Vick ‘celebration’ postponed, organizer says

[manifold]

btw: Vick pleaded guilty and was convicted of running an illegal dog fighting operation. All this talk about torturing dogs for pleasure is unsubstantiated hearsay. And personally, I don't believe it.

 

[Ravi]

btw: Vick pleaded guilty and was convicted of running an illegal dog fighting operation. All this talk about torturing dogs for pleasure is unsubstantiated hearsay. And personally, I don't believe it.

He was also convicted of torturing dogs.

 

[manifold]

Link?

 

[Ravi]

Conviction(s) Federal: Conspiracy in interstate commerce/aid of unlawful animal fighting venture (Title 18, USC, Section 371)
State: Unlawfully torturing and killing dogs, promoting dogfights

Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manifold]

I'm disappointed in you Ravi. Normally you don't allow your emotions to get in the way of the facts. And to compound that by actually being dishonest... my my.

First, the word torture doesn't even appear in the link you provided. Second, what you did provide is text of a law that includes at least two criminal acts, torture and killing dogs and promoting dog fights. All you have do to violate the law is run afoul of one of them, not all of them.

Here is a summary of the facts if you're interested in educating yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf

And here is the particularly incriminating excerpt:

Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick.

No mention of torture, although I'll certainly concede that it's cruel and inhumane. But the notion that he derived some perverted pleasure from killing these dogs? There are simply NO FACTS to support this outrageous allegation. None whatsoever.

 

[Ravi]

It says in the right hand column what everyone was convicted of, and according to the link I gave you Vick was convicted by the State of torturing animals.

As to my emotions...lol...you've no idea what I think on this issue.

 

[manifold]

Ok my bad, not sure why that section isn't picked up on a search.

Please accept my apologies for accusing you of being dishonest.

But regardless, what I posted is the detailed facts about what they actually did. They hanged and drowned dogs. I call that cruel and inhumane, and if you want to call it torture I'm not going to split hairs over it. But that still leaves the allegation I see oft repeated that he somehow got off on it and took pleasure in it. I simply don't buy it. Do you?

 

[Anguille]

I'm disappointed in you Ravi. Normally you don't allow your emotions to get in the way of the facts. And to compound that by actually being dishonest... my my.

First, the word torture doesn't even appear in the link you provided. Second, what you did provide is text of a law that includes at least two criminal acts, torture and killing dogs and promoting dog fights. All you have do to violate the law is run afoul of one of them, not all of them.

Here is a summary of the facts if you're interested in educating yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf

And here is the particularly incriminating excerpt:

Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick.

No mention of torture, although I'll certainly concede that it's cruel and inhumane. But the notion that he derived some perverted pleasure from killing these dogs? There are simply NO FACTS to support this outrageous allegation. None whatsoever.

Are you truly this retarded?

First of all hanging and drowning is torturing to death.

Second, dog fighting itself is a cruel blood sport. Anyone who watches it and gets off on it is a sadist. Don't pull that shit that he did it for money, because he didn't need it. Or that he did it as a favor to friends. That's bullshit. You can do favors for friends that don't entail brutalizing and killing animals for fun.

Vicks served his sentence and deserves to be given the chance to start over and prove himself to be a decent person. I have doubts that he can be reformed, being a human and thus less rehabilitatable than his dogs were. He should not be allowed to own animals till it's been shown he has been cured of his disease. I wouldn't even want him near children. And I'm very glad this case has set a new precedent in sentancing.

As for people boycotting the team he plays on, it probably won't have much immediate effect. But at least the public has come a bit closer to understanding how disgusting dog fighting is and how it can land you in jail if you indulge in that sick pleasure.

 

[Ravi]

Ok my bad, not sure why that section isn't picked up on a search.

Please accept my apologies for accusing you of being dishonest.

But regardless, what I posted is the detailed facts about what they actually did. They hanged and drowned dogs. I call that cruel and inhumane, and if you want to call it torture I'm not going to split hairs over it. But that still leaves the allegation I see oft repeated that he somehow got off on it and took pleasure in it. I simply don't buy it. Do you?

Upon further review, there is another portion of wiki that doesn't mention that he was convicted of torturing animals and that some of the charges were dropped by the state as part of a plea. So I've really no idea.

If I hang and drown you would you consider it torture?

Why does it matter if he enjoyed it or not? He did it...I thought motives were unimportant to you.

 

[Anguille]

But that still leaves the allegation I see oft repeated that he somehow got off on it and took pleasure in it. I simply don't buy it. Do you?

Right, and people who buy kiddie porn just have an impartial detached scientific interest in it.

 

[manifold]

I'm disappointed in you Ravi. Normally you don't allow your emotions to get in the way of the facts. And to compound that by actually being dishonest... my my.

First, the word torture doesn't even appear in the link you provided. Second, what you did provide is text of a law that includes at least two criminal acts, torture and killing dogs and promoting dog fights. All you have do to violate the law is run afoul of one of them, not all of them.

Here is a summary of the facts if you're interested in educating yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf

And here is the particularly incriminating excerpt:

Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in "testing" sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick.

No mention of torture, although I'll certainly concede that it's cruel and inhumane. But the notion that he derived some perverted pleasure from killing these dogs? There are simply NO FACTS to support this outrageous allegation. None whatsoever.

Are you truly this retarded?

First of all hanging and drowning is torturing to death.

Second, dog fighting itself is a cruel blood sport. Anyone who watches it and gets off on it is a sadist. Don't pull that shit that he did it for money, because he didn't need it. Or that he did it as a favor to friends. That's bullshit. You can do favors for friends that don't entail brutalizing and killing animals for fun.

Vicks served his sentence and deserves to be given the chance to start over and prove himself to be a decent person. I have doubts that he can be reformed, being a human and thus less rehabilitatable than his dogs were. He should not be allowed to own animals till it's been shown he has been cured of his disease. I wouldn't even want him near children. And I'm very glad this case has set a new precedent in sentancing.

As for people boycotting the team he plays on, it probably won't have much immediate effect. But at least the public has come a bit closer to understanding how disgusting dog fighting is and how it can land you in jail if you indulge in that sick pleasure.

You clearly can't think straight when pit bulls are involved so pardon me if I ignore you completely on this one.

 

[Anguille]

I'm disappointed in you Ravi. Normally you don't allow your emotions to get in the way of the facts. And to compound that by actually being dishonest... my my.

First, the word torture doesn't even appear in the link you provided. Second, what you did provide is text of a law that includes at least two criminal acts, torture and killing dogs and promoting dog fights. All you have do to violate the law is run afoul of one of them, not all of them.

Here is a summary of the facts if you're interested in educating yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf

And here is the particularly incriminating excerpt:

No mention of torture, although I'll certainly concede that it's cruel and inhumane. But the notion that he derived some perverted pleasure from killing these dogs? There are simply NO FACTS to support this outrageous allegation. None whatsoever.

Are you truly this retarded?

First of all hanging and drowning is torturing to death.

Second, dog fighting itself is a cruel blood sport. Anyone who watches it and gets off on it is a sadist. Don't pull that shit that he did it for money, because he didn't need it. Or that he did it as a favor to friends. That's bullshit. You can do favors for friends that don't entail brutalizing and killing animals for fun.

Vicks served his sentence and deserves to be given the chance to start over and prove himself to be a decent person. I have doubts that he can be reformed, being a human and thus less rehabilitatable than his dogs were. He should not be allowed to own animals till it's been shown he has been cured of his disease. I wouldn't even want him near children. And I'm very glad this case has set a new precedent in sentancing.

As for people boycotting the team he plays on, it probably won't have much immediate effect. But at least the public has come a bit closer to understanding how disgusting dog fighting is and how it can land you in jail if you indulge in that sick pleasure.

You clearly can't think straight when pit bulls are involved so pardon me if I ignore you completely on this one.

Do whatever you need to to feel your opinion is the only one that could be valid.

 

[manifold]

Upon further review, there is another portion of wiki that doesn't mention that he was convicted of torturing animals and that some of the charges were dropped by the state as part of a plea. So I've really no idea.

If I hang and drown you would you consider it torture?

Why does it matter if he enjoyed it or not? He did it...I thought motives were unimportant to you.

Actually, I think hanging and drowning tend to be rather quick forms of execution. Considering the methods he would have had available, these seem like the least torturous.

And I never said motives are unimportant. I just don't support legislation specifically criminalizing particular motives.

If there was any evidence that showed Vick really torturing dogs for the fun of it, I'd feel a lot differently about it. A LOT differently.

 

[Anguille]

Upon further review, there is another portion of wiki that doesn't mention that he was convicted of torturing animals and that some of the charges were dropped by the state as part of a plea. So I've really no idea.

If I hang and drown you would you consider it torture?

Why does it matter if he enjoyed it or not? He did it...I thought motives were unimportant to you.

Actually, I think hanging and drowning tend to be rather quick forms of execution. Considering the methods he would have had available, these seem like the least torturous.

And I never said motives are unimportant. I just don't support legislation specifically criminalizing particular motives.

If there was any evidence that showed Vick really torturing dogs for the fun of it, I'd feel a lot differently about it. A LOT differently.

Mani is ignoring me so would someone please mention to him that I'm sure Vick could have afforded to have a veterinarian put them down, or he could have dropped them off at a shelter or he could have shot them .

Plenty of options other than hanging and drowning.

 

[manifold]

Hey Ravi,

One of the ironic things about all this is that if pit bulls were banned altogether, this might have all been avoided.

 

[Ravi]

Upon further review, there is another portion of wiki that doesn't mention that he was convicted of torturing animals and that some of the charges were dropped by the state as part of a plea. So I've really no idea.

If I hang and drown you would you consider it torture?

Why does it matter if he enjoyed it or not? He did it...I thought motives were unimportant to you.

Actually, I think hanging and drowning tend to be rather quick forms of execution. Considering the methods he would have had available, these seem like the least torturous.

And I never said motives are unimportant. I just don't support legislation specifically criminalizing particular motives.

If there was any evidence that showed Vick really torturing dogs for the fun of it, I'd feel a lot differently about it. A LOT differently.

"least torturous" and "really torturing" If you wish to judge him on the degree of torture he employed that is your choice. The fact that he forced these defenseless dogs (and they were defenseless against him) to bend to his will by cruel means makes him scum in my mind. He did serve his time and I've got no problem with him seeking gainful employment...but I personally wouldn't hire him.

 

[Ravi]

Upon further review, there is another portion of wiki that doesn't mention that he was convicted of torturing animals and that some of the charges were dropped by the state as part of a plea. So I've really no idea.

If I hang and drown you would you consider it torture?

Why does it matter if he enjoyed it or not? He did it...I thought motives were unimportant to you.

Actually, I think hanging and drowning tend to be rather quick forms of execution. Considering the methods he would have had available, these seem like the least torturous.

And I never said motives are unimportant. I just don't support legislation specifically criminalizing particular motives.

If there was any evidence that showed Vick really torturing dogs for the fun of it, I'd feel a lot differently about it. A LOT differently.

Mani is ignoring me so would someone please mention to him that I'm sure Vick could have afforded to have a veterinarian put them down, or he could have dropped them off at a shelter or he could have shot them .

Plenty of options other than hanging and drowning.

A reputable vet wouldn't have put them down and him dropping off so many dogs at a shelter would have raised eyebrows. He was trying to cover up his crime.

 

[Anguille]

Actually, I think hanging and drowning tend to be rather quick forms of execution. Considering the methods he would have had available, these seem like the least torturous.

And I never said motives are unimportant. I just don't support legislation specifically criminalizing particular motives.

If there was any evidence that showed Vick really torturing dogs for the fun of it, I'd feel a lot differently about it. A LOT differently.

Mani is ignoring me so would someone please mention to him that I'm sure Vick could have afforded to have a veterinarian put them down, or he could have dropped them off at a shelter or he could have shot them .

Plenty of options other than hanging and drowning.

A reputable vet wouldn't have put them down and him dropping off so many dogs at a shelter would have raised eyebrows. He was trying to cover up his crime.

I think he was too heartless to euthanize them painlessly but there are vets and vet techs who can be bought and you can drop animals at shelters anonymously.
But even if he was being cautious, why not just shoot them ?

 

[Ravi]

Mani is ignoring me so would someone please mention to him that I'm sure Vick could have afforded to have a veterinarian put them down, or he could have dropped them off at a shelter or he could have shot them .

Plenty of options other than hanging and drowning.

A reputable vet wouldn't have put them down and him dropping off so many dogs at a shelter would have raised eyebrows. He was trying to cover up his crime.

I think he was too heartless to euthanize them painlessly but there are vets and vet techs who can be bought and you can drop animals at shelters anonymously.
But even if he was being cautious, why not just shoot them ?

I dunno...lots of people drown unwanted animals but the hanging bit is pretty over the top.

 

[Anguille]

A reputable vet wouldn't have put them down and him dropping off so many dogs at a shelter would have raised eyebrows. He was trying to cover up his crime.

I think he was too heartless to euthanize them painlessly but there are vets and vet techs who can be bought and you can drop animals at shelters anonymously.
But even if he was being cautious, why not just shoot them ?

I dunno...lots of people drown unwanted animals but the hanging bit is pretty over the top.

Gruesome to say the least.