Article: Police raid Vick's home, find dog abuse

[iceberg]

And I'd suggest that ANYTHING that so offends society at large's sense of decency ought to be illegal... I don't want things like this left up to each individual's conscience, simply because some people don't have consciences...

otherwise what's the point of decency and indencency if you don't reward one and punish the other?

i really think some people are bored and just say stupid things to see how their personal reaction meter be effected.

 

[Big Dakota]

Out here is South Dakota, one thing that's in vogue, is hunting coyotes with Greyhounds. I'm a rancher. I kill coyotes when their populations get too high because when they do they kill my calves. Yet something about shooting them, and watching them ripped to bits by 3-4 hounds is not the same. Maybe in the end, killing an animal is all the same, but i'd rather put an animal through as little pain as possible if it has to be killed. After watching those hounds hunt and kill those coyotes, i don't allow it on my place anymore. I love dogs and have respect for the coyote and believe it has a place in the ecosystem. I'd never want us to over hunt them to extinction, which we could easily do. My point is, there is a dfference in being humane and being vicious. Dogs fighting of their own accord is nature, pitting them against one another is inhumane.

 

[theogt]

why else would you make a law? cause it's funny and you're bored? we make laws around "common sensibilties" that we have as a general society. i really don't care how you classify what - if you're "ok" with dogs being bred to fight for *any* reason you've got some issues.

It's my belief that laws that restrict personal use of private property should be only made where the activity has an net negative impact on society. Dog-fighting is morally offensive, but it has little, if any, negative impact on society -- at least that I'm aware of.

next thing you know the dogs are all killing each other for our entertainment, and one day one dog will break free and bite into a child and we'll force all dogs to be our servents in retribution. then one day one will step up and speak about the incaninemanity (inhumanity) of the actions against dog-kind and suddenly they'll organize and revolt and next think you know mankind is nothing but a couple of mutes and mutants with 1 guy from the past pounding the sand in disbelief as he screams DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL because the statue of liberty is now buried on a beach.

I don't think this will be the case. I think the vast majority of human beings are decent enough to not be entertained by this sort of thing.

in any event, theogt - it sounds like you're condoning it or just don't care. that's kinda sad if so. ain't no reason to mistreat animals cause you're bored or apathetic.

I'm not condoning it. Wasn't it you that had the problem of people conflating issues? Just because I think it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean I condone it. Don't conflate the two.

And yet, you think it should be legal... to me, that is a tacit endorsement of the behavior in question...

I don't care if that's "tacit endorsement" to you. It's not to me, and I don't think it's logical for anyone to conclude that. If you do, I think you're illogical and that's fine with me.

IOW, your words and your actions are contradictory in this instance...

No, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever. Moral obligatoin does not equal legal obligation.

The government routinely dictates to us what we can or can't do with our "property"... as noted, we can't grow marijuana on our property... we can't drive our cars (which are our property) without a license... in most states, we can't operate our motorcycles without a helmet...

Yes, the gov't regulates things. Sometimes it has legitimate reasons, in my opinion, and sometimes it doesn't.

The list goes on and on and on and on... but ultimately, whether you think it SHOULD be illegal or not isn't relevant (though it suggests some deficiency in your character), because it IS illegal... so Ron Mexico is a criminal, as well as a miserable piece of crap for his choice of "hobbies"...

I know it's illegal. I never said it wasn't.

This argument of yours would make the ACLU look conservative, LOL...

It's whatever. I'm hardly a conservative, if you're asking.

so things that are despicable, gross, makes us less than human, horrible and disgusting and if you knew someone who did it you'd committ a crime to let them know how bad it is.

yet you won't call it a crime.

you'll commit one to people who do it but it upon itself isn't a crime.

i'm gonna go do a dozen queludes now and re-establish my hookup with common sense.

This post makes little sense at all. If you're asking whether I believe that because something is despicable and gross, it shoudl be illegal, then the answer is, no. I don't think that simply because something is despicable, it should be illegal.

And I'd suggest that ANYTHING that so offends society at large's sense of decency ought to be illegal...

That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. I simply disagree.

I don't want things like this left up to each individual's conscience, simply because some people don't have consciences...

That's a pretty good line. Nice use of irony.

 

[theogt]

otherwise what's the point of decency and indencency if you don't reward one and punish the other?

i really think some people are bored and just say stupid things to see how their personal reaction meter be effected.

Those people may exist, but I assure you I'm not one of them. Just because something isn't polite, proper, or decent, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

[silverbear]

otherwise what's the point of decency and indencency if you don't reward one and punish the other?

i really think some people are bored and just say stupid things to see how their personal reaction meter be effected.

Hey, I don't understand theogt's stand here, but let's not go too overboard rippin' on him... I always thought he was a good guy, and even if I don't understand his position here, I still think he's a good guy...

I have a hunch that he's trying to make a libertarian argument here, about too much government intrusion into our private lives... if the subject for these observations was a bit different, I might even have sympathy with it...

But I definitely favor keeping the laws we have on the books against fighting dogs for fun and profit... maybe that's just because dogs are one of my favorite things in the world, and I really would think about doing serious harm to anybody who tried to hurt mine...

At the very least, a judge should order that Vick never be allowed to own a dog again...

 

[jackrussell]

No, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever. Moral obligatoin does not equal legal obligation.

I figured since you took some time out from your less than honorable campaign to legalize animal torture to correct my spelling....I'd point out yours.

Now, back to your promotion of legalizing of animal brutality.

Me...I think I'll follow your mentality and go slap my wife around because, while it may be illegal, it doesn't affect you....so it's a stupid law.

 

[zrinkill]

You know that thread about how to identify a credible poster?

Well I think this thread could show how to identify a decent human being behind the poster.

And I am dissappointed.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's my belief that laws that restrict personal use of private property should be only made where the activity has an net negative impact on society. Dog-fighting is morally offensive, but it has little, if any, negative impact on society -- at least that I'm aware of.

I see what you are trying to say. If someone wants to do something on his property with his property it should be ok as long as it does not intrude on other peoples rights, property or health or other impacts on society.

However what I think you are dismissing is the idea that it does have an impact on society. Training dogs to be mean to kill or maim also is one of the main reasons many of these dogs (pit bulls in particular) get a bum rap. Plus the idea that these idiots make these dogs mean to stroke their own egos and the dogs get loose and harm other HUMANS. So it does impact society not just his own property and fighting.

I don't think this will be the case. I think the vast majority of human beings are decent enough to not be entertained by this sort of thing.

The vast majority sure. However if there was no interest or money in it than he would not be still doing it. Just like child porn net...there has to be interest out there for people to keep putting it up on the web. Now I am not comparing dog fighting and child porn in severity...just saying that if there was not a demand for either than it would not still happen.

I'm not condoning it. Wasn't it you that had the problem of people conflating issues? Just because I think it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean I condone it. Don't conflate the two.

One must consider Directly vs Indirectly condoning animal cruelty vs personal freedom concerning one's own property. However there is a reason this happens. You may not be condoning the fighting DIRECTLY...but by saying you think people should be allowed to do what they want with their property you are INDIRECTLY condoning it.

I don't care if that's "tacit endorsement" to you. It's not to me, and I don't think it's logical for anyone to conclude that. If you do, I think you're illogical and that's fine with me.

But it is nothing more than a case of indirectly condoning it whether you wish to admit or acknowledge it. Sure we would all love to be able to do what we want on our property with our property but there are guidelines set down by society. Cruelty to animals is an example of one's mindset and a I believe a microcosm to how one deals with human members of society.

No, there's nothing contradictory whatsoever. Moral obligatoin does not equal legal obligation.

It does when you are breaking the law.

I mean I think Mary Jane should be legal. However it is not. If I break the law and get caught doing it than that is on me because I took the chance when I did it. If I want to change the laws than I have the option in life to try and change a law. Until then it is a law.

 

[theogt]

I figured since you took some time out from your less than honorable campaign to legalize animal torture to correct my spelling....I'd point out yours.

Now, back to your promotion of legalizing of animal brutality.

Me...I think I'll follow your mentality and go slap my wife around because, while it may be illegal, it doesn't affect you....so it's a stupid law.

There's a difference between typos and spelling errors. Mine was a typo.

I see what you are trying to say. If someone wants to do something on his property with his property it should be ok as long as it does not intrude on other peoples rights, property or health or other impacts on society.

However what I think you are dismissing is the idea that it does have an impact on society. Training dogs to be mean to kill or maim also is one of the main reasons many of these dogs (pit bulls in particular) get a bum rap. Plus the idea that these idiots make these dogs mean to stroke their own egos and the dogs get loose and harm other HUMANS. So it does impact society not just his own property and fighting.

That's very true. And like I said, there should be strict liability for any person whose dog harms another person's property or person, particularly when the dog is of an agressive nature.

HOWEVER, the law does not preclude training your dog to be aggressive. So, outlawing dog-fighting wouldn't prevent training dogs to be agressive.

The vast majority sure. However if there was no interest or money in it than he would not be still doing it. Just like child porn net...there has to be interest out there for people to keep putting it up on the web. Now I am not comparing dog fighting and child porn in severity...just saying that if there was not a demand for either than it would not still happen.

I agree. But the poster was using a "slippery slope" argument and I was pointing out that it was wrong.

One must consider Directly vs Indirectly condoning animal cruelty vs personal freedom concerning one's own property. However there is a reason this happens. You may not be condoning the fighting DIRECTLY...but by saying you think people should be allowed to do what they want with their property you are INDIRECTLY condoning it.

Actually, I'm not. I'm directly shunning it. I've said that it's bad and that I would publicly scorn any person that does it. I do not condone it. Just like I don't condone communism. But I don't think it should be illegal for you to distribute pamphlets promoting a communist revolution.

But it is nothing more than a case of indirectly condoning it whether you wish to admit or acknowledge it. Sure we would all love to be able to do what we want on our property with our property but there are guidelines set down by society. Cruelty to animals is an example of one's mindset and a I believe a microcosm to how one deals with human members of society.

No, it's not. As I explained, I condemn the conduct. I think it's horrible. But I don't think it should be illegal. I think everyone should and does have a moral obligation to not behave this way. I think everyone should and does have a moral obligation to scorn those that behave this way. However, there is a very real distinction between moral obligation and legal obligation.

I condemn the action of cursing in public. I don't think it should be illegal, though.

It does when you are breaking the law.

I mean I think Mary Jane should be legal. However it is not. If I break the law and get caught doing it than that is on me because I took the chance when I did it. If I want to change the laws than I have the option in life to try and change a law. Until then it is a law.

I said, "moral obligation does not equal legal obligation." This means that simply because something is a moral obligation does not mean it should be a legal obligation. I didn't mean that every legal obligation isn't a moral obligation. Some are, some aren't.

For a great example and discussion of this topic, check out MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

 

[irvin88]

SMITHFIELD, Va. Apr 26, 2007 (AP)— Police conducting a drug investigation raided a house owned by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and found dozens of dogs, some injured and emaciated. Police also found items associated with dog fighting.

State Police Sgt. D.S. Carr said Vick's relative, Davon Boddie, 26, lives in the house. Vick owns the property, but doesn't live there and wasn't present when a search warrant was executed in a drug investigation Wednesday night, Carr said.

Boddie was arrested outside a nightclub by Hampton police April 20 on charges of distribution of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute. The search warrant was executed by a multijurisdictional task force in a narcotics probe.

More than 60 dogs were found in three buildings. Some appeared malnourished, scarred and injured, officials said.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, said the group has "heard troubling reports for some time that Michael Vick has been involved in organized dog fighting, and we fear that this investigation may validate that very disturbing allegation."

"We urge law enforcement to aggressively investigate this matter, and we further believe that anyone who harbors dogs for the purpose of fighting, deserves to be fully prosecuted for their crimes," Pacelle said in a statement. "Dog fighting is a barbaric activity that causes immense animal suffering and fosters violence in our communities. Our nation should have a zero tolerance policy for any form of staged animal fighting."

The Humane Society said dog fighting is illegal nationwide and a felony in 48 states, including both Virginia and Georgia.

The animal rights group PETA has asked Falcons owner Arthur Blank to suspend Vick pending the investigation and "to kick him off the team if it is found that dogs on Vick's property were neglected or used for fighting."

In a letter to Blank, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said it was the second time it was writing to the owner about one of his players and allegations of cruelty to animals. On Feb. 23, the organization wrote to him about defensive tackle Jonathan Babineaux's felony charges in Georgia stemming from the fatal beating of a dog.

 

[Doomsday101]

Vicks relative is in trouble, Vick owns the property but does not reside there.

 

[xpistofer]

bite bob roberts...

 

[adamknite]

Vicks relative is in trouble, Vick owns the property but does not reside there.

yeah but if Vick knew what was going on there then that would make him a part of it. I don't know if Vick knew I'm just saying that there is a possibillity Vick can get into some trouble over this too since he owns the property.

 

[jackrussell]

There's a difference between typos and spelling errors. Mine was a typo.

Call it want you want..it was misspelled. What is your point in calling attention to a spelling error? And if you have to bring out a spelling error...you're trying to sidetrack attention from the fact your position is morally irreprehensible as anyone who fights these dogs.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Guys I know this can be a heated topic but knock off any personal insults please.

 

[theogt]

Call it want you want..it was misspelled. What is your point in calling attention to a spelling error? And if you have to bring out a spelling error...you're trying to sidetrack attention from the fact your position is morally irreprehensible as anyone who fights these dogs.

Sidetrack attention? You're the guy that brought up typos and misspelled words.

I've kept up my position this entire thread, despite having about 20 posters attack my position and call me all sorts of nasty things. I've got nothing to hide.

And how can advocating that something not be illegal be morally reprehensible? I'm not advocating that people engage in the activity. I'm advocating quite the opposite. I don't advocate that people smoke, but I don't think it should be illegal. Am I morally obligated to think smoking should be illegal just because I think it's a bad thing?

Your position leads to some silly results.

 

[jackrussell]

Sidetrack attention? You're the guy that brought up typos and misspelled words.

I'm done with your Neandathral leanings for the night...carry on with the scumbag cause all you like.

theogt= Read. Comprehend. Don't be a Neanderthal.
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

Yeah, right. Mere coincidence on the italics...

I've kept up my position this entire thread, despite having about 20 posters attack my position and call me all sorts of nasty things. I've got nothing to hide.

No you don't. Your inhumanity rings loud and clear.

And how can advocating that something not be illegal be morally reprehensible?

As BrainPaint pointed out, as others, you're endorsing their right to abuse animals.

I don't advocate that people smoke, but I don't think it should be illegal. Am I morally obligated to think smoking should be illegal just because I think it's a bad thing?

Terrible reach. Taking something that is legal, that people inflict upon themselves, and using it as a comparison to something that is illegal, that people inflict on something other than themselves.

Your position leads to some silly results.

And your position tells us all as to what type of person you are.