vick sentenced

[TGilb2007]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I've found this case to be very interesting on many levels and specifically for the diversity of opinion on it. It seems that from a legal perspective Vick was found guilty and punished more on the basis that he was running an illegal dog fighting ring and not so much on the basis of how the dogs were being treated. However, the treatment of the dogs was the focus of the media. I just think it makes for an interesting dicotomy in society. It's OK to slaughter thousands upon thousands of animals for food. It is OK to cage them up in zoos. It's OK to euthanize thousands of unwanted pets. It's OK to force greyhounds to race...etc. However, for some reason what Vick did is not OK.

***I want to interject here that I do eat meat. I think what Vick did was despicable. I do love dogs.***

I have been to a slaughterhouse as part of my previous job in the trucking business. Anyone who thinks that they are happy places where animals die peacefully is fooling themselves. The animals are strapped into a machine, their throats are sliced open and then they are hung upside down and allowed to bleed to death. As a previous poster stated that is how you have to kill an animal to preserve the red meat. We won't even touch the topic of veal and lamb. So, even though that death is puproseful (the animal is being used as food) I don't think it is any less cruel.

So, what is the real outrage? I don't think Vick did anything that was truly more horrible than things that happen everyday that people don't think about or like to think about. Was his crime that he did it to a dog which is somehow higher up in the animal kingdom than the things we eat everyday?

I'm not trying to defend him, I'm just trying to gauge why people are so outraged over this, but not over other things that happen everyday. All I hear people say is, "did you hear what he did to those poor dogs?"...of course they usually say this while eating a cheeseburger. Given that I think Vick deserved to be punished for running the dog fighting ring, but I also think the sentence is actually a little harsh if the main point was to punish him for killing a few dogs in a cruel manner.

I agree with most of the statement, and have been getting into a lot of conversations about this online. Now, I have never been to a slaughter house.... but if it really was a nice, humane place, why the harsh name?

As for the punishment Vick received, it was for a lot of things. He bankrolled, and provided the land and some dogs for this operation. He was also quite disrespectful towards the judge, as well as tested positive for marjiuana after entering in a guilty plea. That is really what lead to the longer sentence.


And again, the state still hasn't proscuted yet, so he could also get state time on top of what he has now (23 mo Fed. Prison + 3 yrs probation)

[Kevin]

Posts are too long.

I am sure he can handle himself in jail. Probably beat *****s up.

[Snoozie]

Interesting...atleast he has to pay for the care/adoption of the dogs:

In court papers filed Tuesday, the government asked U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson to issue a restraining order that essentially would freeze about $928,000 to fulfill Vick's legal obligation to cover the costs of caring for the dogs and finding homes for them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/...20645



edit: i didnt read all the other long post to see if this was already discussed, so sorry if it was.

[dragonfly2k3]

how many dogs were there? I think 928,000 is a little steep. Also, since we already brought rapists and murderers into this(even though i dont feel they really apply.) Do we make them pay for counseling or to raise their victims children? I feel that freezing those assets is a little excessive. I also think that if he has to serve state time after federal that would be a little much as well.

[wrx_snobordr]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I've found this case to be very interesting on many levels and specifically for the diversity of opinion on it. It seems that from a legal perspective Vick was found guilty and punished more on the basis that he was running an illegal dog fighting ring and not so much on the basis of how the dogs were being treated. However, the treatment of the dogs was the focus of the media. I just think it makes for an interesting dicotomy in society. It's OK to slaughter thousands upon thousands of animals for food. It is OK to cage them up in zoos. It's OK to euthanize thousands of unwanted pets. It's OK to force greyhounds to race...etc. However, for some reason what Vick did is not OK.

***I want to interject here that I do eat meat. I think what Vick did was despicable. I do love dogs.***

I have been to a slaughterhouse as part of my previous job in the trucking business. Anyone who thinks that they are happy places where animals die peacefully is fooling themselves. The animals are strapped into a machine, their throats are sliced open and then they are hung upside down and allowed to bleed to death. As a previous poster stated that is how you have to kill an animal to preserve the red meat. We won't even touch the topic of veal and lamb. So, even though that death is puproseful (the animal is being used as food) I don't think it is any less cruel.

So, what is the real outrage? I don't think Vick did anything that was truly more horrible than things that happen everyday that people don't think about or like to think about. Was his crime that he did it to a dog which is somehow higher up in the animal kingdom than the things we eat everyday?

I'm not trying to defend him, I'm just trying to gauge why people are so outraged over this, but not over other things that happen everyday. All I hear people say is, "did you hear what he did to those poor dogs?"...of course they usually say this while eating a cheeseburger. Given that I think Vick deserved to be punished for running the dog fighting ring, but I also think the sentence is actually a little harsh if the main point was to punish him for killing a few dogs in a cruel manner.

The real outrage is over morals. Your points of what goes on in slaughter houses is valid but not applicable in this instance because we are not focusing solely on the death of the animal. Slaughter houses have rules and regulations to follow. These are set in place for the most human way in which to process the animals. Before they are slaughtered they are supposed to live in hospitable conditions, key word being supposed. They are also being disposed of in the most humane way possible while still keeping the product consumable. It is a balancing act that uses the least amount of cruel behavior for the purpose of providing a needed product, we are carnivores after all.


What Vick did was torture animals. He forced them to be as violent as possible through many different tactics, all of which are meant to inflict pain on the animal in the hopes of making the animal as violent as possible. He practiced no restraint (no morals) and killed animals in painful ways simple for his own enjoyment. When these dogs were put into the ring the death did not occur in a humane way what so ever. The death served no purpose and the only positive that I can find is that the animal will no longer have to live a tortured life.


I am avoiding the other examples as I do not think they are applicable at all and would require going off topic. To me you are try to compare the executioner and the serial killer based solely on the outcome and not the circumstances that led up to that point. This can not be done if you want to have an honest discussion.

[NJGOAT]

Well, as for the executioner and serial killer many psychologists would tell you that mentally they are one in the same.

If I am to summarize your response, you believe that the analogy between the slaughterhouse or other forms of animal use/abuse are OK because they are legal and regulated. So, slitting the throat of a cow and allowing it to bleed to death while hanging upside down isn't cruel because the government has regulations on how it's supposed to be done. However, drowning or electrocuting a dog after it loses a fight is cruel because dog fighting is illegal. The only conclusion one can make is that if dog fighting were legal and there was a prescribed method for disposing of injured or losing dogs, then there would be nothing cruel about it.

I don't think that what Vick did was right, nor do I think he should go unpunished, but having to spend 23 months in jail and pay almost a million dollars in restitution for killing a few dogs is pretty steep. He essentially operated an illegal gambling ring, but people are not upset about that, they are upset that he killed dogs. I just find it ironic that people are so abhorred by how the dogs in the case were treated, but they are not abhored by legal regulated slaughter that occurs daily. I think the best example wouldn't be the slughterhouse, but racing grey hounds. Those dogs live a horrid life locked in a cage, kept nearly starved so that they chase the meat scented rabbit, then when they have outlived their usefulness they are killed and generally not with a needle in a vets office. However, that is OK, because dog racing is legal.

[05GT]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Well, as for the executioner and serial killer many psychologists would tell you that mentally they are one in the same.

If I am to summarize your response, you believe that the analogy between the slaughterhouse or other forms of animal use/abuse are OK because they are legal and regulated. So, slitting the throat of a cow and allowing it to bleed to death while hanging upside down isn't cruel because the government has regulations on how it's supposed to be done. However, drowning or electrocuting a dog after it loses a fight is cruel because dog fighting is illegal. The only conclusion one can make is that if dog fighting were legal and there was a prescribed method for disposing of injured or losing dogs, then there would be nothing cruel about it.

I don't think that what Vick did was right, nor do I think he should go unpunished, but having to spend 23 months in jail and pay almost a million dollars in restitution for killing a few dogs is pretty steep. He essentially operated an illegal gambling ring, but people are not upset about that, they are upset that he killed dogs. I just find it ironic that people are so abhorred by how the dogs in the case were treated, but they are not abhored by legal regulated slaughter that occurs daily. I think the best example wouldn't be the slughterhouse, but racing grey hounds. Those dogs live a horrid life locked in a cage, kept nearly starved so that they chase the meat scented rabbit, then when they have outlived their usefulness they are killed and generally not with a needle in a vets office. However, that is OK, because dog racing is legal.

To sum up your post Goat.....the problem with the general public is "ignorance is bliss".


They either don't know the truth about slaughter houses, or they don't want to know.

[olletsocmit]

i think he will be able to do w/e he wants in jail. he is vick.

[TGilb2007]

Originally Posted by olletsocmit

i think he will be able to do w/e he wants in jail. he is vick.

He isnt going to a standard "federal pound you in the ass" prision.... he is going to the same kind of place that Ken Lay was supposed to go to, Martha Stewart, Paris Hiltion, (insert celebretiy here).

Thing is.... he will still have to eat when he is told, do what he is told. Its just no where near as bad as a place that, say, you or I would go to if convicted of the same crime.