Michael Vick in Talks to Become PETA Spokesman

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Once and for all, I think the principal issue that seperates MV from those that have a more legitimate use (albeit disgusting) of "dog" and in general.....animals is HOW they were dispatched. It is my understanding that Vick and his companero's often employed tortuous methods to accomplish this.......ex choking, drowning, etc for their own amusement.
I cannot say how those of the asian and other cultures "do in" soon to be dinner, but I can say I have never seen a hunter down by the "crick" drowning or choking Bambe to death. Those that would do these acts are SICK SOB's
A few months in the pen is doubtful to change such........severe character issues. I have no problem with him getting a job as he has paid his debt under the law.
I DO have a problem with him playing this charade out in public SOLEY for the $$$$$$.....see, I good now! no bad. I no choke innocent dogs to death for fun. I no drown innocent dogs to death for fun. I good, see PETA love me.
Wake up, it's about the $$$, nothing more........MV is on sick MF...er
DOUBTFUL to change

My arguement is not about HOW he put them down. I think most people would agree it was wrong and inhumane.

Again with the Hunter issues. If we are going to stay on this topic then lets dabble. I can tell you I've heard from many of hunters who hunt during all seasons. Most that I have talked to mention how after they shoot the deer (Bambi, as you put it) with an arrow, they have to follow the trail of blood cause not everyone unlike yourself can hit the heart with an arrow everytime. Funny I have also heard the same thing from hunters who use rifles. Sometimes following the blood trail for up to a mile or more. The whole time spilling blood a long the way. What a slow horrible death. The difference to me is the fact that the dog is domesticated and relies on humans to feed him vs the deer who is wild. Plus our social norms tell us from society that killing of domesticated animals...equals bad. No matter how it's done. The law does not descriminate as to the owner who has malnurished animals and the one that tortures. Depending on the charge depends on the class felony or misdemeanor and depending on that is what punishment you will receive. Now the judge does have some leway in whether he gives you the full punishment or only some of it.

My major complaint which you keep over looking for "How the animals were dispatched" is that the punishments from case to case are not consistant and MV got a harder sentence then most. To put this into a different perspective ...you keep getting stuck on how Jeffery Dalmer cut up those people and put their pieces in his fridge and I'm saying the people should not have been killed, and he should get the same punishment as everyone else who does this horrendous crime.

I also belive it all boils down to everyones value system. MV's value system for his dogs obviously was kinda low, but that does not mean he's not a caring individual. I had a neighbor who loved dogs but hated cats. If cats came around he grabbed his 22 and shot them. But god forbid something happen to a dog.

The only issue I have with MV in regards to his "torturing" as you put it, is this a smaller issue to something else he's possibly done or was compelled to do. In other words psychiatrist have proven that kids who hurt domesticated animals have a tendancy to become rapists or murderers. If the psychiatrist have evaluated him and find this to not be the case then order him to stay away from owning animals and we are all good. It won't happen ever again or he faces a longer stay with bubba. See his getting into trouble is a two fold issue .....has he been punished for what he's done? and will he do it again? I think some people think the answer to the first question is no. while others say yes. The second part is the bigger issue. To simply let him out of prison after his stint and say good luck does not ensure he will not do the same crime again. But if stipulations were put in place perhaps ordering him to not own another animal for face more jail time then we have partially controlled the " will it happen again." To make him get counceling to hopefully see his wrong doing is another. To force him to speak about his atrocious act to the media, fans, and public is hopefully a way for him to see how this is socially unexceptable through the tough questions he would face and scrutiny. No different then a criminal having to face his victim and hear how it effected them or the family of the victim. I puts things in perspective for the criminal.

Plus he most likely would only get vet min. $400,000-$600,000 since he's been out. No one would want to offer mills. to find out he's washed up. and taking $100,000 would go a long way toward assisting either the local PETA or national PETA.