General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 07-24-2007, 03:06 PM

This is the biggest pet news since dogfood coming from China. I want to know what other people think about this? And how many people have even heard the news?

**DaveMo~** · 07-24-2007, 09:27 PM

I had no idea what you were talking about until I Blingo'ed it....and then saw that it was in you latest blog....hmm....

So what's to think about someone that is indicted on a felony offense?

Dave

**seolman** · 10:38 PM

I think anyone who subjects animals to that kind of cruelty has some serious personality issues. One thing most serial killers have in common: they like to torture or kill animals.

Having said that, if the guy wasn't 'Vick the Quarterback' he wouldn't be garnering such attention. I'm guessing they'll be making a serious example of him due to his notoriety.

**vangogh** · 07-25-2007, 12:48 AM

I've been following this story for awhile. First think everyone is entitled to due process and Michael Vick hasn't been found guilty of anything. Public opinion has already condemned him and I have to say I think we'll find he did everything he's been accused of, but he is innocent until proven guilty.

What he's accused of doing is despicable and I think the best thing for the NFL is to give him the paid year off until it all plays out. If he's guilty he's done with football and if he's found innocent we'll have to see.

Hey Vansponge you look familiar. Have we met before? I could swear we've spent some time in Paris. Have you been to Arles? It's beautiful and sunny here and you'll want to paint everything you see.

Look me up. I live in the yellow house in town next to the brothel.

**ForrestCroce** · 07-25-2007, 01:33 AM

I haven't been following this ... I just don't follow sports. I have to say, if anyone catnapped Parsley for animal fighting, well, she'd probably win, but I'd be in need of a legal defense fund.

It's possible the guy isn't guilty. I hope so ... mostly because not knowing any of the details, I hope that would mean it didn't actually happen. But the court of public opinion and the court of law aren't the same thing. OJ is a pretty famous example. And also notorious only because of his fame, which came out of sports. I wonder how much of the press is because the guy is a quarterback, and how much is because it's dogs?

So, naturally, I clicked the blog link, and I hate to spoil it for everyone, but the post ends with "People love their dogs more than they love football." I think that's the truth ... I had a basset hound growing up, and he was basically a member of the family.

**Cheshire_cat** · 07-25-2007, 11:20 AM

Being from Georgia, this has been the topic of conversation of all conversation. I did not like Vick before this happened anyways so hopefully he is gone for good. To me the big thing was not the dog fighting as disturbing as that is but to hear how they killed the dogs (electrocution, throwing down, and hanging) is just beyond sick. I mean really, it sounds like someone needed a hug as a child.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMo~

So what's to think about someone that is indicted on a felony offense?

That's part of my question. Do we really owe it to the guy to let the court decide what we think?

From all the news I've seen, I notice the guy hasn't said "Wait, I'm not guilty here."

**vangogh** · 07-25-2007, 04:18 PM

John I've noticed that too, which is one of the things leading to me believe he is guilty. But I do think we owe him due process. If not our entire system of law falls apart. It would mean anyone could be convicted based solely on accusation.

Phil I bet you're hearing more debate than any of us at the moment. Hearing how they killed the dogs that weren't winning as much as they'd have liked was pretty disturbing. The whole thing is really.

My guess is Vick will be found guilty and it's the last we see him on a football field. Even if he someone is found not guilty it's hard to see anyone wanting to take a chance having him on their team.

**cinbadd** · 07-28-2007, 02:45 PM

He deserves "due process". Nothing more, nothing less. Just the fact that dog fighting was happening on his property-- with or without his knowledge-- is enough to give him "time off" to clear things up. I don't get paid if I don't show up for work. I'm responsible for what happens at my house, whether I'm home or not. Should be the same for Vick.

**B-Scott** · 07-28-2007, 03:02 PM

If this is true ,then i think Vick needs to spend a good 10 years in prison. This is cruelty to animals.

What's the most disturbing is what they do to these dogs when they are unable to win to dog fight.

**DaveMo~** · 07-28-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I mean really, it sounds like someone needed a hug as a child.

I think he needed more than a hug, like maybe some good discipline!

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

John I've noticed that too, which is one of the things leading to me believe he is guilty. But I do think we owe him due process. If not our entire system of law falls apart. It would mean anyone could be convicted based solely on accusation.

He is entitled to due process and is innocent until proven guilty. This has hit the headlines only because of who he is. If it were vangogh, then the headlines would be way back in the paper....well, maybe not since we all know him here and he's so popular....bad example, he'd be on the front page too!

It seems that if the average Joe is arrested for something and can't spend time at work, most places will fire him. But that's not always the case with celebs, huh?

Dave

**vangogh** · 07-29-2007, 01:44 PM

Dave if I ever make the front page I hope it's for something other than this. I agree though that if it weren't Michael Vick we wouldn't be hearing about this. It's part of the price of celebrity.

Celebrity has its pros and cons. On the one hand Vick will be paid to not work this year. On the other hand the public will be following the case.

**BoutiqueMusic** · 07-29-2007, 03:31 PM

My dad was a cop and he said that 98% of the time they knew they were arresting the right guy. I agree about the whole innocent until proven guilty thing but as a matter of discussion I find cruelty to animals, dogs especially, reprehensible. I have also been working with local lawmakers towards outlawing that breed in our county.

**ForrestCroce** · 07-29-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

Dave if I ever make the front page I hope it's for something other than this. I agree though that if it weren't Michael Vick we wouldn't be hearing about this. It's part of the price of celebrity.

I don't know if that's the case here. I'm sure if Paris Hilton weren't somehow a "celebrity" we wouldn't hear incessantly about her DUI. And that she wouldn't get out of jail free.

But the more I hear about this, the more horrific it sounds. I've always seen the pets I've had as part of the family, and I think most people would say that. Maybe it's only because Seattle is such a dog-friendly city, but if John Doe down the street was caught doing the same things, I think the news would spread like wildfire at least through the town, and the guy would be hung from the nearest Space Needle. People have been inviting me to protests on Monday, and I have to admit I've been tempted to bring my camera and "cover" the event. It was canceled now that Nike won't have anything to do with the guy.

I think him being a celebrity, at least among sports people, gives the story a lot of momentum. But I don't care about or follow sports, at all, and I know about this.

**vangogh** · 07-29-2007, 08:42 PM

I agree this is something we would have heard about regardless of who was involved, but not to the extent it's being covered.

Without a doubt the crime itself is truly heinous. But this is also not likely the first time something like this has happened.

I don't think you have to be a sports fan to hear about this story. Michael Vick is large enough in the world of sports that he's mainstream news.

Personally I do think he'll be convicted, but I still think due process is very important. Without it people are convicted based on an accusation. That might seem fine until someone accuses you of something.

While I too think he's most likely guilty it's not fair to decide someone is guilty just because the crime is something so horrible.

**ForrestCroce** · 07-29-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

I still think due process is very important. Without it people are convicted based on an accusation. That might seem fine until someone accuses you of something.

I agree with you about everything ... except that it's not a problem until it happens to me. I even think it's a fair price for society to pay for a murder to go free, every now and then, in exchange for a careful justice system that doesn't throw innocent people in jail. Republikin said that not long ago in a thread in here, otherwise I would think this is why people tend to think I'm a liberal. Nobody wants to live in a world where your business competitor can tell the police you're a spy and get you executed, or where you can be in an argument with a spouse and jailed for domestic violence if it didn't happen. Without wanting to offend people who've lost somebody to crime, I think part of a free society is understanding that every now and then a jury will get it wrong, and being as careful as possible to keep that from happening.

**vangogh** · 07-30-2007, 11:15 PM

That's exactly how I feel. I know it's hard to see guilty people go free, but I think it's better than putting innocent people away.

**psylocke** · 07-31-2007, 06:52 AM

Dog fight is horrible.. i have pets and i love them so much.. how could this people stand to do that?

**Learning Newbie** · 07-31-2007, 01:48 PM

So here's the part that bothers me about peoples reaction. Everybody keeps saying the man deserves due process and his day in court, before the court of public opinion condemns him. That's true, but in a very limited way, and NOT in the way people are talking about. The man deserves due process before any legal sanction (punishment) consequences can be applied for his actions.

The crimes have already occurred. That's in the past. The matter of Michael Vick's guilt or innocence (TODAY) in a legal sense depends on an adjudication, but in a broader sense, as a human being, the rest of society has every right to condemn the man. And it's quite obvious he will NOT be exonerated, as he claims. Not considering the plea bargain his partner in crime has made with the prosecution, a partner who will be testifying against Mr Vick's involvement. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the cell phone videos begin showing up.

But as a free American citizen, I'm well within my rights to be disgusted by the man's crimes. And I'm entitled to speak my mind freely.

Nobody has tried to stop ME from doing so, but the pretend sense of restraint the media are practicing makes me almost as sick as the dogfights themselves. How can they report with a straight face that the man had no idea what was going on in his own house? There was a serial killer who was found with ten naked women chained up in his basement, he said they must have came with the house, he'd never been down to the basement. Nobody believed that nonsense for a second. I don't know why it's different now?

**vangogh** · 07-31-2007, 06:00 PM

John I can understand, but the problem is we don't 'know' that he's guilty. As I've said I think he is, but I've been wrong before about things.

A crime has been committed and it's a horrible crime that offends most of us. But Michael Vick has still only been accused and until a court finds him guilty we have to presume his innocence.

Again I think he's guilty too, but I only think it based on things I've heard in the news. None of the things any of us have heard or seen are actually evidence of anything at the moment. Now I give you there's a lot of things pointing to Vick which is why he's been condemned in public, but you are innocent until proven guilty. When the proof comes it's a different story, but what we all know now is not proof.

It's not that hard to make it seem like someone is guilty by making accusations and dropping a few well placed things in the media. If you don't give people their day in court then any one of us can easily be made to look guilty of a crime and convicted for things we didn't do.

The system isn't perfect, but presuming innocence does protect all of us. And regardless of what we all think Michael Vick may have done we don't yet know beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's not fair to convict someone based on public opinion.