There is something so appalling about exploiting, torturing, and killing helpless animals that I can only root for Senator Byrd's eloquent denunciation of this behavior.  Vick deserves to go to jail. 

He certainly should never be playing pro football again, that's for damn sure.

See here. But don't go here if you have a weak stomach.  This is utterly disgusting.

It's really nasty.  Suffice it to say that the picture shown is of a severely injured animal.  All right, let's bury Vick under the jail.

As soon as I catch the slightest glimpse of an emaciated pit bull or other dog I close my eyes and change the channel -- or click somewhere else.

If he is in fact guilty of what he's accused of, I have to go with Byrd as well.  He summed it up perfectly and beautifully.

isn't just the celebrity who takes the fall.  Based on comments by other NFL players it sounds like Vick was not the only one involved in dog fighting.  And it's also a level of acceptance - there were some Redskins players who defended Vick saying that [paraphrase] "those were his dogs and he could do what he wanted with them".  Those players have since apologized publicly, but does anyone believe they've actually changed their attitude? 

I hope this is the beginning of a national awareness that leads severe crackdown on anyone involved in this or other animal cruelty.  I'll be happy to see him go to jail but he's just one of many.

As a society, we should have zero tolerance for cruelty to animals OR to people.  Period.

and callous, cruel treatment of people go hand in hand.  Once you become desensitized to other creatures' pain it's an easy leap to desensitization toward other people.

that animals are "property" to be disposed of as we see fit.  Instead, we need to respect ALL life - all of God's creations, if that's what you believe - and certainly never inflict injury or death except in the rare cases where it absolutely unavoidable.  That includes "meat" production too, by the way.

in this case, I'm not sure. 

...or like this, I tend to agree.

Please tell them to stop.  Thanks.

he ends up in a prison cell with a bigger, meaner dog.

Do I read you correctly?

You're saying that Vick deserves the death penalty for killing dogs if he is found guilty?  You're equating the killing of a family with the killing of animals?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I would rethink the conclusion.

in almost all cases.  I'm just saying that I find Vick to be as vile a human being as they come, just like those scumbags in Connecticut.

these make me so angry that I lean heavily against the death penalty.  Imagine if the state could put to death anyone who did something the majority (or even as vocal minority) of people found despicable (like torturing dogs to death)?  Where would it end?

There were a handful of sports nuts out there who tried to excuse his behavior on account of his talent as a football player.  As if their interests in being entertained somehow overruled the laws that we have in the nation.  Fortunately those folks were few and far between..

been offered a plea agreement. Let's sure as hell hope there is a good amount of JAIL time in that plea and not just a slap on the wrist. He stands no chance at a trial.

But he's only been indicted.  Grand jury evidence is not particularly reliable and FAR from "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Any of us could easily be indicted by an unscrupulous cop (and no offense to any officers, but its common knowledge among criminal attorneys and judges that many, many police commit perjury with impunity, on a regular basis). 

Don't get me wrong - I love dogs.  And sure, the charges are heinous.  But that doesn't mean they're reliable.  C'mon guys - let the process run its course - we're Democrats - I thought we believed in those pesky pillars of our legal system, such as evidence, procedure, constitutional rights, and the rule of law.

This is also why we have a legal system and not trial by media.

1. You have a high profile defendant who is going to put some local prosecutor on the map (Does the name Mike Nifong ring any bells?).
2. You have at least two co-defendants who have cut deals in exchange for testimony against the high profile defendant.
3. There has been no trial yet, or jury verdict rendered.

If the charges are true, then yes, of course, Vick deserves to face time.

If Vick was only a tangential player, but has been made the focus for a self-promoting prosecutor, then that is another matter entirely.

At this stage based on the information that is publicly available both outcomes seem possible.

Vick may be guilty, but I think it's highly inappropriate to talk about legal outcomes before the trial has even taken place.

Now if Vick had destroyed evidence, or was stonewalling an investigation we could talk about his need to do time.  So far I haven't heard that this is an aspect of this case.

The standards for guilt in a court of law are and should be different than that of almost anywhere else. 

In the court system it is the government that is potentially taking away someone's money, freedom, or even life.  We need to hold that to the highest standards, even if it means the guilty sometimes get away with murder.  Literally.

However, in the "court" of public opinion, in the NFL, and for life in general there is no need for such high standards.  If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and floats like a duck then it most likely is a duck.  So if any reasonable person would think it's a duck then it's fine to say so and act accordingly. 

I get ticked when I hear everyone in the media (or anywhere else) saying that the court system is the sole decider of guilt or innocence.  It's as if saying that common sense, logic, and reason should not be applied. 

Yes, this does create a bizarre OJ situation - one where everyone knows he did it yet the court system said otherwise.  Seriously, does anyone think OJ didn't do it because he was not found guilty?  Get real.

And yes, the Duke team got screwed by a woman who lied and an overzealous prosecutor.  The court ended up doing the right thing.  Some of the public had also condemned those players, which is unfortunate, and roughly the opposite of the OJ situation.  Different standards though.

Sometimes life isn't perfect.  We don't need to wait on the court to issue a verdict to decide, within reason, what happened and how we feel about it.

He's deprived of a year of making mega-millions in a career that has a short life-span to begin with.  He'll probably burn some big bucks in his defense.  Now I know most people won't shed any tears for an innocent millionaire -- perhaps he's guilty simply by virtue of being a star who is at least tangentially involved in activities that are beyond the pale.

However, I don't put any value in the court of public opinion -- people are shown pictures of dogs from the kennel at Vick's house and automatically assume that Vick was necessarily heavily involved in the activities.  Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. 

Perhaps his Surry County home was a charitable donation to some of his homeboys who he shared his wealth with, but who he left largely to their own devices.  The man after all does have at least two other homes that I'm aware of, and he spends at least 6 months out of the year in Atlanta.

Maybe this is just an act of stupidity along the lines of former Ravens running back Jamal Lewis letting a friend use his cellphone in order to conduct drug transactions.  I don't know.

I think it's reasonable to say that Vick is facing a trial on the basis that he, at the very least, SHOULD have been aware of the activities taking place at one of his three homes.  On these grounds alone his off-the-field activities are a creation of his own making, so I am not surprised that the league and his team have taken the actions that they did.  His presence would just be a massive distraction -- Vick needs to focus on this court case.

In the Simpson case I think he probably did get away with murder, but then again I'm basing my opinion on evidence that was presented at trial.  I'm not prejudging a case before it's even begun.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it could just be the result of one-sided reporting, or a personal animus that people might have towards millionaire athletes.  I really can't say.  What I do know is that no one has seen the evidence; no one has heard the defense's arguments in favor of their client's innocence; and no one has any firm rational basis for asserting that Vick is necessarily guilty of the charges that he is alleged to have committed.

but right now it's looking 99% like he was heavily involved in this.

We know that a crime took place at one of Vick's homes, but that doesn't necessarily implicate Vick directly in the activities. 

As stated above this was not his primary residence for large stretches of the year -- as far as I know, he may have only paid the bills, but appeared only irregularly on the premises.  It may be that he simply put down the money for the property.  I don't know.

It is at least conceivable to me that Vick's role was not central.

Additionally, as stated by JD, the grand jury evidence should not be treated as speaking for itself.  Most grand juries are a prosecutorial rubber stamps.  Jurors are not vetted for biases, and are generally inclined to take the prosecutors version of events on faith.

Vick may be guilty (and I'm not talking about this solely on the basis of a legal standard). 

But it's conceivable that Vick may be guilty in ways that are quite different from what people are assuming.  He may also be completely innocent.

Before passing any judgment on Vick, it strikes me as reasonable to at least let the evidence be vetted in its proper context (e.g. in the courts), then we can talk about Vick's involvement with a greater degree of authority. 

than the dogs did, that's for damn sure. 

Assuming that Vick is guilty, which is a point that I'm not willing to concede at this stage in the game.

On the other hand, I didn't grow up in Ridley Circle in Hampton Roads like Vick did.  Not much justice in that either -- his football success notwithstanding. 

Defendants have no right to cross examine state's witnesses or even be present at a grand jury hearing.

we should wait until more reliable and non-biased (or non-leading) information becomes public.  Much of that could come through a trial - but I wouldn't rely completely on it due to the fact that a judge may decide some evidence is inadmissible in the trial but that information would still be relevant to the truth.

Which gets back to my point that the verdict in a trial doesn't necessarily agree with the "truth" - defined as the most reasonable and logical explanation based on fairly reliable facts.  Whatever all that really means.  Which is why the government needs to be held to a higher standard when determining guilt.

A very simple example to illustrate would be if the evidence against a drug dealer was obtained by an illegal search.  That evidence would be thrown out of court yet anyone who knew about it would agree that the person was guilty.

So I strongly disagree with anyone who feels that a criminal trial determines a person's true guilt (or not).  It only determines guilt (or not) based on the government's point of view - which may or may not gel with what is known about the situation.

Vick could be found not guilty by the court system yet still any reasonable person would feel that he did do the things he's accused of - and therefore he deserves to lose everything the public, the NFL, and corporate sponsors gave to him.

To your point, I can wait for more information to become public before making my final decision (whatever that's worth) - but based on the indictment and what is being said and the others making plea agreements it sure looks like he did what he's accused of.

The outcome of a trial is fallible and can rest on a technicality.  But the rules of evidence and procedure in a trial ARE designed to produce a result that is as reliable as possible, which is more than I can say for the media or "public opinion", which is more of a mob-rule, group-think construct.  I'm not suggesting that we delegate our consciences to the legal system, just that we reserve judgment until we have more facts. 

in our guts that the defendant was guilty, but we couldn't find him guilty because the prosecutors didn't present the evidence we needed in order to convict.  I won't even get into the OJ Simpson case, which illustrates the absolute worst in our legal system, especially when famous, rich athletes are involved (and juries that don't understand the most basic science, which proved 99.9999% that Simpson was guilty).  The point is, there are lots of flaws in our legal system, so saying that we will withhold judgment until the verdict is delivered is highly oversimplistic.  For instance, do you believe that OJ is not guilty?  If so, I have all kinds of prime real estate in Sadr City to sell you! :)

As JPTerp said, we all watched that O.J. trial unfold, and saw the evidence - we even knew things the jurors didn't.  Here, there hasn't yet been a trial. 

I recognize that our legal system is flawed, but it cuts both ways - innocent people are convicted all the time.  Just look at the number of death sentences commuted since the advent of DNA evidence! 

It would be oversimplistic if I said that we should base our opinions on the verdict, but I didn't say that.  Its just sensible to base our opinions on the evidence, much of which we don't know.  We'll know much more after the trial.  Then, who cares what the verdict is - we can all have more qualified opinions.

A jury verdict of "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean that a defendant is entirely innocent -- so I agree with you in the sense that a person can avoid legal jeopardy and still have a well-deserved stain on his or her public reputation.

Vick has already lost his endorsements.  If the charges are true Vick will lose even more.

The fact that other much more low profile defendants have made plea bargains is exactly what I would expect in a case along these lines.  I don't put too much weight on this because my sense is that these are defendants who can't afford the kind of counsel that Vick can to begin with.  In a case like this the facts are so ugly that just the mere suggestion of involvement is likely to get a poorly represented defendant thrown in jail (regardless of whether they are truly a first, second, or third level offender). 

This is one of the reasons that I want to hear the facts in the case -- or barring that to find out what the terms of a plea bargain are (e.g. if Vick decides not to go to trial, but to acknowledge that some of the charges have merit). 

People are angry with good reason, but that outrage needs to be directed at the proper target on the basis of the best available evidence.

I am sure that he will blame this on racism eventually. Vick garbage that belongs in jail. He and his brother are low class trash whose mother failed to raise them well.

and frankly, offensive

n/t

From the Roanoke Times

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax County, questioned the bill's application to other fighting animals.

"Isn't it true that if I drop two hamsters in a cage and my 11-year-old and I bet a quarter on the outcome, I could get a class 1 misdemeanor under this bill?" Cuccinelli asked."

Yeah, Cuccinelli was one of only 2 Senators to vote against the bill.

He clearly supports animal fighting (and gambling with his 11 year old daughter) I say we ask him how he feels about dog fighting rings.

elephant Ron. :)

That poor bastard...has no idea what's coming.

Many of us do not need an additional reason to dislike this waste of human flesh.  Weren't the millions of dollars he raked in from football and endorsements enough for him?
I am totally opposed to any inhumane act.  Animals are not "born" to fight.  People make them that way.  I firmly believe that Vick should be penalized to the maximum extent of the law, not allowed to "plea bargain" for a lighter sentance.  His lucarative football contract should be voided.  Any team in the league should have better sense than to hire this scum.  I'm from Pittsburgh and I have no doubt that the Rooney's would even consider him.  All the company's who products he's endorsed should drop him as well.  Maybe a good idea would be to treat him as he's treated those dogs.  Maybe break his hip and toss him in with a bunch of hungry agitated lions so they can "practice"