[snoringbear]

“What part of dog-fighting being a felony do you not understand?

Dog fighting is considered cruelty to animals and rightfully so.”

Hmmm,

Well, guess there are gonna be a whole bunch of rural kids locked up as felony perp’s for fighting ole Fido. As a dog lover and owner for all of my life, I do not condone being cruel to animals. “However”, dogs as with other domestic animals, are private property. As such, the owner has a right to kill these animals. Now, electrocution, drowning, banging a dog’s head against a concrete wall does seem somewhat excessive. But, is this actually against the law? Those of us who were raised on farms and ranches are well aware of what happens to dogs that run cattle,especially those that are pregnant, chase milk cows, kill chickens, eat eggs, etc, etc. The answer for you city dwellers is shot dead in the head. Actually, when we cut to the chase on Vick's crime(s), the only thing he is guilty of is the gambling component.

[mutley]

Actually, when we cut to the chase on Vick's crime(s), the only thing he is guilty of is the gambling component.

I wonder why he plead guilty then?

[NorthFlaRebel]

While dogfighting is horrible, this whole deal should bring up a debate that nobody wants to get into. Most "conservatives" would agree that animals have no "rights" and are private property. Sure, being cruel to an animal is dispicable, but those of us who know about rural and farm life know that you aren't ever 100% humane to animals, which are your property. Shooting dogs who run your cattle is common place. But you'd get brought up on charges for doing that in a more suburban area. And chickens, cattle - how do people think they are killed? Their necks are broken. And I have heard of people putting down their pets, though "humanely" with a needle, for stupid reasons that in the end, aren't "humane".

Anyway, I think Vick should be shunned for being involved in such a heinous act, but people wanting this guy to go to prison for years upon years, I just can't agree with. A little jail, fine. Shunned by the NFL, definitely. But he didn't hurt a person or kill them as far as we know.

[Lucas McCain]

Can you not see the difference between killing an animal because it poses a threat of some kind, and torturing animals for fun?

[nhoward14]

In every case you bring up except pregnancy the dog has done something dangerous in order to warrant being killed, which is nothing at all like killing dogs for the fun of it.

If the dog is pregnant, it’s your own fault for not spaying it in the first place and you are just as evil as any other animal torturer when you kill it.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, guess there are gonna be a whole bunch of rural kids locked up as felony perp’s for fighting ole Fido. As a dog lover and owner for all of my life, I do not condone being cruel to animals. “However”, dogs as with other domestic animals, are private property. As such, the owner has a right to kill these animals. Now, electrocution, drowning, banging a dog’s head against a concrete wall does seem somewhat excessive. But, is this actually against the law? Those of us who were raised on farms and ranches are well aware of what happens to dogs that run cattle,especially those that are pregnant, chase milk cows, kill chickens, eat eggs, etc, etc. The answer for you city dwellers is shot dead in the head. Actually, when we cut to the chase on Vick's crime(s), the only thing he is guilty of is the gambling component.

He is guilty of breaking a law that is on the books as a felony-dog fighting.

He is guilty of breaking God's moral law regarding cruelty to animals.

The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.(Pro.12:7)

So laws that punish cruelty to animals are just laws based on Biblical principle.

And dont' give me 'I wouldn't do that but he has a right to' nonsense.

If you condone that wickedness you are just as guilty as he is.

[gridlock]

For some FReepers, the leap from “should not be condoned” to “should be illegal” is very short.

I agree that cruelty to animals is repugnant and impolite. I agree that nobody should do it. I do not see why it should be illegal, however.

Why should it be illegal?

[7thson]

You are a flaming idiot. When your dog that runs cattle is injured, do you let it die a slow, painful death? Do you slowly strangle it? No. By your own admission, you shot it quickly to put it out of its misery. Same with horses and other animals. And the private property argument was used in the 1800’s in defense of slavery. Does Dred Scott ring a bell? Like someone else posted, if you can’t tell the difference, something is wrong with you!

[Beckwith]

As such, the owner has a right to kill these animals.

You are an idiot -- and a cruel idiot to boot.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Once you look up and understand the word ‘similarities’ along with all it’s oh-so-difficult to understand connotations, then you should post on this subject again. Until then, let a grown look over anything you want to type.

[DOGEY]

“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?

[CDHart]

You said "shot dead in the head." Precisely. They are killed for food or other purposes humanely. Dog fighting is simply cruelty for someone's perverted pleasures.

Carolyn

[Teacher317]

But, is this actually against the law?

Yes, it is.