RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message


Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 9:16:16 PM)

Plus, it's not like they're shooting them to kill them right away. First they torture them, starve them, feed them gunpowder, deprive them of all kinds of necessities of life, and then they put them in a cage with another enraged dog and cheer while the two rip the flesh off of each other and bleed to death. Shoot a deer with a rifle and kill it? Torture a dog and make put it in a cage to be ripped apart? The difference seems obvious to me.




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 9:54:12 PM)

That's a great point Lynn. Torturing these poor dogs and killing them the way they did is just unbelievable. I don't agree at all with this situation (not a shock to anyone that's paid attention) but I can see the argument of: 1. We kill deer (or deers as Marbury called them), cows, geeseses and all that ect... 2. it's a sport 3. His dogs, his business If that's your take, how can justify and/or reason the way those poor things were put down? I still wouldn't like it, but if they just shot them in the head, and did it quickly, it would be at least something respectful. THEY TORTURE KILLED THEM FOR NO REASON.




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 10:28:35 PM)

"the animals we do decide can be killed for sport is kinda arbitrary at times." BINGO It reminds me of the debate where some people are for abortion but against war




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 10:37:22 PM)

good counter Lynn




Jim Frenette -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 12:20:24 AM)

Marbury also states that Vick is a superb athlete. Is that suppose to give him a pass? As sad as this sounds, I'm sure others will ignore the fact that 4 people got jail time for these dog fights and will continue to have them.




Jim Frenette -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 1:35:40 AM)

I see Marbury retracted his statement from yesterday saying MV was in the wrong. I'm wondering if some people had a talk with him?




Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 5:14:09 AM)

Hunting is fine as long as it's not for pure trophy reasons. Poaching and fining is reprehensible to me. I mean we have to kill some of them or else they starve, right? I agree with what Jeff said earlier. If these dogs were handled (euthanized) with any sense of dignity, comments like that of Marbury's might carry a little weight.




Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 5:15:26 AM)

[quote="Troy Newell"][quote="Easy E"] I'm not saying dogfighting should be legal, just that the animals we do decide can be killed for sport is kinda arbitrary at times. I'm fine with killing deer (or even bear, elk, etc) and not dogs, but I can see where some might think the two are similar.[/quote] I can't. Cats and Dogs are a special category of animals. Lots and lots of people treat their cats and dogs almost but not quite the same as they do their children. Once people start sharing their beds with deer, bears, and the like, maybe I could change my mind, but not until then.[/quote] Like I said, I make the distinction myself, I see the difference. I believe Vick should see the inside of jail and be banned from the NFL. I'm just saying the feelings we have are kind of arbitrary. In some countries dogs are nothing special and are used for food just like cows. In fact, some countries revere cows more than we do dogs. They think we're sick for killing cows... are they right? Is the issue the type of animal? Cuz people make pets out of geese, ducks, rabbits, etc, but we seem to be ok with hunting and killing them. Or is it the treatment of the animals? And if it's the treatment of animals, why are we ok with the truly sick torture we inflict on animals (including cats and dogs) in the name of "science", i.e. cosmetics. Or the horrid conditions of certain animals, like chickens and veal calves? Or is it the special combination? I guess that's kind of it. If you substituted cocks instead of pitbulls, would it/should it be the same? I would never, ever consider treating a dog or cat that way, and I've donated money to causes that fight inhumane treatement of animals. I just wonder if everyone that is disgusted by Vick thinks about those same things. I think a lot of the posters here do, but I don't think a lot of others do.




Troy Newell -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 1:22:29 PM)

[quote="Easy E"][quote="Troy Newell"][quote="Easy E"] I'm not saying dogfighting should be legal, just that the animals we do decide can be killed for sport is kinda arbitrary at times. I'm fine with killing deer (or even bear, elk, etc) and not dogs, but I can see where some might think the two are similar.[/quote] I can't. Cats and Dogs are a special category of animals. Lots and lots of people treat their cats and dogs almost but not quite the same as they do their children. Once people start sharing their beds with deer, bears, and the like, maybe I could change my mind, but not until then.[/quote] Like I said, I make the distinction myself, I see the difference. I believe Vick should see the inside of jail and be banned from the NFL. I'm just saying the feelings we have are kind of arbitrary. In some countries dogs are nothing special and are used for food just like cows. In fact, some countries revere cows more than we do dogs. They think we're sick for killing cows... are they right? Is the issue the type of animal? Cuz people make pets out of geese, ducks, rabbits, etc, but we seem to be ok with hunting and killing them. Or is it the treatment of the animals? And if it's the treatment of animals, why are we ok with the truly sick torture we inflict on animals (including cats and dogs) in the name of "science", i.e. cosmetics. Or the horrid conditions of certain animals, like chickens and veal calves? Or is it the special combination? I guess that's kind of it. If you substituted cocks instead of pitbulls, would it/should it be the same? I would never, ever consider treating a dog or cat that way, and I've donated money to causes that fight inhumane treatement of animals. I just wonder if everyone that is disgusted by Vick thinks about those same things. I think a lot of the posters here do, but I don't think a lot of others do.[/quote] I do understand what you are saying. While I believe that the line is drawn at cats and dogs for most people, there are also plenty of others that have their own lines as well. When I was a child, my grandfather operated a dairy farm and I grew up right behind it. He could literally name his cows and still eat them when the time came. I love beef, but will not touch veal. Part of the reason is emotional, I have actually bottle feed baby cows when I was little, part is practical, that allowing a cow to grow up feeds many more people. On the other side of the coin, I will not hesitate to put a loved pet down IF it is suffering and has no chance to recover and is only very slowly and painfully dying, for which I have been called a horrible person by some people that don't believe you should ever put a pet down.




Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 1:38:21 PM)

On the other side of the coin, I will not hesitate to put a loved pet down IF it is suffering and has no chance to recover and is only very slowly and painfully dying, for which I have been called a horrible person by some people that don't believe you should ever put a pet down. What!? I went after someone a bit in here because they preferred to take the dog out back and shoot it vs taking it to the vet for the needle but I can't imagine anyone being against euthanizing the pet in general. I've watched both a parent and a pet in the last throws of cancer/liver shut down. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. My dog would have been put down if I my vet hadn't convinced me she could be turned around. I couldn't afford the tests to know how sick my dog really was but if I knew I would have put her down after the first vet visit after a 1-2 day effort to send her off right. IE last meal and tons of treats. Totally for euthanasia for people too.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 2:12:54 PM)

-- Vick Won't Admit to Killing Dogs or Gambling -- Fri Aug 24, 2007 AP reports QB Michael Vick will reportedly not admit to killing dogs or gambling when he enters a guilty plea on Monday.




Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 2:14:55 PM)

[quote="Duane Sampson"]-- Vick Won't Admit to Killing Dogs or Gambling -- Fri Aug 24, 2007 AP reports QB Michael Vick will reportedly not admit to killing dogs or gambling when he enters a guilty plea on Monday. [/quote] I was just going to post that. Doesn't want to plead to the 2 things that carry the most scrutiny from the NFL. I say screw the plea and make him stand trial for it all. Why let him pick and choose. He's really in no place to make a deal IMO anyway.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 2:18:04 PM)

Falcons | Vick refuses killing dogs, gambling Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:23 -0700 Updating an ongoing story, ESPN.com reports Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has refused to admit to killing dogs and gambling on dogfighting when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, Va., federal court Monday. The one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting. He will admit he was present when dogs were killed, but he did not personally kill any of the dogs.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 2:18:48 PM)

Falcons | Vick deep into dogfighting Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:51:27 -0700 Matt Kempner, of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick was deep into dogfighting, according to his father, Michael Boddie. Boddie said he tried to push his son to quit dogfighting years ago or, at least, put property used for the fights in the name of friends. He also said he kept some of Vick's fighting dogs in the family's backyard and nursed the dogs back to health. Vick has refused to speak to his father for the past 2 1/2 months.




Jim Frenette -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 5:20:18 PM)

[quote="Duane Sampson"]Falcons | Vick refuses killing dogs, gambling Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:23 -0700 Updating an ongoing story, ESPN.com reports Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has refused to admit to killing dogs and gambling on dogfighting when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, Va., federal court Monday. The one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting. He will admit he was present when dogs were killed, but he did not personally kill any of the dogs.[/quote] If this is the deal the Justice dept came up with, then they should be fired. This is outrageous and I hope the judge refuses the plea bargain. I also hope PETA is outside the court house all weekend calling for true justice.




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 7:56:32 PM)

[quote="Jim Frenette"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Falcons | Vick refuses killing dogs, gambling Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:15:23 -0700 Updating an ongoing story, ESPN.com reports Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has refused to admit to killing dogs and gambling on dogfighting when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, Va., federal court Monday. The one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting. He will admit he was present when dogs were killed, but he did not personally kill any of the dogs.[/quote] If this is the deal the Justice dept came up with, then they should be fired. This is outrageous and I hope the judge refuses the plea bargain. I also hope PETA is outside the court house all weekend calling for true justice.[/quote] That would be a very weak plea and I don't see how Vick could get a lifetime ban if he didn't participate nor gamble.




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 8:11:29 PM)

Can a judge refuse a plea? Sorry if that's a stupid question.




El Duderino -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 8:26:08 PM)

I'm not certain. I know the judge can step in if he or she knows that the defendant is agreeing to something that they didn't do, but I don't know if that goes the other way. I would think not, as the DA has ultimate say on what somebody is charged with. But, IANAL, so take it for what you will.




So.Mn.Fan -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 8:49:23 PM)

[quote="Jeff Jesser"]Can a judge refuse a plea? Sorry if that's a stupid question.[/quote] What is a judge's role in a plea bargain? There are a variety of different forms of plea bargaining and there are versions in which the judge has a relatively passive role, and in which most of the pressures are brought by the prosecutor. This is typically called "charge bargaining." (In charge bargaining, the prosecutor threatens to bring a large number of charges or to intensify the charges and recommend the high end of the sentencing range.) In other forms of plea bargaining, typically called "sentence bargaining," the judge may have a larger role and can be the real driving force. The standards of judicial ethics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and so judges are more involved in some places than in others. In many jurisdictions, the judge may bring everybody back into his office and sit them down and pressure them until the cases get worked out -- particularly judges who want to get cases off their trial calendar. The judge always has the power to reject the plea offer negotiated between the prosecutor and the accused, and many judges will, if they don't think the sentence is severe enough, or for other reasons.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:03:08 PM)

The plea agree agreement is between the prosecutor and the defense lawyer. The judge can sentence him any way he wants to.




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:07:52 PM)

Good info fella's.




Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:09:16 PM)

On ESPN now they're saying that the plea agreement DOES have Vick admitting to actually killing six dogs this year, but that he denies having killed any previously. So, if that's correct, he's admitting to some staggering charges.




Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:15:06 PM)

On Beyond the Lines, before this story broke wide open, they had two people on....one a former dogfighter who now serves undercover for the Feds and another Fed agent working the dogfighting network.......both had their identities hidden and both said that Michael Vick was a big money player......gambled big money at the dog fights. This chicken @#$% is worried that admitting to gambling will get him a lifetime ban from the NFL. He is only sorry he has been caught.......not sorry for what he has done with respect to animal cruelty. I hope the Judge gives him the max sentence. Peta will be out in full force on Monday.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:24:29 PM)

-- NAACP Speaks on Vick -- Fri Aug 24, 2007 AP reports Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick "is not a victim" and should be held responsible for his actions involving a dogfighting ring in Virginia, the national president of the NAACP said. "He absolutely must account for what he has done," said Dennis Courtland Hayes, interim president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. But Hayes cautioned against condemning the Atlanta star too quickly. "It's real clear that Mr. Vick himself would acknowledge that he has made a mistake," Hayes said. "I think there is reason to believe in his redemption."




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/24/2007 9:33:41 PM)

that same guy said "Many people love dogs and we understand that but many fans love Mike Vick". :bang:




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode