Nothing further to say right now, I just didn't want to be "Nickel Nose" for any longer than necessary.
Wilson, I meant not to imply that anything you said was out of line. Do apologize by quoting your post about what Hudson said and thereby dragging you into it. Not my intent.
As for the breaking down part, Vick agreed to plea because of the RICO threat. Now, the prosecutors insisted on a polygraph. Neither you nor I know the precise wording of the question or questions he "failed" to pass. We do know that the prosecutors said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You satisfy us, or there is no deal," and you get what is beyond door number 1, which is a 20 year minimum if you go to trial and lose.
Shammrog, if you were awaiting sentencing and then a second prosecution as Vick was, what kind of meds would you have been on, in addition to them steroids that you obviously are hitting to be squatting 4 bills plus.
Anyway, don't mean to "hijack" the thread. Go ahead, knock yourselves out, Vick, the evil, is in jail and the Republic is soo much safer and better because of it.
I just hope that Hudson holds the next pit bull owner whose dog tears the face off of some kid to the same standard of care about who he choses to associate with and support with his money (in this case a dangerous dog) as we have applied to Vick. Then, I for one, will actually feel safer.
I am glad Vick is in prison, and I am glad he was dealt with as he was, but Pit Bulls are vicious vicious creatures. Having one as a pet is akin to having a wild animal - it may seem tame but can snap, and when it does - watch out. I think every owner of a pitbull is "on notice" about the danger their pet can cause, and has no excuse when it does that damage (i know that is more of a civil liability standard - but I think it should apply criminally in this case as well)
No it is far more lgical to thing that Vick was just an innocent bystander, being railroaded by big mean federal prosecutors who wanted to convict him even though he did nothing wrong. Dog carcasses, photos, financial records, t-shirts and hats with BadNewz Kennelz emblazoned on them, testimony from others, polygraphs, and Vick's own admission of wrongdoing all pales in comparison to the liklihood that out of the clear blue sky some federal prosecutors decided to frame Vick.
Welcome to the world of Graybeard.
I don't question the premise of some of greybeard's statements re: inconsistent application of justice, nor do I doubt that Michael Vick is experiencing a particularly heavy-handed application of justice here. But I am not a lawyer, so total impartiality with regard to the law is not my bag. I look at this from an admittedly emotional, personal perspective (see my avatar).
So, as I said before, multimillionaires who kill dogs and end up in jail had it coming.
I think Vick got off easy; but I blame that more on lack of laws/strict punishments for cruelty to animals. I think willfully murdering a dog (for reasons other than humanely putting a sick/injured pet down) should get you at least 10 years.
I agree. I'd recommend a documentary called "Off the Chain" for a gruesome perspective on the world of dogfighting. It's not really pleasant to watch but it will definitely leave an impact. Also, leaves an impact on what you think of the people that engage in this disgusting activity.
And I'm another one who shows my opinion on this matter simply by my avatar.
This is a for real inquiry for non-lawyers, but will require a tad of political perspective.
Hobbs said we make laws to keep from killing one another, for safety's sake.
Locke said we make laws to keep from stealing one another's property--to protect our incohate property rights.
Aristotle said, well I'm not sure I could possibly know, but I think that it had something to do with pursuing the GOOD, whatever that means.
Anyway, under what theory do we prosecute Michael Vick? The constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty and property. Which of those does the federal criminal law against cruelty to dogs further.
Alas, it is from the commerce clause that the right of the sovereign to regulate in this area arises. The commerce clause is used to protect the moral high ground? One would have hoped that the laws against cruelty to animals stood on higher ground, on, for example, Aristotlean notions of the Good, that which has a baring on achieving the highest in human endeavors. But no, we are relegated to the squiggley little commerce clause to search for the justification of this law.
I, for one, find it hard to believe that our founding fathers saw in this commerce clause the power of the Sovereign to restrict a man's freedom to treat any animal that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Am I alone in this, or do you guys see it otherwise.
I can't believe that I sound like a Libertarian here, or worse still a Republican.
Emotionally, I feel dogs/cats are different than say, livestock. Maybe it's because most of the time these days, their only purpose is for being a family pet. Murdering a family pet is akin to (but not identical to) murdering any other family member.
Disposing of livestock, on the other hand, I see as a matter of practicality. I think the ban on slaughter of horses, where the horsemeat can be sent as food to other countries, is silly. If there's a demand for horsemeat, and a legal supply of horses to meet that demand, so be it.
So, was Vick just putting down his 'livestock,' or was he cold-bloodedly murdering a potentially-beloved family pet? (Note, I'll refrain from any breed-specific discussion, and proceed on the assumption that pit bulls are loveable beasts as well.) It's a good question, and I know how I'd answer it, but as a matter of law, should there be/is there a difference in treatment?
(And if so, how do you avoid a "Pulp Fiction"-esque conversation about how dogs have personality and therefore aren't "filthy animals," whereas pigs are filthy animals, but if they had more personality than that green acres pig, it'd be different?)
First your argument was that Vick didn't do it - it was those mean old feds just picking on him. Now you make an argment that it shouldn't be a crime at all.
You don't sound like a Liberatarian or a Rebublican here. While I am clearly a liberal Democrat, I have many friends who are Republicans and Liberatarians - None of them would buy your arguments - Iinstead they would be sickened by them. There was a time not too long ago when children were considered to be property of parents, and as such parents could do pretty much as they chose - there was no power of the Sovereign to restrict a man's freedom to treat any animal (substitue child here)that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Folks were free to beat children with sticks until they couldn't walk, incest was never prosecuted, and sometimes children just "vanished". We made progress as a people, and we no longer believe that. Sometimes we move forward as a species.
Normal, safe people that are no threat to society don't go around hanging, drowing and electrocuting dogs for pleasure and entertainment.
It should be noted, though, that Vick and co's treatment of the dogs would be illegal even if perpetrated on livestock. The law also recognizes a difference between humane killing and aggravated animal cruelty such as hanging, electrocution, and the other forms of torture evident in this case.
I am not a mod, BUT ...
RICO statutes on the off topic board?
Off topic would include things like:
1) My Billybreen, how did you get past the filter?
2) Gee Wilson, the Falcons are allegedly playing on Monday Night Football!
3) Man EarlJam, that's a mean avatar... and could you tell us again that story about you in the trenchcoat?
4) Hey greybeard, I just tried that thing with my right arm, and it's now dislocated. What do I do now?
Off topic on Michael Vick might be something like: Gee, what % of tonight's alleged game will be devoted to today's sentencing?
Sorry, but this grading thing is really grating me.
I don't asking non-lawyers to postulate about the commerce clause is also not really fair. Heck, asking lawyers to postulate on the CC can give you some crazy answers.