Seeing as he was convicted it is not an allegation.
And no,yes,and yes. You didn't pen up dogs and force them to shred each other. There is a huge difference between defending yourself and your loved ones and dog fighting.

 

It comes down to a simple question I think: Can Vick be trusted with a dog now?

I think he can. And not just because the media and animal lovers would ensure the dog was in perfect health 24/7. I think an example was made of Vick when he was convicted to teach him a lesson. And, quite surprisingly, he did actually learn something from his prison sentence (many ex-convicts don't). The Michael Vick that came out of prison is a hella more mature. Has had to earn what he has now rather than have most of it given to him based off his college performance. And has a helluva lot more to lose now in comparison to his pre-prison career.

Banning someone from something should be done if it's believed they'd continue to be a danger if exposed to it. I don't think he would be. And before someone brings up the child molester, the person wouldn't present a continued danger to children if the world took my stance on child molestation.

Dead men can't do anything

 

I think your argument is WAY off base Pimpn my friend.

We could take the first part in a few different ways. Is a chicken less valuable than a dog? Perhaps not. However Chickens have not co-existed with humans for 10 thousand years in such a symbiotic way. No one can deny that dogs have been domesticated from wolves and was done so with mutual benefit to both species.

With that said there ARE laws against the ill treatment of all livestock. Do I think that inhumane chicken / pig / cow raisers should be thrown in jail? ABSOLUTELY.

Would I hesitate to shoot a dog that was attacking my woman / father / mother / brother / stranger? Absolutely not.

Pimpn, I'd shoot you or another human who was attacking any of the above just as fast. Well maybe not the stranger. I'd at least take a look at the situation before hand.

As Thrasher said, you can't compare killing a dog while protecting a loved one / brother in arms vs doing so for some degree of sport/pleasure/or whatever else you want to call it. It isn't even remotely the same. The argument holds no water.

Its like saying should someone be thrown in jail for randomly shooting people vs doing so while fighting for your country. They aren't the same. At all. They come with very different consequences.

Michael Vick did not ALLEGEDLY drown dogs himself, beat them to death with shovels, slam them on the ground until they died, and electrocute them to death. HE DID. And pleaded guilty to such.

EDIT: More mature or not Kuro - I can't fathom putting another dog in someone's care who did the above things. It boggles my mind. Even if you don't like dogs its crazy to imagine that.

 

Let that man have a damn dog who cares what he did to them allegedly? I dont. I just kicked my dog across the floor cuz he doesnt listen.....Does that mean i dont deserve one?


No,then you shouldn't own a dog either. To bad your dog doesn't get a piece of you the same..... mine would. As far as Vick ??? Great ball player thing is he did something that was cruel,sick minded, and an act of someone that shouldn't be in the public eye. The man shouldn't even be playing ball for the matter. So no he shouldn't be able to own a dog..... ever!!!

 

Vick can own a dog when I can own a gun

 

leave my boi alone!!!!im not sying it again....

thats it im locking this thread!!!!!

 

GO EAGLES! GO kick *** Vick!

 

Go see the dogs that are still alive that were owned by him. Talk to the caretakers of these dogs. See what issues these dogs have because of their treatment and then tall me what you think. It's not about Vick, it's about the dogs...I could care less about him but the dogs are the ones that have been abused.