he went to jail, and then left prison down the road, he’d still be relatively young, and there’d be a line of 15 to 20 teams waiting to sign him. Trust me on that. Teams are going to say, ‘F— PETA. F— the bad pub. This guy is one of the most talented players of the last 10 years. I’ll take my chances.’





I think he'll be back.


michael vick is a vastly over-rated player who's entire ability is based around his athleticism... after spending two seasons in jail, his athleticism will be hurt considerably, leaving a quick inaccurate quarterback as opposed to a blazingly fast inaccurate quarterback.

i don't doubt that someone will work him out... but i doubt it'll last very long.
 
unico said:
I'm sure he knew what he was doing was wrong. But at the same time, what enabled him to do such horrid things was that he doesn't care about these animals. I dunno...I just thought that if he HAD to take care of them he'd change his perspective. Instead of getting paid to torture them, he'd get paid to take care of them.

I see your point. But I'm also naive and hopelessly idealistic when it comes to giving people second chances. I know it is probably irrational, but it seemed like a good idea to me.
I get what you're saying, but I think he has a screw loose.. a chip missing or whatever. Something's not right in him that he could do what he did, so I don't think a bit of volunteering is going to turn that around :shrug: I think it goes deeper than that.
 
What pissed me off today was what Stephon Maurbary said..

"I just learned that dog fighting was a sport, and now I feel horrible for him, and wish him the best"

Who cares if its a fucking sport???:|
 
.... becaaaaaaause making dogs fight for entertainment is a bad thing. It's shocking to learn it's a sport.

I don't get your :|

I could see a :| at the "... and now I feel bad for him." Because I don't see why anyone would feel bad for him after learning about dog fighting.
 
kafrun said:

I get what you're saying, but I think he has a screw loose.. a chip missing or whatever. Something's not right in him that he could do what he did, so I don't think a bit of volunteering is going to turn that around :shrug: I think it goes deeper than that.

I agree. We do have "volunteers" at our shelter that are doing mandatory community service and they often make MORE work for the rest of us. And these aren't people who have not been convicted of federal crimes or animal cruelty.

If he did the crime, he should serve the appropriate time. I couldn't care less about his football career b/c I couldn't care less about pro football.
 
Liesje said:


I agree. We do have "volunteers" at our shelter that are doing mandatory community service and they often make MORE work for the rest of us. And these aren't people who have not been convicted of federal crimes or animal cruelty.

If he did the crime, he should serve the appropriate time. I couldn't care less about his football career b/c I couldn't care less about pro football.

I don't care about his career, either...I don't understand American football at all.

However, as messed up as he is, I think it's worth attempting some sort of rehabilitation. I'm not saying I'd let him walk my dog in the near future, but it would be something if he could actually have a breakthrough in his behaviour. If that were to happen in a place where many animals have escaped previous abuse, that kind of personal growth would be rather meaningful.
 
corianderstem said:
.... becaaaaaaause making dogs fight for entertainment is a bad thing. It's shocking to learn it's a sport.


Okay, never mind. I just saw the guy's entire quote, and I understand what he was saying. And that makes me go :| too.
 
toscano said:


Why ? Because like it or not, the impact of cruelty to animals is not the same as th eimpact on cruelty to humans. There ARE orders of magnitude at work here. Taking a human life in my book is orders of magnitude worse.

Using your logic and taking it a step further, swatting a fly, spraying ants, stepping on a spider who isn't hurting anyone except your aesthetic or getting your house tented are acts of cruelty also.

I hope Vick goes to jail, for a long time. I just think it's a travesty that the NFL takes this more seriously than they did Leonard Little or Lawrence Phillips.

You're sadly very misinformed, toscano. You're underestimating what cruelty to animals is, what that cruelty can lead to, and what it represents about the mind of the person who does this and acts of savagery like it. If you think for even one minute that cruelty to animals, while sad, is not a red flag for immediate alarm, then you need to wise up very fast.

I also disagree with him being supervised while learning about caring for animals is a suitable fix. This cruelty to animals isn't really about a dislike or even hatred of dogs. It's a perversion with satisfying bloodlust, control, the enjoyment of being witness to pain, to being the controller of pain, domination, etc, etc.
 
angelordevil said:


I don't care about his career, either...I don't understand American football at all.

However, as messed up as he is, I think it's worth attempting some sort of rehabilitation. I'm not saying I'd let him walk my dog in the near future, but it would be something if he could actually have a breakthrough in his behaviour. If that were to happen in a place where many animals have escaped previous abuse, that kind of personal growth would be rather meaningful.

I'm not against rehab, but like Angela Harlem says, the torture of animals is only one symptom of a deeper problem. I wouldn't support having child kidnappers do mandatory recess duty at local schools or arsonists on the fire squads. Maybe he needs some kind of psychiatric evaluation and therapy, but I know first hand that the best animal shelters function well because everyone wants to be there.
 
Dear Stephon Marbury,

It's not a sport. It's a felony in 48 states (and illegal in all 50).


I think Jon Stewart summed it up the best for me a few nights ago, re: whether Vick would be back, what team would pick him, the gambling etc. -

"He killed dogs with his bare hands!"
 
"I think it's tough,'' Marbury said, according to Albany TV station Capital News 9. "I think, you know, we don't say anything about people who shoot deer or shoot other animals. You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors.''

"I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down,'' Marbury said. "I think he's one of the superb athletes, and he's a good human being. I just think that he fell into a bad situation.''

A bad situation? Just behind closed doors? Lotsa illegal horrific shit is going on behind closed doors! Marbury is a dumbass!!
 
Some athletes seem to practice that sort of code about defending each other like some police do. That's a pathetic statement, he should be ashamed. His ignorance regarding animal abuse is bad enough, but trying to make Vick some sort of victim is inexcusable.

Making Vick a victim in that way is similar to what some of the athletes and public say about spousal abuse-it's interesting.




Pit bulls at Vick's house face deadline

By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press WriterWed Aug 22

More than 50 pit bulls seized from Michael Vick's property face a Thursday deadline to be claimed. If no one comes forward, they could be euthanized.

Federal prosecutors filed court documents last month to condemn 53 pit bulls seized in April as part of the investigation into dogfighting on the Vick's property. No one has claimed any of the dogs, which are being held at several unspecified shelters in eastern Virginia, the U.S. Attorney's office said Wednesday.

The civil complaint filed by federal prosecutors does not name the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and is separate from the criminal case against him. But it does state the pit bulls were part of the dogfighting operation known as "Bad Newz Kennels," which Vick and three cohorts are accused of operating.

Also included in the document are detailed allegations about the nature of the animals' training regimen and the dogfights occurring at Vick's property at 1915 Moonlight Road in Surry County.

The government filed three public civil forfeiture notices in a Richmond newspaper to publicize the dogs' confiscation, and the deadline for claims is 30 days after the appearance of the final notice, filed July 24.

Federal prosecutors declined to comment Wednesday on the seized dogs. Typically, when confiscated property goes unclaimed, the government asks the court to have the items declared forfeited. In this case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson will make the final decision on the dogs' fate.

"There's no dispute over who owns the dogs," said Daphna Nachminovitch, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Obviously this is not going to be a process where someone steps forward and says, 'This is my dog, can I have her back, please?' "

Though Hudson, who also is handling Vick's criminal case, will determine what becomes of the pit bulls, Nachminovitch said that it's likely that they will be euthanized because they're not adoptable as pets.

"These dogs are a ticking time bomb," she said. "Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards. It's widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them."

Vick, 27, said through a lawyer this week that he will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. He is scheduled to enter his plea agreement Monday and could face up to five years in prison.

Three Vick associates have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and agreed to testify against him if the case went to trial. They said Vick provided virtually all the gambling and operating funds for the Bad Newz Kennels enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs by various means, including drowning and hanging.

The locations of the shelters holding the dogs haven't been disclosed out of concern that the animals could be stolen, Nachminovitch said.

"They are a hot commodity in the world of dogfighting," she said.
 
Last edited:
toscano said:


Why ? Because like it or not, the impact of cruelty to animals is not the same as th eimpact on cruelty to humans. There ARE orders of magnitude at work here. Taking a human life in my book is orders of magnitude worse.

Using your logic and taking it a step further, swatting a fly, spraying ants, stepping on a spider who isn't hurting anyone except your aesthetic or getting your house tented are acts of cruelty also.

I hope Vick goes to jail, for a long time. I just think it's a travesty that the NFL takes this more seriously than they did Leonard Little or Lawrence Phillips.

Perspective :up:
 
Angela Harlem said:


You're sadly very misinformed, toscano. You're underestimating what cruelty to animals is, what that cruelty can lead to, and what it represents about the mind of the person who does this and acts of savagery like it. If you think for even one minute that cruelty to animals, while sad, is not a red flag for immediate alarm, then you need to wise up very fast.

Exactly. Take a good look at the history of sociopaths and it's an excellent bet there were cats or dogs or other critters that paid with their lives along the way somewhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom