[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uh, I still don't get all the complete hysteria surrounding this. I took the time to read this indictment and it looks like the best evidence the feds have is a single witness. No tapes, no hard physical evidence of his presence at or participation in a dogfight and the witness they have testified in two previous drug cases (one involving his own ex-wife). One of those previous cases was pretty much a lost cause until the FBI decided to charge one of the dealers with Dogfighting. So the best evidence they have is the eye witness testimony of a suspected drug dealer and dogfighting participant. If that makes him credible, I'm truly afraid. Vick has not been convicted and has yet to be tried. The locals had all the same evidence and declined to charge him. To make statements like "The feds wouldn't charge him if they didn't have a great case" is really jumping to conclusions. How many dozens of times have we all seen and heard of the FBI bringing cases with weak evidence? How would you like to charged with a federal offense based on the testimony of a single person? Better yet, how would you like to be fired from your job simply for being charged with a crime without ever having been tried or convicted? If he participated in or had any knowledge of dogfighting, then he should certainly be punished according to the law. The previous case of the drug dealer convicted of dogfighting ( on federal charges) resulted in 60 days jail time, probation and a fine. He served 28 and paid $7,500. This is like charging Al Capone with tax evasion ( but it worked). If Vick is convicted, I doubt he'd get any serious jail time. I also think it is abject silliness refer to all life as the same. How could any sane person possibly consider any animal life the same as any human life? (I'm really asking this question). We eat and harvest animals for products that we use everyday. We value the lives of animals but we cherish the lives of humans. I understand the emotion involved in this, especially by animal lovers and advocates but at the same time I'm confused by the intensity of that emotion. BTW, by legal definition, you can only "murder" another human.

Vick's house had blood splattered all over his walls and carpets. He had a rape stage in his back yard. He had kennels all over his yard. There are multiple witnesses testifying against him.

Innocent until proven guilty, yes we know that already. That's how it works, the system will take its course, that's a no brainer. What about our sense of decency, even if somehow Vick is cleared (which is NOT going to happen, not even close), there needs to be a BIG uprising against this torture and inhumane practice.

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Vick's house had blood splattered all over his walls and carpets. He had a rape stage in his back yard. He had kennels all over his yard. There are multiple witnesses testifying against him. Innocent until proven guilty, yes we know that already. That's how it works, the system will take its course, that's a no brainer. What about our sense of decency, even if somehow Vick is cleared (which is NOT going to happen, not even close), there needs to be a BIG uprising against this torture and inhumane practice.

NONE of this is listed in the indictment. There is one witness mentioned and one other mentioned as having seen Vick on the property. Local Law enforcement deemed both witnesses as "non credible" after each of them were questioned and stated Vick's placement on this property at times when he could not have possibly been there. The real estate agent involved in the sale of this property has said he never met Vick and that he used an attorney in his absence at the sale of this property. Neighbors have stated that they didn't even know Vick owned the property and had never seen him around. Local law enforcement has also stated that the feds didn't refer to any of the available evidence gathered in two previous arrests at the home. Evidence that they claim casts doubt that Vick frequented this home. Even the arresting officers in the initial drug case doubted that Vick lived in the home or frequented it.

BTW, the 40 year conviction involved the booby-trapped shooting of a police officer, six drug charges and a nearly two dozen weapons and explosives charges. So far the longest prison term( in a federal case) for dog-fighting is 2-6 years (which was served for 12 months) and a $40,000 fine. That person was arrested several times and that was his second conviction. This guy was also caught in the act and was recorded arranging fights as well as raising dogs and selling them. He was convicted on 22 counts..... and served 12 months. IF Vick gets convicted, I doubt he'll ever serve jail time and I further doubt he'll be suspended long-term. I do think the Falcons or the NFL will sit him down until the case is resolved but he'll likley be paid his full salary.

I do think the penalties for dogfighting should be stiffer. I mean if there is a conviction, there should be jail time, period. The fines should also be much, much higher. I also think a dogfighting case should be tried seperately from other cases, possibly involving drugs and guns. Wouldn't it send a great message if the people involved in this had to fight dogfighting charges in a completely seperate case. Two judges, two trials, two sentences. That would hurt as it should. The truth is, I'd love to see Vick serve jail time if he really is involved to this level. However, I do not want to see anyone convicted with the type of "evidence" presented in this case. There should be DNA tests and the whole nine yards if blood evidence is going to be presented.

 

[Sovkiller]

Who cares, if he is guilty or not, it is funny how people herei n US and other parts ofthe world, get seriously more worried about dog fighting and animal fighting, and this same people do not get worried at all, about hunting, the bull fighting in Spain and Mexico for example, in which the animal is deprived of any chaces to win, or attend to see human fights, and even bet on boxing, and martial arts tournaments, in which human beings are on that same position as the animals, and sometimes receive injuries that couse them to die or get seriously affected for the rest of their lives, how many boxers we have seen die in the ring, and who cared!!! So animals are more important, right? ... An even call that sports...!!! Gimme a break!!!

 

[darkninja67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif how many boxers we have seen die in the ring, and who cared!!! So animals are more important, right? ... An even call that sports...!!! Gimme a break!!!

the problem is that the innocent animals did not have a say in their choice of life and death. That is inhumane. A boxer CHOOSES his way of life and must deal with the consequences.

 

[LowPhreak]

Now even a Senator is getting in on it:

"Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) fulminated in the Senate chamber on Thursday against dogfight promoters, after a star NFL quarterback's indictment by a federal grand jury.

"In the Holy Bible, King James Bible tells us 'a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel,'" said Byrd. "The immortal Dante tells us the Divine Justice reveals special places in Hell for certain categories of sinners. ... I am confident that the hottest places in Hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._B...hell_0720.html

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who cares, if he is guilty or not, it is funny how people herei n US and other parts ofthe world, get seriously more worried about dog fighting and animal fighting, and this same people do not get worried at all, about hunting, the bull fighting in Spain and Mexico for example, in which the animal is deprived of any chaces to win, or attend to see human fights, and even bet on boxing, and martial arts tournaments, in which human beings are on that same position as the animals, and sometimes receive injuries that couse them to die or get seriously affected for the rest of their lives, how many boxers we have seen die in the ring, and who cared!!! So animals are more important, right? ... An even call that sports...!!! Gimme a break!!!

Hunting as a trophy sport is wrong in my book. But hunting for food is a different story, and even then, hunters kill animals far more human than the dogs in these fighting rings. Bullfighting is barbaric too, I don't know how on earth it is still legitimate.

Boxing and other legal fighting tournaments in the human world is with consent on both parties, monitored, and most of all, does not include starvation or torture of the fighters pre and post fight.



The bloodied house and carpeting was found in an April search of the property. Whether it was listed in the indictment or not doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who cares, if he is guilty or not, it is funny how people herei n US and other parts ofthe world, get seriously more worried about dog fighting and animal fighting, and this same people do not get worried at all, about hunting, the bull fighting in Spain and Mexico for example, in which the animal is deprived of any chaces to win, or attend to see human fights, and even bet on boxing, and martial arts tournaments, in which human beings are on that same position as the animals, and sometimes receive injuries that couse them to die or get seriously affected for the rest of their lives, how many boxers we have seen die in the ring, and who cared!!! So animals are more important, right? ... An even call that sports...!!! Gimme a break!!!

Saddest post yet.

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uh, I still don't get all the complete hysteria surrounding this. I took the time to read this indictment and it looks like the best evidence the feds have is a single witness. No tapes, no hard physical evidence of his presence at or participation in a dogfight and the witness they have testified in two previous drug cases (one involving his own ex-wife).

from what i've heard, these things are run for a limited group of spectators who don't know where they're going until just before it happens and they are searched for weapons, recorders, etc. before being allowed in. that would make it rather difficult to obtain the sort of evidence that you would like to see.

 

[LowPhreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Saddest post yet.

I don't see Sov's post as "sad". I think he's got a point as to the gratuitous violence that passes for "entertainment". Have you seen the dumb shet on Versus channel lately? (and I don't mean the Tour de France)

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowPhreak /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't see Sov's post as "sad". I think he's got a point as to the gratuitous violence that passes for "entertainment". Have you seen the dumb shet on Versus channel lately? (and I don't mean the Tour de France)

The difference is, and only on the internet would this need to be explained to someone, that people can choose for themselves what they do to each other. If two people want to fight, then they know what's in store for them.

Other animals have no such choices when they are made to fight. Does this really need to be explained?

And as for the whole "if you care about animals then you don't care about people" argument - what does the one conclusion have to do with the other? Because you care about animals, you somehow don't care about people? WTH is that? And that's why Sov's post is one of the sadder ones.

So yeah, if someone is guilty of being remotely near a dogfight, they should be banned from ever having a pet, and should do jail time.

 

[LowPhreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference is, and only on the internet would this need to be explained to someone, that people can choose for themselves what they do to each other. If two people want to fight, then they know what's in store for them. Other animals have no such choices when they are made to fight. Does this really need to be explained?

Sorry plainsong, but I don't need any of this "explained" to me, even though you may feel the need to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong And as for the whole "if you care about animals then you don't care about people" argument - what does the one conclusion have to do with the other? Because you care about animals, you somehow don't care about people? WTH is that? And that's why Sov's post is one of the sadder ones.

My point is simply that the violence seen in every other aspect of life, at least here in the US, is ridiculous and far too prevalent. I said nothing about whether it's OK to do to people or animals or not, so please don't try to put words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong So yeah, if someone is guilty of being remotely near a dogfight, they should be banned from ever having a pet, and should do jail time.

I agree.

 

[Cousin Patty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who cares, if he is guilty or not, it is funny how people herei n US and other parts ofthe world, get seriously more worried about dog fighting and animal fighting, and this same people do not get worried at all, about hunting, the bull fighting in Spain and Mexico for example, in which the animal is deprived of any chaces to win, or attend to see human fights, and even bet on boxing, and martial arts tournaments, in which human beings are on that same position as the animals, and sometimes receive injuries that couse them to die or get seriously affected for the rest of their lives, how many boxers we have seen die in the ring, and who cared!!! So animals are more important, right? ... An even call that sports...!!! Gimme a break!!!

You're an idiot...

 

[LowPhreak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Patty /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're an idiot...

Shouldn't that be, "Your a idiot"?

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

I don't see Sov's post as "sad". I think he's got a point as to the gratuitous violence that passes for "entertainment". Have you seen the dumb shet on Versus channel lately? (and I don't mean the Tour de France)

Learn how to use words better then. If you use them correctly, people will be able to understand what you mean.

 

[braillediver]

People who support dog fighting should be thrown in the ring with the dogs. It’s no big deal after all?

Here’s an incredibly touching story of why they’re called Mans Best Friend”

“Chihuahua saves toddler from rattlesnake”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ihuahua23.html

That story just makes me smile and admire the little guys spunk. There was a story a couple of months ago where the “pet” dog intervened when some pit bulls or something attacked some kids. The dog perished but he saved the kids. God Bless him!


Mitch