Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 132
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Nothing further to say right now, I just didn't want to be "Nickel Nose" for any longer than necessary.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    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.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    I just hope that Hudson treats 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.
    If that individual also trained his dog to kill and brutality beat and killed dogs that didn't live up to his standards, then I also hope Judge Hudson treats him the same way.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    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.
    Regardless of if the dog was trained or not, if that scenario plays out the owner should face stiff criminal penalties - probably stiffer than Vick (because a human would be hurt).

    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)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    To quote the article...
    "If you want me to admit it, I did it all," Vick said, according to Martin. "I did everything."
    "Martin," in this case, is Vick's defense attorney.
    As a historian, I essentially parse words for a living. Try as I might, however, I can't come up with a second plausible way of reading that.

    Reading further...
    "At the end of the Oct. 12 polygraph examination, Vick finally acknowledged killing a dog. 'I carried a dog over to Phillips, who tied a rope around its neck,' Vick told the polygrapher, according to Gill. 'I dropped the dog.'"

    Again, pretty damning stuff straight from the horse's mouth.
    Yes, but you seem to have forgotten that Vick is an Eagle Scout, who goes to church on Sunday, bakes pies for poor people, and donates his salary to help needy orphans. He would never hurt a dog. He simply gave money to some old friends. How was he to know that they would be killing dogs? Just because they had an operation called Bad Newz kennels, on Vick's very own property, where there were a couple of dozen dogs. That could just be coincidence. And just because he admitted killing the dogs, and admitted knowing about the operation doesn't mean anything. Don't we all admit to serious felonies incorporatein vicious cruelty when we actually didn't do anything at all - even when we have an incredible defense team? I'm sure vick learned from OJ that you might as well admit things you didn't do rather than go to trial - after all there are no examples of a wealthy athlete with good legal counsel getting off in a trial, are there?

    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA

    Thread hijack

    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    (see my avatar).
    What kind of handsome beast is that, Wilson?

    </hijack>

    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAlumna View Post
    What kind of handsome beast is that, Wilson?
    Half English bulldog, half boxer(?). His body is pretty much classic boxer, but his head is ginormous, and some of his facial expressions (as well as his temperament) are classic bulldog.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by wilson View Post
    Half English bulldog, half boxer(?). His body is pretty much classic boxer, but his head is ginormous, and some of his facial expressions (as well as his temperament) are classic bulldog.
    That's a cool mix. I thought he was a bulldog from the face shot.

    I tell my guy he's a mix between the world's funniest looking cocker spaniel and a squirrel, but in truth he's pure cocker.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    ← Bay / Valley ↓
    Quote Originally Posted by billybreen View Post
    That's a cool mix. I thought he was a bulldog from the face shot.

    I tell my guy he's a mix between the world's funniest looking cocker spaniel and a squirrel, but in truth he's pure cocker.
    While the thread's been semi-hijacked...
    icanhascheezburger now has a dog-version

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAlumna View Post
    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.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    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.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    I, for one, find it hard to believe that our founding fathers possibly saw in the 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.
    Wow, I think I understood a greybeard post! And weirder still, I think he raises a good question, one that I find hard to answer logically.

    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?)

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    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.
    Are you suggesting that given no strict langauge in the constitution, cruelty to animals shouldn't be a crime? Perhaps you could host a TV show where people beat dogs, cats, and horses to death. I'm sure there would be a market for it, and you seem to be making an argument that it should not be against the law.

    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.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (Buckhead)
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    Are you suggesting that given no strict langauge in the constitution, cruelty to animals shouldn't be a crime? Perhaps you could host a TV show where people beat dogs, cats, and horses to death. I'm sure there would be a market for it, and you seem to be making an argument that it should not be against the law.

    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 frineds 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 that he owned fair and square exactly as he wished. Folks were free to beat childfren with tobacco 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.
    Not to mention that it is commonly accepted in professional pschyological circles that a "red flag" indicator of disturbed, dangerous, criminals-to-be is the horrible abuse of animals.

    Normal, safe people that are no threat to society don't go around hanging, drowing and electrocuting dogs for pleasure and entertainment.

    -EarlJam

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAlumna View Post
    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?)
    I don't think you need to avoid it. Laws reflect the will of the people, and the vast majority believe that dogs and other animals treated exclusively as pets deserve protections similar to (but on a lesser degree than) other family members. The animals have a very different role in society, and that role is codified in our laws. Makes sense.

    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.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (Buckhead)
    Quote Originally Posted by billybreen View Post
    I don't think you need to avoid it. Laws reflect the will of the people, and the vast majority believe that dogs and other animals treated exclusively as pets deserve protections similar to (but on a lesser degree than) other family members. The animals have a very different role in society, and that role is codified in our laws. Makes sense.

    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.
    Basically, the behavior is twisted and sick, and those doing it knew it was twisted and sick.

    -EarlJam

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lexington, KY

    Entering the Twilight Zone

    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.
    Cheers,
    Lavabe

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    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.
    The question, imo, is loaded, and thus non-answerable. Unless your name is Justice Thomas or Scalia, chances are you believe in a legal system beyond the realm of the Constitution. The easiest answer I have to your question is with another question - where in the Constitution does it mention a right to privacy? I'll save you the trouble - it doesn't. And yet, a woman's right to choose is grounded in this very "right."

    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.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Lavabe View Post
    1) My Billybreen, how did you get past the filter?
    Wait, I did what to a filter?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 04:04 PM
  2. Vick Cartoon
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 09:49 AM
  3. Vick is done
    By JDSBlueDevl in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 01:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •