Michael Vick Accepts Plea Deal Per ESPN

[whitesoxfan101]

Vick is pretty freaking big, not sure who is going to hold him down...It's not like he's going to a maximum security place where the guys that could take him would be.

 

He's like 6 foot, 200 pounds, which is my size with 15 pounds of extra muscle on him. That's far from huge, especially when you consider some of the big, mean dudes in jail. Combine that with Vick being Vick, and he's going to have a long and painful stay in the slammer.

Edited August 20, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[Kyyle23]

How Atlanta Falcons fans feel

 

Some people here, though, were still sticking with Vick, even as most were sticking it to him. In a reader forum on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website, one post maintained, "This is about race no matter how we put it. White folks can shoot ducks all day, but when you fight pit bull against pit bull it is a crime."

 

Hmmmm, one action involves the regulated hunting of an animal, which normally results in instant death. The other involves betting on one animal to completely maul the other until it dies or gives up fighting back, and gambling on the outcome. I cant see why this is such a bad thing

 

Is there anyone who feels that this is a race-fauled witch-hunt who posts regularly here? I would just like to hear a different opinion on this matter. The way i see it, if Taylor, Phillips, and Peace werent dealing drugs AND fighting dogs, Vick would probably be fine right now. But Vicks boys got in trouble because they were busted dealing, and when the authorities showed up, they saw the grand scale of what was really going on.

[whitesoxfan101]

It really can't be about race when ALL OF HIS OWN BLACK FRIENDS pleaed out first to testify against him. If the ignorant want to call it "snitching" in the black community, that's their problem, but to say it's race at all is just there is no support to it.

 

And remember when the Chargers traded Vick for Tomlinson, Brees, and Tim Dwight on draft day? It was already a bad deal for Atlanta, now it's a disaster.

Edited August 21, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll be very curious to see what his plea deal says, sentence-wise. Hopefully he gets at least a couple years.

 

[kapkomet]

I'll be very curious to see what his plea deal says, sentence-wise. Hopefully he gets at least a couple years.

Racist.

[jackie hayes]

How Atlanta Falcons fans feel

Hmmmm, one action involves the regulated hunting of an animal, which normally results in instant death. The other involves betting on one animal to completely maul the other until it dies or gives up fighting back, and gambling on the outcome. I cant see why this is such a bad thing

 

Is there anyone who feels that this is a race-fauled witch-hunt who posts regularly here? I would just like to hear a different opinion on this matter. The way i see it, if Taylor, Phillips, and Peace werent dealing drugs AND fighting dogs, Vick would probably be fine right now. But Vicks boys got in trouble because they were busted dealing, and when the authorities showed up, they saw the grand scale of what was really going on.

I DON'T think that's the case. But there IS a lot of arbitrariness in the way laws treat different forms of animal harm. Hunting may "normally" result in instant death, but that's hardly a defense. It's certainly common for an animal to be wounded and suffer. Foie gras production is not a nice business. Bans on cock fighting have come much more slowly than bans on dog fighting. It may be that the 'quantity of suffering' from dogfighting is greater than that from other sources -- but that's an awfully hard thing to pin down.

 

Now, I'm not trying to pass judgment here. I had a foie gras dog at Hot Doug's just before the bust, I've never once asked about the conditions my meat came from, etc. Just saying, I can understand the argument.

[NorthSideSox72]

I DON'T think that's the case. But there IS a lot of arbitrariness in the way laws treat different forms of animal harm. Hunting may "normally" result in instant death, but that's hardly a defense. It's certainly common for an animal to be wounded and suffer. Foie gras production is not a nice business. Bans on cock fighting have come much more slowly than bans on dog fighting. It may be that the 'quantity of suffering' from dogfighting is greater than that from other sources -- but that's an awfully hard thing to pin down.

 

Now, I'm not trying to pass judgment here. I had a foie gras dog at Hot Doug's just before the bust, I've never once asked about the conditions my meat came from, etc. Just saying, I can understand the argument.

Pushing past the "quality" of suffering, the other huge difference is purpose. If one kills something to eat, I think that is an entirely different thing than one who kills for sport. And even worse if that killing for sport is cruel, and follows months or years of torture. So I think the motive behind the killing is also a big factor.

 

[jackie hayes]

Pushing past the "quality" of suffering, the other huge difference is purpose. If one kills something to eat, I think that is an entirely different thing than one who kills for sport. And even worse if that killing for sport is cruel, and follows months or years of torture. So I think the motive behind the killing is also a big factor.

I don't agree with that. In principle, sure, killing for sustenance is different. But both hunting and foie gras are very inefficient ways to get nutrition, for the most part. (Hunting maybe a little less so -- partially depends what you hunt.) The reason they persist is pleasure -- hunting for the pleasure of stalking and killing something (for "sport", really), and hunting and foie gras for the pleasure of eating a different sort of meat. Why is the latter pleasure inherently better than the pleasure of "sport"?

 

And I think that, even if it were true that killing (or gavage) for eating is better, there's still a lot of arbitrariness left -- in the different treatment of cock fighting (historically), in the differing attitudes towards eating different species.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't agree with that. In principle, sure, killing for sustenance is different. But both hunting and foie gras are very inefficient ways to get nutrition, for the most part. (Hunting maybe a little less so -- partially depends what you hunt.) The reason they persist is pleasure -- hunting for the pleasure of stalking and killing something (for "sport", really), and hunting and foie gras for the pleasure of eating a different sort of meat. Why is the latter pleasure inherently better than the pleasure of "sport"?

 

And I think that, even if it were true that killing (or gavage) for eating is better, there's still a lot of arbitrariness left -- in the different treatment of cock fighting (historically), in the differing attitudes towards eating different species.

I agree there is definitely different treatment, and some choice of denial. Animals that people think are "smarter", or are just cuter, get more rage on their behalf if they are made to suffer or die. Cock fighting isn't seen as being as bad, even though that makes little sense. I do understand what you are getting at. But I still think that someone who goes out and shoots a deer, and uses the whole animal in some way, is not in the same ballpark as someone who tortures a dog (or even a bird) into being a fighting animal, and then kills it or lets it be killed.

 

[WilliamTell]

It's hard for me to feel bad for Vick, I actually liked watching him play so that'll be something I'll miss just a little bit.

[jackie hayes]

I agree there is definitely different treatment, and some choice of denial. Animals that people think are "smarter", or are just cuter, get more rage on their behalf if they are made to suffer or die. Cock fighting isn't seen as being as bad, even though that makes little sense. I do understand what you are getting at. But I still think that someone who goes out and shoots a deer, and uses the whole animal in some way, is not in the same ballpark as someone who tortures a dog (or even a bird) into being a fighting animal, and then kills it or lets it be killed.

I agree. But in deciding what should and should not be legal, you have to consider all the possible outcomes, not just the successful one. It's possible the hunter could injure the deer and not find it, leaving it to die in pain. Obviously, that's not the intent, but any attempt to legislate against cruelty should be aimed at the actual suffering that would result, not the small amount of suffering intended.

 

(Again, I'm not advocating any sort of legislation against hunting, I'm just talking about what we seem willing to accept.)

[StrangeSox]

I agree. But in deciding what should and should not be legal, you have to consider all the possible outcomes, not just the successful one. It's possible the hunter could injure the deer and not find it, leaving it to die in pain. Obviously, that's not the intent, but any attempt to legislate against cruelty should be aimed at the actual suffering that would result, not the small amount of suffering intended.

 

(Again, I'm not advocating any sort of legislation against hunting, I'm just talking about what we seem willing to accept.)

 

Here's the difference, in my eyes: hunting is a natural process. The predator doesn't always get the prey, so the prey may wander off to die somewhere due to its injuries.

 

Pushing animals to fight and kill is not natural. Dogs (and their non-domesticated cousins) don't act like that towards one another unless trained to do so.

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

 

Welcome to prison, Michael.....

[jackie hayes]

Here's the difference, in my eyes: hunting is a natural process. The predator doesn't always get the prey, so the prey may wander off to die somewhere due to its injuries.

 

Pushing animals to fight and kill is not natural. Dogs (and their non-domesticated cousins) don't act like that towards one another unless trained to do so.

I tend to think about it that way, too, but I sometimes wonder if that's more of a justification than a real belief. It's real tough to define what's "natural", and it's not clear that something is more justifiable just because it's "natural". And of course that doesn't touch on foie gras, etc.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to take the thread off-topic. Back to Ron Mexico, and pass the venison.

[Steff]

 

 

What a dick

[Gregory Pratt]

I sure am glad he's going to get off easy.

[jackie hayes]

What a dick

Nope. (Edit: I mean, he IS a dick. Just about the image.)

 

http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/michaelvick.asp

Edited August 21, 2007 by jackie hayes

[Steff]

Nope. (Edit: I mean, he IS a dick. Just about the image.)

 

http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/michaelvick.asp

 

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

 

[RockRaines]

Wanna know what I hate? The Monday night football goons last night saying how Vick needs to donate thousands of dollars to PETA or the Humane Society to "make it right" with people and to "prove that he has love for animals."

 

Is that what we have become? donate some money and its all good? STFU you retards. I think he has proven through his actions, electrocuting, hanging, murdering dogs at every whim, that he doesnt give a s*** about f***ing animals. He is a piece of crap and no amount of donations are going to change that you goons.

[StrangeSox]

Wanna know what I hate? The Monday night football goons last night saying how Vick needs to donate thousands of dollars to PETA or the Humane Society to "make it right" with people and to "prove that he has love for animals."

 

Is that what we have become? donate some money and its all good? STFU you retards. I think he has proven through his actions, electrocuting, hanging, murdering dogs at every whim, that he doesnt give a s*** about f***ing animals. He is a piece of crap and no amount of donations are going to change that you goons.

 

+1

[NorthSideSox72]

Wanna know what I hate? The Monday night football goons last night saying how Vick needs to donate thousands of dollars to PETA or the Humane Society to "make it right" with people and to "prove that he has love for animals."

 

Is that what we have become? donate some money and its all good? STFU you retards. I think he has proven through his actions, electrocuting, hanging, murdering dogs at every whim, that he doesnt give a s*** about f***ing animals. He is a piece of crap and no amount of donations are going to change that you goons.

Awesomeness, right there.

 

[DrunkBomber]

I didnt read that far back in the thread so it might have been posted. But did anybody else see the interview on ESPN from 2003 where they asked Vick whats 5 things people dont know about him and one of them was his love of animals.

[SoxFan562004]

+1

add me to this. It's kind of sad how some media members, particularly Michael Smith who's filling in for mike and mike this week, are starting the "overreaction" bandwagon moving. It makes me sick.

[Balta1701]

 

[Gregory Pratt]

add me to this. It's kind of sad how some media members, particularly Michael Smith who's filling in for mike and mike this week, are starting the "overreaction" bandwagon moving. It makes me sick.

 

I'll bet many of the people who are in his favor have been involved with dogfights or would be if they had the chance.