Michael Vick Gets 23 Months...

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by WangoTango
I really don't think you can connect this to hunting. People back in the days hunted deer etc. to survive, you don't need to stick two pit bulls into a ring to kill each other to survive.
You don't just go out a shoot a deer for the hell of it, that's inhumane. Usually when you hunt you want the meat, or the body, and usually all you need is a shot, which I would consider humane. Beating it, torturing it, and mutilating it just for the hell of it is not.
What Vick did, throwing dogs into a ring with the intent of just watching them kill each other just for the hell of it is inhumane, and yes he should be punished for it.
I really don't think he is going to do his full sentence either.
-Justin
I find it rather comical when people say that they hunt to survive. SUre in the past this might have been the case but I have yet to meet anyone who could afford all the hunting gear but couldn't feed his/her family. People hunt for sport not for survival.

 

[krista921]

he killed dogs that coulda had great lives elsewhere, that coulda made familys happy
it was senseless murder
and i consider it that

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Krista921
he killed dogs that coulda had great lives elsewhere, that coulda made familys happy
it was senseless murder
and i consider it that
Well I don't think what he did was acceptable but I doubt any of the animals he used would have found good homes, they probably would have found themselves in shelters and then put to sleep. Granted that would be a more humane way to die but they would still be dead.

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I don't think what he did was acceptable but I doubt any of the animals he used would have found good homes, they probably would have found themselves in shelters and then put to sleep. Granted that would be a more humane way to die but they would still be dead.
or maybe they would have gotten into a great home and then mutilated a child...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
It seems to come down to the fact that dogs are cute and furry. If someone were to come here and complain about the inhumane treatment of farm animals, the majority of people would call him/her a tree hugger. Of course, since this is concerning the mistreatment of dogs, people are calling for his head.
I suppose I am just missing the big picture.
Ya, we're just on different pages.
I don't care if it was dogs, cats, wolverines, cattle, gophers or turtles. If a person shows they are capable of electrocuting, bashing to death, drowning, etc. animals just for kicks they are sick and need to be removed from society.

 

[krista921]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ya, we're just on different pages.
I don't care if it was dogs, cats, wolverines, cattle, gophers or turtles. If a person shows they are capable of electrocuting, bashing to death, drowning, etc. animals just for kicks they are sick and need to be removed from society.
thats what im sayin
and just because a dog is a pitbull doesnt mean its gonna mutilate a child
not to mention the beagles he used for bait
or would they bark too much anyways
pests

 

[ruaround]

Originally Posted by Krista921
thats what im sayin
and just because a dog is a pitbull doesnt mean its gonna mutilate a child
not to mention the beagles he used for bait
or would they bark too much anyways
pests
hence the reason i said "maybe"...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Krista921
thats what im sayin
and just because a dog is a pitbull doesnt mean its gonna mutilate a child
not to mention the beagles he used for bait
or would they bark too much anyways
pests
he used beagles for bait? Burn vick burn

Those are some of the sweetest dogs there are.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ya, we're just on different pages.
I don't care if it was dogs, cats, wolverines, cattle, gophers or turtles. If a person shows they are capable of electrocuting, bashing to death, drowning, etc. animals just for kicks they are sick and need to be removed from society.
I agree with you that what he did was sick and wrong, but I'm not sure prison is the right type of punishment. Now, if I found out he was beating his girlfriend or something of the sort, then I'd agree he's obviously a threat to society and should be locked away.

 

[wangotango]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I find it rather comical when people say that they hunt to survive. SUre in the past this might have been the case but I have yet to meet anyone who could afford all the hunting gear but couldn't feed his/her family. People hunt for sport not for survival.
As I stated it was people back then that hunted for survival, not modern people. Even now, people don't go hunting just to kill something for the hell of it, nor do they bludgeon, beat, and mutilate the animal.
Like I said and like everyone else has said, if you're just killing animals for the hell of it then there is something wrong with you. Look at any famous serial killer case. The majority of these killers started out killing and mutilating animals for fun. It's not the sport hunters that become serial killers.
-Justin

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by WangoTango
As I stated it was people back then that hunted for survival, not modern people. Even now, people don't go hunting just to kill something for the hell of it, nor do they bludgeon, beat, and mutilate the animal.
Like I said and like everyone else has said, if you're just killing animals for the hell of it then there is something wrong with you. Look at any famous serial killer case. The majority of these killers started out killing and mutilating animals for fun. It's not the sport hunters that become serial killers.
-Justin
It seems like the same reason why people hunt or participate in dog fighting, for entertainment at the expense of an animal's life. I don't see how the fact that in the PAST people hunted for surivival has anything to do with people hunting now, now they hunt for sport.
As far as people who torture animals turning into serial killers I have to disagree again. I already mentioned that it is juveniles who torture animals who have an increased chance of developing an anti-social disorder. I have yet to see any study showing a correlation between adults who particpate in cruel activities showing any increased threat to humans.

 

[cleanrshrmpfan]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think its a litte harsh. He's lost more than most people in this situation and has already paid a stiff price. I think a year (12 mos) in jail would be more fair in my opinion. There are people who do worse things and get lighter sentences. I think this case was handled the way it was too show him as an example to others, and to ease public pressure from groups such as PETA. After he completes his sentence, he should have the opportunity to play in the NFL again. Once a person has paid their debt to society, they should be given the opportunity to make a living. There is no rule in the NFL that states he is unable to return. If he is physically able to perform, he deserves to get back in. I think his presence in the NFL would be benefitial to the league as a mentor or spokesperson. There have been other players that went to jail and were allowed to return... why shouldn't he.
umm yup your wrong there is a rule that should get him kicked out for ever. gambling. pete rose gambled and was kicked out for ever. there is a no gambeling rule so hes should be gone

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by cleanrshrmpfan
umm yup your wrong there is a rule that should get him kicked out for ever. gambling. pete rose gambled and was kicked out for ever. there is a no gambeling rule so hes should be gone
I think the issue is slightly different between Vick and Rose. Rose apparently gambled on baseball while he was a player and a manager in baseball, it was kind of a conflict of interest issue.

 

[cleanrshrmpfan]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think its a litte harsh. He's lost more than most people in this situation and has already paid a stiff price. I think a year (12 mos) in jail would be more fair in my opinion. There are people who do worse things and get lighter sentences. I think this case was handled the way it was too show him as an example to others, and to ease public pressure from groups such as PETA. After he completes his sentence, he should have the opportunity to play in the NFL again. Once a person has paid their debt to society, they should be given the opportunity to make a living. There is no rule in the NFL that states he is unable to return. If he is physically able to perform, he deserves to get back in. I think his presence in the NFL would be benefitial to the league as a mentor or spokesperson. There have been other players that went to jail and were allowed to return... why shouldn't he.
umm yup your wrong there is a rule that should get him kicked out for ever. gambling. pete rose gambled and was kicked out for ever. there is a no gambeling rule so hes should be gone

 

[beth]

If anyone here thinks that the NFL is full of saints, think again. My guess is that vics activities was common knowledge, and that many in the NFL circle participated.
In a civilized society, and yes that is what we are, such actions are abhorrent and punishable. He got what he deserved. If he actually murdered a human being his sentence would have been a lot more than a few months. It was dogs, so he got a few months. Hopefully illegal gambling charges will also be piled on.
Someone like this must have a very deviant personality. And I find it hard to believe that that deviance is only applicable to dogs.

 

[wangotango]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
It seems like the same reason why people hunt or participate in dog fighting, for entertainment at the expense of an animal's life. I don't see how the fact that in the PAST people hunted for surivival has anything to do with people hunting now, now they hunt for sport.
As far as people who torture animals turning into serial killers I have to disagree again. I already mentioned that it is juveniles who torture animals who have an increased chance of developing an anti-social disorder. I have yet to see any study showing a correlation between adults who particpate in cruel activities showing any increased threat to humans.
No I don't think people hunt and have dog fights for the same reason. People who have dog fights just enjoy watching dogs beat the crap out of each other until there is a heap of bloody flesh, and making money off of bets. Everyone who I know that hunts usually shoots a deer for a reason other than just killing the animal. They don't shoot it then leave, they shoot it because they want some venecin, or mount the darn thing on the wall. A quick shot to the head is far more humane than letting the animals chew each other to pieces.
I didn't site a study either. Most people who become serial killers don't wake up and decide to start killing people. When they're young they have anger issues, social disorders, and go after animals because they're easy targets.
Here's a case that happened in southern NY state only a few years ago. A kid only about 12yrs old killed a younger kid. Looking back on his childhood, he killed birds, squirels, and cats. Not just killed, but skinned, and mutilated. There are plenty more.
I'm not saying that once Vick gets out of prison that he's going to start axing people up, but people who enjoy just killing stuff for the hell of it, not sport hunting, just killing because it's fun to watch, don't usually turn out to be sweet loving people.
-Justin

 

[wangotango]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again, have you read how the dogs were killed?
I'm not a fan of hunting btw, but you can't compare the two things. The motiviations for the different acts are totally different.
I still think journey hit the nail on the head. Killing an animal, sure I'd say that's ok. Hunting or fishing, you get something out of that animal. If I was to go fishing, I'd either eat the fish, take a picture of it then release it. That's humane. If I was to take it out of the water, throw it on the shore, beat it with a rock, run over it with my car, chop it up and throw it in the water just crosses the line, and that's what Michael Vick did. Can't he play football with his buddies for entertainment? Why would it be considered ok or the equivilent of hunting to run dog fights?
-Justin

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by cleanrshrmpfan
umm yup your wrong there is a rule that should get him kicked out for ever. gambling. pete rose gambled and was kicked out for ever. there is a no gambeling rule so hes should be gone
wow, 2 different sports buddy. Rose bet on baseball, in games he has played in or managed.
To give a brief history lesson, baseball was forever scarred after 1919 when the White Sox "threw" I say that loosely because they were actually aquitted in court. The idea of a conspiracy was sooo earthshaking to the sport that Landis the commissioner for baseball during that time, suspended them all for life. This and other incidents molded the culture of the game where gambling became sac-religious and the unforgivable sin in the church of baseball. Thus when it was discovered that Rose (one of the all time greats) had violated this tennant, he was removed from the game. For gambling on the outcome of the games.
Now I used to play poker in the bowels of the Ballpark in Arlington. It is unreasonable to thing that grown men, with tons of money don't gamble. On anything from contests in the batting cages to poker in the clubhouse. But there is one rule you will never come back from, and that is gambling on the actual game of baseball. Now that being said, Vick played football

Two different governing bodies. Thus one set of rules for baseball, vs another set for football.
Vick gambling on a dog has nothing to do with the game. Thus your argument does not correlate to Rose, Joe Jackson or any other of the Black Sox members.

 

[cleanrshrmpfan]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
wow, 2 different sports buddy. Rose bet on baseball, in games he has played in or managed.
To give a brief history lesson, baseball was forever scarred after 1919 when the White Sox "threw" I say that loosely because they were actually aquitted in court. The idea of a conspiracy was sooo earthshaking to the sport that Landis the commissioner for baseball during that time, suspended them all for life. This and other incidents molded the culture of the game where gambling became sac-religious and the unforgivable sin in the church of baseball. Thus when it was discovered that Rose (one of the all time greats) had violated this tennant, he was removed from the game. For gambling on the outcome of the games.
Now I used to play poker in the bowels of the Ballpark in Arlington. It is unreasonable to thing that grown men, with tons of money don't gamble. On anything from contests in the batting cages to poker in the clubhouse. But there is one rule you will never come back from, and that is gambling on the actual game of baseball. Now that being said, Vick played football

Two different governing bodies. Thus one set of rules for baseball, vs another set for football.
Vick gambling on a dog has nothing to do with the game. Thus your argument does not correlate to Rose, Joe Jackson or any other of the Black Sox members.
there is still a no gambling clause in the rule book for football. that means no gambling of any kind, and on top of that Vick still faces charges for illeagal gambling in virginia and the NFL wont take that into consideration untill vick gets trial for that (which is set for after he comes out of prison)

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by WangoTango
No I don't think people hunt and have dog fights for the same reason. People who have dog fights just enjoy watching dogs beat the crap out of each other until there is a heap of bloody flesh, and making money off of bets. Everyone who I know that hunts usually shoots a deer for a reason other than just killing the animal. They don't shoot it then leave, they shoot it because they want some venecin, or mount the darn thing on the wall. A quick shot to the head is far more humane than letting the animals chew each other to pieces.
I didn't site a study either. Most people who become serial killers don't wake up and decide to start killing people. When they're young they have anger issues, social disorders, and go after animals because they're easy targets.
Here's a case that happened in southern NY state only a few years ago. A kid only about 12yrs old killed a younger kid. Looking back on his childhood, he killed birds, squirels, and cats. Not just killed, but skinned, and mutilated. There are plenty more.
I'm not saying that once Vick gets out of prison that he's going to start axing people up, but people who enjoy just killing stuff for the hell of it, not sport hunting, just killing because it's fun to watch, don't usually turn out to be sweet loving people.
-Justin
There is a difference between hunting and dog fighting, the major difference is in our society one is accepted and the other is not. In the past and in other societies dog fighting is considered a sport. Killing an animals just to cut its head off to mount it on a wall, or catching a fish just to take it out of the water with a hook in its mouth just for a picture and bragging rights seems pretty inhumane to me, however our current society allows that behavior and gets freaked out if anything happens to a cute furry animal.
Concerning the child you spoke of, I agree that sadistic behavior toward animals in children has a correlation to psychological problems as adults however I have see no correlation between an adult participating in a cruel society unacceptable activity that at one point in time was considered an accepted sport, with cruelty toward other peoples or any other psychological problems.