Vick not guilty of any crime

there is no ritual or ceremony in the killing of dogs.

anyone saying that this defines black culture detracts from it. The only thing about Vicks dog fighting that was consistent was the mistreatment of the animal, time and again with various means of torturing the animal for failure.

Fox, Bulls, and Deer are not treated the same way. The only thing that comes close is Bullfighting, and like men, the Bullfighter can be killed by the Bull that is roughly 10 times their size. I have never seen a Blackbullfighter.

It seems african americans are too afraid to do that shyt, so they hang dogs, like they themselves were hung for sport not long before that. Seems like African Americans are pussy asses to me. Rely on the government for 'protection'. Look at LA right now. Blacks are being genocided by hispanics, and blacks aren't doing anything about it. Even hispanic gang banger women are going out and stabbing big black dudes in the neck in LA every DAY. Lets look at black role models.

Akon, Kanye, Ja-rule all f******. Even Fiddy turned queer when he started investing like a white man and made that 400 mil off vitamin water. WTF.

You put all of those fags with hand guns against an Ms-13 Tortilla Flats gangbanger with a knife. I have never seen people so skilled with knives before. Some of these hispanics have skills bordering on Kungfu/Ninjitsu type killing styles. Slit, slash, stab. Next thing you know you got a big lump of government welfare money lying in the street for being the wrong color and lacking higher order intelligence.

Its the truth I swear to god, and it should hurt like shit. But its true and you know it.

Dubious wrote:

This won't be popular, but I don't believe Michael Vick has done anything wrong by fighting dogs.

Ummmm...except for the fact that the underlying purpose of dog fighting is an illegal enterprise...gambling...animal cruelty.

Did you read the indictment? These guys are sick.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/18/ind.pdf

"83. In (sic) or about April 2007, PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

Millions of dogs are executed every year by shelters. That is the real tragedy here. Vick is a Vicktim of a witch hunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Two points:

(a) The animals that shelters are forced to euthanize are only killed as a last resort, by organizations that are trying to fill a void in our society that simply cannot be filled on their limited resources;

(b) Those animals are also killed humanely, or at least as humanely as is possible under the circumstances.

What these four guys did is ENTIRELY different.

Dubious wrote:

This won't be popular, but I don't believe Michael Vick has done anything wrong by fighting dogs. Dog fighting is a time-honored, integral part of african american culture going way back. In much the same way that Spaniards relish a good bullfight, african americans have always fought dogs. Mexicans fight cocks. The british ran down foxes with hounds. Rednecks hunt deer and other animals. There is no difference between these things, only the fact that white america has deemed dog fighting to be unsavory -- making illegal an african american pasttime, while looking the other way at unsavory white habits.

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. Dogfighting started in ENGLAND. It started with an activity called "bull baiting" which put bulls against dogs. The dogs were the early versions of what would later become breeds like bulldogs, pit bulls, bull terriers, etc (the "bully breeds"). These dogs were used by people to control bulls on the way to the slaughter house. When that was made illegal in England, dog fighting grew. Eventually THAT was also made illegal - LONG before dog fighting became popular in the US, or the colonies back then, actually. Learn your history.

This is complete bigotry!! If a white player fought dogs you'd never start threads like this.

I don't condone what they did, and the "slamming" of the dog is particularly brutal. However, hanging, shooting, electrocuting, are all methods of achieving the same goal: killing the animal. In the country, farmers put down dogs that bite livestock or humans with a quick shot to the head. Suffice it to say that humans have been killing millions of dogs a year forever, and that won't change by making an example out of Mike Vick.

the430miler is wrong wrote:

You are an idiot. Plain and simple. Dogfighting started in ENGLAND.

No, dogfighting is much older than that, having been around at least since Roman times. Suggest you check your history before calling others out. You are correct that it was very popular in England.

From a league and career perspective (which is admittedly different than a purely legal one), Vick is in deep trouble. First, irrespective of one's views about the ethics of dogfighting, the vast majority of people (including particularly pet owners) find it either abhorrent or highly objectionable. One can argue about why this is so - and make comparisons to hunting, practices at slaughterhouses, and the like - but that won't change the exceedingly negative public perception of dogfighting. And the NFL isn't the most successful sports business in the nation by accident - they very much care about their image, and enhance and burnish it constantly to rake billions from advertisers. Vick was considered a highly talented guy whose ability caused management to suffer his eccentricities and flaws. He is now to be considered a highly talented guy with only a few chances left and no real margin for error, on or off the playing field. Second, apart from image, the NFL is really going to be concerned about the gambling aspect with dogfighting. Again, one can argue back and forth about how prevalent gambling is in society, and about how the gambling on dogfighting that appears to have taken place here is an ancillary element to a less understood cultural phenomena, but the league absolutely will not look at it that way - gambling in pro sports, or so it is ingrained (with some good reason) is the road to perdition and ruin.

I mention these comments because I think they are more relevant than the indictment itself. Yes, federal charges are deadly serious, and there is far less flexibility in the federal system when it comes to both charging and sentencing, but my guess is (irrespective of what people think the the law should or should not be re dogfighting) is that Vick will find a way to plea to a lesser charge to avoid jail time or at least minimal jail time. And that being the case, the public image and gambling problems will still remain, and will not be swept away by a resolution of the indictment. The NFL is still a business - and misbehaving employees is bad for business.

OK, yes, fighting animals has been around for a long long time. But the current form of dog fighting with a "pit" was started in England - hence the name of the breed Pit Bull Terrier.

The difference between the old english form and today's idiocy is that back then the owners had to IN THE PIT with the dogs. When a dog turned tail, the owners had to step in and separate the dogs. therefore, while the dogs were trained/bred to be dog-agressive, the breed was favored to NOT be human-aggressive. These idiots that starve and beat their dogs to make them fighters dont even know how to "properly" train a fighting dog if you really want to get to it - I know how sick that sentence was that I just typed...i know. Still, those dogs back then were probably not beaten and abused like the fighting dogs are now. It all makes me sick.

anyway, my point was, that the OP stated that dog fighting was a time-honored part of african-american culture - which is both incorrect and completely racist.

I'm not defending Vick... but when we read of pit bulls attacking humans often, then I'm not sympathetic towards the dogs. People point to how they're raised.... but it's been proven that pit bulls can come from solid family homes, and still kill often. In addition, a friend of mine had one that he and his wife raised very well, and gave lots of attention to. He nearly lost his newborn baby because of it. Pit Bulls have aggressiveness in its blood, not matter how they're raised. Vick was wrong, but long as the dogs are isolated, then I don't care that they're dying. They'd kill us for no reason, in a heartbeat.

Dubious wrote:

This won't be popular, but I don't believe Michael Vick has done anything wrong by fighting dogs. Dog fighting is a time-honored, integral part of african american culture going way back. In much the same way that Spaniards relish a good bullfight, african americans have always fought dogs. Mexicans fight cocks. The british ran down foxes with hounds. Rednecks hunt deer and other animals. There is no difference between these things, only the fact that white america has deemed dog fighting to be unsavory -- making illegal an african american pasttime, while looking the other way at unsavory white habits.

Then you need to argue with state and federal lawmakers who have made this a crime.

Embezzlement had a long tradition within the white community so maybe that should not be illegal either.

I have never met an A-A who fought dogs. I believe your view is bigoted.

nice troll though

I would normally blow this off as high grade trolling but you are too consistant with your racist rants.Is it like alcoholism where your parents were racist and you somehow got that specific gene or is your mind really that polluted? I'm guessing yes, which makes me sad that you must live your life in that prison of a pigeon brain you clearly possess.Good luck with that. I guess it makes me a little bit thankful that I'm not you.

ttc wrote:

I'm not defending Vick... but when we read of pit bulls attacking humans often, then I'm not sympathetic towards the dogs. People point to how they're raised.... but it's been proven that pit bulls can come from solid family homes, and still kill often. In addition, a friend of mine had one that he and his wife raised very well, and gave lots of attention to. He nearly lost his newborn baby because of it. Pit Bulls have aggressiveness in its blood, not matter how they're raised. Vick was wrong, but long as the dogs are isolated, then I don't care that they're dying. They'd kill us for no reason, in a heartbeat.

ttc you are just wrong wrong wrong about the breed. Breeds do have strong tendencies, but my brother was bitten by a german shepherd. Does that make all german shehperds horrible aggressive dogs? My veternarian has a giant scar on his face - from a BLACK LAB! Does that mean all labs are horrible? I own a pit bull, and i have a 21 month old daughter who tries to ride him like a horse, pulls his ears, etc. He does NOT retaliate. Now, having said that, we stop her every time she starts. ANY large dog can kill a baby in a matter of seconds - ANY LARGE DOG! Pit bulls ARE NOT NAURALLY AGRESSIVE TO HUMANS!!!!! I will debate you for the rest of my life on this. Police do not regularly use these dogs in Schutzhund (attack dog training). Do you know why? Because a properly raised pit bull (and police dogs are basically pets when they go home with their officers) will NOT consistenly bite humans on command. You just read that right - if you want sources, email me. I'll gladly give them to you. In my personal experience, I have been invovled with pit bull rescue for 3 years (a yr after getting my own). I have fostered 6 dogs, 3 of which were used for fighting (as evidenced by their scars and behavior). Two of those "fighters" were apparently not very good, and were abused horribly by their "owners." One had NO left ear, as it was severed clean off, and had a broken back leg - the vet guessed it was run over by a car. The other had deep scars all around its neck from being chained so tightly to a tree by some asshole dog fighting piece of shit for person. ALL THREE of those fighting dogs were rehabilitated by my wife and me. It took time, it took diligence, and it took a LOT of know-how, but we did it. More than anything, these dogs' aggressiveness in the beginning was defensive. They were plain SCARED of humans. They were trying to protect themselves. But with knowledge, caring, and good leadership qualities, virtually any dog can be rehabilitated. Not one of those fighting dogs ever attacked my personal dog, either.

ttc, you are just plain wrong! If you dont want one of the dogs, dont get one. But to wish for their death is cruel and inhumane. Shame on you.

It's not so much the dogfighting, its the 50 and 60k dollar bets involved with said dogfighting that makes it a federal case.

YOU need to go to jail with Vick. This isn't the 19th century. You are a low-life that needs to be in jail.

Keep living in your fantasy world. What is the difference between a pit bull and an assault rifle? An assault rifle cannot go running out of the house and shoot the neighbor's kids. Additionally, it doesn't keep "assaulting" the father, the neighbor and animal control.

Most of these dogs are not AKC pit bull terriers, they have some "pit bull" blood, but most of these dogs are bred purely for aggression and fighting.

To continue your Black Lab analogy. Labrador Retrievers are bred to have a soft mouth, fighting dogs are bred to bight and hold. The power generated by the jaws of a fighting dog compared to the power generated by a retriever is like comparing a .22 rifle to an AK-47. Yes, you can call someone with a .22, but you would need to try hard to do it. Additionally, you could easily kill someone with an AK-47 accidentally without really trying. The "stopping power" of these fighting dogs is incredible and the chance of one of these "accidentally" mauling someone is very high.

Just last week in Denver a "he would never hurt anyone" pit bull ripped apart someone's grandma and a babysitter. The babysitter kept ripping grandma apart while the sitter stabbed the dog repeatedly. Denver police showed up, shot the dog, through a glass door, then shot the dog again in the front yard.

Sorry, but these dogs must go.

while i don't doubt that you have rehabilatated pit bulls, they do have a track record of attacking humans. in fact, they are outlawed in toronto and most of ontario b/c of it. i think that once a dog attacks a human (any breed) they should be put down.