NAACP Atlanta Head: Vick Would be Treated Better if He Killed a Person

I’m not going into the racial aspect of this thing, but I still have yet to see anyone explain how dogfighting is different from bullfighting, hunting, getting animals ready for the rodeo events, etc. Yes, I understand that one is legal and one is not, but it’s also legal for little kids to sleep in Micheal jackson’s bed if their parents let them. It seems that most are upset about the “cruelty to animals bit”. If so, then how can anyone ever enjoy the rodeo….or are y’all just not aware of what happens to those animals? Yes, I know hunted deer aren’t tortured, but they are still KILLED in the name of fun (SPORT). I just don’t see the difference….

Can someone who likes the rodeo or likes to hunt please explain to me how that stuff doesn’t fall under the animal cruelty category? Is just killing an animal for whatever reason (i.e. not to eat) not cruel? Are there different levels of cruelty that make one ok and not the other? Do you just say my sport is “legal” so to hell with it? Someone help me out….

By the way, Vick’s plea (that the govt accepted) doesn’t mention anything about him killing or torturing animals. So if he hasn’t admitted to doing that and isn’t being convicted of that, how can you still be upset with him for it? Is it because he funded the operation and “should have known”, or is it the Barry Bonds story again (no proof but my mind is made up so down with him)?

 

yes he should get punished for this. Not sure why you are even asking. Maybe you should read the thread before asking such a pointless question.

I made several very simple arguments regarding logical inconsistencies in the way he has been treated in a relative sense.

I have seen a lot of pictures of mangled doggies, but I have yet to see anything that resolves these inconsistencies.

 

(CNN) -- NFL star Michael Vick has admitted that he and two co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well in papers filed Friday with a federal court in Virginia.

 

Ray Lewis didn't kill anyone. He helped his homeboy who did pull the trigger to get away from the scene of the crime in his limo. The DA went after Lewis when he refused to roll over on his friend. In the ensuing media circus somehow folks got the impression that Lewis actually did pull the trigger.

SamFishr is correct about how this is interpreted under Georgia law. I still don't see what this has to do with Vick

 

actually it was a vicious stabbing, but just pointing that out

 

I don't enjoy these things at all, but the hunters that I do know are very mindful of not making the animal suffer and they all eat what they hunt. Fundamentally it should not much worse than what happens to an animal in a slaughterhouse.

If you've seen two dogs maul each other, the end result is very different than an ideal hunt. Also, hunters seem to build themselves up on the idea of 'living off the land' with some mythos about the frontier. Most of them also have a very negative reaction to 'canned hunts' as being unconscionable.

Again I've never done it, and I don't find the idea of killing animals, even if it can be done without suffering, to qualify as enjoyment. But if I had to hunt for food, I would be able to reconcile that fairly easily with my positions against dog fighting which is only done for the enjoyment of watching to animals kill each other. Bear Baiting was illegal for its cruelty in England when people were still hunting wild game for food.

 

Good points, except for the last one which I think is incorrect.

I have pointed out in other threads that animal abuse, cruelty, suffering and killing.

This thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=133755&page=3&pp=20

Check out posts #56, 57, 66, 67, 78

 

I see one guy as telling his buddies who committed a murder to "shut up" so as not to give the police any more information. I see him not turning over information he should have.

I see another guy running an organized crime ring over the course of years. Actually particpating in the crime....not merely obstructing justice afterwards.

I don't see Lewis being treated any less harshly. I guess we could go back and search for Ray Lewis threads at the time...but I don't see a lot of sympathy for anyone charged with crimes here...or generally in the world. The difference is....the charges were ultimately dropped with Ray. With Vick, they weren't. Honestly, I'm bored with the Ray Lewis comparisons. I don't see them as all that pertinent.

Please don't try to make it racial. It's not all to me about disregarding the murder of two people in Atlanta, no matter what color they are.

 

That's what you see . . . because you continue to change the facts of the Ray Lewis situation to support your argument.

 

No...I'm not changing the facts.

Find me a summary of facts on the Ray Lewis thing, if you'd like.

Here they are as I understand them:

1. He was charged with being an accomplice to murder. He was also charged with obstruction.

2. The prosecution dropped the accomplice/murder charge because they didn't have evidence to back it up. In fact, they had ONE witness who said Lewis was in on the brawl...and he recanted. There were 4 other witnesses who said he wasn't involved except to the extent he was trying to break it up.

3. He admitted he told his friends to be quiet around the police and that his initial statements to the police were lies in trying to protect his friends. He plead guilty to that. It was a misdemeanor charge that has since been expunged. The maximum penalty for that charge is 12 months PROBATION.

4. He was fined $250,000 by the NFL after his plea. He appealed and lost. The $250,000 was a league record fine. All of the activity in the case occured from January to about May...when the NFL season was not on and there would be no need for suspension. The league was never forced to deal with the suspension question.

5. He was named MVP of the Super Bowl. He was not given the typical Disney nor Wheaties endorsement that a Super Bowl MVP gets.

What am I missing?

Here's where I'm getting some of this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/19/06/04/lewis_agreement/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Lewis_(NFL)

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3821/Ray-Lewis-Trial-2000-Prosecution-s-Murder-Case-Collapses.html

 

Michael Wilborn had a great take on this yesterday on the Dan Patrick show. Black people (at least some of them) aren't upset that Michael Vick got caught because he deserved to get caught. This episode says an awful lot about his character as a man. Anyone who could treat an animal this way is nothing but a lowlife criminal period and nothing anyone says will ever be able to change that fact. But there is a racial angle here that concerns the issue of perception that illustrates the divide along racial lines.

What black folks are upset with is what they perceive as a disproportionate emotional reaction in public sentiment particularly amongst the white population over this incident especially in the press. To observe the outcry currently in progress among the white media, you'd think that Vick was the devil's own personal representative here on earth and it was THEIR dogs he fought and killed when in reality he's one of the biggest dumbasses I have ever seen. But had this happened to a white QB like say a Brett Farve, a good ol' boy from the South, the public outcry over this incident would be just as vehement but not as emotional in nature. It simply wouldn't be taken so personally by the media and the white population and the volume of hysteria would be much much lower. The same talking heads in the media who are so personally offended about what Mike Vick did would be more understanding of Farve and would to a man point out that he is worthy of redemption because this is something from his culture, etc.. Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong but that this is the reality in which we live.

An uncomfortable fact of life (but a fact nonetheless) is that when a person of color be they famous or not finds themselves caught in a situation of wrongdoing in this country, they face consequences far in excess of what someone who wasn't black would face. That used to be something that black parents taught their children - especially their sons. I can remember my grandfather drilling this very fact into my brain as I was growing up in the segregated Houston of the 1950's and 60's. Knowing that the consequences of any wrongdoing would be especially harsh on me because of my color helped insure that I always followed the right path. Instead of b****ing of the "unfairness" of the situation if I got caught, I made certain that I never put myself into a situation that exposed me to finding myself hung out to dry so to speak. Somewhere this lesson was lost on Mike Vick because it would have helped him to realize just how high the stakes were in his little misadventure into bloodsport.

Vick is getting crucified here and he deserves everything that's coming his way. Another thing my grandfather taught me was that my actions have consequences and all Vick had to do was to act like a real man instead of a bloodthirsty thug. Had he done so, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

LOL, why do I need to? you seem to have figured it out for yourself, what with the 3-6 versions I have heard from you, and what with the fact that you are clearly trying to marshal the facts in your favor, lest your BBS honor be besmirched. Good show, counselor.


But I guess now that you have FINALLY looked at the ol' wikipedia article I am supposed to bow down to your magic trump card as to the Ray Lewis facts (again...which version of facts is this from you? ?


I have said my peace(piece?) on this issue at this point, and a statutory ex post CYA match is not in my interest and does not invalidate what I think are obvious points.

 

This point is dead on right. Now, one thing here for me is dogs and cats are pets and pets are like children so YES, IMO what he did intentionally with malice and forethought and the degree of the callousness of his behavior displayed then with those dogs, yes he deserves to have the "book" thrown at him and go up the river for at least a couple of years and according to ESPN's pundits they think at the earliest Vick will be eligible to play maybe in 2010. He will be 30 years of age at that time. That's if anyone wishes to take a chance on him. Sorry, he's finished and he has no one to blame but himself. I'm sure PETA will be vying for opportunities to bring civil action against Vick and his cronies to attempt to bankrupt and furthermore bring shame to his now tarnished legacy. His actions set stupidity to a new bottom.

 

i'm sorry, but STOP BEING A ******* IDIOT.

blake received a TON of coverage, but that's real cute selective memory you got there.... works out really well in your favor. nevermind the fact that vick is about 1000 times as popular/well known as blake EVER was.

but continue sticking up for vick because he's black.... makes you look like a stand up character.

 

Agreed, bringing up Ray Lewis and acting like there are some grave inconsistencies is just stupid.

 

A little too simple, and pointless. You found one case (Ray Lewis). Good job. That's some good lawyering right there.

Like MadMax asked earlier, why is he the "baseline?" Oh, because you said so. Ray Lewis got lucky for whatever reason, that doesn't mean Vick is getting treated unfairly.

I'm sure we can find many cases where someone got off easier than they should have, who cares.

 

I think there is definitely something to that. While I don't think the punishment under the law for a white person would be different, the public reaction may well be.

 

If it were a white person
Rap, Hip hop etc would not be pulled into the argument

Maybe Rock/Metal?

Rocket River

 

So should we accept the unequal treatment?
Is is possible to Fight the Injustice .. while still staying on the side of the right?

I think you are correct. . Vick did Vick and he reaping
but
To complain about the Excess . . .well . . Shouldn't we?
Should we just accept that that Excess always has been . .and always will be?
and. . . just not do it?

I don't beleive that is right
I think we have to fight the inequality . . . even in this instance.
It is just that. . .people see you fight the inequality and immediately
assume you defending the crime.

Rocket River

 

Sam - stop being a jackass. i'm asking you to, because those are the facts as i understand them. i just laid them in sequential order, which i might add is more than you've done...and this was YOUR baseline. i'm asking...are the facts i just posted wrong?? if they are, please let me know. i'm not trying to "win" an internet argument...i'm trying to understand your point of view.