Possible Loophole In Vick Case...

[Ben_n_austin]

If Vick's dogs lost, they were hung, electrocuted, drowned, and slammed to the ground until their skulls craked open.

And you still think no jail time?

WOW, JUST WOW

Describe the manner in which you think the animals that you eat are slaughtered....

Be honest. I can almost guarantee that you won't give me a detailed and rational account of the manner in which animals that you eat are slaughtered.

To do so would make you what some of us already know you are--a hypocrite.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

who died and made you the judge of what the debate is about? and quite frankly the entire basis for the law is a moral background. in this case the two are inseperable. what disingenuous is you trying to ferret out of that point with this tripe.

ilike how you get to play god with deer and not dogs. its nice. how about they take dogs off the street? oh yeah that wouldnt work in your eyes.

It's amazing how circularly irrational people can be when it comes to puppies. Our society tells us that it's ok to shoot Bambi or Bugs bunny, but not Old Yeller unless you have to.

 

[silverbear]

i love how you refuse to use the multiquote feature to attempt to get you post count up. that and try and spam in an argument in an attempt to win it.

Like I said, I respond to posts as I read them... even if I know there are other posts to follow that I'll likely feel like responding to as well, my posts tend to be pretty long-winded, so using the multi-quote feature would make them downright unreadable...

Don't be so silly as to think for a second that I do this because of my post count, I couldn't possibly care less about that...

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Yes... first, deer hunting is LEGAL... second, deer hunting helps control the deer population, which keeps deer from starving to death...

A quick bullet is better than dying of starvation, IMO...

And once again, this is not a MORAL debate, this is a LEGAL debate... do quit trying to cover up for your asinine position on the law, by trying to turn this into a moral argument... that's quite disingenuous of you...

We have animal control centers preaching to neuter your pets. So, by your reasoning, there is no need for the population control of dogs?

I think some animal groups would disagree.

Sure, it's a "legal" debate. But in most case like this, it wouldn't have drawn nearly as much attention from the media. The public "out cry", as stated in a previous post, put pressure on the authorities to enforce the law.

There are laws that go ignored or are dealt with lightly because we have bigger fish to fry. Within the scope of crime in this country, killing a dog is a very very small part of that scope in terms of the bigger picture of crime and, in my opinion, it shouldn't call for large amounts of tax money being spent to make an example out of someone because PETA said so.

I'm for treating animals humanely, but the comes a point where you draw the line. There is a law in New Mexico, I believe that will land you a year in prison for chasing a buffalo....

If you were chasing a buffalo, and were facing prison time for it... would you still make it a "legal" issue?

 

[silverbear]

Typically bluster and namecalling are indicative of losing an argument.

Said the poster who has made a very big deal out of telling me how much he dislikes me... the same poster who has consistently lied about what his antagonists are arguing, saying we want Vick "burned at the stake"...

I hope they make you feel better for all your 500 posts in this thread that posit just about nothing.

LOL... I see, I'm supposed to use the multi-quote function, but YOU'RE allowed to make individual responses as you see fit...


I'll give you this much, your hypocrisy is STAGGERING...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Said the poster who has made a very big deal out of telling me how much he dislikes me... the same poster who has consistently lied about what his antagonists are arguing, saying we want Vick "burned at the stake"...



LOL... I see, I'm supposed to use the multi-quote function, but YOU'RE allowed to make individual responses as you see fit...


I'll give you this much, your hypocrisy is STAGGERING...

You were questioning my motives so i explained them. i really think youre a hypocritical blowhard and i despise your punitive nature. If you dont want me to explain my intentions then dont comment on them baselessly.

Spare me this innocent routine. You referred fondly to Vick being raped in prison and then act indignant about me saying you want to see him burned at the stake?

Oh and like your mindnumbing line by line responses aren't an incredible eyesore. Yet you still do them routinely.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Yeah, that'll happen...



Then you're no better than Vick...



So, you're a sadist... you must be SOOO proud...

Your idea of "fun" is SICK... serial killers often got started by doing precisely what you describe doing, torturing animals as kids...



Congratulations on being raised wrong... shame on you for trying to convince us that those raised in "the hood" approve of this behavior... decent people, no matter where they come from, do not approve of this behavior... if YOU do, that means you have no decency in you... and if what you say about your family is true, the apple did not fall far from the tree...

....it's what's for dinner.

You have no idea what a contractarian you are being. Or maybe you do, but you just don't see how silly that it makes you look given YOUR lifestyle.

Killing an animal is killing an animal. By your reasoning, your a sadist by the mere fact that you eat meat... and yet even more so a
"sadist", in my opinion, by claiming not to be when you have just as much impact on the suffering of animals as Mike Vick does. You seem to be more of a psychopath because you're unable admit or see/feel that you have just as much impact, directly or indirectly, on the issue of animal cruelty, including all animals not limited to dogs, as Mike Vick does.

But you're a meat eater--red meat, every day-right?

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Oh and like your mindnumbing line by line responses aren't an incredible eyesore. Yet you still do them routinely.

Agreed. I think bear thinks that by doing this that it adds something substantiative when it doesn't.

 

[Ben_n_austin]

Vick isn't incarcerated because of substance problem so I don't see how RDATP can reduced his sentence.

If allowed in, it would be on the basis that the dog fighting ordeal was due to his usage of drugs, specifically, marijuana. And that doesn't take priority or precedence in these sorts of programs due to more serious drug issues that land people in prison, unless, perhaps, you're a super star.

But to be clear, this isn't a loophole in the law.

 

[burmafrd]

There is no way that he skips on most of his sentence. Thats just a fantasy of those sad pathetic people who like killing dogs.

 

[silverbear]

Again i think your sanctimonious outrage is amusing.

Ahh, but is it DISINGENUOUS??

Perhaps you should stick to words you actually understand, Norm...

 

[silverbear]

Oh and now maturity smack.

Yup, anybody who could publicly state that he wants to see a convicted felon get off light just to annoy people with whom he's arguing has some serious maturity issues...

Hey you want to burn me at the stake thats nice.

Naw, this board needs some comic relief... I wish you absolutely no harm, I just really think you oughta take Vick in when he gets out of jail, help get a fresh start...

I mean, since you're so concerned about the way his rights have been violated, it seems like the least you could do...

 

[silverbear]

actually im not even remotely a libertarian. keep guessing though maybe if you keep trying youll figure it out.

Chuckle... you keep on ranting about how our civil liberties are being eroded, you say the government needs to get out of our private lives... if that ain't a classic libertarian, what is??

Here's how Encarta defines the Libertarian Party:

political party: a U.S. political party founded in 1971 and advocating personal liberty, the free market, free trade, and noninterventionism

The Oxford Dictionary defines a libertarian as:

a person who advocates civil liberty.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Libertarian Party in America as:

political party devoted to the principles of libertarianism. It supports the rights of individuals to exercise virtual sole authority over their lives and sets itself against the traditional services and regulatory and coercive powers of federal, state, and local governments.

And what have you been doing in this entire thread except scream about how our "civil liberties" are being taken from us, and saying that the government shouldn't intervene in how any citizen treats his property, i.e., advocating noninterventionism??

It seems you don't even know what libertarians believe in, so I'll meet you halfway, and say you're an ACCIDENTAL libertarian... it seems that once again, you've been done in by your imperfect grasp of the English language...

 

[silverbear]

this is boring and your rehashing old arguments that have been gone over. You even quoted one of my responses earlier. How about you read that response again and think about it. Youre right the standard you guys are trying to assert would make it impossible for anyone to gain admittance.

and again the courts dont handle the RDAP entry and quit making up crap about what the standard or proof is.

All I did was quote YOUR post outlining the requirements, in post number 21 in this thread... you are cordially invited to go back to any assertion I've made regarding those requirements, and show me how it distorts the words in that post...

Here's some of the salient points in that post... again, I'm quoting the guy YOU offered as the expert:

"If you can show you had a substance abuse issue 1 year prior to entering custody you can get UP TO A YEAR knocked off your federal sentence."

So, you have to show you had a problem at least ONE YEAR prior to entering custody... exactly as I have asserted... clearly, a flunked drug test a month ago does not qualify him for admission to the program... equally clearly, you have to SHOW you had a substance abuse issue, simply claiming it won't suffice... and you can get UP TO a year off, which clearly means you can get less... again, exactly as I've asserted...

Period of custody — The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons,

So, Vick would have to graduate, as in "successfully complete" the program... exactly as I've asserted, for the THIRD time... and he MAY have his sentence reduced; not MUST have his sentence reduced, there is clearly some discretion available to those who make such decisions... and for a fourth time, exactly as I have asserted...

So again, what have I distorted?? To the contrary, YOU were the one who claimed that all Vick would have to do is stand in front of the court and CLAIM he had this long-standing problem, when that's obviously not the case... so YOU'RE the one distorting the truth here...

Bottom line, unless the expert YOU cited is full of it (and after all, I'm taking YOUR word for it, and you have proven to be less than straightforward in this argument), the requirements for Vick to enter this program are that he demonstrate to the court that he's had a drug problem for at least one year prior to going to jail... a flunked drug test a month ago won't do, his simply claiming that he has that problem won't do...

But what might well work for him in that area is if, as WoodysGirl pointed out, he has been in the NFL's drug program for at least a year... we wouldn't have heard about it if that was the case, but I presume that Vick's lawyers could subpoena that information to use in their client's behalf if they wished...

And even then, Vick would have to SUCCESSFULLY complete the problem, but as I pointed out a number of times, the chances of him doing so, when he couldn't even stay away from the weed while he was awaiting sentencing at slim to none... and even then, the folks who run that program aren't obligated to give him a year off of his sentence; they could give him less time off, or even NO time off, at their discretion...

This has been my argument regarding that drug program all along... now, tell me where ANY of it is wrong... you can't, unless you now wish to argue that the "expert" YOU cited has it all wrong...

I'm predicting you're gonna duck this post, given that you're proving to be rather disingenuous... LOL...

 

[silverbear]

ive admitted to being wrong on two counts in this thread.

When you were backed into a corner, and had no other choice...

 

[silverbear]

thats not namecalling or bluster

Uhhh, who used the word "bluster"?? Not this ol' Bear... once again, finding yourself in the unenviable position of trying to defend your BLATANT hypocrisy, you try to take the argument off on a tangent, to deflect attention away from said hypocrisy... once again, you engage in the most RIDICULOUS semantic tapdancing, this time putting words in my mouth that I didn't utter...

As for the namecalling, shall I go look up all the little names you called me?? Saying you don't like me, as you did in a most blustery manner (LOL) certainly qualifies as an insult... hell, in this post alone you've called me "petty"...

Not that I mind, you understand, as I've already told you I'm warmed by your contempt... I'm just pointing out yet another example of your hypocrisy, on a par with complaining about my failure to use the multiquote feature, even as you fail to use it... this time, you're whining about "namecalling", even as you've spent a good part of this thread indulging in (rather lame) namecalling...

perhaps you should look up what those words mean.

Unlike you, I have a pretty wide vocabulary, and I understand the proper usage of most all of the words in it...

this is boring

OK, who out here is forcing Fuzzy to respond to my boring posts??!?

youre part of the baby boom generation arent you?

Indeed I am... and your point is?? You DO have a point, don't you??

 

[silverbear]

Yup i figured that i would come back to see more insults from you.

Hey, if you sling insults, you're likely to have some slung your way... if you have a problem with that, perhaps you should avoid insulting others...

It IS fun, though, watching you toss out these veiled pleas for one of the mods to rescue you from yourself...

BTW its completely relevant. the fact that this society routinely advocates a myriad of forms of animal abuse certainly is meaningful in the context that this individual form of it is singled out.

No, it's not relevant, no matter how much you wish it was... what's relevant is what Vick did is ILLEGAL... it doesn't matter how moral or immoral such a law is... morality does not enter into the equation...

I think the laws governing marijuana possession are immoral too, but they ARE the laws, so I'm bound by them... as are you... you don't get to pick and choose which laws you like, and want to obey, and which you don't...

You make a pathetic Thoreau, LOL...

Thats called inconsistency and quite frankly whats good for the goose is good for the gander. pun intended.

Pun?? What pun??

Seems you don't even know what a pun IS... once again, you misuse a word, just as you misused the word "disingenuous" early in this thread...

im sure youre going to fall back to the typical 'well its illegal here nonsense' which truly is meaningless in the context of what Im saying.

What's meaningless is the context of what you're saying... I couldn't possibly care less about your opinions of the morality of the laws against dogfighting... I'd tell you why I don't care about that, but that WOULD be grounds for a moderator to issue an infraction...

 

[silverbear]

blah blah blah... yeah yeah yeah... a "crime" is nothing more than a label that other's put on you for breaking what they perceive as normal.

Nope, it's a standard established by each society as to what is or isn't acceptable behavior... and like it or not, you ARE bound by those rules... break them, and you'll find yourself called a "criminal"...

Across the entire world, much worse things than this happen to animals. But Mike Vick has to be just another statistic in the country with the largest prison population in the world, all because of the America's puppy love syndrome.

Right-- not abusing dogs is a societal standard in American society... break that standard, and you've committed a crime...

Again, whether or not you, me or ANYBODY agrees with that standard is completely irrelevant, we are ALL bound to obey the laws...

C'mon.... There is no common sense trying to give a man year(s), plural for taking a dog's life,

Vick killed more than one dog, and he isn't in jail for that... do try to figure out what he IS in jail for, before you go off on one of these mindless rants...

when people have received similar sentences for killing other human beings.

So, because some people have received ridiculously lenient sentences for more serious crimes, we should never, ever sentence ANYBODY to 23 months in jail??

What interesting, if idiotic, logic...

This is not the case... we eat pork--pigs have been proven to have higher intelligence than dogs--so what's the freakin' deal?

Simple-- eating pork is legal, dogfighting isn't...

I know what it is... hypocrisy.

Yeah, maybe it is... but it DOESN'T MATTER, it's the LAW... where you got the notion that you get to pick and choose which laws you wish to obey, I don't have a clue, but I sure do hope you don't walk the talk you're talkin', 'cause I'd sure miss you when you go to jail...

 

[silverbear]

What's even more amusing is people who rely on the term "contrarian" in an attempt to ridicule someone's argument.

Anybody who engages in contrarian behavior, because he fancies himself somehow morally superior, is deserving of ridicule... but more to the point, anybody who defends Michael Vick's behavior is deserving of ridicule... that's why I ridicule Fuzzy, and why I have no respect for your arguments on this one...

Of course someone who disagrees with you has a contrary view.

And when that person engages in RIDICULOUS arguments in defense of his contrary view, he is being a contrarian... when one tries to argue that Vick shouldn't be in jail because it's "immoral" of society to make dogfighting a crime, he's expressing a minority view, one that is scorned by the VAST majority of decent society, he is being a contrarian...

But you're not interested, like you never have been, in people's arguments that oppose yours.

Au contraire, I'm VERY interested when somebody makes an asinine argument, I find it FUN showing how asinine that argument is...

It's quite amusing, for someone who bumbles on like a babbling board bully who knows everything, that you don't even know when you're committing formal fallacies from an argument's standpoint left and right.

Actually, what I'm doing is rejecting the legitimacy of the argument... it is illlegitimate because no matter what you think, or what I think, the LAW says dogfighting is ILLEGAL...

Eat your pork and use your diabetes as an excuse not to change the way animals are treated.

Actually, I feel that we ought to slaughter the animals we use as food in as humane a manner as we possibly can... I have said as much before on these boards... and I personally have no interest in engaging in hunting or fishing... I don't want to kill ANYTHING...

But unlike you, I can grasp the difference between IMMORAL and ILLEGAL...

Yet, hang balloons and have a confetti party when Mike Vick is hung by the media and elites in the court system who don't want to lose their jobs by the pressure of the public and elections, which in turn ruins Mike Vick's livelihood....

Uhhhh, you do know that Vick pleaded guilty, freely and willingly, don't you??

What it equates to is Mike Vick is being imprisoned by the law using him as an example, due to political pressure from animal rights groups.

And of course, he's the ONLY one who has EVER been imprisoned by the law for this offense... he wasn't singled out for anything, he put himself in that position...

And then the media portrays this as a crime against humans, since dog's are man's best friends, and then people like you go on bumbling rampages about technicalities in laws, as if "We the people" included dogs as well...

Oh Jesus, now you're off on a media rant... ROTFLMAO...

Did know you that it's a misdemeanor to be punished "up to six months in jail" for negligent homicide for a company that violates a safety compliance rule?

Yet, somehow killing a dog-as brutal as this seems to some-is punished by a far greater magnitude with a far lessor crime.

Well, that's the law... if you don't like it, perhaps you ought to work to change the law, rather than ranting impotently on a message board...

Until then, Michael Vick was charged with a crime, has pleaded guilty to that crime, and is now in jail for that crime...

Let me guess, you'll break this down premise by premise (to make yourself look smarter) rather than see the argument as a whole and talk from that standpoint.

You STILL don't get it, do you?? I don't CARE about whether or not that law is immoral, and to be entirely honest with you, because I am afflicted with a severe case of what you arrogantly dismiss as "puppy love", I LIKE that law... as far as I'm concerned, people who abuse animals BELONG in jail...

So basically, I'm telling you that I don't give a rat's patootie about whether or not you and Fuzzy approve of the law... it IS the law, and you have to live with it...

And FWIW, I won't lose a wink of sleep over your disapproval of my "hypocrisy"... perhaps you see yourself as morally superior for your contrarian view, but I just see you as a cheap dime story Don Quixote, impotently bellowing your rage at the windmill that is our judicial system...

 

[silverbear]

who died and made you the judge of what the debate is about?

Uhhhh, this THREAD is about the possibility of Michael Vick getting his sentence reduced by entering a drug program while in jail... that is obviously a legal, not a moral issue... you just tried to take us off on a morality tangent, presumably because you knew you couldn't carry an argument on the legal grounds...

Do try to focus here, son...

and quite frankly the entire basis for the law is a moral background. in this case the two are inseperable.

No, they're not... the law exists, and must be obeyed... Vick broke the law, and is being punished for it... it really is just that simple...

The argument about whether or not that law is "moral" is irrelevant to this thread, and frankly, I don't CARE about your take on that issue... and I refuse to debate you on that one... each time you try to deflect this argument into that area, I'll remind you once again about what the law is...

If you want to start a thread debating whether or not this law is moral, you go right ahead... don't expect to find me posting to it, though...