You know, this is perhaps off topic, but I live alone and have never thought of my cats as property, although my guess is that they think I belong to them lock-stock-and-barrel. One of the two stays hidden much of the time, but the darker one follows me everywhere I go - much as a dog would. He's right beside me as I type this. When I wake up in the morning he'll be right beside me on the bed. When I watch TV, he's in my lap. When I go out and come back, he's at the door with a friendly greeting. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if by chance there is a "heaven." I think it will be filled with animals. Sorry for the departure from strict orthodoxy quick.

No, they are not human, but they aren't property, either.

They give far more than they take.

DG- you seriously know better. I guess I love terrorists too because I oppose GW?

I have raised dogs all my life, trained them, and never abused them. I have eaten dog in other countries- cat as well. Would eat the family dog too if it meant starving to death- but I would never eat my kid- see the difference?

How do you seperate the property vs "rights" issues here? There really isn't a good midde ground- either they are property- or they have rights enshrined in the constitution- you really can't have it both ways.

What an outlandish statement! "There really isn't a good middle ground...." We live the "middle ground" every day. At present, most people recognize a difference between squashing a bug and skinning a cat alive, raising a pig to eat or starving it to death, and the law does a pretty good job at enforcing it accordingly.

If society has an interest in the animal for something other than "companionship" this still doesn't exclude the animals from laws ensuring humane treatment whenever possible. We expect pigs to be well cared for even if they eventually make it to the slaughterhouse. People are reported to animal welfare, and their pigs confiscated, if they abuse or starve them. Society draws a line, and it is a compromise. If the animal serves a purpose toward bettering mankind and its suffering is necessary for that reason (lab testing example), it's permitted if there are not better alternatives. Abuse for the sake of entertainment is not. That's the middle ground, and it isn't terribly difficult to make that distinction. No one here (unless I missed it) is suggesting that animals are entitled to the same protections as people. If Michael Vick raised children and made them fight to the death what sort of punishment do you believe he would get?

Edited to add: As I stated above, owners are held to certain expectations for their "property" all of the time. Few of us are robots, and I don't want to know anyone who is. Animal cruelty enrages people because most of us do not like to see suffering as a means of entertainment. There are some sound evolutionary reasons for this. Allowing it would cheapen us and it would change us in a very foul way as it inevitably became more accepted by more people. Good people would be sent to jail and fined for trying to protect the animals because law enforcement wouldn't. I prefer to keep the criminals as the ones who abuse the animals rather than the ones who try to keep them from being abused (thus interfering with property rights), thanks. In that respect there is no middle ground...if abuse is the lawful right of the property owner, saving the animal is against the law (unless the owner is properly compensated, and can you imagine going down that endless road to extortion when we're dealing with these sorts of people...oh, yes, unless you pay me fifty dollars to buy this cat, I will skin it alive/buy my dog's food or I will starve it). Good grief!

In point of fact, these abused animals are often dangerous if they get loose. A direct, compelling reason for state interest in the matter. Better to treat the cause than thousands of individual "symptoms" when they occur.

Cruising Ram, I’m assuming if I took a baseball bat and smashed a window on your house, and then beat your dog to death with that bat, it would be all the same to you. They’re both property, right?

No, I don’t want to see dogs have "consitutional rights", but as sentient beings, they deserve to be treated with at least a minimum of compassion. Many states are passing laws against tethering or chaining dogs to a stationary object. Using your philosophy, why bother, it’s that person’s property, they can do with it what they want, right? My philosophy is, if you want a lawn ornament, buy a plastic flamingo.

As for eating dogs and cats... sorry, that's disgusting.

Eloquently put, Mrs. P.

I don't say it's a right. Employment in general is not a right. Also I agree that it is any employer is legally able to "distance themselves from" -- fire -- persons found guilty of this or that crime. But I think that in general it's a bad thing if they do so. I really think that justice and equity is served best when punishment is left to the criminal justice system, and employers are willing to employ anyone who is not in prison. The state has an important interest in integrating convicted felons, now no longer in prison, back into society. A most important element of this integration is to find useful employment.

So important do I consider this that I would consider civil protections for convicts to ensure that they aren't discriminated against in employment and housing. Today we rather have the reverse, especially when it comes to sex criminals, and I consider this to be very harmful to justice and liberty. Obviously of course, if someone is in prison, nobody should be obligated to keep them on their payroll, or to guarantee them employment when they get out. But I think some degree of civil protection would serve the public interest.

I particularly condemn employers firing people who are merely accused of crimes. That goes against my notions of fundamental fairness and the principle that innocence is to be supposed until guilt is proven.

It might also be worth bearing in mind that the interest of the NFL in anyone's dog fighting is entirely pecuniary. It has nothing to do with humane conduct toward animals, and everything to do with how many people will watch Monday Night Football. I am not sure that this interest competes worthily with that of justice and liberty, to which I have pointed. The myth that sports figures are somehow on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, which the sports leagues promote as much as possible, is really quite absurd in any case.



Well, if a federal statute would makes it possible to prosecute crimes related to dog fighting that can't otherwise be prosecuted, I am for it. Merely that "this activity crosses state lines on a routine basis" is not suffient for that, however. Nor is the notion that this makes it possible to bundle crimes committed in different states. After all, the possibility of separate state prosecutions already exists.

Too often, in general, Congress piles federal law on top of perfectly adequate state law, on the pretext of "fighting crime." Apart from wasting the resources of the federal criminal justice system, this gives rise to a constitutional question: what if the citizens of some states don't agree that something, even dog fighting, should be criminal? I would find that contemptible, but I'm not sure that the Constitution is best served by making something a federal offense just because people in most regions of the country think it should be.

That may be true, but I'm sure the league doesn't want the image of hundreds of animal lovers picketing every Atlanta Falcons game, either - especially if it's televised. And trust me, animal rights group WILL be picketing - loudly and as publicly as possible. Money may be one issue, but public perception goes right along with that. The head of the HSUS has already contacted Goodell requesting Vick's ouster, and also Nike, for using him as a sponsor (heck, Nike already has a dismal human rights record, add animals to the mix, and they could take a hit, too). Disregarding the power of these organizations to sway public opinion is a mistake, IMHO.

A mistake from what perspective, that of the NFL's bottom line, or that of justice and liberty?

As a matter of fact, you say, there will be pickets. I agree. But so what really, that is anyone's right. You do not address any of my concerns that the criminal justice system should be left to do its work in this and similar matters. If mass hysteria creates an environment where some employer fires someone who has merely been accused of a crime, not yet convicted of it, this is supposed to be a good thing?

Really we have so many of these disgusting lynchings-by-media these days, must we have another? This mass outrage when some public figure reveals himself to be -- what a surprise! -- a flawed human being is absolutely contemptible, particularly since many of the most public accusers are often as bad as the accused. I'm not defending dog fighting or racism or any of the rest of it, but as a people we should be less hysterical.

Once again DG- you should know better- when YOU break into my house- you have commited a crime AGAINST MY PROPERTY- NOT your own property. You can't light your own house on fire because it might catch my house on fire. BUT, if you don't try to claim insurance against it, you can burn your own house down if you don't harm others property.

Mrs P- I am NOT defending dog fighting- it is cruel and sick. I also don't defend prostitution as a industry- who advocated for THIER daughter or son to go into that field of work? I don't think gambling is a good way to waste your money, or think that drugs are a good thing to put into your body- and teach my kids otherwise.

All of these "sin laws" have NOT made society any better- it has made it demonstratably worse.

Throwing a guy into jail, even for something as disgusting as dog fighting- does nothing for our society. Not when we have Scooter Libby's walking the street, not when we have prison overcrowding, and a plethora of laws that weaken the sting of laws we really need, like oh, locking up and killng pedophiles?

Fire him from the NFL- after all- that is thier right- and a good idea- in fact, sue him for breach of contract for "conduct unbecoming" or some other issue- take his money away- a good way to send a message to others that this is not cool- take away a man's livelhood, and that sends a heck of a message.

I don't advocate throwing anyone in jail if they deal cruelly with thier own property, as long as it affects NO ONE ELSES property.

Not as long as we have far worse crimes going unpunished certainly.

BTW- we already are seeing comparisons between Michael Vick and the Iditarod.

And seriously- how do you determine which animals are legal to eat and which aren't?

DG- should those that eat cats or dogs in the US be jailed? Should it be illegal to use them as food?

How do we determine which are "pets" and which are legal to raise as food?

Do we go by intelligence to determine whether or not they have "rights"?

Pigs are smarter than cats or dogs, and goats can certainly come dang close- and goats are even cute and cuddly- should we make it illegal to raise them for food as well?

I worked in a slaughterhouse as a kid- and have seen animals killed in a variety of ways, and made all nice and neat for folks to eat without having to see the blood and guts.

I think America has bigger things to worry about than throwing folks in jail for being cruel to animals. I think poeple being cruel to poeple should have priority, that is all.

While I think that "rights" is a concept that applies only to human beings, I believe strongly that humanity demands that animals not be abused. I have no trouble with animals being raised for food, used as beasts of burden, or being sacrificed in medical experiments, but I am greatly concerned that during this process, they be treated humanely and be afforded all reasonable comfort. For example, I am very concerned that under today's nearly industrial pig-raising processes, pigs are held confined essentially for their entire lives and not allowed to roam about or socialize as pigs are wont to do. I am sure that this saves a few cents on a pound of pork, and that the forces of competition give rise to it. Nevertheless I believe that there should be regulation to ensure that pigs are not treated in this way, but are instead afforded a reasonably decent pig's life before being slaughtered.

This matters because it is simply not consistent with our humanity to allow other creatures to suffer unreasonably. Misery is misery whether experienced by a pig or a human being. I prize humans far above other animals, but I am not willing to cause unnecssary misery for any animal. I believe that the vast majority of people in our society, certainly anyone who has had anything to do with animals and is not diseased in his heart, would agree with that. And that is why laws against cruelty to animials, though they do not fully address the concerns I have raised here, are a very good thing.

Of course it does. It works by setting a limit to what types of behavior we will stand for. You say you think dog fighting is disgusting? Why exactly, if an animal deserves no more consideration and protection, by your reasoning, than a mound of dirt in your yard?


I am not aware of any animal meats that are illegal to eat in the US. Are they illegal? Please provide evidence. If so, that would surprise me, and it would be based on social convention I'd suppose. As I said before, even the types of animals that are generally slated for human consumption are protected by laws forbidding cruel treatment. You cannot mistreat your family dog, pig, goat, or horse regardless of the fact that pigs are generally eaten (as well as the occasional goat and horse).

A slaughterhouse might slaughter a pig for consumption but alternately we also take our dogs and cats to the vet to put them down when they are too sick to lead a productive life. Neither is considered illegal or abusive. Gee, strangely, the law is able to distinguish the line between abuse and putting a dog to sleep or slaughtering an animal for food quite well!

It is not illegal to eat horse meat but it is illegal to slaughter horses for the purpose of human consumption. The last legal slaughterhouse for horses was in Illinois which was shut down via legislation this year.

I will say this CR, if anyone ever doubts your Libertarian chops, you can count your post as a reference. Unfortunately, this shows yet again the perils of ideology trumping common sense.

There are many laws on the books that cross the abyss (middle ground, to use your vernacular) between property rights and natural rights. Dog fighting is a good example of such laws. Using a utilitarian construct like property to justify allowing such acts is precisely the same type of logic that allows institutions like slavery to persevere (after all, they weren't "human" at the time, they were property, right?) and acts like genocide to take place. No, I'm not equating dog fighting to genocide or slavery, just pointing out that that mindset is what allows such atrocities to happen.

How we treat those less fortunate, and those below us in the food chain is a very common measure of what defines humanity. Having laws on the books that codify that concept are part of what separates us from the animals.

And I must say that I really do not understand these laws. It is perfectly legal to slaughter pigs for human consumption, why should it be illegal to do the same to a horse or a dog? I admit, I don't like the idea of slaughtering dogs, but if enough people had a taste for dogmeat, I don't see what the objection would be. It's not as if wild animals are being rounded up for slaughter, or anyone's livestock stolen. Animals are raised precisely for these purposes. Very few pigs would exist if we didn't want to eat them, and fewer horses would exist if there weren't a taste in Europe for horsemeat.

Their meat is very delicious indeed, and I try to eat a nice horsemeat stake whenever I'm in Europe.

The important thing is that horses or dogs, or pigs, be treated with humanity while being raised and, eventually perhaps, while being slaughtered.

We've gone quite far afield here, but I will say this: there are only a few Asian countries in which it is considered acceptable to eat dogs and cats (contrary to popular belief, the Phillipines has passed a law against it, except for "ritual use"). The side effect of that is the illegal dog and cat fur trade, which this country DID pass a law on, The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000. And why anyone would want to eat a carnivore is beyond me , let alone one that this society considers a companion. I got physically ill in France when we were served a meat I couldn't identify. I took one bite, and asked someone what it was. No one knew, but I knew the French ate horsemeat, and since I had horses at the time, it made me nauseous. There's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

If dogs are property, then you should have no problem viewing the reality of what is done to them here. Warning to those who care - very graphic.

Every day I find a new reason to go vegetarian.


Unfortunately, the court is allowing that slaughterhouse to stay open.

Docloctus- don't get me wrong, there is nothing harder to do than defend dog fighting- you just can't do it- it is horrible. But, they are animals- they aren't human. I guess that stamps my "libertarian" card for life- but it is not neccesarily a thing to be proud of. I respect DG's and Mrs P and others horror at what human beings will do for sport- I think it is sick myself.

But, as you see, there is always legislation afoot to make even HUMANE slaughter for consumption illegal of certain animals- such as horses. Horses are livestock primarily- not even pets. However- there are poeple trying make killing them for food illegal.

Why? What is the rationel? Because they are pretty? They are certainly NOT smarter than a pig- that is for certain - I hae TOO MUCH experiance with horses, and don't like them much, and see no reason not to eat them if someone wants to buy them for meat. Same with cat's and dogs.

What is the problem with the humane slaughter of those animals (cats and dogs) as it sits now? DG seems to feel this should be illegal.

Do you see how this is a true, and provable "slippery slope" argument.

DG already is happy horse for meat is illegal, or should be.

How much farther down the road is it to the PETA extreme?

We do "humanely slaughter" thousands of dogs and cats each week, in fact the humane society provides this function. Not considered abuse. I see no reason to prevent horses/dogs/ whatever type of animal from being slaughtered for human ingestion so long as they are well treated during their lifetime. The USA is (well, was, I guess) one of the chief exporters of horsemeat to Europe. Canada is another.



Gee, I don't know CR...maybe bugs will be illegal to squish because we don't condone the inhumane treatment of animals! Again we dive into the excluded middle fallacy. Said as much as I have to contribute here. Fini.

Start a topic...or go dig up the topic I started dogs' years (pun intended) ago. One thing horse slaughterhouse are most definitely not, is humane.

I don't think it's extreme to look upon animals as sentient beings rather than pretty "things" for humans to abuse or kill for entertainment. Period.

Since it is being discussed, I feel a need to address it.

A dog is not "property." That's all there is to it. The law doesn't see it that way, and rightly so. You can "own" a dog, in the sense that the dog looks to you as its master, that is true. You can buy a dog, and upon doing so, can prove ownership, should there be a dispute, by providing the receipt of the sale, or other paperwork. But the dog is more than property. The dog is, in fact, a sentient being, and by "owning" it, you are implying a pledge to its care. If you don't raise the dog right, it could bite humans. And if your dog is in the habit of biting humans, Animal Control will take the dog from you, and possibly kill it. If you are cruel to your dog, you can go to jail.

That is right, and this is the kind of dispute that sets me far apart from Libertarianism. You don't have the right to abuse an animal, and it is and should be within the jurisdiction of government to take the animal from you, and file charges against you, including fines, and jailtime. The government is going to intervene, and I'm all for it, in fact, I think the government would be useless were it not to do so.

Technically, you "own" your kids until they turn 18 (or is it 21,) but they are not your property.

Dogs aren't property.

Saying they are is wrong. Only inanimate objects can be property.

Livestock is livestock, and pets are pets.

Humans need to be human, if they want to be called that.

You know you are in real deep stinky stuff when Robert Byrd, the oldest sitting U.S. Senator, says you are going to hell.

In biblical terms, Byrd -- wearing a navy-blue tie spotted with dog images -- attacked animal cruelty in ways that only he can.

"It is a brutal, sadistic event motivated by barbarism of the worst sort and cruelty of the worst, worst, worst, sadistic kind," Byrd said in a 24-minute address on the matter. "One is left wondering: Who are the real animals? Who are the real animals, who are the real animals -- the creatures inside the ring or the creatures outside the ring?"

Byrd did not specifically address the charges against Vick, a former Virginia Tech football star [We earlier said Vick was a graduate of VT. Vick actually left the school early to join the NFL. Thanks to readers for correcting our mistake], but attacked the nature of Vick's alleged crime in soaring rhetoric usually reserved for war speeches or Supreme Court confirmation battles: "The training of these poor creatures -- weigh those words -- the training of these poor creatures -- weigh them -- the training of these poor creatures to turn themselves into fighting machines is simply barbaric. Barbaric! Barbaric! Barbaric! Let that word resound from hill to hill and from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley across this broad land. Barbaric, barbaric!"

"The Book of Proverbs in the Holy Bible, the King James Bible, tells us a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel," Byrd said. "The immortal Dante tells us the divine justice reserves special places in Hell for certain categories of sinners. Madam president, I am confident -- madam president, I am confident that the hottest places in Hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt! I yield the floor." link

Senator Byrd likes dogs. DaffyGrl and Aquilla---political polar opposites---like dogs. Everybody likes dogs. With all the Hitler references lately on the board it's worth noting that Hitler was a big dog lover too.

Any day now Vick will probably get a phone call from the grave and it'll be Hitler on the line giving him grief, "Dude, I was the most evil S.O.B. that ever lived, but even I liked dogs."

What a crappy week in sports. Remember when sports was a escape from the problems of everyday life? Barry Bonds is inching ever closer to breaking the biggest record in baseball and its a joyless affair without excitement because nobody wants to see someone suspected of cheating take the record from Hank Aaron. The NBA has a referee accused of being mobbed-up and possibly fixing games he bet on. Meanwhile, the NFL has one of its most marketable superstars indicted by a federal grand jury for gruesome and repellently disgusting acts of cruelty to animals.

Think Bud Selig, David Stern and Roger Goodell might all need a big hug and a stiff drink?

Two things I think. One, is that the NFL will not suspend Michael Vick prior to the legal case taking its course. Who knows if Vick will ever see the inside of a courtroom if he can cut a deal instead? Problem is, when you're the biggest fish caught in the net there's nobody you can give up that's bigger.

Whatever happens we are far away from any decisions on Vick's guilt or innocence being rendered. I also suspect that the NFL and the Atlanta Falcons will pressure Vick to take a paid leave of absence. The specter of PETA-led protests outside every stadium a Vick-led Falcons team is playing would be a public relations nightmare for the league and this is a league that is extremely image conscious. Out of sight and out of mind is where the NFL wants Vick. If he refuses to take the face saving move then the Falcons will probably suspend him and take the choice away from him.

I don't think Michael Vick will be showing up in a lot of fantasy football drafts this summer.

The second thing I think is Vick's biggest mistake was to hurt a poor, defenseless animal. Would he be in as much trouble if he were just another jock busted for shooting up a strip club or thumping on his girlfriend? Probably not. That kind of bad behavior is almost EXPECTED from today's glut of wealthy, spoiled and irresponsible athletes. Who bats an eye at some idiot with more money than imagination who drives too fast, owns too many guns, has far too many "friends" and is at the wrong places at the worst time of the night?

Mike Vick should have just killed some guy in a bar fight. It would have been noticed that a NFL quarterback committed an act of murder, but most people are pretty blase about that kind of thing. Commit severe acts of cruelty against man's best friend and you're Public Enemy Number One.

Point well-taken, NT. And, you're right. I can't remember this kind of outrage even in the case of Rae Carruth who killed his girlfriend and was convicted of murder. There is something about raising dogs specifically for the purposes of having them fight and tear each other apart that really strikes a cord with people. Perhaps because we've seen so many professional athletes skate recently from serious crimes, or get a slap on the wrist and then go back to making millions playing that in this case people are saying "enough is enough". I will admit that having been through two nasty divorces myself I have more understanding for someone wanting to kill an ex-wife (and their lawyers for that matter) than I do about someone who abuses and kills dogs for "sport". That I can't begin to comprehend at all.

As far as the justice system in the Vick case is concerned, I'm willing to let it play out. One thing I read recently is that the federal district court judge who is hearing the case is known for having a "rocket docket" in that he doesn't mess around and allow things to drag out. Michael Vick is going to get his day in court and it will probably be sooner rather than later. Depending on what happens with that, who knows? I sure know I wouldn't want to be his PR person.


Aquilla

Robert Byrd will be 90 in November. He lost his childhood sweetheart and wife of 68 years in March.

http://byrd.senate.gov/erma_byrd.html

One associate, speaking on MSNBC, said Byrd’s tirade is understandable now that his dog is all he has to go home to.

On the same show, I heard a member of PETA, who wanted to makes penalties harsher, so that Vick would serve more time. Don't some of these people have even an elementary knowledge of the Constitution? Vick cannot be tried or sentenced under laws that weren't a crime or were a lesser crime when he allegedly broke them. It's called ex post facto.

While I deplore dog fighting, and fox hunting in the well-to-do area of Virginia - the hounds tear the foxes to shreds for human enjoyment - the Constitution, though as someone said, "isn't written in the blood of god," is still operant.

Well, PETA is PETA and I view them quite frankly as an extremist group consisting mostly of whackos. If they were the only ones mounting a protest against Vick, he probably wouldn't be in that deep stinky stuff NT referenced. But, they aren't the only ones, the American Humane Society has also weighed in on the matter. link. The AHS is not a radical group like PETA and thus far more likely to really influence people and institutions.


Aquilla

NT makes a good point- but I just can't find it in my heart to want to throw a guy in jail for (what now appears to be a six year) sentance hanging over his head- when we have thieves, molesters, attempted murder etc getting less time in jail.

In the end- they are merely animals- that fact get's lost in the emotion of our beloved pets. But they are not worth a human life, with a few exceptions (there are some lowlifes I hold lower than the lowest life form ) -

Andrea Yates, who murdered her kids, got less time in jail. Some poeple actually have sympathy for that monster.

this woman/human offal got only 5 years for disfiguring a motorcyclist:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_5935612?nclick_check=1

So, horrible as dog fighting is, I just can't get worked up and outraged when we have far more serious crimes happening on a daily basis, to innocent poeple.

We need to get some priorities in this country. Dogfighting may be bad, but it doesn't rise to the level of wasting the courts time and resources. Those resources are limited, and need to be spent better elsewhere. NOt on multi-millioin dollar show trials.

Yes, I’m certain the court has far more important things to do…like settle cases of a company questioning excise tax on their phone bill (American Bankers Insurance Group v. US), or the false arrest of a man accused of stealing a lawnmower (Miller v. Prince George’s County), or a warrantless search for illegal Ebay transactions (US v. Buckner), or questioning probation violations of a check counterfeiter (US v. Moulden). I’m sure each of these cases was important to those involved in it, but it sure is easy to ridicule them.

Unless you are arguing that the laws under Title 18 shouldn’t even be on the books, then the Vick case is entirely appropriate. Federal law covers a wide range of offenses, from failing to pay child support to homicide. It is unfair (and some sort of logical fallacy that I can't put a name to) to declare one crime is somehow less valid than another.

Jeez louise, as if all the Vick stuff isn't bad enough, Mitt Romney thinks it's OK to put his dog on the roof of his car for a 12 hour trip. Some people must've hid behind the door when brains were being passed out...

DG- poeple love thier pets- no doubt about it. The humane society seems to thing there are about 40k people doing it, and about 200k dogs affected.

But in the end- you are putting dogs ahead of poeple.

We need to get a grip as a nation- there are just far more important things on this planet than poochy.

Ya, it is a waste of resources. Vick will spend a bundle of money on his defense, and the prosecuter will have to spend a bundle of money to convict him- if he can get a conviction. Then you have the appeals.

We tend to put animals over humans too much already in this nation. We spend billions of dollars a year on pet supplies.

Priorities man, priorities.

Nasty as it is- they are just animals, they ARE NOT human, and really, they are property.

This is the worst position I have had to take on this board, without a doubt, and I hate like the dickens to have to appear to even defend this- now I know how an ACLU feels when they have to defend child molesters and KKK members - but this is emotion WAY over reason.

Fire vick, sure, no problem with that- the employer SHOULD do that.

But criminal charges and resources being wasted on this? maybe after about 1,000,000 other problems are fixed in this country.

CruisingRam, I think we all know your position on the issue. I know I certainly do. Let's just agree to disagree. You think it's a waste of time, I don't. You don't think it should be a crime, I do. I care about humane education and animal rights, and you don't.

One thing - how am I "putting dogs ahead of people"? If it is because I believe animals should live a life free from cruelty, then OK, I'll proudly agree that I am.

I feel sorry for your "property".

I think the Vick stuff needs to be approached in a balanced way. We can't make it all important, but we can't ignore it. I don't approve of what Vick did, but I don't want to make an example of him just because he is a well-known public figure. When I taught, I didn't like the idea of making examples of some kids in order to control other kids. For years, the IRS has made examples of public figures to put the fear of god in other people.

I honestly don't know what a fair outcome would be in this case. With Bush letting Scooter Libby off the hook, I can no longer read my compass regarding what is and isn't justice. Yeah, violent crimes should still be prosecuted, but what else?

The Romney incident happened several years ago. Now that he's running for president he will probably have the carrier painted to look like an American flag. Still his dogs will probably hop right in. That's what dogs do best - follow orders. I'd like to see him try to get a cat to jump in the carrier. I have difficulty getting mine in just to take them to the vet. That's what I like about cats though, they don't follow the chain-of-command.

I don't think he's being made an example of, unless it's an example that even though you're a ridiculously overpaid athlete, you are still subject to the law.

Vick would do well to remember Thomas Weigner of Texas. Mr. Weigner was a major figure in the dog fighting world (had 300 dogs at the time). Last year, someone broke into his home, tied up his family, including 3 children, while they ransacked the place for money and guns. I read (though I don't see it in this article) that one of the gunmen was someone who had lost a lot of money at a dog fight put on by Weigner and wanted it back. Before leaving, they shot Weigner in the leg, and left him to bleed to death. Weigner was far enough up the food chain that the FBI was investigating him. Source: Beaumont Enterprise
So, who is really putting animals above humans here?

Daffy, I'm not even sure that making this an animals against humans thing is a good framework. For those who have animals, they certainly enrich life. Would I sacrifice my cats to save a human life? Probably, but that's a rather academic question and one that's not likely to come up in reality.

As I said earlier, since Bush sprung Libby, I'm no longer sure about the meaning of justice.

Here's an update. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered Vick not to attend the Atlanta Falcons training camp.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7052768?MSNHPHMA

On what legal basis are you claiming this ground? Criminal charges, yes. Animal cruelty is a crime. And you might consider that statistically, most people who would abuse an innocent animal would most likely do violence to other humans.

From Wikipedia:

Psychological studies have shown that individuals who take pleasure in inflicting harm on animals are more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism. According to the New York Times, "[t]he FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders, though it should be noted that the inclusion of animal cruelty within this standard only began with DSM-IV. [1] "A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a young boy." [2]


I couldn't disagree more that we "tend to put animals above humans too much." That is categorically wrong. Animals are living, sentient beings, and they are God's creatures. They are just as much rightful denizens of this planet as any human. Dogs are not wild animals. They have been specially bred over thousands of years, and have had loyalty bred into them. They watch over us. A dog would gladly give his life for his human. Many do.

You cannot just state "they are property," and then expect you have made an argument. If dogs are "property," then why are there animal cruelty laws?

Dogs help the blind, and the handicapped. Dogs protect peoples' homes, selflessly putting their own lives ahead of that property you seem to value so much. My Great Dane/Pitbull mix, Sweetie, rides with my wife when she has to work in bad neighborhoods, and has made it quite clear how loyally and bravely he will defend her.

After reading your post, I can only hope that you do not have any dogs, or other pets.

Recent articles on dog fighting reveal to me that the sport is even uglier than I thought. A bit of good news http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5007389.html Champ was a very lucky dog. Imagine if your dog was snatched for someone needing a bait dog? Animals, particularly companion animals, whose worth to the individual is usually much higher than the animal's market value need to be protected more than mere inanimate property.

There are alot of laws on the books that are stupid or fundamentally anti-freedom- there were laws promoting slavery for years- why did we have them?

Listen- because I am not into making laws regarding animals that do no harm to others property,

I won't tell my daughter prostitution is a good thing, and try to teach her to make better choices- but I am not for criminalizing it.

I encourage healthy living, good food choices, don't do drugs or cigs- just don't need the goverment to make a law about it

I don't gamble myself- but want no laws outside zoning issues to restrict it-

Adults, in order to be free, should be free to make bad decisions, and, when those decisions negatively impact another person- the criminal charges and civil awards should be inacted.

There is no justice in this country really.

We have child molestors let go because they don't have a translator- when the dude has went to highschool and college here in the US, and is fluent in English:

http://www.topix.net/city/gaithersburg-md/...isses-rape-case

And we have Scooter Libby's sentence being seen as "too harsh"-

I am sorry, with massive injustice going on in this country- I just can't whip up enough outrage at Vick- as far as jail time and a criminal trial are concerned

that being said- what IS happening to him at this time is COMPLETELY appropriate. He has lost all his sponsors, and hopefully, his entire career as an NFL player. Bully on them.

I can think of no better reward than him being broke financially by this- lawyers fees and loss of income combined. Send him back to whatever rock he crawled out of and let him sling hamburgers or slurpies.

But jail time, considering how lenient and crazy we are in our justice system to REAL bad guys? Naw, ain't worth the time and energy.

All of Vick’s co-defendants have changed their pleas to guilty, which complicates things for Vick, since they are prepared to sing like birdies. Maybe Vick should have invested in some high-priced lawyers for his (former) buddies. Friendship only goes so far when you’re facing serious time in a federal prison.

This news item claims Vick is close to a plea agreement, and that he still hopes to play in the NFL! Somehow I don’t think federal prisons allow their “guests” to take weekends off to play pro football. And chances are, he will spend at least a short period of time in the federal pen. If he doesn't, I'd chalk it up to "celebrity justice".



It looks like his teammates have already written Vick off.

It would behoove the NFL to make sure none of their players are involved in this heinous blood sport now or in the future. The Vick incident has given the NFL a nasty black eye.

I disagree that this has hurt the NFL. It seems to me that they've been pretty responsive to the Vick situation and have handled it responsibly. The Atlanta Falcons ownership has pretty well washed their hands of him, but have held off from any formal action like releasing him outright at the request of the NFL. Under the terms of the NFL Player's union contract, individual NFL teams can only suspend a player for up to 4 games, but the league can suspend them for longer as in the case of "Pacman" Jones. However, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of ever allowing Vick to play on his team again, contract or no contract. I'm not really sure what else the Falcons or the NFL can do at this point.

Warrick Dunn, who by the way is a stand up guy is right. Time to move on down the road. Let the Justice system take its course and whatever happens with Michael Vick, happens. I seriously doubt he'll ever play in the NFL again.


Aquilla

I find it unbelievable how much higher a standard we hold a black NFL player than a white politician. Watch the protests on both sides- the "pro-lynch" crowd is pretty much lilly white, the "what is the big deal crowd" is all black.

Allow the white guy to introduce the "race card" at this time

It is quite clear that America is quite eager to convict a black sports player, like vick, white America that is- while Scooter Libby's sentance, for a far, far far worse crime is "too harsh"

Vick, most likely, will lose his livelihood and could be broke and penniless, and face jail time, real jail time- while Scooter Libby is still rich, and never spent a day in Jail.

This highlights the "different justice system for the white man vs black man" more than just about any other thing I have seen recently.

If there was some balance between white poeple and NOT going jail and black poeple in jail, the debate would be quite different.

Whaaaaaaa???? You introduce the "race" argument and then claim racial discrimination in Vick's case as opposed to Libby? C'mon! Vick doesn't have the president in his back pocket to magically make charges go away. And how many times does it have to be said: DOGFIGHTING IS NOT A BLACK OR WHITE CRIME. Blacks and whites are involved. David Ray Tant is serving 40 years in prison for dogfighting, and they don't come any whiter.

I'm really appalled that people feel this way.

I liken it to the notion of beating up on handicapped people. What if we had handicapped kids beat on each other with rocks and sticks, bloodying each other (and worse) for money? Would that be ok?

Handicapped people aren't animals, but often times can't fight or speak for themselves. They rely on society to do right by them, and in turn give love and teach lessons daily. It's a symbiotic relationship really. That's how our relationship is with dogs.

Dogs love us unconditionally, lead our blind, guard our houses, herd our animals. We feed them and protect them. It's how it goes.

Allowing a man of M Vick's stature to hurt animals and act like money and a power defense is enough is absurd. I Pray to God that the man never sets foot on another NFL field. It's sick. What he did ruined the lives of many perfectly good animals. It's cruel.

This isn't eating beef. This isn't having a chicken on the grill. Animals die for food out of necessity. (unless your a vegan)Not in vain.

I think he should do time. He should have to then get out and spend years working in Humane Societies, caring for and about dogs.

People arguing that this is ok and shouldn't warrant public dollars is astonishing to me. Where should the money go? At least if someone tries to commit another crime, like robbing my house, I can defend myself. I own a gun... and ironically a couple of dogs.

What can a poor little dog that was raised to fight do for itself?



Good LORD. I'm sincerely surprised.
Scooter Libby's crime is pretty well controversial (if there was even one), and it surely wasn't anything like intentionally having animals kill each other to watch it.... for fun.

White, black, purple. I actually really like Michael Vick. I used to think he was one of the most talented QB's in the league, and even had him on my fantasy football teams even though he may not have scored as well as someone like Tom Brady or the Manning boys. Why? He seemed kinda respectable (aside from the little pot things.. whatever). He didn't showboat, he didn't talk trash, and he made his play do the talking... even at VT.

This is dispicable. If it was my own brother- I'd push for sentencing. I can't believe this.

*Edited to remove personal attack* Let's just turn this thread into a Bush-bashing thread since we don't have any of those here and for good measure, let's make Michael Vick the victim (Vicktim?) here because of his race. Hell, let's just blame Cheney or Rove for everything. How about Rove fooled those dogs into fighting and Cheney shot them? That work for you CR?


Aquilla

Of course, the white folks on the board are APPALLED that the race issue would rear it's head in this one- but actually- I am suprised it hasn't happened earlier- it is all over the news already:

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=2260445

In the rural county split 50-50 between whites and blacks, the case quickly took a racial bent. At the county courthouse, angry letters urged that whites "take back their town." Critics accuse the commonwealth's attorney, Gerald Poindexter, of stalling an investigation to protect one of his own.

I am simply paraphrasing this feeling:


Whites, he said, may have underlying anger at blacks they feel constantly play the race card. Blacks, meanwhile, may feel whites rush to judge black suspects, but are more lenient to white ones, Menzise said. A case like Vick's offers a vent for those frustrations.

When you consider the hienous things whites get away with- and have the president himself decrying a far worse crime with a not even as harsh a sentence as 'too harsh"- ya, I can see it, big time.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-v...o&type=lgns

On the other side was an emotional, angry, passionate anti-Vick group that was overwhelmingly white.

Certainly not every animal rights supporter was screaming for Vick to die. Many were just there to support the cause of caring for animals, ending the barbaric practice of dog fighting and using the massive media presence to benefit good.

But a significant number were focused on Vick. When he emerged from a black SUV and made a slow walk up a ramp and into the courthouse, they pushed toward police barriers and let loose.

"Burn in hell you (expletive) (expletive)," repeatedly screamed one woman.

"Die like those dogs," shouted another.
Not long after Vick got inside the courthouse – and in a scene that was repeated when he left less than two hours later – the two sides clashed in shouted voices and dueling signs.

White people screaming for justice; black people asking if they still remember everything justice entails.


Hey guys- what is next rope, tar and feathers?

Bottom line is this- he is getting alot more for hurting animals than powerful white poeple get for harming poeple.

Yeah, I remember how OJ Simpson was put away for life. And that trial was pretty racially divided too. Oh, yes, and the victims were actual human beings.

For nearly every crime prosecuted, there another worse crime where someone received a lesser penalty for one reason or another. See above. The fact that OJ got away with murder does not indicate that no one should spend a day in jail for any crime short of murder. Hey! OJ didn't go to prison! I should be free to shoplift to my heart's content! R-I-G-H-T. And I think you are wrong to raise the race card here. What a way villify everyone who doesn't condone the inhumane treatment of animals. We're all racist! And make your opinion somehow look righteous "just speaking up for black animal abusers everywhere!" Huh, yes I see why skin color would make this okay. Not.

Of course, until this moment I didn't realize Vick was black but I suppose that is irrelevant since the fact doesn't exonerate him in my opinion. It's clear to me now. I support humane treatment of animals, so...I must be a racist! I didn't realize that all of those long haired hippy earthy PETA people are racist! I'm a racist, he's a racist, she's a racist, we're all racist wouldn't you like to be a racist too?

I want to put a myth to rest here, by saying once again, dogfighting is not exclusively an African-American activity. Dogfighting crosses all racial barriers – whites do it, Hispanics do it as well. For all I know, Asians do it too, though I’ve not seen any stories in that regard. In fact, the really big, major players in this so-called “sport” are WHITE. David Tant, Floyd Beaudroux, Fat Bill Reynolds, Mountain Man and the Gambler are all WHITE MEN, some of them serving far stiffer sentences than Michael Vick is even subject to. Vick is pretty much a blip on the dogfighting world’s radar in comparison to what these guys were. Dr. Alane Koki, a WHITE WOMAN, who is also a cancer researcher and patent holder is involved in dogfighting! It crosses not only racial barriers, but economic strata as well.

The mainstream media doesn’t seem to think dogfighting on its own is worthy of coverage. The animal rights world has been aware of it and fighting against it for a very long time. A nationally known professional athlete adds “media-worthiness” to the story. It has nothing to do with race. If a well-known white quarterback was involved in dogfighting, it would be news just as it is with Vick. Sadly, those who need a platform for screaming discrimination are pouncing on this particular case. Now that dogfighting has attracted the MSM’s attention, we may see more of the others involved in this horrid activity on the news. And that, to me, is the only positive thing to come out of this whole story.

Please don't try to make this a racial issue - it isn't anything of the sort. Everyone of every race involved in dogfighting should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible...which, in a lot of states, isn't very far. The only way to eliminate the cruelty of dogfighting is to shine a light on it, attract attention by those who can make a difference. There is already talk of stiffer legislation to crack down on the activity.

And by the way, there are some prominent African Americans who are getting the message out there that dogfighting is animal cruelty, and has no place in a civilized society - Al Sharpton (yeah, yeah I know), Russell Simmons, Lamon Brewster, and 'Big Boi' Antwan Patton are all against dogfighting. Hopefully they have enough influence to change people's opinions.

Well, I am glad someone FINALLY put it into perspective- you see, Michael Vick is a terrorist.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html

Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy "missiles from Iran," FOX News has learned.

Looks like we got this one just on time.

It looks as if Michael Vick actually did the smart thing, and accepted the plea. Nice of the court to whittle the jail time down to a year after they said the minimum was 18 months.

I hope (but don't count on it) that part of his sentence is that he is never allowed to own an animal again.

The saddest thing about this whole mess is that the NFL will probably be waiting at the prison gates a year from now with another multi-million dollar contract for him. I am SO over being a football fan. They ought to change the name to the National Felon's League.

I don't think you can come to any conclusions at this point about what the NFL is going to do in this matter. They have been running an independent investigation of their own that is focused specifically on any violations that might have happened with regard to the personal conduct policies of the NFL. It is a necessary thing that they do this because there are legal (civil) ramifications for the NFL depending on what actions they might take against Michael Vick. It's called "dotting your I's and crossing your T's". We'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks.


Aquilla

I bet it is the gambling "casino" that he ran in conjunction with the dog fighting that does him in permanently with the NFL.

Now- remember, he was already in hot water with the NFL for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtVnqZCndo

He is a big dummy.

That is certainly a possibility. The NFL, as do all major sports leagues, has some very strict and specific rules concerning gambling and if Vick was involved in that, it's a slam dunk for the NFL to level sanctions against him. The dog-fighting issue is a little more nebulous in that I doubt the NFL has a specific rule against it - probably never came up before. In that respect they'd probably have to rely on a more general "conduct detrimental to the NFL" kind of a thing that could result in litigation that keeps this thing on the front pages. That's the last thing the NFL needs or wants at this point. So, I suspect that their own internal investigation is more into the gambling aspect and the NFL has a very experienced team of investigators. If there's a there there, they'll find it.

If I were to set the odds on Vick ever playing in the NFL again, I'd probably start the line at around 10-1 against it. Wonder what the bookies are saying.......

This guy says 1-2 that he won't be banned for life, but that doesn't mean any team will sign him to a contract.


Aquilla

When I read things like this all over the web, I have to wonder about that.

Though I am happy to see that a very positive effect has come out of Atlanta, where Vick's #7 jerseys are being put to good use. Poetic justice!.

The recommended jail time for Vick is just that. The prosecutor can recommend to Judge Hudson a sentence of 18 months, but Hudson, who has a reputation of going beyond minimums if he believes there is enough evidence, can ignore the prosecutor's recommendation and impose a harsher sentence.

I believe he will. It seems likely that the judge will show Vick about as much mercy as Vick showed those dogs. Then I believe NFL Commissoner Roger Goodell will preclude any possibility of Michael Vick contaminating the NFL again with a lifetime ban from pro football.

Michael Vick will never step on a football field as a NFL player again. Nor should he. He has shamed the league and shamed himself with his actions. The NFL is bigger than any one player, no matter how much talent he may have.

It's time to turn the page and close the book on Vick. He's the one who decided to throw away over $100 million dollars and trade his Atlanta Falcons uniform and number "7" in for a prison jumpsuit and a far longer number.

The hell with him.