Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Brillig

and it'd take a monumental inspiration of good sense on Vick's part to realise he's already screwed.

And we know how much he has of that...

[Surtt]

I looks like the whole "conspiracy indictment" was a way to tighten the screws.

Pleading guilt to the charges that carry a 5 year sentence might be had to do,
but compared to charges with a 20 year sentence and having 7 witnesses against you.......

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Actually, I'd be a little surprised if Vick pled out at this point. With all three of his co-defendents pleading guilty, it seems like there's not much in the way of a deal available for Vick.

Furthermore, it's a dream situation for his lawyers - if Vick fights the case and wins, it's a miracle for the defense team. If he loses, well, the case was unwinnable anyway. There's no way for his lawyers to lose. And if there's one thing we've learned about Vick, it's that he's easily led by others. His lawyers will want to fight it, and it'd take a monumental inspiration of good sense on Vick's part to realise he's already screwed.

Huh?? Where are you getting the idea that "his lawyers will want to fight it" and will simply make that the paramount goal over and above what it's in Vick's best interests? I think you're wrong on that one. As far as criminal law goes, it is far more common for the accused to disregard their lawyer's advice and decide to fight it rather than take a plea.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Huh?? Where are you getting the idea that "his lawyers will want to fight it" and will simply make that the paramount goal over and above what it's in Vick's best interests? I think you're wrong on that one. As far as criminal law goes, it is far more common for the accused to disregard their lawyer's advice and decide to fight it rather than take a plea.

I could see a possiblity that the lawyers would want to continue to fight this. If it looks like the pea will not allow him to continue his career, then they might want to take the chance in trial. Having seven witnesses against him is a large uphill battle, but we haven't heard (nor has his attorneys for that matter) exactly what they have to say yet. It is possible that once they have their testimony, it will be easily impeachable. Remember, these guys aren't Mensa members, nor are they "clean." All the defense needs is for them to testify to dates and times for supposed actions that the defense can prove Vick couldn't have possibily been there. Little mistakes in their testimony can be blown into major lies, and these guys most likely will already have a hard time to being believable to a jury. It still doesn't look good, but just the witnesses against doesn't make this a slam-dunk. Just very close to one.

The harder thing to cover is any kind of money trail. If they have some signed receipts, witnesses of transactions outside of the accused, etc. Then he's toast.

[Bee]

I was listening to the John Riggins show on the way home yesterday and he had an interesting perspective. He had talked with an unnamed Federal prosecutor and the prosecutor had suggested the case against Vick might not be nearly as strong as some are thinking. The federal prosecutor even felt there was a good chance that Vick would walk. His opinion was that when the Feds have a lot of evidence against you, they will sit you down and walk you through all the evidence step by step even before discovery to scare you into a plea. With this case, they haven't done that...they've been strong arming the defendents and basically threatening with additional indictments but they haven't given any indication of what evidence they actually have. To him, this felt like someone with weak evidence trying to get a plea agreement done before getting to the discovery part and having to show how little evidence they actually have.

Now saying that, I don't buy it but I did think it was an interesting view and worth consideration (not just because it came from a federal prosecutor but also there's some logic to it). My opinion is if they didn't have anything there's no way the other 3 would have folded that fast. My guess is this federal prosecutor that Riggins had talked to might not have been aware of what was going on behind the scenes.

[st.cronin]

So the story is that Vick's lawyers are "talking with prosecutors about a possible deal." I think they're giving up, there's no way they can go back to the stance that he's completely innocent.

[molson]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

So the story is that Vick's lawyers are "talking with prosecutors about a possible deal." I think they're giving up, there's no way they can go back to the stance that he's completely innocent.

There was a blurb on ESPN radio yesterday about there being a Friday deadline for a deal, or Vick would face new charges.

The negotiation point, apparently, was that Vick's attorney was looking for less than a year jail time, where the government wanted longer.

I don't see any way this goes to trial. Vick will have way too much at stake, which multiple felonies, and the government will be hapy with some moderate jail time (around a year) to save the expense and uncertainty of trial. High profile jail time for dogfighting case would be a big win for the government - no real gain in going for consecutive time across mulitple felonies, with could lock Vick up for decades.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Bee

I was listening to the John Riggins show on the way home yesterday and he had an interesting perspective. He had talked with an unnamed Federal prosecutor and the prosecutor had suggested the case against Vick might not be nearly as strong as some are thinking. The federal prosecutor even felt there was a good chance that Vick would walk. His opinion was that when the Feds have a lot of evidence against you, they will sit you down and walk you through all the evidence step by step even before discovery to scare you into a plea. With this case, they haven't done that...they've been strong arming the defendents and basically threatening with additional indictments but they haven't given any indication of what evidence they actually have. To him, this felt like someone with weak evidence trying to get a plea agreement done before getting to the discovery part and having to show how little evidence they actually have.

Bee, have you read the indictment?

The specifics given in the indictment are more than enough to put him away. Its a pretty strong, almost air-tight case to start, before half the other members flipped. At this point, I'd say their case is rock solid.

[QuikSand]

Oh, man... just when he thought it couldn't get any worse...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Oh, man... just when he thought it couldn't get any worse...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html

“Michael Vick has to stop physically hurting my feelings and dashing my hopes,”

[larrymcg421]

Vick with missiles is a pretty dangerous thought considering he has shown excellent aptitude at aiming for the enemy.

[oliegirl]

Just got this from the AJC:

Falcons QB Michael Vick likely to join co-defendants in plea deal this week
Facing the possibility of a new indictment, which includes racketeering charges, Falcons quarterback Michael Vick will most likely join his three co-defendants and agree this week to a plea deal with prosecutors in his federal dogfighting case, according to two people with knowledge of the case.

Link: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sp..._11_21_id233_e

[gstelmack]

You guys skipped right over the important part early: Jonathan Lee Riches.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I could see a possiblity that the lawyers would want to continue to fight this. If it looks like the pea will not allow him to continue his career, then they might want to take the chance in trial. Having seven witnesses against him is a large uphill battle, but we haven't heard (nor has his attorneys for that matter) exactly what they have to say yet. It is possible that once they have their testimony, it will be easily impeachable. Remember, these guys aren't Mensa members, nor are they "clean." All the defense needs is for them to testify to dates and times for supposed actions that the defense can prove Vick couldn't have possibily been there. Little mistakes in their testimony can be blown into major lies, and these guys most likely will already have a hard time to being believable to a jury. It still doesn't look good, but just the witnesses against doesn't make this a slam-dunk. Just very close to one.

The harder thing to cover is any kind of money trail. If they have some signed receipts, witnesses of transactions outside of the accused, etc. Then he's toast.

I could see that too. But that scenario actually involves the lawyers wanting to fight it because it is in Vick's best interests, not their interests as I was trying to point out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Bee, have you read the indictment?

The specifics given in the indictment are more than enough to put him away. Its a pretty strong, almost air-tight case to start, before half the other members flipped. At this point, I'd say their case is rock solid.

There's no sure things in a jury trial, especially ones with racial overtones.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by molson

There's no sure things in a jury trial, especially ones with racial overtones.

Theres racial overtones here?


Oh yeah, I forgot. Everytime a black celebrity gets charged with something, theres racism at work.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Theres racial overtones here?


Oh yeah, I forgot. Everytime a black celebrity gets charged with something, theres racism at work.

Sadly, yes. (not that there's racism at work, but that many potential jurors will think that)

From what I heard, this thing was pretty much divided among racial lines in the south. (with one view being that ONLY a wealthy black man would get the attention of the federal government in a dog-fighting incident.)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Theres racial overtones here?


Oh yeah, I forgot. Everytime a black celebrity gets charged with something, theres racism at work.

Dogfighting. Its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.

[Noble_Platypus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Dogfighting. Its a black thing, you wouldn't understand.

Funny, somehow I am supposed to be persuaded that dogfighting is a black thing and, even though its against the law and fucking terrible, that it shouldnt be punished because to do so is racial. Weel, you could say in Texas that dragging black guys behind a pickup truck is a "sport" down there, should that be allowed too?

2 guys, arabs or the like, were picked up in South Carolina close to the naval weapons station that I was once stationed at with pipe bombs and all of the sudden its because they are muslim they are being arrested and its discrimination etc, etc. They werent arrested because they are muslims, they were arrested because they HAD FUCKING PIPE BOMBS! Next to a military base no less. It drives me crazy that people are so caught up in the PC bullshit that they miss the fact that these people are lawbreakers.

[Eaglesfan27]

This could turn ugly.

[MikeVic]

Ok guys, lets get back to discussing what kind of food should be served at a dog fight!

[MikeVic]

I don't think we mentioned potato chips, but that's a one-handed snack.

[Buccaneer]

I am reminded of something I read that referenced an article in the new York Magazine written in 1791:

"We are again assaulted - the enemy is within. The spread of these practices [cockfighting, one of the worst of southern manly vices] will lead us gradually into habits of intemperance and therefore rob the entire nation of the honour which we formerly acquired."

[Crapshoot]

Fyi,
I think Michael Silver's article is a good read. I've never gotten why hunting for fun (as opposed to for food) is so much more kosher than this. The premise is still killing for enjoyment. I think Vick should have the book thrown at him, but Silver's points are fair.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

The franchise quarterback had just suffered the most crushing defeat of his career and he needed to get away from it all. So the peeved passer headed to the backwoods of Mississippi, where he cleared his head by killing a defenseless animal.

Sorry, PETA, but the gun-toting quarterback in question was not Michael Vick. In fact, it was Peyton Manning, whose aim with a hunting rifle apparently is as true as it is with the ol' pigskin.

In January 2003, a couple days after the Indianapolis Colts' 41-0 playoff annihilation by the New York Jets, Manning went to a 12,000-acre spread in central Mississippi owned by a family friend and got his mind right. As he told me later that year, "You're out there hunting for deer and ducks, just you and your gun. It's peaceful and totally quiet, no cell phones or anything like that. It's a good detox, the type of thing that gets your batteries re-charged."

In other words: Bad news, Bambi.

ADVERTISEMENT
This is not meant to be a shot at Manning, one of the sports world's good guys and, in fairness, one of the many NFL players who enjoys such recreational pursuits. There are plenty of reasons his behavior should not be compared to the alleged doings of the Train Wreck That Is Michael Vick, beginning with the fact that it was legal.

Some would also argue that it is more humane to put a bullet through an unsuspecting deer than to end the life of a canine in any of the hideous ways that the exiled Atlanta Falcons quarterback and his co-defendants are accused – though I'm not necessarily sure the eight-point buck with the 18-inch spread that Manning had mounted on the wall of his Indy home would see it that way.

The larger point is that, as much as we're tempted to react to the federal indictment of Vick as though it contained the most heinous accusations against a football player since O.J. Simpson's, there's a whole lot of hypocrisy here.

For one thing, animals are put to death on a continuous basis, as I was just telling one of my fellow pet-lovers at a neighborhood barbecue while wiping away the hamburger grease that had dripped onto my suede Pumas.

It also must be noted – and I am not defending the sick behavior of anyone who a jury decides has committed an offense such as electrocuting a pit bull – that there are NFL players who've been charged with having committed deplorable crimes against actual human beings. Some of them have even been convicted, yet most of us manage to let it go when they do good things for the home team or emerge as value picks in the fantasy draft.

During my recent training camp travels, I stood in the St. Louis Rams' practice bubble watching 10th-year defensive end Leonard Little hone his impressive pass-rushing skills. The workout, which had been moved inside because of concerns about the hellacious heat, was closed to the public, but I didn't see any picketers outside.

To jog your memory, Little was the player who in 1998 drove home after celebrating his birthday, ran a red light in downtown St. Louis and caused a collision that killed another motorist, 47-year-old Susan Gutweiler. A breath test measured his blood-alcohol level at 0.19 percent, nearly twice the legal limit, and he eventually pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and spent 90 days in jail. When he returned to the Rams after an eight-game NFL suspension, Mothers Against Drunk Driving protested outside a Rams game, but few people outside of St. Louis seemed to notice, and Little went on to become one of the league's premier pass rushers.

It's a horrible story, but it might have contained at least a slightly redemptive touch had Little assuaged his guilt by urging others never to make the same mistake. He could have become a vocal and visible spokesman for consuming alcohol responsibly. He could have used his platform as a star athlete to try to save the lives of future drunk-driving victims.

Instead, Little drank and drove again. In 2004, Little was arrested for driving while intoxicated after being pulled over in Ladue, Mo., for speeding at 3:44 a.m. The arresting officer's affidavit stated that Little had "bloodshot, watery eyes and emitted an odor of alcohol;" that he had "attempted and failed three sobriety tests;" and that the player had "admitted to drinking alcoholic beverages."

Little, charged with a felony for driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender, was later acquitted after his lawyer convinced a jury that the arresting officer hadn't followed proper procedures in conducting the field-sobriety tests. Though another officer testified that he had administered a breath-alcohol test at the scene which showed that Little's blood-alcohol content was nearly double the legal limit of .08 percent, the test was inadmissible under Missouri law because of the unreliability of portable equipment. (After arriving at the police station, Little had refused to take a second breath-alcohol test.)

In other words, Little triumphed in court thanks to the legal equivalent of the Tuck Rule – only with a far more subdued reaction by the offended party (in this case, anyone with a brain and/or a conscience) than that displayed by Raider Nation.

I always thought that MADD, which tried to draw attention to the case, was a robust, publicity-savvy advocacy group. But, apparently, PETA is the big leagues, and MADD is rookie ball. Then again, everyone, from the anti-war movement to the salty pseudo-scientists trying to convince us that global warming is a hoax, is a lightweight compared to PETA.

I'm not mad at MADD; I'm simply pointing out that Little – and, for that matter, plenty of other NFL players whose behavior has been unconscionable – is allowed to ply his trade without getting shouted down by the masses.

Meanwhile Vick, a man with no prior criminal record who has not yet been tried or convicted, is the NFL's version of TB on a plane. Falcons owner Arthur Blank was ready to suspend his franchise quarterback before commissioner Roger Goodell intervened and banished Vick from training camp, with no resistance from the NFL Players Association, which is supposed to represent Vick's interests. Now Goodell is preparing to shelve Vick for the entire 2007 season. The fallen star may never play another NFL down.

The biggest reason this is happening so quickly, prematurely and intensely is because of us. We're the angry mob shouting for justice, albeit via Internet chat rooms and sports-talk radio; ultimately, we're the ones empowering Goodell to act, with PETA doing the bulk of the legwork.

The allegations against Vick and the resulting outcry are tarnishing the brand, and Goodell, the owners who employ him and the companies which supply the league's ad revenues are highly aware of the stakes. Meanwhile, in terms of public reproach, other players are getting away with … well, crimes like involuntary manslaughter.

This is not meant to be flippant or to suggest a value judgment in any way, but it could be argued that right now, an NFL player would be less stressed about going on trial for domestic abuse than he would for dogfighting.

I can't predict whether another NFL player will follow Vick into court, but I can tell you that he's not the only one caught up in the animal-fighting culture. One of the league's best role models, New Orleans Saints running back Deuce McAllister, concedes that the problem is more widespread than some outsiders may believe. "If you look at the big picture, cockfighting just got banned in Louisiana," he said last Thursday. "That helps put all of this in perspective."

When I asked McAllister, a native of tiny Lena, Miss., if he'd ever been invited to a dogfight, he laughed and said, "Come on, I'm from the country."

Now think about this: There is a player on an NFL roster with an image of two dogs fighting tattooed on his lower back. If PETA figures out who he is, this could add new meaning to the term "bad ink."

For what it's worth, the player in question is from the South, but his name is not Michael Vick.

If that disappoints you, take heart: It's not Peyton Manning, either.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Noble_Platypus

Funny, somehow I am supposed to be persuaded that dogfighting is a black thing and, even though its against the law and fucking terrible, that it shouldnt be punished because to do so is racial. Weel, you could say in Texas that dragging black guys behind a pickup truck is a "sport" down there, should that be allowed too?

2 guys, arabs or the like, were picked up in South Carolina close to the naval weapons station that I was once stationed at with pipe bombs and all of the sudden its because they are muslim they are being arrested and its discrimination etc, etc. They werent arrested because they are muslims, they were arrested because they HAD FUCKING PIPE BOMBS! Next to a military base no less. It drives me crazy that people are so caught up in the PC bullshit that they miss the fact that these people are lawbreakers.

I don't disagree with you (race shouldn't be a factor), but lets not pretend race doesn't play a role in this country - look at the sentencing guidelines on crack vs cocaine to take on example.

[gstelmack]

1) That article says nothing about whether or not Peyton Manning ate the deer. Plenty of deer and duck hunters eat what they kill. I actually agree that hunting for sport only is deplorable, but lots of hunters don't hunt just for sport.

2) I cringe every time I hear Leonard Little's name in conjunction with the Rams and agree that he should not be in football. I thought his 90-day sentence was absurd to begin with. This was more a media problem who decided not to turn it into the big story it really was.

3) I hope the Vick case cracks this whole thing wide open. I'd have no problem with more guys involved in this going down.

[Buccaneer]

I am not a hunter nor had any interest to do such a thing but I believe there is a difference between an activity that is licensed by the state vs. one that is in violation of federal laws.

[Synovia]

FWIW, there have been several black athletes, who right after the vick thing started, made comments about Dogfighting being a black thing. Most of them have recanted since public oppinon chimed in.


Leonard little is scum, yes, but the whole problem is that he wasnt convicted. The fact that you can refuse a breathalizer and get off is ridiculous.



Theres a huge difference between shooting a dear, and caging and beating a dog for its entire life. One is a single act, the other is a chain of cruelty. Personally, I dont know anyone who hunts and doesnt eat what they kill.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

1) That article says nothing about whether or not Peyton Manning ate the deer. Plenty of deer and duck hunters eat what they kill. I actually agree that hunting for sport only is deplorable, but lots of hunters don't hunt just for sport.

2) I cringe every time I hear Leonard Little's name in conjunction with the Rams and agree that he should not be in football. I thought his 90-day sentence was absurd to begin with. This was more a media problem who decided not to turn it into the big story it really was.

3) I hope the Vick case cracks this whole thing wide open. I'd have no problem with more guys involved in this going down.

1. G, I thought I made that distinction clear in my briefing at the top of the quote - I think hunting for food is justifiable. I can't say I like it, but as I eat meat, I'd be a hypocrite to scorn it. The hunters (for sport) here who bash Vick just strike me as remarkably full of shit.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I am not a hunter nor had any interest to do such a thing but I believe there is a difference between an activity that is licensed by the state vs. one that is in violation of federal laws.

Bucc, as a libertarian, do you really want to argue that the federal government is the correct arbitrer of morality? Marijuana is illegal while cigarettes are allowed, primary because of the large tobacco plantations and political will of the latter - I'd say the morality difference between the two is similar. We've had all sorts of ridiculous laws in this country (Slavery/Prohibition/etc etc) - in what is essentially a moral discussion, the law is not enough of a differentiator.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Theres a huge difference between shooting a dear, and caging and beating a dog for its entire life. One is a single act, the other is a chain of cruelty.

Agreed - but hunting for sport is still murder for entertainment. That's cruelty by any measure.

[BrianD]

The article seems to be saying that people shouldn't be outraged by Vick's dogfighting situation because they aren't outraged enough by drunk driving or domestic abuse. I don't see where one requires the other. Deciding the appropriate level of outrage for these crimes should be done on an individual basis.

I also don't get the connection to hunting. I really don't like hunting for sport or for trophies, but it doesn't seem to be nearly in the same league as breeding and training a dog to be full of aggression and hate and then letting it get torn apart by another dog trained to be the same way. That is a horrible life for a dog followed by a horrible and painful death.

[rkmsuf]

I have a big complex up here teaching deer to shoot guns. Should provide a whole new dimension to hunting.

[Travis]

I'm not a hunter, but agree mostly with the for food vs for sport argument.

That said, dog fighting as in the Vick case would be more like hunting for sport, but shooting out one leg at a time, dragging out the death, making the animal suffer for a long period of time (think of all the "training" these dogs go through) before finally killing the animal.

I may not agree with hunting for fun, but for the most part, unless the hunter is rather sadistic, it's still not on the same level as dog fighting.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Bee, have you read the indictment?

The specifics given in the indictment are more than enough to put him away. Its a pretty strong, almost air-tight case to start, before half the other members flipped. At this point, I'd say their case is rock solid.

Yes I have read the indictment. And like I said, I don't buy the case that was being made on the radio. While the indictment goes into specific events, etc it doesn't specify the evidence of these events. The prosecutor that Riggins had talked with seemed to think that a good defense lawyer could tear up the federal witnesses by bringing to light all of their past criminal activities and he suspects the other evidence was a little weak which is why the Federal prosecutor is pressing for the plea agreements before having to present the discovery to the defense lawyers. Again, I don't really agree with what they were saying, but I did think it was an interesting view.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

1. G, I thought I made that distinction clear in my briefing at the top of the quote - I think hunting for food is justifiable. I can't say I like it, but as I eat meat, I'd be a hypocrite to scorn it. The hunters (for sport) here who bash Vick just strike me as remarkably full of shit.

My point was nothing in the article says that Peyton Manning hunted for sport only. To me, that's a CRITICAL distinction in the point he's trying to make, and the article falls apart for me because he ignores that key point.

[larrymcg421]

Whether hunting for food or sport (which I think is stupid), it is not illegal. Vick knew what he was doing was against the law. Our society has bestowed certain protections on dogs (and cats, for example) that have not been bestowed on deer or other animals. Now, if Vick thinks this is unfair, it's certainly within his right to protest these laws, but the NFL doesn't have to support or condone that protest.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bee

Yes I have read the indictment. And like I said, I don't buy the case that was being made on the radio. While the indictment goes into specific events, etc it doesn't specify the evidence of these events. The prosecutor that Riggins had talked with seemed to think that a good defense lawyer could tear up the federal witnesses by bringing to light all of their past criminal activities and he suspects the other evidence was a little weak which is why the Federal prosecutor is pressing for the plea agreements before having to present the discovery to the defense lawyers. Again, I don't really agree with what they were saying, but I did think it was an interesting view.

I think it is an interesting point, but I would expect prosecutors to behave differently with Vick because Vick isn't a normal defendant. Unlike 99% of the defendants being prosecuted at the federal level, Vick has money to burn for his legal defense. And Vick also has very different motivations (preserving his reputation and career) than most defendants and those motivations may make him less likely to deal. While a prosecutor might walk through the evidence with an average defendant if the government had a strong case, they would be less inclined to do so with Vick because the government doesn't want to show its hand too early. So, I wouldn't read anything into the handling of Vick versus an average defendant - Vick and his case are anything but average.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Bucc, as a libertarian, do you really want to argue that the federal government is the correct arbitrer of morality? Marijuana is illegal while cigarettes are allowed, primary because of the large tobacco plantations and political will of the latter - I'd say the morality difference between the two is similar. We've had all sorts of ridiculous laws in this country (Slavery/Prohibition/etc etc) - in what is essentially a moral discussion, the law is not enough of a differentiator.

I don't know how to respond to your reply. The laws are what they are, regardless if one believes that an entity has exceeded its authority in such areas. It is clear that the states make hunting legal, within their own set of rules, regardless of motivation. The Feds, and I assume the states as well, have laws stating that dogfighting and racketeering are illegal.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I also don't get the connection to hunting.

I understand why people would make the connection, but I don't agree with it. Hunting usually involve people hunting a wild animal, and in most cases, an animal that is natural prey and knows to get the fuck away when danger is near (and views a human as a danger). Dog fighting is the training of domesticated animals. To me, the wild vs. domesticated point is a big deal and what keeps me from objectively connecting the two.

To me, a much better comparison would be people who hunt elephant for fun, or another animal that does not have a natural preditor (at least doesn't run. Where is the sport is seeing an elephant, standing there and just shooting? Where is the "hunting" part of that?). Or comparing it one of those places where you essentially hunt domesticated animals (watching a video of those places actually disturbs me more than videos of dog fighting.).

But the blanket connection of hunting wild animals vs. fighting domesticated animals is a stretch for me, but I can see where people are coming from with that.

[rkmsuf]

this ever happen during dog fighting?

[larrymcg421]

The domestic abuse comparisons are idiotic. The reporters attempting this tactic don't realize theyre being hypocritical themselves. It's not like we see daily articles or columns about this subject. Usually we get a report about the arrest and maybe one follow up mention of the sentence/decision. If the sportswriters really gave a shit about domestic violence, we'd be hearing about it all the time and not just in response to the Michael Vick story.

Also, the outrage does have something to do with his popularity. I'm pretty sure there'd be quite the controversy if Peyton Manning beat his wife.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

this ever happen during dog fighting?

I gotta believe that this encounter did not end well for the guy on the elephant...

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I gotta believe that this encounter did not end well for the guy on the elephant...

The tiger's just playing.

[flere-imsaho]

That's one hell of a vertical.

Edit: I wonder what the elephant's thinking. "ohshit ohshit ohshit... Oh nevermind, he's going for the doofus on my back."

[flere-imsaho]

Dola,

I take it back. Apparently the elephant saves the guy's life.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Dola,

I take it back. Apparently the elephant saves the guy's life.

That's what I love about elephants. Besides man, no other animals really can fuck with the elephants. When I read your first reply I doubted the elephant was thinking 'oh shit' but rather, 'what does this silly cat think she's doing?'

I was kinda surprised the elephant was chasing t0he tiger but man, I'd have love to have seen that footage.

[Buccaneer]

If you side with the dogs over Vick, here's a good picture

hxxp://steakandcheese.com/downloads/Dogs_Get_Revenge.jpg

Edit: NSFW

[DaddyTorgo]

according to CNN vick is considering whether to accept a plea that includes 1 year jailtime but is waiting to hear from the NFL how it would affect his career. same article says that if he doesn't, a superseeding indictment will be issued with RICO charges.

man...part of me hopes he doesn't take the plea and gets the book thrown at him. or the govt. pulls the plea off the table so they can make an example of someone in the case.

[Noble_Platypus]

Me too. He is out this year and next even if he does take the plea deal, but still, I would like to see him get hit with the additional charges