Vick's dog fighting problems - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Mrs. M · #1 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

First of all, I truly hate dog fighting. I can't stand the thought of those dogs being used for a gambling bloodsport and hope that those involved are convicted.

Quote:

RICHMOND, Va. — One of Michael Vick's co-defendants pleaded guilty Monday to his role in a dogfighting conspiracy he says was financed almost entirely by the Atlanta Falcons quarterback.

As part of a plea agreement, Tony Taylor pledged to fully cooperate with the government in its prosecution of Vick and two other men accused of running an interstate dogfighting enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels" on Vick's property in rural Surry County.

"The 'Bad Newz Kennels' operation and gambling monies were almost exclusively funded by Vick," a summary of facts supporting the plea agreement and signed by Taylor states.

The plea deal requires Taylor to testify against Vick and his two remaining co-defendants if called upon to do so. Taylor cannot get a stiffer sentence or face any new charges based on any new information he provides, according to terms of the agreement.

Additional charges are possible, however, against Vick and the other two. Federal prosecutors have said a superseding indictment will be issued in August.

Vick's lead attorney, Billy Martin, did not immediately return a phone message.

Taylor, 34, of Hampton, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities, and conspiring to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.

Vick pleaded not guilty to the same charges last week and said in a written statement that he looked forward to "clearing my good name." He also pleaded with the public to resist a rush to judgment.

The gruesome details outlined in the July 17 indictment have fueled public protests against Vick and prompted the suspension of some of his lucrative endorsement deals. Also, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has barred Vick from the Falcons' training camp.

FOXNews.com - Michael Vick's Co-Defendant: Vick Almost Entirely Funded Dogfighting Operation - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

A bonus to all of this is that Vick's problems are definitely a plus for the Saints this year.

Traveler · #2 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Yeah, not to mention those Panthers.

I can't believe its been so long and no-one has started a thread.

drgoodtrips · #3 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

You know, I think it makes sense to have laws against activities that create a public nuisance (i.e. making dangerous "fighting dogs" that could cause serious injury if they were released). However, I've never understood laws against animal cruelty. That's not to say I condone it in any way - I've had lots of pets throughout my life and am as much of an animal lover as you'll ever meet.

It's just that the laws on the matter seem capricious and determined entirely on sentimentality. We are discouraged from eating dogs or horses, but pigs are lined up for wholesale slaughter (so obviously it isn't intelligence). And, if you fight dogs against one another, you're a miserable, horrible human being, but if you bought a couple of Siamese fighting fish and watched the mayhem, no one would probably care this side of PETA.

This is more of an observation than anything else, of our apparent tendency to arbitrarily anthropomorphize certain animals in our minds and pass emotion-based legislation accordingly. It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone should serve jail time for beating a dog but not for stepping on a spider.

timj219 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Where is SLON? I want to see him argue that government has no business restricting those dogs' right to kill and maim each other for our amusement.

drgoodtrips · #5 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

Where is SLON? I want to see him argue that government has no business restricting those dogs' right to kill and maim each other for our amusement.

Should dogs have rights, do you think?

Traveler · #6 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Do you?

timj219 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You know, I think it makes sense to have laws against activities that create a public nuisance (i.e. making dangerous "fighting dogs" that could cause serious injury if they were released). However, I've never understood laws against animal cruelty. That's not to say I condone it in any way - I've had lots of pets throughout my life and am as much of an animal lover as you'll ever meet.

It's just that the laws on the matter seem capricious and determined entirely on sentimentality. We are discouraged from eating dogs or horses, but pigs are lined up for wholesale slaughter (so obviously it isn't intelligence). And, if you fight dogs against one another, you're a miserable, horrible human being, but if you bought a couple of Siamese fighting fish and watched the mayhem, no one would probably care this side of PETA.

This is more of an observation than anything else, of our apparent tendency to arbitrarily anthropomorphize certain animals in our minds and pass emotion-based legislation accordingly. It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone should serve jail time for beating a dog but not for stepping on a spider.

I believe the law also applies to fighting cocks - not exactly a normal household pet. So maybe these laws really do stem from the public nuisance angle. Funny thing is I feel better about outlawing the fighting from anthropomorphic feelings than I do about using the public nuisance excuse. That's one of the arguments that drug and sex law proponents always reach for.

Traveler · #8 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You know, I think it makes sense to have laws against activities that create a public nuisance (i.e. making dangerous "fighting dogs" that could cause serious injury if they were released). However, I've never understood laws against animal cruelty. That's not to say I condone it in any way - I've had lots of pets throughout my life and am as much of an animal lover as you'll ever meet.

It's just that the laws on the matter seem capricious and determined entirely on sentimentality. We are discouraged from eating dogs or horses, but pigs are lined up for wholesale slaughter (so obviously it isn't intelligence). And, if you fight dogs against one another, you're a miserable, horrible human being, but if you bought a couple of Siamese fighting fish and watched the mayhem, no one would probably care this side of PETA.

This is more of an observation than anything else, of our apparent tendency to arbitrarily anthropomorphize certain animals in our minds and pass emotion-based legislation accordingly. It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone should serve jail time for beating a dog but not for stepping on a spider.

So why bother having things like endangered species lists? Why protect certain animals above others?

timj219 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Should dogs have rights, do you think?

I don't think we can assign rights to non-sentient species. Animal rights stem from the rights of ownership humans have in the animals. And in the case of wild animals or strays the animals are presumed to be owned by "the people" just like public land.

drgoodtrips · #10 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Do you?

No. I find the idea of animals having rights to be silly.

Mrs. M · #11 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You know, I think it makes sense to have laws against activities that create a public nuisance (i.e. making dangerous "fighting dogs" that could cause serious injury if they were released). However, I've never understood laws against animal cruelty. That's not to say I condone it in any way - I've had lots of pets throughout my life and am as much of an animal lover as you'll ever meet.

It's just that the laws on the matter seem capricious and determined entirely on sentimentality. We are discouraged from eating dogs or horses, but pigs are lined up for wholesale slaughter (so obviously it isn't intelligence). And, if you fight dogs against one another, you're a miserable, horrible human being, but if you bought a couple of Siamese fighting fish and watched the mayhem, no one would probably care this side of PETA.

This is more of an observation than anything else, of our apparent tendency to arbitrarily anthropomorphize certain animals in our minds and pass emotion-based legislation accordingly. It seems counter-intuitive to me that someone should serve jail time for beating a dog but not for stepping on a spider.

In the case of pigs vs. horses or dogs, I think it's because of our mindset. In all the old oaters, horses and dogs were working animals and family pets while pigs and cows (other than milk cows) were used for food. I can even remember my grandmother telling me not to name her chickens because I'd soon be eating them!
As for spiders, if every one of them in the world died today, I'd dance naked in the streets!!!!!

Traveler · #12 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

No. I find the idea of animals having rights to be silly.

Precisely, but i do think animals that are endangered should be protected and if people violate those laws (i.e. possibly leading to an animal becomming extinct) those folk should be punished with great severity.

drgoodtrips · #13 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

I believe the law also applies to fighting cocks - not exactly a normal household pet. So maybe these laws really do stem from the public nuisance angle. Funny thing is I feel better about outlawing the fighting from anthropomorphic feelings than I do about using the public nuisance excuse. That's one of the arguments that drug and sex law proponents always reach for.

Yes, that's a good point re: drug/sex laws. It could also be applied to gun ownership. I suppose, logically speaking, if we consider a dog to be my property, preventing me from training it to savage other creature would be tantamount to gun control.

And, I don't really feel one way or the other about the actual practice of basing laws upon which animals we decide are "human enough" to warrant them apart from thinking it's illogical and arbitrary. That is to say, I find the idea of dog-fighting abhorrent and don't mind it being illegal, despite the fact that I can think of no good reason for it to be illegal beyond the fact that I find dogs to be cute, warm, and fuzzy.

Mrs. M · #14 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

I believe the law also applies to fighting cocks - not exactly a normal household pet. So maybe these laws really do stem from the public nuisance angle. Funny thing is I feel better about outlawing the fighting from anthropomorphic feelings than I do about using the public nuisance excuse. That's one of the arguments that drug and sex law proponents always reach for.

Louisiana is the last state to allow cock fighting but that'll end in August, 2008.

drgoodtrips · #15 (**permalink**) 07-31-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

I don't think we can assign rights to non-sentient species. Animal rights stem from the rights of ownership humans have in the animals. And in the case of wild animals or strays the animals are presumed to be owned by "the people" just like public land.

I think that "animal rights" stem from the collective disapproval of displays of sadism toward animals, more than any logical sort of "animal constitution".

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode