Posted on 08/22/2007 5:04:23 AM PDT by PurpleMan
Stephon Marbury, NBA star, "...You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."
(Excerpt) Read more at wjbf.com ...
So you don’t know if it is true or not. Interesting.
So you think Vick personally drowned and hung dogs with his own hands.
I know people are loathe to deal with hypotheticals, so I will phrase the question another way. Last week, before Michael Vick agreed to plead guilty, what did you think of the NFL's stated position that they were going to wait to see what the civil authorities did before fulfilling their moral obligation to deal with Michael Vick?
Do you find it troubling that the NFL was prepared to cede their responsibilities to the State? After all, Michael Vick could have walked on this, and then they would be left in a position of having to condone his abhorrent behavior.
You should see what they do with “undesirable” puppies at a puppy mill.
Be that it may, my point is does the farmer or whoever torture the animal before killing it? Is it a quick death or is the animal strung up and made to suffer? And equating animals to a piece of furniture or inanimate object - private property - classifies anyone as a flaming idiot and an indicator that such person has no respect for life.
According to the documents filed in court (you can find them at The Smoking Gun), the codefendants will testify that they personally witnessed him killing the dogs.
Be careful what standard you set for “knowing” whether something occurred. From a purely scientific point of view, one cannot “prove” that Napoleon existed.
Is a cow capable of defending itself? Hundreds of Millions of cows are killed every year. They are denied life. What could be more abusive than that?
Emotion over substance. Clarence Thomas all over again.
It’s unethical to cause unnecessary harm. It is the usual proper function of law to protect the innocent.
Emotion over substance. Clarence Thomas all over again.
No, morality over indifference.
And your reference to Clarence Thomas is totally irrelevant.
““However”, dogs as with other domestic animals, are private property. As such, the owner has a right to kill these animals.
Since when were there no limits on a persons right to use private property?”
DOGEY, you are way, way, behind on this msg string. If you are going to get in this game, late though it may be, suggest you read up and get current. As for me, it has been a fun morning for sure. But all good things must come to an end as I have some dog, uhh rat killing to do. So, I must go, heh, heh....
Vick and this owner do. HE is a part of this problem.
Get it????????????????????????????????????
I was for the NFL taking immediate action once they learned that the charges were filed.
Vick has been suspended from play, so there's no hurry. He won't be taking the field before the NFL takes it's final disciplinary action. I expect that the commissioner wants to know exactly what Vick has pleaded to AND they want to know WHO ELSE may be involved. Remember there's a gambling dimension to this, and the league will want to know about this as well.
Thing that worrys me is that whatever time Vick does will be shortened. The prison system is always looking to thin the population & if it's a choice between releasing a murder, rapist, or animal abuser, the animal abuser gets the free pass. That makes re-instatement to the league a real possibility unless they can document the gambling aspect.
I know that was the testimony given.
So, I do know based on those involved who made statements.
So you think Vick personally drowned and hung dogs with his own hands.
Yes, I do, just as the guys who gave testimony stated he did.
And again, how is this relevant to anything?
He financed the entire operation so was responsible for it-since it was done on his property.
Federal prisons make them do over 85% of their time.
So, whatever time Vick does get, he will serve most of it.
I think he may get 3 years.
The question is not if we are allowed to kill animals but, rather, whether society allows us to torture animals to death.
When I kill a king salmon, I kill it quickly by hitting it over the head with a small club and rendering it unconscious and then cutting the gill arteries and letting it bleed to death quickly over the side of the boat.
I do not kill a king salmon slowly by torturing it and filleting it while it is still alive.
Well, obviously one is not entitled to kill anything that does not belong to him. That would be destruction of somebody else's property, which is illegal, of course.
There are, of course, certain circumstances where one can receive permission to kill animals that are public property, one's own property or on somebody else's property. The state grants hunting permits routinely, after all. One is within one's rights to kill a stray on one's own property. One can make an arrangement with an landowner to rid his property of deer or pests.
Many people, in fact, hunt and fish for sport. They kill for their own amusement and enjoyment. Not everybody out in the woods is going to bring back the meat.
Amen.
Amazing how this is beyond some people's comphrension.
Well, I lived in an area where the Amish raise dogs in volume. I suspect that the old practice of drowning undesireable puppies is still done on these farms. But you'll never actually see it because the Amish are instinctively concerned about their privacy. I doubt that they would waste a bullet, frankly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.