Megyn Kelly on Vick’s Second Chance (Update: I Guess I am a Racist, Then)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; please send any tips here.]
Update (IV): For the opposite extreme, we get this story of a woman who saved a dog from drowning and then… gave it mouth to mouth.
Dude.
Update (III): Well, I can’t say this was not predictable. Apparently everyone who thinks Vick shouldn’t have a dog is a racist, or so Earl Ofari Hutchinson claims.
What an asshole.
The real racists are the people who think we should excuse or minimize a person’s behavior because they are black. And it does no one any good, least of all the “beneficiaries” of this soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Update: See below to hear from one of the people who took in one of Vick’s dogs.
Update (II): In this clip Tucker Carlson calls for the death penalty for what Vick did. Which I think is a bit much, but I suspect a lot of people who love dogs would agree.
We now pick up where the post originally started:
Here is Megyn Kelly debating with two people about Obama’s praising the way the Eagles gave Vick a second chance:
So her point is basically that what he did was so vile he doesn’t deserve this kind of presidential pat-on-the-back. And the NAACP guy’s argument is that at some point the punishment should end and we should let him rejoin society. I admit to being of two minds on the issue myself. But I am pretty clear that this is idiotic:
When the CEO of a “Humane Society” says convicted dog-fighting kingpin Michael Vick “would do a good job as pet owner,” it should raise more red flags than a Chinese parade. That’s just what happened two weeks ago as Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), endorsed Vick’s future as a dog owner.
Of course that was in response to Vick himself saying:
“I would love to get another dog in the future. I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process,” Vick said[.]…
“I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love and my passion for animals; I think it would be outstanding,” Vick said in the interview. “If I ever have the opportunity again I will never take it for granted.
“I miss having a dog right now. I wish I could. My daughters miss having one, and that’s the hardest thing: Telling them that we can’t have one because of my actions,” Vick said in the interview.
Yeah and in related news, Roman Polanski thinks he should be allowed to shoot a movie about a school full of thirteen-to-fourteen-year-old girls who run around in various stages of undress, with the working title of Roman Holiday.
Meanwhile we get a voice of reason coming from… um… PETA. Yes, this whole thing is so off-the-rails that PETA is coming off as reasonable:
“Just as convicted pedophiles aren’t allowed free access to children, anyone who is responsible for hanging, electrocuting, or shooting dogs and who causes them to suffer in other unimaginable ways should never again be allowed access to dogs,” said Lisa Lange, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “All things considered, it is a very small price to pay, especially compared to the suffering endured by the dogs who were abused and killed in the Bad Newz Kennels.”
Indeed, not only do I think it would be a bad idea to let him have a dog, I think child services needs to take a close look at how he treats his children. There is something broken inside this man that he could commit those crimes in the first place and like the commenter in the video, I worry that that savagery would eventually visited upon humans.
(And I am sorry, but they called it Bad Newz Kennels? Shouldn’t the state have investigated that place just based on that name alone?)
Anyway, my take on it is this. I think part of my problem is that what he did was so unnecessarily savage—as the woman in the Megyn Kelly video says, it’s not like the guy was poor and doing this to get money for his family—that I think the punishment didn’t quite fit the crime. And further, I have never heard or seen anything that suggested any change in heart for the man. Yeah, he goes around telling people not to do it, but you wonder if this is about anything other than image rehabilitation.
Of course people who make mistakes—even commit horrifically evil acts—can be the best spokespersons against that conduct. One of the better moments in the otherwise bland movie Amazing Grace was when John Newton recalled his days as a slaver, and you could see the man was genuinely haunted by the evil he had done. He feared for his immortal soul. When he sang of his sin and hope for redemption it carried an extra weight because he truly understood the enormity of the evil he had committed. I mean its acting, obviously, given that this is not a documentary, but that is the kind of thing you expect. By comparison, Vick’s clueless comment about owning a dog suggests he doesn’t really get it.
So he should not be completely shunned for the rest of his life. He should not be prevented from working in his chosen profession. But he should be just a player. Even if he is a good one, just a player. Parents should not set him up to be admired by children (indeed perhaps he could be used to teach children that being good at sports does not automatically translate into good character). He should not be getting endorsements and if anyone gives any to him, we the public should punish the company that endorses him with reduced business. And he should never own a dog again.
As for the president, I guess I can’t help but get the creepy sense that this is celebrity worship. It is useful, naturally, to encourage employers to give ex-cons a second chance. But is there no better example the president can come up with? Is there no one out there who gives you a more genuine sense of a person reformed?
Update: Via Dana in the comments, we get this story about a family that took in one of Vick’s dogs:
[Richard] Hunter and his wife quickly saw Mel’s scars. The dog wouldn’t bark, wouldn’t show affection, and would spend nearly an hour shaking with each new person who tried to touch him.
It turns out that Mel had been a bait dog, thrown into the ring as a sort of sparring partner for the tougher dogs, sometimes even muzzled so he wouldn’t fight back, beaten daily to sap his will. Mel was under constant attack, and couldn’t fight back, and the deep cuts were visible on more than just his fur.
“You could see that Michael Vick went to a lot of trouble to make Mel this way,” Hunter said. “When people pet him, I tell them, pet him from under his chin, not over his head. He lives in fear of someone putting their hand over his head.”
And the columnist captures my misgivings well:
And yet a large percentage of the population will still think Michael Vick is a sociopath. Many people will never get over Vick’s own admissions of unthinkable cruelty to his pit bulls — the strangling, the drowning, the electrocutions, the removal of all the teeth of female dogs who would fight back during mating.
Some believe that because Vick served his time in prison, he should be beyond reproach for his former actions. Many others believe that cruelty to animals isn’t something somebody does, it’s something somebody is.
In the end, there is no need to have Vick anywhere near a dog. I mean millions of children grow up with no dogs as pets. There are entire cultures in this world where dogs have never been considered pets. Yes, they are sadly deprived people, but the point is that Vick’s daughter can live without a dog.
But I am not sure a dog can live with Michael Vick.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing]
I’m not sure PETA’s comparison is apt. There’s evidence which shows a concerning rate of recidivism in child molesters, but I’m not sure we have the same problem with respect to animal abusers.
I could be wrong, but at the very least, I think PETA needs to back up what they say.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:15 amEventually, but it’s way too soon, show a little contrition, we didn’t know for years, he was involved in such a barbaric practice,
narciso (6075d0) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:18 am” I could be wrong … ”
Understatement of the day.
JD (0d2ffc) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:23 amWe in American society have either become so soft as to buy every story of rehabilitation and second chances, or we are so arrogant that we think we can see into a person’s soul and divine their true intentions. Either way, I am getting really tired of hearing people plead for second (and sometimes even third) chances for those who have run afoul of society. The pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church should serve as a very clear warning that we never really do know for sure if someone is truly rehabilitated.
And I love how Obama is so grateful that an ex-con is given a job and a chance to integrate back into society. As if $5 million quarterbacking jobs were widely available to anyone leaving prison. I think it was on National Review Online that someone joked that Obama must now be making personal calls to thank people for every private sector new hire made during his Administration.
JVW (4463d3) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:39 amMy thought is, if Vick were truly rehabilitated and remorseful about what he had done, he would never, ever even consider owning a dog again. He would understand that his horrific behavior negated the possibility.
Too bad he wants one, too bad his daughters miss having a dog, too bad he can’t show people he genuinely loves animals. He had that opportunity to do that and look what happened.
He needs to live with his regret and loss because an enormous part of being an adult and maturing is being willing to accept consequences of one’s actions – and those consequences are often lifelong and far more reaching than originally thought because they are rarely just about oneself. Yes, he fulfilled his legal obligation and served his sentence, but the thing is he doesn’t *need* to own a dog – his rehabilitation doesn’t hinge upon it. This is Micheal Vick still being just about Micheal Vick and wanting something he should not be allowed to have.
Those who have taken in Vick’s very damaged dogs who miraculously survived remind us of what this man is very capable of.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:39 am“So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance. It’s never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail. I am happy that the Eagles did something on such a national stage that showed their faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.”
This is the President’s comment which strikes me as feel-good spin on what was essentially a shrewd business decision. Jeffrey Lurie’s motive in hiring Vick was because of Vick’s incredible, money-making athletic abilities on the field. Our President, as expected, opts for the feel-good spin. That this has become a hot button issue with the public shows that once again that the President still needs to learn discretion and think very carefully before making such public statements.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 8:53 amIt wasn’t a public statement.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:03 amThe president has not spoken publicly about the call, though aides acknowledged that it took place. But Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie told Peter King of Sports Illustrated and NBC Sports that during their conversation Obama was passionate about Vick’s comeback.
You’re correct, kman. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to have not made the comments at all if he could not make sure they remained confidential.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:08 amGood Lord, what a worthless pantywaist Obama is.
nk (db4a41) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:17 amAs for Vick, he’ll pay in Hell. On earth f**k the NFL. They’ll never get a penny from me. Not their advertisers, either.
nk (db4a41) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:19 amThe fact that PETA and HSUS are not picketing every Eagles’ game showed what hypocritical and corrupt clowns they are.
Kman writes: It wasn’t a public statement.
Kman, the White House confirmed the statement. That made it a public statement. Do you ever think a single second before writing your silly nonsense? Seriously, put a couple of neurons on duty.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:21 amThe question is, what was the President’s intent in making the comments? Unless he made sure Lurie and his aides kept them confidential, shall we assume he intended them to become public?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:27 amGreetings:
The good Sisters, back in my Catholic school days, mentioned, once or twice or maybe more, something pithy about “avoiding the near occasions of sin”.
My father, on the other hand, was not fond of apologies. He insisted that my apology was more for my interests than for his. Future behavior was his measure of remorse.
Somebody should advise Mr. Vick that low and slow is the way to go.
11B40 (955898) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:31 amAs for Vic’s propensity to continue abusing animals I am reminded of the adage: “the best predictor of future behavior/violence is past behavior/violence,”.
Vic didn’t just shoot the dogs in the head, a disgusting but relatively quick and painless way to kill his underperforming dogs but he hung them by ropes and watched them squirm and struggle as they slowly suffocated. He also drowned them while by holding them under water. Who knows what more he did. But its clear Vic is one sick man who gets off watching innocent animals suffer, struggle and then die! He is pathetic!
Brett (368801) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:36 am“Obama was passionate about Vick’s comeback.”
Duh.
Michael Vick is black, and people like Obambi think black people should get special breaks. If it was Tom Brady…Obambi wouldn’t have said a word. IMO, of course.
If Obambi is so hot on giving people a second chance as a matter of principle, then why hasn’t he made extensive use of his power as POTUS to issue pardons and commute sentences?
Obambi has only pardoned nine people in the almost two years he’s been president…and all of those were pardoned this month.
Looks to me like he really couldn’t give a hoot about giving people a second chance (except for special people like Vick)…and actually doing something about it within the framework of his job is obviously less important than getting out on the golf course.
Dave Surls (586b60) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:43 amKman gets it wrong AGAIN.
Must be a day of the week ending in “y”.
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:46 amSurls might actually be right on this one. The ability of our POTUS to not see a racial component in anything is highly questionable; as questionable as — Reverend Wright, the “beer summit”, Shirley Sherrod — his chances are of winding up on the correct side of any issue involving race.
Then again, maybe it’s as simple as the ‘New Messiah’ feeling the need to dole out forgiveness to one of the flock.
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:53 am“To err is human; to forgive Divine.” I am happy to leave the forgiveness to God. Vick is not going to be happy when he discovers that She is a dog lover.
Bar Sinister (4d83c8) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:55 amComment by Icy Texan — 12/29/2010 @ 9:53 am
A racial component to dog fighting as well, or just geographical?
On her first day as “The View’s” moderator, [Whoopi] Goldberg made a big splash — more like a big splat –playing apologist for confessed dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick’s canine torturing, explaining that dogfighting was “part of his cultural upbringing.”
“You know, from his background, this is not an unusual thing for where he comes from,” said the redundant Whoopi.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:09 amI was going more along the lines that the POTUS felt the need to encourage redemption for a high-profile African-American as part of his ongoing mission to establish(?) or maintain his cred with the black community.
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:13 amA good point, Dana, I don’t personally think that all blacks are cruel to animals but nonetheless the local blogpest calls me racist.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:15 ambar sinister
in my book, forgiveness and trust are two different concepts.
like i had an in law steal from me once. at one point she apologized and i forgave her. but if you think i will leave my valuables unattended around her, you got another thing coming.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:15 amLetter from Obama to OJ:
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:29 am“Juice, I grew up watching you. I just loved those cutback moves. Nobody else could slash like you!”
A fitting retribution for the hurt that he has perpetrated, would be for his offensive-line to take the day off some Sunday;
AD-RtR/OS! (2b454a) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:47 amthen, he’d know what it felt like to be defenseless – perhaps, unlike most of his dogs, he’d live, but he’d remember what it felt like.
Goldberg also likened Vick and his outrage to the Chinese and eating cats. “People would not like it if we ate kitty,” she said.
Perhaps in an attempt to be post-racial, our President instead – and unintentionally – gives the appearance of being selective about whom he speaks up for and in support of. (Michael Vick, Professor Gates, Pigford?)
But there are those who see the President’s statement as part of a greater message of social justice needed to combat the perceived pervasive and destructive nature of our criminal justice system toward the American black male.
It’s amazing how many layers of nuance one man viciously torturing and killing dogs begets.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:48 amI won’t defend what Vick did, but he did go to prison for his acts. Was that not retribution enough? If not, when does his punishment end? Or shall we abandon the concept of paying one’s debt to society?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:53 amTell it to the dogs that survived.
AD-RtR/OS! (2b454a) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:54 amAs far as I’m concerned, he didn’t serve enough time.
Confirming that Obama made a private statement doesn’t mean that the statement, when originally made, was a public statement. Moron.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 10:59 amTell that to the judge who sentenced him.
Seriously, this brings up a bigger issue: when someone has served his time in prison, has he paid his debt to society or not?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:03 amAt the very least, Vick employed some of the most barbaric thugs around to enable Vick’s sick hobby.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:08 amBut yes, Vick should be able to have a dog under a strictly supervised visitation.
Vick would visit with three pig hunting dogs inside an electric fenced 1/4 acre and see how long that 4.3 speed works out for him.
Kman
do you really believe that the president expected that conversation to remain private?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:11 amKman, the question remains why you embarrass yourself so willingly, indeed evidently enthusiastically.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:11 amwhat was the President’s intent in making the comments?
Comment by Dana
Please, lets not get started on that again, and you can’t hold Vick responsible for what Obama says about him. We know what kind of church he went to for 20 years, and when given the opportunity he readily confirms what those who have eyes to see already knew.
I agree that Vick should be watched with an “eagle eye” and keep a low profile. If he wants an animal as a pet, I say fine, as long as there is some supervision with a zero tolerance policy. I would advise him against it, as one fake report might be enough even to end his career. Let the kids keep a pet with grandparents or cousins, etc., to play with.
By all means, he has a long time of keeping himself out of trouble before anyone should speak of him as a positive example- even for his own good.
But I am sure that every NFL game has players who were party to a decision to end the life of an unborn human, and they suffer no (official/legal) consequences for it. I think the fact whether a person kills a human or a dog is a bigger issue than how grotesque the violence was. There are many circumstances, I think, that a just punishment for murdering a child would be execution. I don’t care how vile a person treated dogs, I think execution would be too much.
It was rewarding to see the Vikings play last night, and even if Favre wasn’t suited up, he was all smiles watching the new kid get out there and play.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:13 amI think what Vick did is/was terrible, but human beings torture and kill other human beings, they terrorize innocent children, they kill for a pocketful of change, they slaughter people with machetes by the dozen when they have a chance.
Is killing a dog or torturing a dog that lives a worse crime? Should we execute parents who abuse their children? Not unless the child dies.
Execution for killing an animal/animals is not warranted, unless you start using execution for all manner of crimes against humans.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:34 amThe fact that they HAD a conversation? No.
But I’m sure Obama believed that many things WITHIN that conversation would remain private (and I’m sure many of those things DO remain private).
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:37 amKman – Prove PETA wrong.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:39 amAaron, in order to resolve your conflict without requiring any compromise of your seemingly competing principles, consider this assertion (which I believe to be true):
Michael Vick, like other wrongdoers, ought to be given the opportunity to redeem his life, but that describes a journey, not an event, and neither Vick’s release from prison nor his throwing TD passes mark the end of the journey. Someday he will have earned not only opportunity but praise, but that day is still a long way from today.
Beldar (b9ab2d) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:39 amVick should open a chain of Dog Obedience Schools to get back his credibility. They should be a big hit in certain circles.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:40 amDaileyrocks, PETA stated an opinion (hence the word “should”), so I can’t “prove” anything it said to be “wrong”.
My only point was that PETA hadn’t laid a basis for their comparison of child abusers and animal abusers. PETA’s whole argument is based on some “once an animal abuser, always an animal abuser” notion — and they ought to back that up with proof if they want to be convincing.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:44 amBeldar
i think that’s about right. i want to see evidence that vick has gone a little further down that road before i consider him redeemed.
And your commentary is always appreciated.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:46 amConsider that most serial killers begin their depravity by torturing and killing animals, and then work their way up to torturing and killing people.
This fact makes me always fearful when I hear stories of people who joyfully torment animals.
Vick probably isn’t a serial killer, but if he was an obscure guy living an obscure life, outside the public spotlight he craves, is it unthinkable, knowing what you know, that he could be one?
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:47 amPETA is not protesting a single Eagles’ game – they got bought off.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:48 am“My only point was that PETA hadn’t laid a basis for their comparison of child abusers and animal abusers.”
Kman – As you said, it was an opinion. Do you always have double standards for the opinions of those with whom you disagree? You supply no evidence for yours, but require evidence for others. Quite convenient.
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:53 amVick has attained legal redemption;
AD-RtR/OS! (2b454a) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:55 amhis moral redemption is another matter, and takes much longer.
What Beldar said, and don’t blame Vick for what POTUS said.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:58 amVick’s comment, “I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care,” reminds me so much of Feisal Rauf explaining why the mosque needs to be at Ground Zero, We need to build bridges, to build relationships, to build friendships, and to build a new chapter in Muslim/non-Muslim relations.
Both are self-serving statements which reveal they selfishly miss the point – if their greater concern really was the public’s response to them, neither would make such statements as the public has clearly weighed in on both issues already.
If Vick genuinely cares and is passionate about animals, the most selfless way he could demonstrate that is by freely staying far away from them. It would show he recognizes he forfeited that privilege by his crime, while simultaneously revealing he is on his way to being a changed man.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 11:59 amWho is blaming Vick for what POTUS said? It seems everyone recognizes his crime is his alone, and in fact, POTUS condemned it.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:01 pmMD,
I agree with you on human life vs. animal, but I’d note that I’d not want to accidentally splash a little champagne on Vick in a club and then go to leave and find myself alone in a dark alley with Vick two of his kennel guys.
Not that Vick would dirty his own hands…
I love my dogs, but on a human level I am deeply disturbed that Vick sought out and hired such cold and debased individuals. I’d be willing to bet that Vick’s pet orcs have passed through life like wrecking balls and have left a trail of not just canine, but human misery behind too.
I thought Vick’s sentence was light based on that alone.
To the others who ponder whether time served equals end of culpability, the answer is no.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:02 pmPeople who commit crimes, shooting others with guns aren’t allowed to have guns even after doing their 25 years.
A petty thief that did his or her 20 months still doesn’t get to run the cash register.
Stigma remains.
Simple evolution; survival of the species, gene replicating skills, require casting a wary eye and a having skeptical mind about people who’ve done nasty, brutal things. Anything less would be (is) lunacy.
Daleyrocks:
You seem so eager to be combative. If you read this thread, I haven’t even offered an opinion on whether or not Vick has been rehabiliated…. or should/shouldn’t own a dog… or any of that.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:12 pm“If you read this thread, I haven’t even offered an opinion on whether or not Vick has been rehabiliated”
Kman – What was the purpose of your original comment?
daleyrocks (a82d72) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:36 pm*facepalm* See #39.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:40 pmDana, I made the comment about not blaming Vick for what POTUS said because it appears that it was POTUS’s comments that brought this topic to the front of attention again, not that anyone here, per se was doing that. I think the decision to stay away from animals or not is a two-edged sword, on one hand I completely agree with your reasoning and respect it, on the other hand, there will be critics who say, “If he’s changed, let him prove it and show us!” They have a good argument too. Maybe it is an issue of whether one wants primarily to protect animals from Vick or to ascertain if Vick has changed.
SteveG.- I think we agree for the most part. I’m with those saying it is way too early to give him any credit for having “improved” himself to the point he is any kind of a role model, other than perhaps on technical aspects of playing football. Any I agree that having completed one’s jail time is part of re-entering society, but it is by no means all of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:55 pmWhile what Vick did was repugnant in any respect, he did the time for the crime – if you feel the judge let him off too easily, then work to make that judge lose in the next election.
As for making any moral equivalencies – may I remind everyone that Mr. – NFL – Future Hall – of – Famer – Linebacker Ray Lewis got off with farking probation (?!!!) from the same FBI for making his car available as a getaway for a person who committed homicide? Yeah, wrap your head around that one for awhile.
[nickname fixed. –Aaron]
Dmac (498ece) — 12/29/2010 @ 12:56 pmDmac
fixed for you.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:03 pmthere will be critics who say, “If he’s changed, let him prove it and show us!”
I suppose one has to then decide whether the life of a dog is worth jeopardizing so Micheal Vick can try to prove a point to us. Again, he proves the point to me far more solidly by voluntarily staying away from them.
I also tend to err on the side of life in issues.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:08 pmAlso, how does one prove a negative? Specifically, how does one prove that they are not committing dog abuse (and never will)?
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:13 pmkman
> Specifically, how does one prove that they are not committing dog abuse (and never will)?
all the more reason for him not to have a dog, because as you just demonstrated, we will never know if he is safe. Seriously, like Dana said, why should the life of a dog be risked at all? to what end?
i mean, sh-t, last time i checked there was no right to own a dog protected in the constitution, although i suppose the S.C. could pull one out of its hind end like it did Lawrence.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:16 pm“And the NAACP guy’s argument is that at some point the punishment should end and we should let him rejoin society.”
He can join your society, not mine. He gets no “second” chance from me. Wherever that guy has gone, drugs get trafficked, things get stolen, animals are forced to fight to the death, and people get shot. Maybe you want that kind of trouble in your life, but I like things nice and peaceful and legal…and I don’t want guys like him anywhere near me.
Dave Surls (12d2a1) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:18 pmMD
> Dana, I made the comment about not blaming Vick for what POTUS said because it appears that it was POTUS’s comments that brought this topic to the front of attention again,
i think that’s a fair cop. I had meant to post on it when he made the original stupid comment about wanting a dog, other things crowded it out. So i had a moment and saw the megyn kelly thing, and said to myself… “hot, smart news host discusses vick. its as good a reason as any to bring it up.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:20 pmIs that where the bar should be? We have to know?
I understand the point and the concern… but I don’t think many other crimes are treated that way. People with one DUI typically get their license back, even though we don’t know whether or not they’ll do it again, risking the lives to people (and dogs)…
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:23 pm“And the NAACP guy’s argument is that at some point the punishment should end and we should let him rejoin society.”
Rejoining society is not defined by owning a dog.
And for the most part, Vick has already rejoined society as evidenced by his working and earning a fabulous living doing what he loves most, has a family (children), owns several homes, travels, etc. And in a year and a half (or so) will be off probation.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:32 pmIt means having the same privileges and conditions that the rest of lawful society enjoys. So yeah, it kind of means owning a dog.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:39 pmKman is more concerned with semantics than substance. SHOCKA!
As for allowing Vick to own a dog again, you know how the old saying goes: give ’em enough rope, and he will hang a pit bull with it.
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:42 pmKman
Vick didn’t abuse one dog once. he systematically abused them over a period of months.
As for our dui laws, while i agree one dui shouldn’t disqualify you from driving, but we are far too lax about this issue.
And there is an important difference between the dog thing and the driving thing. driving is an important useful activity and depriving a person of their license is a significant restriction on their freedom. obviously not everyone drives, so some people get along without driving just fine–particularly the blind. but there just isn’t a strong need in vick’s case. This would risking the dog’s life solely for the vick family’s gratification.
I will say that i would make one exception. if vick went blind, i suppose i would assent to him having a seeing eye dog.
But right now they are right to say as part of his probation he may not own a dog. and again, i hope child protective services is keeping an eye on his children. what he did to those animals smacked of sociopathy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:44 pmkman, I think you understand my point.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 1:50 pmKman
> It means having the same privileges and conditions that the rest of lawful society enjoys. So yeah, it kind of means owning a dog.
Mendouchous as always, kman. Any lawyer knows that even after the time is served and probation ends (which hasn’t yet), he does not enjoy all the privileges and conditions of the rest of society. For instance, in many states he can’t vote, now, or own a gun. and as much as i like the second amendment, i agree with that second restriction. And there are many, many other restrictions on him, more than i am likely to remember or name. for instance, most bar associations will not allow him to become a lawyer. So let’s not pretend that we as a society treat ex-cons just like everyone else. that might be a liberal goal, but it is not a present reality.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/29/2010 @ 2:12 pmKman is in favor of giving second chances to successful suicide bombers.
Icy Texan (26f046) — 12/29/2010 @ 2:16 pmI still think that Kmart’s really just a bot pretending to be a Leftie – all the same kind of logical jumps of fallacy, replete with complete and utter practiced obtuseness.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/29/2010 @ 2:42 pmVick put it best when he said that he feels that his shameful actions are behind him and he wants to go forward. He has, but many others are bound and determined not to forgive him. This makes it even sadder that there’s some dog out there that won’t get a chance to let Vick prove that he would be the best pet owner on the planet.
That a lot of people believe he should not own a dog does not equate to a lack of forgiveness or being prohibited from rejoining society.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 12/29/2010 @ 2:48 pmKman, your comments seem to be sillier and sillier.
Why the hell do you think his probation conditions prohibit possessing a dog? Just the random vindictiveness of the judge?
Unbelievable. Really unbelievable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/29/2010 @ 3:21 pmWhy don’t all fantasy football leagues give a negative ten points to players who pick Vick?
Jim (8de501) — 12/29/2010 @ 3:34 pmSince our great president is so keen on making phone calls and is thrilled to death about the idea of giving people second chances, maybe he could get off his fat stupid ass and make a call on behalf of this young lady…
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8845676/
Of course, she’s not black, rich, famous or a career scumbag like Vick is, so I’m betting President Obambi really couldn’t be bothered to get involved in this one.
h/t to Bryan Preston over at Pajamas Media.
Dave Surls (12d2a1) — 12/29/2010 @ 3:45 pmThe pet store goes silent whenever Michael Vick walks through the door. Even the goldfish don’t want to go home with him.
Birdbath (8501d4) — 12/29/2010 @ 4:02 pmIn this clip Tucker Carlson calls for the death penalty for what Vick did. Which I think is a bit much, but I suspect alot of people who loves dogs would agree.
I wonder if Carlson said anything similar after Donte Stallworth got 30 days in jail for killing a man while driving drunk.
Another Chris (2e9afa) — 12/29/2010 @ 6:22 pmIf Vick had done this to a horse, he’d never be able to get near the crowd at the State Fair for the rest of his days
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 12/29/2010 @ 7:14 pmI heart duppy pogs and George Bush had so much more class than bumble you can’t really compare the two
it’s fitting I guess that a sad pitiful little country in precipitous decline should have an uncouth douche as its leader, but it’s still very painful to watch.
happyfeet (aa4bab) — 12/29/2010 @ 9:23 pmThis seems less surprising on this issue than might appear from just knowledge of PETA. It falls into the “even a broken analog clock is right twice a day” category.
Now, when NAMBLA exposits on Roman Polanski’s case and appears quite clearly to be the Voice of Reason, THAT will be a scary, lunatic moment in history….
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 12/30/2010 @ 12:16 amwell, if any of you ever commits a crime, serves jail time, and eventually gets out, I hope your local community continues to punish you and revile you indefinitely.
It’s what many of you are endorsing here.
Jones (72b0ed) — 12/30/2010 @ 2:58 amHey Jones, he wants another dog. Given what you know about his treatment of his past “pets”, would you allow him another dog? After all, he did apologize!
vote for pedro (e7577d) — 12/30/2010 @ 3:41 amJones
You know, we are not talking about shoplifting. the man needlessly and cruelly tortured animals to death.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/30/2010 @ 5:15 am“well, if any of you ever commits a crime, serves jail time, and eventually gets out, I hope your local community continues to punish you and revile you indefinitely.”
The idea shouldn’t bother lefties too much. They’ve been reviling Joe McCarthy for the last 60 years…and he never served a day in jail.
Dave Surls (4ffc7b) — 12/30/2010 @ 5:30 amSurls
good point. not to mention Karl Rove, George W. Bush and well f— the list goes on forever.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/30/2010 @ 5:48 am