Michael Vick. Unless you live by yourself under a rock you know that a famous athlete named Michael Vick is facing some time in the pokey for being part of a dogfighting ring. The entire thing is very disturbing to me and I worry that this is going to spiral out of control.
The federal government has proof that he financed and provided facilities where these pitbulls would fight each other to the death, and the losing dogs would be hung/stabbed/sliced/beat to death if they weren't dead already. I think its a fair implication that he attended these fights, but some of the allegations against him made by his "boys" that are singing like canaries to avoid max sentences themselves are affecting what the public think of him unfairly. His "boys" say that he participated in these dog killings himself. There is absolutely NO proof of that besides what these highly suspicious, completely uncredible (if thats a word) "witnesses" are saying. Yet, what do the people believe if you set out a poll? People believe that he killed the dogs himself with his bare hands, or with a chain, or with a bat. You can thank PETA for that, since after hearing these allegations that he personally killed some of these dogs they have launched a full scale assault on the Atlanta Falcons. I fucking HATE that organization, but that topic is for an entire journal entry of its own.
This brings me to a larger point. By no means am I defending Mike Vick - its obvious that he is at least guilty of facilitating this entire thing and will almost certainly be facing jail time on a federal sentence. His football career is over, despite what the Atlanta NAACP thinks - they believe that he should return to the NFL after serving his sentence.
They also feel that this is racially motivated, naturally. The very existence of the NAACP relies on the perpetuation of the racial divide, which is a sinister fact.The larger point is that we cannot trust the legal system in combination with the media. The Duke case made it blatantly obvious that this is true - those kids got completely screwed over by their own school, were castigated, impuned, maligned, and for what? They were innocent and it was proved that the prosecutor was merely pursuing this case, despite any credible evidence, to try to propel him to a re-election. The legal system, the media and Duke University failed spectacularly. Now we are in a position where Michael Vick, the biggest star of the biggest sport in America, is being accused of additional horrendous things by, frankly, a bunch of thugs and the public and the media are lapping it up as if the words came from the lips of God himself. When will they ever learn?
Vick is a son of a bitch for thinking that any of this was okay, and for facilitating this horrendous activity. There is absolutely NO proof that he killed a dog himself. Did he provide the money, the animals, the trafficking and the facilities? It looks that way. Should he go to jail if/when he is found guilty of what he is charged against? Obviously. Should people be calling him a dog murderer? In an oblique sense, yes, but in the manner in which he is being accused? No!
This is exactly what the prosecutors and the media want, and the media is 100% guilty of perpetuating all of this. Because people believe almost anything they see on television, people think that Michael Vick participated in killing 8 dogs. All of this is based on the word of a couple of idiots who actually did a lot of the dirty work themselves and are desperate to lessen their own prison time. This is how the legal system works in America - generally speaking, the people who are most guilty are simply bait used to try to capture a bigger fish. This is incredibly wrong - people in America should be judged solely on their own guilt, based on the facts of the matter. Instead, the media sees itself fit to serve as judge and jury in the court of public opinion regardless of the facts. We live in an incredibly depressing time.
The money hiding country is switzerland.
Oh what a US flag isn't good enough you have to have a flag of some country where criminals hide there money (I'm joking completely). Seriously though You should leave the flag up. I have no idea why it is over your bed but that is fine. But if you are tired of how it looks get a pole for it and get a few other flags and fly them outside from the porch.
Yeah I'm late have not had the time to read (e:strip) lately. But here is my take on Vick. Down South Dog fighting is huge and is very underground but is a business I guess you would call it. The Government and law enforcement have had enough. Often the way the show people that they are coming after them and tell them to stop is they find someone famous doing something illegal and come after them and make a big public display. In this case it is Vick. They know that like in most gangs, mobs or criminal activities someone will try to get out of jail time and tell the cops everything they need to know. I'm sure the hope is that you can go up the food chain and get someone really big. They do this in drug cases all the time. But that doesn't really work with someone who is Famous. If Vick knew about other dog fighting rings or some other secrets he can't say anything because he is so high profile that he would become a target.
Some people have said race is a factor. It is but not as much as people say. Yes he is black and I'm sure most of his boys are. But the question comes up of why didn't they go after the white guys who do dog fighting. In this case I say cause they are not famous. The news media is entertainment so if a bunch of dog fighting rings get busted in a month or two and everyone is white you won't hear anything about it. That is unless some of those people have a connection to Vick or someone else famous or maybe some other scandle.
Wow, thanks everyone for giving me 15 minutes of fascinating reading. I, Joshua, do not live alone under a rock, however I also don't watch the news so I was unaware of this little blurb that apparently isn't so little. I don't watch sports either, so this guy might as well be some random dude walking down the street for all I care. Either way, I won't comment on that cause I think ya'll have said it all and so moving on. The flag...to me, yells "college student dormroom"!!!!!! Are you indeed a college student? If not, perhaps putting a frame around it would make it less so? anyways, it is a good conversation starter I'm sure.
Whoa..... forgive my completely unintentional but horrendous pun... I tried to delete my comment and rewrite it but (e:strip) will not let me (I'm using Firefox, if that matters at all). Right after I submitted it I realized how shitty that was, but I assure you that I wasn't trying to be a cheeky bastard.
NEWSFLASH!
:::link:::
This is all I ask for - proof or an admission. Vick admitted to personally participating in killing six to eight dogs along with the co-defendants via drowning or hanging... but not to gambling! He will be getting additional charges slapped on him, if the government feels like it anyway.
Feel free to release the hounds - I'm with you.
Wow, I can't keep up with you guys today. Thank you for commenting though!
(e:felly) - finally someone addressed my flag! I think really the only anxiety I have about the flag is whether or not the ladies would find it tacky. I know that its tacky but is a decoration like that in a room "alternate birth control?"
I heard the president of the American Humane Society speak in regards to the welfare of the dogs. Those dogs have been trained to kill other dogs and are most likely not safe to have as a pet. The condition makes them safe to other dogs, other animals, and people as well.
If adoption is not an option then the only thing left to do with the dogs is either leave them caged for the rest of their days or euthanize them. Given that option killing the dogs, ironic as it may be, seems like the most humain option.
And (e:Jim) has always been Jim and I have always been James. When he is over for holidays he Jim, I am James, my dad is Jim, and my uncle is James. It gets very confusing.
What you said about Eichman is fascinating, how a human brain is able to shut off all empathy. Eichman did it with people, Vick did it with dogs. What a strange little lump of grey matter.
Damn, you guys are fast!
Before I get into it I wanted to let you guys and gals know about what the SPCA are going to do to the 50 or so dogs that they took from Vick's property. If they aren't claimed they will all be euthanized. I'm stultified by that... dogs fought to the death there, were killed by humans there, and now in a fit of tragic irony the dogs they rescued from the property are going to be killed by the rescuers because they are going unclaimed.
(e:janelle) - You're exactly right. Bravo - I can't say anything else. =)
(e:jenks) - I am not convinced either way w/respect to whether or not he personally participated. IMO its definitely plausible but in the end it wouldn't be provable in an adequate way. I haven't drawn any lines outside of the obvious legal lines between indirectly and directly facilitating dog killings. I was fairly explicit in pointing out that nobody actually knows the truth, which of course includes me. The ugly part of all of this is that in a court, there is a presumption of innocence. If it turns out that he in fact did participate in killing the dogs then obviously he will be guilty of additional animal cruelty charges, amongst other moral crimes I think we all agree on. All I want is for people to rely on the facts as they are rather than making an assumption. I will admit though that I have a cynical way of looking at things - its standard practice to sell out your friends when it comes to facing jail time. The point is, we do not know whether or not he participated directly so its completely inappropriate to assume that he did. Which, if I'm reading your response to me correctly, seems like you've assumed that he has. If I'm wrong about that then please correct me.
W/respect to your pitbull stuff - I don't really know what purpose it serves to ban a breed of dog. I don't understand the dynamics of how a pitbull naturally behaves compared to a poodle... some people believe that there is a dangerous distinction and point to the little boy getting sodomized in full view of the neighbors. Alternately I think its wrong to assume that pitbulls are like wild animals and are dangerous for people to keep as pets. As far as I'm concerned this is a private issue. If you want a pitbull then you should be able to have one as long as you are willing to accept any negative consequences.
(e:jim) - W/respect to your first paragragh, I completely agree. However, killing by proxy isn't going to make it possible to tack on extra charges... which is precisely what I'm talking about. Who is guilty of killing someone - the hitman doing the shooting, or the guy that is paying the hitman and made the order? Morally there is no distinction, but legally there is a big distinction, which I'll describe.
W/respect to your second paragraph, I find it completely bizarre. You actually believe that I'm using this post to buttress my political posts? Jesus Christ, I haven't seen anything like that in a loooooong time. All I can say about it is that this is not true - its as simple as that and I'm in all honesty very sorry that you felt that way about my entry. I on occasion stick in a jab here and there, which just about every blogger and "journalist" tend to do at times. Trust me, you'll know when I'm being political! People here get uncomfortable when political views that don't parrot leftie, MoveOn.org, DailyKos liberalism pop up and I accept it with a big ol' grin.
As far as semantics and splittling hairs go, they mean a hell of a lot when you are talking about the legal system. Michael Vick will face *additional* charges if in fact he personally participated in killing the dogs. Now you understand why the semantics matter, although I agree with you that the moral implications of having *any* part of this sad situation are utterly disturbing. Don't worry, he's going to go to jail and he's certainly going to burn in hell, if you believe in such a thing. Both of us can warm our hands over the fire if you like. =P
As for your third paragraph, the way that the media and the public are treating this case is EXACTLY!!!! like the Duke case. Its an obvious parallel. If you disagree, then so be it - I can't help it. I will concede to you that in the Duke case they were guilty of zilch, while Vick is obviously guilty of all sorts of things legal and moral. I understand why it is that you'd say there is no similarity. However, that isn't what I'm addressing. What he may not be guilty of is what I'm talking about, specifically how it relates to what he is being charged with and compared to what he's being charged with in the court of public opinion.
You cite the lack of evidence in the Duke case while neglecting the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he personally participated in the killings. This is where we circle back to the "killing by proxy" argument, which in the legal context doesn't matter a whole lot when it comes to charging somebody with a specific crime in a court... which I have highlighted... and now that I've seen it, so did (e:janelle). (e:janelle) absolutely nailed this point, double bullseye.
(e:jim) we actually agree on this subject, although I think its important to understand and accept (begrudgingly at times) the difference between moral and legal guilt.
As far as I'm concerned he should get a 300-year sentence and a $2m fine to be used to build an animal shelter. If his sentence were based on his immorality then this is what he'd deserve, or worse. Unfortunately we have to work within the confines of our legal system, which is inherently flawed.
(e:james) - I've wanted to ask you guys this ever since you signed on to (e:strip). He is Jim and you are James. Has it always been that way? Does Jim dislike "James" and do you dislike "Jim?" Or does this merely serve to facilitate distinguishing you fellas?
I loved what you had to say. I happen to agree with you but its similarly important to accept the possibility that he maybe wouldn't. At the moment I simply can't see how they'd manage to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he personally participated based on the testimony of fellow crooks, but I've been surprised before.
Its interesting that you mentioned Eichmann - I saw some previously unseen home movies the Nazis made at Hitler's retreat. There is no sound and the videos were being used in combination with this super advanced software that deciphers the German based solely on reading lips. The sky was blue, everyone was well dressed and having a laugh, smoking and drinking. Eichmann was referring to "the project" and how it needed to move faster - of course he was referring to the concentration camps. The complete lack of humanity in the context of this beautiful, clear, sunny summer day, and the casual way in which he was referring to this stuff chilled me to the bone.
Thank you, Jason <curtsy>
Ah, Janelle, exactly what I was saying. Well done.
It's very, very simple people. It is a legal argument, and nothing more. There is no reason to look further into why he would plead guilty to only certain aspects of this mess. He is trying to avoid punishment for crimes he technically did not commit.
If he would be punished further for the crimes he is not admitting to, it makes sense for his legal team to try and get him off of those charges. It doesn't mean he is not guilty, ultimately, of their deaths, and it doesn't mean he isn't going to pay the price. It only hsa to do with legal technicalities. The emotional claptrap really is irrelevant.
peta sucks, vick sucks.....
keep the swedish flag, but maybe present it in a different manner?
ok, last comment.
This is an older article Josh. But eye-opening.
:::link:::
and did you see this one? now apparently his dad is selling him out. Nice family!!!
:::link:::
I've adopted three animals over the years; I'm trying to volunteer at the Buffalo Animal Shelter; and yet I can't stand PETA.
the thing that kills me about PETA is that they put on this big 'animal lover' face- but have very strong stances that certain breeds of dogs should be bred out of existence. Just read one article where some PETA lady was all proud of herself for putting down 3 (reportedly calm, gentle, well behaved) dogs in a shelter JUST b/c of their breed (or suspected breed- who knows with shelter dogs)- in order to make room for some nasty little dog that bites its owners etc- just b/c it's a "more desirable" breed. She was like "if I can kill a pit bull to make room for a poodle, I'm doing a good thing." (yes, that's paraphrased.)
And then well intentioned animal lovers just pour money into PETAs coffers b/c they think they're "helping the animals" and don't realize what they're really supporting. arg.
Murder by proxy is stil murder--yes and no. Criminal law lays fault on the individual who murders by proxy, however it still recognizes the distinction between the individual who gives the order for a killing versus the person who actually does the killing. The media failing to recognize the fine distinctions in criminal law can give the perception that an individual committed an act that in fact they did not. If there is no proof that Vick actually killed a dog himself, but merely oversaw the killings, than he should face the charges related to facilitating the killings. The situation does have a larger societal implication in that it is very important that when society makes accusations that it is accurate in those accusations. Playing loose with words and their definitions can be very damaging to a person's integrity/image (of course in this case, Vick has already lost a great deal of integrity with darn good reason). Remember the public figure called racist when he used the word "niggardly" :::link:::
Josh why do you seem so convinced that he did NOT kill these dogs? I understand we may not have PROOF yet, but the evidence is mounting... Why assume his 'boyz' testimony is false?
I have been living and breathing this michael vick situation for a while now and don't feel like dragging it out on yet another forum, but a few arguments I am sick of:
1: it's "just dogs" so it doesn't matter
2: it's not HIS fault, it's society's fault, b/c he is a poor oppressed black man
3: I don't care what he did, he is THE BEST QB ever and he HAS to be allowed back into the NFL
4: dogfighting is a sport, just like hunting, so what's the big deal?
5: other pro athletes have killed PEOPLE and have gotten to play again, so he should too.
And I'm a big animal person, and I hate PETA too.
Not trying to attack you joshy. Just a touchy subject for me these days. I understand what you're saying and know you're not defending him per se- but am just curious as to why you seem willing to accept that he probably WAS involved in the planning/funding/transporting/arranging/betting- but you draw the line at actually slaughtering the losing dogs.
PETA does some very shady things, I will grant you that. They are a parasitic organization that leaches off any media event to get a little publicity for themselves (recently they said Michael Moore "was the real Sicko" for being a meat eater and overweight). And media outlets these days are in the entertainment industry. Good journalism exists somewhere in there but you aren't going to find it on a Murdoch publication or televised news stations hungry for dull ratings.
However, I find it difficult to believe that a man who has no moral problem with facilitating dog murder and mutilation has a problem doing the dirty work himself. He is innocent until proven guilty, of course, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if they could objectively find his guilt in this matter. In fact, people would be shocked if he wasn't. The media has a part in this feeling but setting up the facilities for it to happen does not expunge him of any innocence for those crimes. Eichmann isn't innocent of the crimes of Dachau just because he didn't pull a trigger.
Killing by proxy is still killing, so what exactly is your point? Is the drug dealer who sits back and tells people how and where to sell drugs, but never touches them himself any less of a drug dealer?
PETA may be using this incident to promote itself, and the NAACP and others, but you are doing the same thing. You are taking this incident and then framing it all in such a way that it buttresses your other political posts. You're taking this crime and turning it into an illuminating incident for larger social issues and since he is guilty of the crime, and of killing animals despite the semantic hairsplitting about what the meaning of 'to kill a dog is', I'm left to wonder what sort of foundation you're building your arguments on.
This is nothing like the Duke case, where there was no evidence. Yes, criminals turn on each other when it comes time to face the penal system, but that can't be used as a sweeping moral indictment for the media and justice system. Don't conflate this crime with that travesty.
The situation also fits another classic justice systems profile where Vick's case will be publicized to the utmost and he will be punished to the utmost to act as a deterrent to all the other people who are doing dogfighting that the justice system has difficulty catching. They will hope that dogfighters will diminish their activities as a result of this case and those dogfighters will go unpunished. So in essence, Vicks is being severely punished for the crimes of all dogfighters. Make sense?
Well said