Surely, you jest?
Posted on 08/23/2007 6:07:00 AM PDT by libstripper
It's been a hoot reading and listening to pundits and armchair legal analysts speculate on the fate awaiting Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick on charges of illegal dogfighting.
First the easy part: You can expect Vick to be handed a harsher sentence than the one year being bandied about by some observers.
The judge has already said the acts described by Vick's co-conspirators suggest "aggravating" circumstances. Often that means a sentence more harsh than lenient.
With Vick as the major, if not only, source of funding for the operation, it's likely the judge will view him as the ringleader of the enterprise.
The federal guidelines generally suggest a sentence of anywhere from 12 to 18 months for the crime to which Vick will plead guilty. My guess is that the judge may well hand down a longer jail term. Why? Because the men who pleaded guilty ahead of Vick will probably get the stiffer end of the suggested sentencing range, or about 18 months.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I heard today that he will NOT admit to gambling in his plea bargain, thus the KEY will be whether the courts let him get off without admitting to "gambling".
I have noticed this by Rush Limbaugh.
If you mean to say that Rush is indifferent to animal suffering, I think that he most certainly is not. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
Their complaint is that since we do not punish 'real' criminals so why should we punish these criminals at all.
I've never heard anyone advance that argument.
Well, the answer is punishing the other criminals as well, not ignoring this crime.
Moreover, just because the Left is against it for the wrong reason, doesn't mean conservatives are so suppose to indifferent to it
I happen to agree with you on your last two points. I was just origianlly commenting on the use of the word, "executed."
As for the word 'execution', it can simply mean,
destruction, slaughter (Webster, 1828)
More precisely, the word was not the noun, 'execution", but the p.p. of the verb "execute." I didn't have one of the secondary meanings in Webster's 1828 in mind, probably because the indictment is a contemporary legal document. I think that use of the term "executed" was improper because in a legal context the term means to have been put to death for a crime pursuant to a death sentence, which obviously does not apply to animals.
On second thought, considering the times, perhaps I shouldn't think that such a thing was obvious.
Cordially,
Surely, you jest?
I was referring to the response of the Black community, not the obvious gravity of the crime of murder vs dogfighting.
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep.
If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf.
But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens?
Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path.
Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
[W. Whittle]
He features an anthropomorphic analogy yet castigates others for anthropomorphizing animals.
Priceless.
Salamander
[Who runs with Egyptian wolves]
If he won’t admit to the gambling, then he’s welshing out on admitting the part of the dog fighting racket that makes it work, just as betting on horse races makes horse racing work. That apparently being the case, I just can’t see why the Feds don’t just tell him to pound salt and go ahead with the superseding indictment.
ORLY?
Why the hell did you post that?
If you mean to say that Rush is indifferent to animal suffering, I think that he most certainly is not. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
What I am saying is that Rush takes the view of many on this forum that cruelty to animals is really not a big deal and associates those who do think so to PETA.
The argument is that since other crimes aren't being punished (like murder) this one should be ignored.
Conservatives want all crimes punished and if those other crimes are not being punished, it is not because those who want crimes punished against animals are against punishing crimes against humans more severely.
[ Their complaint is that since we do not punish 'real' criminals so why should we punish these criminals at all. ]
I've never heard anyone advance that argument.
Many of those who say that dog fighting is 'no big deal' put forth the argument that other crimes are not being punished and that going to jail for this crime (dog fighting) is wrong if a someone who commits a crime against a human gets off or has a lighter sentence.
[ Well, the answer is punishing the other criminals as well, not ignoring this crime. Moreover, just because the Left is against it for the wrong reason, doesn't mean conservatives are so suppose to indifferent to it ]
I happen to agree with you on your last two points. I was just origianlly commenting on the use of the word, "executed."
[ As for the word 'execution', it can simply mean, destruction, slaughter (Webster, 1828)]
More precisely, the word was not the noun, 'execution", but the p.p. of the verb "execute." I didn't have one of the secondary meanings in Webster's 1828 in mind, probably because the indictment is a contemporary legal document. I think that use of the term "executed" was improper because in a legal context the term means to have been put to death for a crime pursuant to a death sentence, which obviously does not apply to animals.
Well, according to Webster, it just means to put to death.
It has no legal connotation at all.
EX'ECUTED, pp. Done; performed; accomplished; carried into effect; put to death.
On second thought, considering the times, perhaps I shouldn't think that such a thing was obvious. Cordially,
And maybe you are reading more into the indictment then there is there.
I do not think the DA was considering the dogs as humans.
Nothing you have written contradicts my main points. Those are that A, as a species, domesticated dogs have had their naturally aggressive tendencies bred out to the degree possible, B, that animal combat to the death is the exception, not the rule, in nature, and that C virtually by definition civilization is the reduction of natural tendencies in man.
Everything in my previous post was not ME as you put it, it was the words, throughly sourced, from the writings of others. I have never denied that animals can kill when fighting. However, even lion pride takeovers occur on average only ever two to three years, and then the resulting, the loser’s deaths are often due not to combat but the inability to feed after losing the pride.
-http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/shelburne/organization.html
One need only watch a few National Geographic specials to see that fighting males often back down before serious injury or death can occur.
Finally, dogfighting as a sport has nothing to do with any naturally occurring phenomenon, any more than feeding Christians to lions did two thousand years ago. Pit Bulls raised for fighting are NOT feral dogs, they are domesticated animals possessing huge physical capacity for mayhem, that have been abused to the point of rendering their fitness for safe cohabitation with man impossible.
Michael Vick has shown he is an enemy of civilization, to the degree he embraces the baser instincts of both his species and canines as well. He values physical dominance over the cooperative values of society that has taken man from primitive stone age cave dwellers to modern beings whose poorest exceed the standard of living of ancient kings.
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.