- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
I just saw this story on msnbc. I personally have no problem with him playing football but I can't believe that he thinks it is acceptable to own a dog again! What do you think?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/15/mike-vick-wants-to-own-a-dog-again/related/
Oh and lets keep this civil.
@mncrk09: oh wow...I think it's unnessary and don't think the ban should be lifted, personally.
@Belle2Be: I take it you don't know who Michael Vick is or his history? He was tried and found guilty of operating a dog fighting facility and of multiple acts of cruelty to animals.
In my opinion, he should still be in jail let alone allowed to own an animal.
No, No, and No!
I used to be an Eagles fan, but I can not condone a team that would allow him to be on it. I can't forgive him for what he did to those poor dogs. I would honesly hope no one would allow him to own a dog ever.
@lisa105: I know he ran it, but I wasn't under the impression it was his own dog. And I've also heard that he did his "time" and has been reformed, so to say. I don't see a problem with him having a dog, it might help him.
I don't see a problem with him owning a dog as a PET. I think having an emotional attachment to another animal may help him understand why so many people were up in arms by something that he, and a whole lot of other people, saw as "just the way things are done".
Being born and raised in the South, I can say that having animals fight for cash happens quite regularly and is normally treated with a slap on the wrist. I have no doubt that had Mike Vick not been Mike Vick, he probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist as well. That's not to say that dogfighting and cockfighting are RIGHT, just that it's pretty common. Maybe seeing Mike Vick serve time and come out and make strides to turn his life around, including owning a pet, may help others see the light about their own activities.
@Belle2Be: .......seriously? You don't see the problem with letting someone who financially backed and oversaw a torurous dog fighting (fighting to the death) entertainment business own dogs again.
.......no, seriously?
NO, NO, and NOOO!!! I'm sorry, but a dog is unable to be a willing participant in his "rehabilitation", so it was absolutely right for him to receive a lifetime ban.
And in my oppinion, the NFL and other sports leagues should set MUCH higher standards for their players. If they break a law and are convicted, they should be kicked out of the league. Maybe then our kids would actually have idols and heros to be proud of and that would motivate our kids to do well in school, work hard, be honest, and follow th law.
Personally if the guy who was convicted of raping me and only got 5 years (and served only 2) is roaming free on the streets and able to get a girlfriend, I see no problem with Micheal Vick having a dog.
@Belle2Be: I personally don't believe you can reform that kind of deviant personality. You don't suddenly find compassion, empathy and a conscience by serving a jail sentence.
I'm all for second chances when they're warrented but sometimes, you lose your right to them when the risk is too high. Just like I wouldn't let someone convicted of child abuse run a day care, I wouldn't let Michael Vick own a pet.
I think if he wants a dog, he should have to volunteer at a shelter while supervised. Then he can see the horrible conditions some dogs are put through and maybe grow a heart.
I'm just disgusted by his choices--he shouldn't own a dog, but if he wants to volunteer to help them, I might be okay with that.
@missrobots: LOL! Your post made me think of "28 Days"...and at the end the German (I think) guy was in the plant shop w/ his bulldog, balling his eyes out, holding a dead plant.
Anywhoziles, uh, no! I do not agree w/ Michael Vick being able to own a dog.
Just no. People don’t get “rehabilitated” from thinking its ok to TORTURE animals. They just don’t.
I'm not really sure what to say to some of these posts, to be honest.
@mssocks: I agree with that. He should prove himself worthy of being a pet owner. But I don't know, if someone hasn't learned how to feel compassion for animals by the time he's a grown man, can he ever really?
Hmmm...
Based on the info at hand, I'd say that the only way I'd agree with him not being allowed to have a dog as a pet would be if the justice system banned Ben Roethlissberger from having a girlfriend, fiancé, wife, friend-with-benefits or any other sort of female companionship.
Oh, and also, they'd need to sterilize every person ever prosecuted for child abuse because you know those folks get to keep having CHILDREN, right?
Sheesh! I'm sorry to be so passionate, but I firmly believe that if we all decided to be holier-than-thou and stand on our morals and principles when it comes to everyone and everything *including ourselves*... the world would be a very lonely, empty and unforgiving place because we've all made mistakes or made choices others don't agree with in life.
Tell me this is a joke. Please? I agree. Start with a plant. Or a pet rock...
you can't ban an asshole from screwing another chick but you can ban an asshole from owning a dog. so let's continue doing that. Inflating keeping a convicted dog abuser from owning another pet to the same degree of sterilizing pedos isn't warranted.
@tootietoo2: I absolutely agree with sterilizing child abusers, molesters and rapists.The world already is a cold cruel place and I don't really think we should hide behind rainbows and butterflies and pretend it isn't this way. There is a difference between not agreeing with anothers choice or that person doing something outrageously wrong in the most basic sense. Cruelty to anyone or anything falls under this.
I think if he wants to own a dog, that he should be visited and supervised by someone weekly until they can determine that he will not start that lifestyle. If he did only finance, then maybe he didn't understand or was too detached to realize how bad it really was. But I really don't believe in instant forgiveness.
I spy some Eagles fans!
And no way in hell do I agree with giving this guy the PRIVILIGE of owning a dog.
I completely agree. People do dumb shit sometimes. He didn't torture an animal, he financed it. Like it or not, there is a difference. And while you are welcome to have your opinion that he hasn't changed, I'm welcome to have mine that says he has.
@arenyth: That could get pretty expensive for taxpayers. That's why I liked mssocks's idea. Not only is it free of cost to society, he's actually required to perform a service that is relevant to his rehabilitation and provides a benefit to society.
If you read what he said in the article, he says he did participated in the dog fighting.
“There was nothing that ever told me it wasn’t right,” Vick said. “No one ever told me it was the wrong thing to do.”
so, because no one ever told him it was wrong to abuse another living thing, it's not his fault.
He lost his privilege to own a dog, IMO
@mssocks: well said, AMEN...I couldn't agree with you more.
MV, if you genuinely want a dog, don't talk about it - Start your so called 'rehabilitation' and offer your services to a shelter. A shelter that finds homes for brutally attacked dogs. It is the very least you can do!
I don't care if Vick owns dogs or not.
Apparently, its more appropriate to bash Vick "the dog killer" rather than focus on more horrific crimes such as rape (i.e. Ben Roethlisberger). Collectively, the world's priorities are extremely flawed.
I thought part of the stipulation of his sentence was that he wasn't allowed to ever own dogs ever again.
Vick actually murdered some of the dogs with his own two hands, including slamming one of the dogs into the ground until it died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick#Dog_fighting_investigations (not the best source but it was the quickest one I could come up with)
@arenyth: Just curious, how is it instant forgiveness? He did jail time, he did community service, his career was damaged, and all he did was finance it. It was stupid, yes, but it wasn't like he was lighting dogs on fire himself or something.
@2shy2Bbf: It's alleged vs convicted, though. It's different in terms of the judicial system. Not saying anything other than that, but I don't get why that is relevant to Vick owning a dog.
@2shy2Bbf: Thanks for rolling in on your high horse, but you have no idea what our priorities are just from reading this one thread. If you want to talk about Ben Roethlisberger, start a thread.
By the way, I actually volunteer for a rape relief and women's shelter, and no one there has told me that I'm no longer allowed to care about animal abuse, or abuse/violence of any other kind.
I agree with the notions that he paid his debt to society and paid time for the crime. And yes, there are lots of other professional athletes who are muderers and rapists and yet Michael Vick takes all the heat.
BUT, do I think he should have a dog as a pet? No, to answer the OP's question.
Although the policies of Wikipedia strongly espouse verifiability and a neutral point of view, critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture),[12] and allege that it favors consensus over credentials in its editorial processes.[13] Its reliability and accuracy are also targeted.[14] Other criticisms center on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information,[15] though scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived,[16][17] and an investigation in Nature found that the science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors
Yeah yeah, I know. That's why I said it wasn't the best source.
@Belle2Be: As of right now, I'm getting two stories: one where he did participate, and one where he only financed. If he indeed participated, I don't believe that doing community service or jailtime automatically excuses you from the crimes you committed. If there is one statistic thats consistent, it is that most criminals are repeat offenders. I think giving him a dog without supervision or ongoing therapy assumes too much good in someone who didn't even understand what he did was wrong.
@jayce: Agreed, just because I think its the right thing to do doesn't mean its economically advantageous. But I could make a list of the crap they should be cutting from our budget though thats a whole other thread :)
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| MissBoPeep | 66 |
| akp0702 | 41 |
| Mrs.KMM | 40 |
| hisgoosiegirl | 40 |
| beargoose | 39 |
| ndreighton | 38 |
| stardustintheeyes | 32 |
| Gemstone | 31 |
| BetterSherm | 31 |
| MrsPom | 29 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| CallmeC | 3 |
| Cady | 3 |
| LAZB | 2 |
| Mrs.KMM | 2 |
| SoupyCat | 2 |
| NehaPrasad92 | 2 |
| smyley | 1 |
| hotchildinthecity | 1 |
| JsDragonfly | 1 |
| sailor | 1 |
