***Well, this post got a little longer than I had intended. I was initially striving for a little mockery of the situation but after having read some of the articles and court documents regarding the case, I kind of got pissed at how ignorant the author of the article that triggered this thread was regarding the situation***
It seems the recent sleuth work by one of the Hardly Boys, Adam Reigner of WIP in Philly, has gotten very little attention since it was first reported last night when he caught a little glimpse of something in the background of a picture that Vick posted.
I present, Exhibit "A".
Right hand side next to the cute doggy folder........Milk Bones. Red handed. That conniving canine-killing convict.
Likely coming to the realization of his supreme stupidity, Vick pulled the picture and replaced it with a cropped version seen here as Exhibit "B".
Robert Littal says it's likely Vick owns a dog but that's okay.............So get off your high horse.
If I get arrested for robbing a bank? Can I not deposit money when I get out of jail? The reason all of this is happening is because of these two photos screen captured courtesy of Larry Brown Sports.
Of course the simple answer is........yes. Should you rob a bank, any bank you try to deal with from that point forward could very well just tell you take a hike when you try to walk into the door......provided they know who you are.
And maybe the best part. The revisionist history.
Michael Vick was financing a dog fighting ring and was put in jail because he lied about it. He was a very high profile name and the Feds like to take down high profile offenders. He made a lot of mistakes which he was punished for, but I rather him run a dog fighting ring than beat his wife, drive drunk or be a drug addict.
Actually he was put in jail because he broke a bunch of laws along the way to establishing and operating a dog fighting ring where he and his cronies bread dogs with the specific intent to kill other dogs, trained their prize fighters by sacrificing house pets, and then flat out murdered the weakest performing animals.
It's important that people not forget that he actually was involved and signed a plea agreement admitting he murdered the animals.
"Peace, Phillips, and Vick agreed to killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in the "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of these dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips, and Vick".
Straight from the Summary Of The Facts
filled along with the plea agreement that he signed in order to get other charges dropped.
It's not surprising that someone who thinks he simply "financed" a dog fighting ring and "lied about it" would also try to angle the entire thing into a Witch Hunt for big name celebrities. Both statements are just weak attempts at obfuscating the truth and absolving blame.
And perhaps the cherry on top of the crap sundae is this part by Robert.
I love dogs as much as anyone else, but I think it is unfair to continually punish Michael Vick for an offense on an animal when guys are getting 30 days for vehicular manslaughter while driving drunk, settling cases out of court when being accused of raping women or getting a slap on the wrist for a domestic violence. Two wrongs donít make a right, but some wrongs are worse than others.
It always cracks me up when a person who is 100% guilty of some ridiculous crime gets this defense. They're essentially asking for an additional injustice in their case of interest simply because other injustices have happened before. Look, I totally agree that the above offenses (aside from drug addict) are worse than killing animals but that doesn't change the fact that killing animals and operating a multi-state gambling ring is illegal. To what extent do we turn away from proven/admitted guilt simply because the system has made mistakes in the past? The system has its flaws, that's a fact. Mistakes are made every day and heinous crimes go unpunished far more than anyone would like to admit. But, the system also has its moments of just application and convicting guilty criminals of crimes they committed and sentencing them to sentences they deserve is one of them.
Using the argument of, "Well at least he wasn't out raping or running people over in a drunken stupor" is about as shallow-minded as it gets. Guess what I wasn't doing from the years of 2001 to 2007. I wasn't operating an illegal gambling ring, sacrificing house pets to viciously and methodically trained animals and then killing off the ones I couldn't train to be vicious enough. I may have been doing some stupid things back then in my youth but I wasn't doing anything Vick was and if Vick gets some kind of reprieve for being "less of a criminal" than some old disgusting pedophile or woman beater, do I get some kind of public acknowledgement or reward for being an upstanding citizen? This argument is nothing more than a means to excuse the actions of the rightfully convicted.
The fact that this guy even has the nerve to suggest that Vick was wrongfully sentenced by downplaying his guilt, implying the Feds were simply hunting a high profile offender, and downward comparing to scum of the earth criminals who rape and beat woman is quite honestly an insult.
Doing all these justifications is pathetic. It's a slap in the face to those who truly are
wrongfully convicted and who have served sentences they didn't
deserve. You have people at this very moment who are paying for crimes they didn't commit and this guy has the gall to call the entire legitimacy of Vicks prosecution and sentencing to what amounts to be a sham; and simply because more disgusting offenders have gotten away with crimes they did commit? Come on, seriously?
Show a little perspective. Demonstrate a little ability to think at a level above that of the criminal. Downward comparing after the crime is little different than using the same downward comparison to justify a crime to be committed.
"Well, I know that robbing banks is illegal but since rapists and pedophiles walk the streets freely, I really don't give a ****. So long as I'm not on their level by raping or beating woman, I'm cool".
Is it "Okay" for Vick to own a dog? That's up to each person to decide for themselves. The plea agreement stipulated he couldn't own a dog while on probation and he's completed the probation term so he has the right to own a dog. I'm not entirely sure what I think about it. I haven't really thought about it beyond the simple thought of him not owning one because he doesn't deserve the companionship they provide after having drown and hung other dogs to death in pursuit of his "hobby". Do I think he'll kill another dog, probably not. Supposedly he wants the dog for his daughter(s) as well as himself and I'm not sure he would intentionally do something that would harm them emotionally by harming the dog. Not to mention a whole host of other reasons.
Not entirely sure what to think. I support him striving to be the best parent he can be and I honestly believe that a dog's companionship is beneficial to an entire family but I don't support his claim of helping "rehabilitation" or any sort of companionship for him because he doesn't deserve it. I'm not sure what he's "rehabilitating" from and for what? It's not like he had some physical dependence or mental addiction to his actions. For closure? I'm not even sure he's convinced he was in the wrong.
In all honesty, after re-reading the stuff about this case the only involvement I care to see Vick have with a dog would include teeth, stitches, subsequent wound infection and possibly a freak ineffective dose of the rabies vaccine.
And one last piece from the article.
Before you throw stones from your glass house, I would love to look into some of those who still criticize Vick to this day closets.
Yes, lets compare rap sheets before those of us without prior stays in Leavenworth come to a unanimous decision about what is unacceptable behavior. I'm sure that's really gonna change the dialog as soon as everyone has to out all their previous transgressions. I'll start.
- When I was 3 or 4, I stole a pack of gum. I almost had this fiendish crime completed when my dad saw it in my hand as we were walking back to the car. He walked me into the store, made me hand it to the cashier as I apologized in front of the customers who were moments before in line behind us.
- When I was of similar age, I took the advice of "just find a tree to pee behind" while I was camping once a little too literal and applied this practice in the middle of a public park (I guess going to the side of a tree not facing me was "behind" in my mind even though it faced the rest of the park and city Zoo), thus committing the crime of indecent exposure.
Is my house made of glass yet or is stone throwing still safe? Still safe, okay.....how about this.
- I used to jump from one of the bridges in my home town into the river, even though signage on either side of the bridge and conveniently placed at our jump sight explicitly said it was prohibited.
Okay or not, that's for each person to decide. Not some blog writer who's basic understanding of the situation is critically deficient. You'd think his argument would at least make a reasonable appeal to legal right but instead it attempts to shame those who still despise the guy while justifying hideous acts showing complete disregard for animal life.
So no, Robert. I will not dismount my trusty, long-legged stallion and I shall ask other horsemen and horsewomen to remain situated upon theirs as well. I have neither skeletons in my closet that even vaguely resemble the skeletons Vick has buried in his back yard, nor the desire to dismount and come down to your level filled with justifications, wild insinuations, and flat out ignorance.