Should Michael Vick be allowed to have another dog?

No.

Completely agree with you.
This man should never be allowed to own any animal, ever again.

Absolutely not.

Oh, hell no!

I agree, If it was a non-famous, non-rich person, there wouldn’t be any question.

Here in the UK he would automatically be banned from keeping dogs for X number of years.
In my opinion he shouldn’t be allowed to EVER keep dogs again.

A more apt question would be, shouldn’t a dog own HIM ??!!

Yes, MV has learned a hard life’s lesson. He paid for his sins. I’m always in favor of redemption of man. MV was part of a culture that got him in trouble. I really believe he is a changed man. He is doing lots of community work in Philadelphia. I do think he should be interviewed and asked lots of question before getting this second chance. When I got Sadie, they (people from shelter) came to my house and interviewed me for about hour. The person from the humane shelter required an application with references. They did contact my references.

This is not a popular answer, but MV should be given a second chance with stipulations and requirements.

No. Sex offenders have to sign a registry and stay away from children their entire lives. I think the same thing should happen to MV with dogs. He helped rape (raping posts), murder and maime those dogs. @bobo1946 sexoffenders are not allowed a second chance for a reason, nor should MV. IMO.

I think he should be tied down and have a K9 unit go all wolf on his ass.

Vick isn’t going to lay a mean finger on any animal from now on. He’s been hammered well on that. He knows he will be under a microscope in his affairs and if there was ever one tiny infraction he’s toast. A new dog of his will be a lot better off than those who are owned by bad people who aren’t famous enough to get caught. People…grow up.

I can’t figure out why he wants one now.

I know nothing about MV, but have just read the article about him being arrested etc.
This barbaric torturing of dogs had been ongoing since 2001 until 2007.

If this man really cared about animals, then he would have realised far sooner that his actions were wrong, cruel and inhumane. Clearly he was more than happy to be involved in this ‘culture’ for six years before being caught and prosecuted.

I notice in one of the articles MV as says My daughters miss having one, and that’s the hardest thing: telling them that we can’t have one because of my actions.
Well he should have thought about that before he decided to abuse these animals.

If he was granted permission to own another dog, there is a chance, although maybe slight, that he will abuse another dog. That is too much of a risk in my eyes. I don’t care how long he attempts to prove he has changed, and perhaps he has, but someone who can treat animals in this way for SIX years isn’t an animal lover, and he should NEVER EVER be allowed to keep animals again. He should have thought about his actions before doing what he did.

My answer would be the same if he wasn’t rich or famous.

@partyparty Thanks. That makes sense. He’s sucking up to the kids. He doesn’t love dogs, he’s just feeling small in front of his kids. No frigging way.

@chyna well, i knew it would not be a popular answer, but people change. Again, stipulations and oversight should be part of the deal. Being a dog lover, certainly understand your answer.

I don’t think I would put him in the same class, regarding his motivations as sex offenders. What he did was sick, but sex offenders are in a class all by themselves. I guess rehab might be possible with MV, but I’d wait a while before I’d buy in to it.

The lack of a pet’s love in his life is the price he should pay.

^^Said it best. GA.

So, how long should he pay?

I’m not sure what the answer to that is. I think he’s taking advantage of the success he’s having on the field right now.

10 years (a conservative estimate of a dog’s life span) per dog he abused/killed = the rest of his life.

Dogs should be allowed to use Michael Vick’s limbs as chew toys although he wouldn’t be able to own the specific dogs that are disfiguring him.~

(No, he shouldn’t be allowed to own dogs. He’s already demonstrated that he’s not a responsible or ethical pet owner.)

Well, everyone sees life differently. I think every human being should be given a second chance. We all make mistakes.

I see all of your points, although I think making his limbs chewtoys might be a little harsh, but he did some really callous things, to say the least. Rehab is possible, but how does he prove it?

@Adirondackwannabe Good point… Think interviews by a dog lover would be a start. It’s a tough call.

@BoBo1946 GA. chyna would be perfect for the job. If he can sell her than maybe.

“Any ‘normal’ non famous person would never be allowed to own one after doing that…”

Sadly, that’s not true. When people are punished for animal abuse they are usually fined, or sometimes they spend a small time in jail, there may be some community service, and sometimes there is a brief moratorium on animal ownership, but I have never, ever heard of a lifelong ban.

I completely agree with you. No one who has been found to abuse or neglect an animal should be allowed to own an animal again, ever – that’s my opinion. Pet ownership isn’t some basic, intrinsic human right! It’s a privilege, and people who have abused that privilege shouldn’t be allowed to exercise it again. I don’t understand why it isn’t that way, legally, but it isn’t.

Well, I believe in the redemption of man. Thank God, He gave me a second chance. I just think it is unfair to think man cannot change. I’ve seen it so many times in my life. I came from an abusive environment and i didn’t walk away without lots of scars. MV grew up in the projects and never had any guidance in his life. I think time MV will proves he means what he has said lately…in that, “I’ve changed.” If he blows it, he is only to blame. I’ve watched MV closely lately and I do observe a change. Go in peace my brother.

Redemption is possible but it’s also expensive to ensure from the outside. God will always know if you have changed and he will reward you for it (if you believe in that sort of thing). With God you always have a second chance – a possibility to change and redeem yourself. But society does not have access to the inner workings of a person. If someone has abused an animal, he shouldn’t be allowed to have another unless he can prove he won’t abuse it. But it costs money to find out whether he’s proven himself – someone will have to set out the test, oversee the case, so on and so forth. Why should we pay for that when we have so many other social ills to combat? As a minimum we should not restrict his liberty and we should allow him his human rights – we’ve done that. But allow him privileges when we can’t afford to ensure he won’t abuse them again? No. We don’t have the resources for that. He lost his chance when he committed those ghastly crimes. God will always give him a second chance, but society is another matter entirely. Society does not have the abilities of God! Therefore people do not have the same possibilities under society as they do under God.

@BoBo1946 “If he blows it, he is only to blame.” What about the poor animal he abuses if he “blows it”? Who was there to protect its rights?

If a person believes in God, he will give another human being a second chance. Thank goodness God give us second chances everyday. Mercy and compassion are a wonderful thing.

As I said in my prior comments, there should be oversight and stipulations on MV owning a dog. I knew my answer would not be popular, but I believe this from the heart that all people deserve a second chance.

@chyna My thoughts exactly. If he isn’t rehabed and does it again the poor animal is the one that suffers because we gave him another chance.

@chyna good point… why I said, stipulations and oversight should be paramount. We allow people to get out of prison and there are no guarantees. But, we trust the system. Sometimes it fails. But, to never give that person another chance in life, don’t see it.

It isn’t like he left the dog outside without proper shelter and food. He really did some horrible things to those dogs. Those weren’t small things, those were atrocities.

@BoBo1946 Yes, God will give him a second chance. In my opinion, God will give him a million chances. It’s never too late to redeem yourself. But society can’t operate as God does. Society does not have access to the same resources as God; society is limited by factors that God is not. Oversight and stipulations are absolutely necessary, I agree with you there, but they are also expensive. Who will cover the bill? Do you really think that is the best use of our money when there are homeless people freezing to death in the winter, children going to school hungry in the mornings, animals in abusive situations that need rescuing, so on and so forth?

People in prison do horrible things. But, we give them a second chance.

Anyway, enough is enough. Everyone here made good valid points on the subject. I can understand both sides of the equation. Time will tell. Down deep inside me, MV will prove himself a good human being someday. I’ve seen in his eyes lately. People do change, thank goodness.

Maybe… only a little fluffy girlie dog that could never be considered for dog fighting? The kind his kids would love but he’d look ridiculous taking for a walk…

I don’t know that I agree that he should never have a dog again, but I do definitely think that it would be inappropriate for him to have certain types of dogs. Maybe later, but definitely with a restriction as to what breeds, size, something to make sure that he is unlikely to get back to old tricks. He did horrible things, but if he’s making an effort to (kind of) make up for it… I’m neither here nor there.

Hell no, he should never even be able to LOOK at a dog. Vicious, animal abusing bastard.

Of course not.

Forget the redemption stuff. This man systematically tortured dogs to death. We aren’t talking theft or vandalism here, we are talking electrocuting, beating and drowning dogs.

This man doesn’t deserve the love of a dog. Ever. I don’t care how much he whines and cries abut his kids. This isn’t a theocracy, we have absolutely no proof of his “redemption,” and the rules of our democracy state that someone who commits such a crime can lose the privilege of ever owning an animal again. If anyone ever deserved such a punishment, it’s him.

No. Even if he is a reformed man, I can’t imagine that he has much compassion towards animals otherwise he wouldn’t have done what he did. Can you go from being happy to harm an animal to being genuinely compassionate towards it? Maybe you can but it’s not a risk I would be willing to allow.

Would anyone here allow him to look after your own dog for a week or so? I certainly wouldn’t – the risks are too great in my opinion.

@partyparty That’s probably the best answer. No way would I risk my dogs if they were still with me.

Hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your dog.

@Kayak8 LOL!

@Kayak8

A good point- if he had tortured and mutilated little girls, would those who claim that he has been “redeemed” allow him to be alone with their daughters in a day care?

I think not.

Um, excuse my language here for a moment, but..

FUCK NO.

No. Nuh uh. Never. Sorry. Nope.

He seems pretty contrite. He’s helping out with charities that help animals. He seems like he is much different—much more mature. He doesn’t take things for granted any more. He’s become a hero, a leader and a role model, which he seems to take seriously. It would be a family dog, not one of his dogs.

Now I don’t really care all that much for the guy, except that he runs my team on the field and he’s very exciting to watch. I’m glad he’s playing again.

I also do believe in redemption. I don’t think he’ll make the same mistake twice.

Who know? He probably won’t get the chance.

@wundayatta…..
Sooo someone who tortures/kills/abusive(mentally/physically) dogs….gets caught….goes to jail for 3 years….then for the next year(ish) works really hard sucking ass so he doesn’t loose his job and so people won’t hate him is A Hero….A Role Model….A Leader…. are you kidding me????

MV public service announcement:
Ok kids you can do anything you want…..as long as after you’re caught, charged and do your jail time turn into a goody little two shoes for the next year and you will be a hero…. just remember to suck a lot of ass

It’s all such a crock. If you are breeding dogs for a purpose and they don’t fulfill expectations you have those dogs desexed and place them in caring homes or you humanely cull by euthansia, you don’t electrocute, etc. while enjoying and laughing about the pain you are causing.

He may be redeemed, and he obviously has been forgiven (by some sports fans and team owners who have economics as the primary decider) he is playing ball again. That’s enough, nope he shouldn’t have a dog. If he didn’t know before that killing and maiming dogs was not nice, how could he possibly learn that. How could he have possibly not known that torturing dogs is a bad thing???

@wundayatta

Again- so if it had been little girls he tortured instead of dogs, would you leave your child with him? No matter how much of a “role model” he appeared to be in the interim?

@crisw You better find another analogy. If it was little girls, he would never have gotten out of jail.

@coffeenut In fact, your sarcastic description of the world is indeed the way the world works a lot of the time—for people with enough power.

I think you are underestimating the punishment you get in jail. I’m sure that the dogs got their revenge. I have a friend who spent a week in jail and has been forever changed. And not it a good way. He is very cynical about people now.

Suppose someone stole all your garden tools and ripped up your garden. They spent 30 days in jail and gave your tools back and fixed up your garden, Are you going to think of them as a garden-destroyer the rest of your life? Are you going to say they should never go into a garden the rest of their lives?

It sounds like you’re saying that anyone who harms an animal intentionally is beyond redemption. You don’t want to ever be around them, nor to allow them to be near animals again?

As to the hero business—did you watch the Eagles/Cowboys game Sunday night? Did you watch a little after it was over? If you did, then perhaps you saw the young Dallas player come up to Vick and ask him to autograph some article of clothing. I’m not kidding you. A lot of people look up to Vick as a hero, role model, and he is certainly a leader to his team.

When I was a boy, I did some pretty nasty things to a couple of kittens. I grew up and I would never do anything like that again. It’s probably the major reason why I hate cats and don’t want to be near them. And believe me, they torture me for it. When I’m in a room with cats, even the shyest cats who haven’t been seen by their owners in ten years come out and try to snuggle up next to me. I doubt if you can imagine how horrid that is for me. The world has a way of evening things out.

From what I can see, Vick has grown up, too. He has changed. I believe it. I would believe it whether or not he was a great football player. Your words suggest a desire to punish him and punish him and punish him forever, no matter what he does—that’s something that really concerns me.

@wundayatta

I don’t need another analogy because the point remains the same. You seem to think that he is “reformed” and can be “trusted” with a dog. So, if he had electrocuted, drowned, beaten and killed children, would you ever, ever, trust him alone with a child? Yes or no?

A garden is not a living, feeling being and comparing what he did to trashing a garden is truly an inapt analogy. A normal, sane, adult human doesn’t torture living, feeling beings, be they animal or human.

The companionship of a dog is a privilege, not a right. He lost the privilege.

@crisw I wouldn’t trust such a person with a child, but I wouldn’t have to. That person would never get out of jail. Are you suggesting that Vick should spend the rest of his life in jail? That there is never enough punishment for this crime?

This isn’t a child. This is a dog. This is a creature that people rarely think twice about putting down.

He has paid his debt to society, and yet you want to go on punishing him and punishing him until he dies? I’m sorry, but even murderers can get punished and can get rehabilitated and come and live in society again. Torturers of humans, the world over, are walking free, maybe even revered in their countries. I think you’re going way overboard here.

Removed something very rude about people/kids who have no empathy. You cannot learn empathy. Any sort of hate just proves that.

Child molesters and torturers do get out of jail. It happens all the time. Otherwise why is there a national registry of child sex offenders? Why are there rules about how released child sex offenders can’t live within a certain radius of schools and daycares? Why is Carla Homolka free? So on and so forth… Life without parole is quite a rare punishment, relatively-speaking.

@wundayatta

“I wouldn’t trust such a person with a child, but I wouldn’t have to”

Whether you would have to or not is not the point. You would not trust him with a child, presumably because anyone who committed such monstrous acts to an innocent being has shown he cannot be trusted. That is the point.

“This is a dog. This is a creature that people rarely think twice about putting down.”

Any sane, normal human does think twice abut electrocuting, torturing, drowning or beating a dog. Do you truly realize what Vick and his cronies did to the helpless animals in their care?

From his indictment

“In or about April 2007, PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in “testing” sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods,
including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.”

This is just one paragraph of many that describe what happened to the dogs.

We aren’t talking about whether he should be in jail, or whether he should be playing football. We are talking about whether he can be trusted with the life of a dog. And that answer is pretty clearly “no.”

There is plenty of precedent for this; it’s fairly routine for animal abusers to be denied the right to own an animal, and for child abusers to be denied access to children. He suffers far less harm by never being allowed to own a dog again than the dogs who were forced to live with him in the past suffered.

Vick was not a child when he tortured those dogs, he was an adult. Big difference between a stupid kid doing bad things to a kitten and an adult torturing, maiming and killing an animal because it didn’t perform up to his expectations, meaning it didn’t inflict enough pain and maiming on its opponent as is the case with dog fighting. Let us not forget the very manly and wonderful sport he was breeding the dogs for in the first place.

Are we saying he didn’t realize before being jailed that putting two dogs in a pit and watching them kill each other is a bad thing too???

He shouldn’t have been allowed to have children either, who knows what he puts them and his wife through.

If you or I got caught doing this we wouldn’t be aloud another dog so what makes him so special?
No he shouldn’t. I fear for any animal that has to live within 100 miles of this person. If It was my choice he would still be in jail with his only pet being the small spider in the corner.

@daytonamisticrip

hmpf, he would probably be staging spider fights then.

Not only should Michael Vick not be allowed to have another dog…

…Michael Vick should just not be allowed.

@daytonamisticrip “If you or I got caught doing this we wouldn’t be aloud another dog…” As I’ve said, that isn’t true.

@nicobanks

Why isn’t it true? It’s pretty routine in felony animal abuse cases to not allow the guilty party to own an animal.

Here’s one example of someone convicted of animal cruelty not being allowed to own any more animals-

“Thirty-two kittens and young cats were found abandoned on the morning of Aug 9 on the doorsteps of the Oregon Humane Society. The felines were sitting in their own urine and feces inside plastic storage bins. They were left with no food, water or information…Carol Richter, 58, is not allowed to own any more pets. She appeared in Multnomah County Court. As a condition of her continued release, the judge ruled that Richter cannot own any animals.”

No. It’s just my opinion, but no. Absolutely not.

I think he should be required to send money to his local animal shelter for the rest of his life as a fine. If he could do supervised work around animals that would be a good idea. On Conan last night, “Michael Vicks asked if he could have a dog. When dogs everywhere heard about it, they said Meow.

@crisw I wouldn’t say it’s “routine.” The example you provided is the first I’ve heard of such a thing, and I follow animal abuse/neglect cases somewhat neurotically. It’s almost worse to learn that there’s precedent for it and yet it’s not standard! It should be automatic, like the fines and jail time.

Edit: I read the source you provided and I’m not really clear on it – it kind of makes it sound like she’s only prevented from owning pets during her parole (or “continued release”)? And then it says this “OHS will now work with Richter to help her spay/neuter and find homes for her remaining cats” – so she still owned them for a time?

@crisw I’ve been looking through the convicted cases on that website you provided and have yet to find another case where someone has been prevented from owning animals for life (there were some with probations on owning animals for a short time, and one with a restriction on owning exotic animals). I’m sure there are others but I don’t see any evidence that it’s “routine.”

I find myself, amazingly enough, agreeing with @crisw on this. He tortured and murdered animals. There is no rehabilitation for someone who has that sort of malice in them. If he had been walking and some other person’s dog viciously attacked him and he was forced to defend himself, that would be one thing. But he knowingly and repeatedly tortured and murdered those dogs. There is no such thing as rehabilitation for that sort of twisted evil.

When it comes to extreme crimes of malice like animal abuse, child abuse and sexual crimes, I have no sympathy nor pity for the offender and wish they’d just be permanently removed from society.

@wundayatta I can’t believe that the dogs “got their revenge”. Most dogs are only here to please the people that own them. They don’t think in terms of revenge. No matter what MV did to those dogs, if he had patted them on the head, they would have licked his hand and wagged their tails. I can’t believe that MV didn’t realize what he did was wrong. Why else was he hiding out while doing these atrocities to those animals? He knew. And why does he want a dog? He can go the rest of his life without one. To plead to the public that his children want a dog is just pathetic. Tell them they can’t have one as long as he is in the same household because daddy tortured them for money.

@YARNLADY very good, it i’m not mistaken, think that was a part of his sentence. Tried to find a link, but could not.

@wundayatta I feel your pain my friend. That took guts. Also, I can understand the outrage by others about my comments and my friend’s comments. I knew my position would not be popular.

@chyna made a very good point; who is going to protect the dog? I think a person at the shelter will make that decision. From my reading, the shelter denied MV a dog now. They said it was too soon. I can respect that. I’m sure the person making that call at the shelter loves dogs as much as any of us.

When I got Sadie from a local shelter, they came to my house and interviewed me for an hour. The person inspected my property, fences etc. Also, they required references. The shelter called my vet and discussed my ownership of a dog. A few days later, they gave me permission to own Sadie. She sleeps with me every night. I buy the best dog food available. When I have a treat watching TV, Sadie gets a treat. She goes everywhere I go. She is Queen Sadie. She is loved by all who meet her. She is a special girl.

My comments were made from the heart of hearts and not taken lightly about MV owning a dog.

@BoBo1946 If a person believes in God, he will give another human being a second chance

I understand you saying he should be given a second chance, and by being allowed to be around animals is his second chance, and he should be grateful for that in my opinion. That doesn’t mean he should be allowed to own another animal. What he did went on for years and years, not a spur of the moment mistake, and who knows, if he hadn’t been caught then it may have continued.
I would be very, very frightened to allow my dogs near him for any length of time, how about you? :)

@partyparty did you read my comments? Especially, the last one.

@BoBo1946 Yes I know you are more than sincere in your beliefs, and I am sure you thought long and hard before posting your answer. You have had lots of negative comments including me, sorry but I still wouldn’t let my dogs near him. Still friends? :)))

Well, people get out of prison everyday…. I’m glad someone loves them. My answer comes from my religious beliefs. Redemption, NOT popular here.. is a wonderful thing.

So, MV should be banned and punished for life? The shelter cannot be trusted with their decision?

Still friends.

He can have another dog when jesus comes again and shows us it is alright.

This is a strange question to be injecting all this religion into. I hope all the dogs he tortured and killed have found solace and succor in heaven.

@rooeytoo

“I hope all the dogs he tortured and killed have found solace and succor in heaven.”

Well, the ones he left here on Earth have been a bit luckier. It brings tears to my eyes every time I read about them- therapy dogs, agility dogs, beloved companions… especially when you think about what would have happened to them if they had not been rescued.

@crisw – amen sister!

I found a story I read a while back just to re-emphasize how monstrous Vic’s behavior was:

“The details that got to me then and stay with me today involve the swimming pool that was used to kill some of the dogs,” Reynolds wrote on her blog. “Jumper cables were clipped onto the ears of underperforming dogs, then, just like with a car, the cables were connected to the terminals of car batteries before lifting and tossing the shamed dogs into the water.”

She continued, “We don’t know how many suffered this premeditated murder, but the damage to the pool walls tells a story. It seems that while they were scrambling to escape, they scratched and clawed at the pool liner and bit at the dented aluminum sides like a hungry dog on a tin can.

“I wear some pretty thick skin during our work with dogs, but I can’t shake my minds-eye image of a little black dog splashing frantically in bloody water… screaming in pain and terror… brown eyes saucer wide and tiny black white-toed feet clawing at anything, desperate to get a hold. This death did not come quickly. The rescuer in me keeps trying to think of a way to go back in time and somehow stop this torture and pull the little dog to safety. I think I’ll be looking for ways to pull that dog out for the rest of my life.”
,,,,,,,,
Even worse, he’s shown no sign of understanding of, or regret over, the fate of his dogs.

“Vick has never expressed one word of remorse for what he did to those dogs,” said McClay. “Not in any of his public statements, and not in his appearance on ‘60 Minutes.’ Vick said he ‘let it happen.’ He slammed and beat and hung dogs to death. It’s like Ted Bundy saying, ‘I let someone murder this girl.’ He doesn’t take any responsibility for it.”

^^Those are not the actions of a man who didn’t understand what he was doing was harmful or wrong.

@chyna – so he didn’t realize at that point (and he was an adult) that what he was doing was somehow not a nice thing to do? But now he has miraculously developed compassion and understanding??? If you have ever seen a dog panic about anything, then I can’t imagine how anyone could observe it and not be aware.

There is something missing in him is what I figure. I have very little maternal instincts (towards 2 legged creatures) so I never had children. I think he should realize he is apparently missing the compassion towards animals part and should never have one again.

Of course when you are a spoiled pampered professional athlete, you are not used to anyone saying “NO” to you.

Like @noelleptc he has been given a lot of redemption. He is playing football again, earning a shit load again and people are supporting him again. That is his forgiveness and second chance but like others have said, I believe that living wih an animal is a privilage not a right and if you betray that trust in such a major way as he did, a second chance at that privilage should out of the question.

I don’t believe for one minute that, if he were to own a dog, he would be stupid enough to make such a major “mistake” twice because the world would be watching. However, I wouldn’t trust him behind closed doors with a dog and I think that someone who could treat animals like he did would still be dangerous to any animal living with him, out of sight from the public eye.

@crisw with tears in my eyes Oh I didn’t know any of this. That is even worse than I could possibly imagine.
@rooeytoo Couldn’t agree with you more. As religion has been brought into this question perhaps I could quote the following from Acts 22:28 I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.
I think MV falls into this category.

whatever

@BoBo1946

How, exactly, does that add to the conversation?

Cut BoBo some slack guys. He’s seeing the best in someone and willing to give them another chance. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.

@Adirondackwannabe

“He’s seeing the best in someone and willing to give them another chance. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.”

Unless you are a pit bull.

Honestly, I think he’s peeved that we don’t accept the platitudes that Vick has “reformed” or “been redeemed” and this is how he states it.

Why should we go easy on him? As I have said several times now, if Vick had electrocuted and drowned little girls instead of dogs, would we even be having this conversation?

@crisw I think the collective tends to get nasty with each other when someone else doesn’t agree with their point of view. How about a little more respect and civility with each other, especially when we disagree with each other. That’s what I was referring to.

@Adirondackwannabe Yes I understand you are saying. We are all entitled to our own opinions, we don’t have to always agree, and we can feel passionately about our answers, but we should always be respectful :)
@BoBo1946 I really do understand and respect your views, I just couldn’t feel the way you do about MV being given a second chance :)

@partyparty Very well said.

@crisw you stated your case. I’m finished with this question.

@Adirondackwannabe thank you my friend!

@BoBo1946 Anytime.

I’m not advocating for animal abuse by any means. But sometimes people get so carried away, they forget about the facts in order to have a good story. @crisw Vick was never even indicted on the charges the animal rights activist cites in the story you provided. I know it may be hard for someone whose sense of righteousness over animals is so incensed to understand, but we are a nation of laws and we conduct ourselves by the rule of law. Defendents are tried by the judicial system in America; not the court of public opinion. One of many examples of why this is true is the story you linked. These aren’t the facts of the case. The are the emotions of someone who wasn’t even a party in the legal proceedings. If people can’t be reformed, why not just keep everyone locked away or execute them? Something is wrong with a sense of right and wrong when you can’t determine the difference in an dog and a child in examples of Vick and child abusers. What has the world come to when you can accept that an animal that has been breed and raised to fight to the death can be rehabed but not a man?

@bkcunningham

“These aren’t the facts of the case”

Are you saying that they didn’t happen?

What about the indictment I cited above? Are you saying that it didn’t happen?

“If people can’t be reformed, why not just keep everyone locked away or execute them?”
This isn’t really about reformation. Vick is already free and playing football again. It’s about the privilege of whether he should be allowed to have a dog. And I see absolutely no reason why he should. He blew it. Big time.

“Something is wrong with a sense of right and wrong when you can’t determine the difference in an dog and a child in examples of Vick and child abusers.”

No, not at all. You are missing the point entirely. I am not equating the two crimes; I am stating that no one would trust Vick with a child had he abused children; why are some people so ready to trust him with a dog when he abused dogs?

“What has the world come to when you can accept that an animal that has been breed and raised to fight to the death can be rehabed but not a man?”

The pit bulls had no choice in the matter. The man did. He knowingly chose to torture and abuse animals for money and fame. This was not a crime of passion or of mental incompetence; this was a man deliberately choosing to inflict immense harm and suffering for personal gain.

Based on his past track record, no reputable breeder that I have ever known would place a dog with him. But there are always pet shops, and back yard breeders to whom the only concern is the bottom line.

Also true is the fact that no reputable breeder ever places a dog with someone who wants a dog “for the kids.” A dog should be a similar responsibility to having another child, it isn’t a toy that can be discarded when the kids get bored. It should be viewed as a new family member and most importantly should be desired by the mom of the family because inevitably she is the decider of whether the dog is allowed in the house and to be a member of the family.

I don’t think any rescue would let him have a dog again based on his track record.

So let’s hope this question is moot, no one would sell the murderer another potential victim.

@crisw an indictment isn’t a conviction. If there was enough evidence to convict Vick, I’m sure the prosecutors would have taken to the limit. They didn’t. The person interviewed in the story you provided accused Vick of things that were not even in the indictment. You even said, “This man systematically tortured dogs to death. We aren’t talking theft or vandalism here, we are talking electrocuting, beating and drowning dogs.” The indictment doesn’t accuse Vick of that.

You are equating the two crimes. “Why should we go easy on him? As I have said several times now, if Vick had electrocuted and drowned little girls instead of dogs, would we even be having this conversation?”

Parents are indicted and convicted of horrific child abuse charges everyday and the main objective of child support services is to reunited the child with the parents. And it happens every second of every day. Men are convicted of beating, raping and leaving women to die and they are still allowed to serve their sentence and go back to their wives and children or get jobs around women.

How do you know how Vick was raised or what belief system or knowledge he had at the time. Most people are capable of growing and learning and changing.

@bbkcunningham

“The indictment doesn’t accuse Vick of that.”

“In or about April 2007, PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in “testing” sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods,
including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.”

I posted this above; perhaps you missed it. And Vick also later admitted to killing dogs although he was deceptive about it.

As far as the specifics of the case- Vick was never tried on the cruelty charges because he pled guilty to the dogfighting-related gambling charges, probably to avoid prosecution under the RICO act. Unfortunately, these charges carry a far stiffer penalty than cruelty to animals charges do. At no point were the cruelty charges ruled inaccurate.

Why don’t I think Vick has changed? Because he has never, as I also posted above, shown any remorse over what he did to those dogs. Because he blamed others, over and over again, for what he, himself, did. Because this was not a crime of passion; it was a well-executed scheme. What, specifically, has he done to show that he should be entrusted with the care of an animal?

Owning a dog is a privilege, not a right. Since you don’t like me comparing dogs with people, try this. If you drive drunk too many times, you can get your license taken away – for life. Vick was involved in the deaths of a great many dogs, and over 70 dogs were rescued from his premises. I think that he has gotten what he deserves- no dogs, for life.

@crisw you obviously don’t understand the US judicial system. It isn’t that I don’t like that you compare dogs with children, I don’t like or dislike that you do that. It is just different than me. My standards are obviously different than yours. What does drunk driving have to do with animal abuse? You totally lost me on that one.

@bkcunningham

“you obviously don’t understand the US judicial system.”

Really? I explained why Vick didn’t go to jail for animal abuse- what, exactly, in my explanation is faulty?

You also stated “The indictment doesn’t accuse Vick of that”- are you now withdrawing that statement?

“What does drunk driving have to do with animal abuse?”

If you abuse a privilege, that privilege can be taken away. For life. It’s that simple.

@crisw said, “As far as the specifics of the case- Vick was never tried on the cruelty charges because he pled guilty to the dogfighting-related gambling charges, probably to avoid prosecution under the RICO act. Unfortunately, these charges carry a far stiffer penalty than cruelty to animals charges do. At no point were the cruelty charges ruled inaccurate.”

Well, of course that is what he did at the advise of his attorneys. BUT, the prosecution had to accept the deal. Vick copped a plea deal to lessor charges. Why did the prosecution drop the stiffer charges if their case was as cut and dry as you presume? If they had the evidence (which BTW, comes from law enforcement investigators, DA, informants and other humans who aren’t perfect) to burn his ass for everything in the indictment, trust me, they would have done so in a heartbeat. Especially with all the publicity surrounding the case. When you are charged in an indictment, you can’t just pick and choose which crimes you want to be prosecuted on. It doesn’t work like that my friend. Do you know when you go before a grand jury, you can’t have your attorney present inside the court? A grand jury bases returning a true bill against a defendent souly on the evidence, perfect or not so perfect, presented by only the prosecution.

It would be like saying, “Oh, I’m charged with breaking and entering, sexual assualt, negligent homocide, possession of a firearm by a felon and felony pocession of Oxycontin. Let’s see, I’ll just pick the B&E and sexual assault, and negligent homocide to avoid the RICO charges.”

What part did Vick play in the actual play in this accusation that includes two other defendents? Did the prosecution continute with any of this accusation against Vick.: “In or about April 2007, PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in “testing” sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods,
including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.”

My argument isn’t that Vick didn’t do something criminal. Of course he did. He copped a plea to lessor charges. That is a deal his attorneys worked out with the prosecution based on the evidence. That is their job. That is what they are educated and professionally trained according to the law to do. Not get someone off who is guilty, but to make sure the legal system is treating a defendent fairly. Innocent until proven guilty. How many times have you heard of someone spending time in prison for a crime they didn’t commit? Many. You just can’t make broad assumptions against someone when it comes to the legal system. Life isn’t so black and white. Vick admitted to wrong doing. The op-ed piece you provided was so lopsided and much of the information was inaccurate.

Like I said, your standards are different than mine. I value the life of a child without question over that of a dog. But that is what makes the world go wrong. That is why the make chocolate and vanilla. I’ve seen Vick interviewed on two separate occasions and I think he’s remorseful for what happened. But who knows. Not you nor I know that. Cruelty to animals is wrong. It is bad. But to say you’d never give someone a second chance to own a dog just isn’t logical to me based on the evidence we’ve seen. That’s just my opinion and I may be wrong as Dennis Miller says.

@bkcunningham

“much of the information was inaccurate.”

As I asked earlier- which information?

“I value the life of a child without question over that of a dog.”

What does that have to do with anything? This is not a situation that pits the two. I call red herring.

“But to say you’d never give someone a second chance to own a dog just isn’t logical to me based on the evidence we’ve seen.”

Once again- please tell me exactly what he has done that is relevant to dog ownership that shows he deserves the privilege of owning a dog.

@crisw, stated, “I found a story I read a while back just to re-emphasize how monstrous Vic’s behavior was,” and provided a link to an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronical by Christie Keith. You have to remember and understand when reading this, it isn’t a news story. It is an opinion piece. The two are totally different animals, no pun intended.

Keith starts her column by saying, ”...That’s because not only has Vick not served one minute in prison for animal cruelty,”

Fact: Aug. 23, 2007 — Vick signs plea agreement and statement of facts admitting to conspiracy in a dogfighting ring and helping kill pit bulls. He denies betting on the fights, only bankrolling them. I would imagine that “helping kill pit bulls” is animal cruelty.

“Vick has never expressed one word of remorse for what he did to those dogs,” said Marthina McClay of Our Pack, a pit bull rescue group in Santa Clara, and the owner of one of the Vick dogs, “Not in any of his public statements, and not in his appearance on ‘60 Minutes…He slammed and beat and hung dogs to death.”

Aug. 27, 2007 — Vick pleads guilty to dogfighting conspiracy before U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson. At a news conference, Vick apologizes for “using bad judgment and making bad decisions. I offer my deepest apologies to everyone. And I will redeem myself. I have to.” All of this is at his sentencing. Vick had made numerous statements and conducted many interviews where he talks about how this has changed his thinking about animals, his life and how remorseful he is for what he was involved in doing. Have you ever watched or read one of the many interviews?

“Much of the public still sees pit bulls as willing gladiators rather than the victims that they are,” she told me. “We have a long way to go before open debate on the topic of animal abuse is welcome in most living rooms, so the outrage about Vick’s tortures is rightfully keeping the subject alive.”

The falsehood of this statement should be self evident.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/11/03/petscol110309.DTL#ixzz18iJwBeSn

@bkcunningham – me thinks you are stuck on semantics. Regardless of what the law or his lawyers or the justice system says, would you sell the dude a pup you raised and nurtured and loved? If you would you are a hell of a lot more trusting (or naive) than I am.

It doesn’t matter what I think or what the rest of you think. He is allowed to get a dog. He is within his rights. Unless by law he is banned from ever owning another dog nothing can stop him or anyone else from owning one.

@Mikewlf337

“He is allowed to get a dog.”

Actually, he’s not. It’s a condition of his probation that he not own dogs, and that isn’t up until 2012.

@crisw Then after 2012 after probation he can get a dog despite how I or anyone else feels. As long as he doesn’t abuse the dog then it really shouldn’t be a problem or a concern. Since he his case was a high profile case I doubt that he could get away with doing it again.

Not saying that I am ok with what he did. I was disgusted and I really don’t like the idea about him owning a dog but I am not about to riase hell if he does eventually own one.