Who let the killer dogs out?

[Technosoul]

A famous sports figure was arrested for taking part in a dog fighting ring and he faces federal charges.

Dog fighting has become popular again as a form of entertainment. And some of the dog owners are children who live in urban areas. Gambling is also involved.

Some popular rap artists gloryify the "sport" in thier rap videos, which is an influence on those getting involved.

Animal rights groups want the sports hero to be made an example of and so he was suspended from his contract as a football star. He could face up to 6 years in jail if convicted, he pleaded "not guilty".

Football entertainment, rap entertainment, and dog fighting entertainment all seem to be connected to the advocation of violence.

NFL's Vick pleads not guilty in dog-fighting case - Yahoo! News

[GHook93]

Dog fighting is wrong don't get me there and it takes an immoral person to like it. However, if he was caught cock fighting, mongoose vs snake fighting, scorpin fighting or Japanese fighting fish fighting this wouldn't be front back news. A lot of NFL players have don't far worst.

[Scribbler1]

It's not a matter of what you DO, so much as it's a matter of if you get nailed for it.

[Mia]

Um, dog fighting is up there on the BAD category - they must fight to the death, and if no dog kills the other, the loser is executed. His dogs were electrocuted, hung, shot......it is extremely cruel.

And he wasn't just mildly involved. He had kennels on his property for 54 dogs. They fought in several states. He had T-shirts advertising his dog breeding and fighting business. Many, many thousands of dollars have illegally traded hands.

It's despicable and I hope he goes to jail. He didn't even need the money - this was all just for FUN. Sicko.

[lsbskins1]

I believe in all of our Constitutional protections and I believe Michael Vick deserves a trial. I believe the government must prove it's case before he is convicted and that he should do no jail time without a conviction. That being said, being found Not Guilty in court does not mean you are not guilty of the crime, it only means the government could not "prove" your guilt. Michael Vick is plainly and clearly involved in this shameful sport and my conviction of that will not put him in jail for one day. That is what the constitutional protections are there to ensure, that he not be punished without due process. That does not mean his "reputation" can not be harmed, nor does it mean I can not believe him to be an evil waste of flesh. I do.

[Scribbler1]

Too bad Johnnie Cochran is dead. I think the Vick case would be a good fit for him.

[Mia]

Jail. Where he can find out what it feels like to be treated like a dog.

[Mia]

But not a single line in the 18-page indictment will generate more rage toward Vick and the others charged -- Purnell A. Peace, Quanis L. Phillips and Tony Taylor -- than a sentence near the end. It reads: "In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

"If you want to kill a dog, why exert the energy to slam him into the ground or drown him? Why not just shoot him, which is the most common method?" says John Goodwin, dogfighting expert for the Humane Society of the United States. "That is insane. These guys, if they did that, have serious problems."

SI.com - NFL - George Dohrmann: Ugly details of Vick's indictment - Wednesday July 18, 2007 11:20AM

[Maryjane]

The latest and greatist from the mouth of Michael Vick in this morning's guilty plea agreement...

From this experience, I have found Jesus!'

[Jack]

Hehe, I caught that, too. It made me think of one of my favorite bumperstickers: "Jesus loves you!...everyone else thinks you're an a**hole". Boy does that apply in Vick's case.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maryjane The latest and greatist from the mouth of Michael Vick in this morning's guilty plea agreement... From this experience, I have found Jesus!'

He should have thought about doing that before he killed all those underperforming dogs.

Funny, how people will try to use religion in a court of law to get mercy, they do that when meeting a probation pannel also. "I was a criminal and now I am a Christian, so can I go home"?

It is like telling a judge "God forgave me so you should do the same thing". Suddenly when imprisioned they see their self as Jesus on the cross.

Perhaps we should have a law about the seperation of religion from our courtrooms, with a extra fine if you do not conform?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I believe in all of our Constitutional protections and I believe Michael Vick deserves a trial. I believe the government must prove it's case before he is convicted and that he should do no jail time without a conviction. That being said, being found Not Guilty in court does not mean you are not guilty of the crime, it only means the government could not "prove" your guilt. Michael Vick is plainly and clearly involved in this shameful sport and my conviction of that will not put him in jail for one day. That is what the constitutional protections are there to ensure, that he not be punished without due process. That does not mean his "reputation" can not be harmed, nor does it mean I can not believe him to be an evil waste of flesh. I do.

And he has officially admitted that I was right. He did it, he admitted it and I hope he never hears another cheer,never earns more than minimum wage and I hope, when he goes to hell, a dog gets to kill him over and over again for every interception he ever threw (cause that is underperforming in HIS job).

[Chancellor]

I would like someone to show me the article or the amendment of the Constitution that says people don't have the right to engage in such sports as dogfighting or cockfighting.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor I would like someone to show me the article or the amendment of the Constitution that says people don't have the right to engage in such sports as dogfighting or cockfighting.

You have it backwards. In order for it to be unconstitutional to pass a law banning these sports, there has to be a right protected that is being violated. I doubt you will find many who would agree that it has not always been within the states perview to ban these activities and maybe only a handful of others who would agree they were protected behavior under federal "rules". Your understanding of Constitutional Law seems lacking.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You have it backwards. In order for it to be unconstitutional to pass a law banning these sports, there has to be a right protected that is being violated. I doubt you will find many who would agree that it has not always been within the states perview to ban these activities and maybe only a handful of others who would agree they were protected behavior under federal "rules". Your understanding of Constitutional Law seems lacking.

No, I don't have it backwards. I asked where the Constitution says the people don't have the right to these kinds of sports. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not give rights, it limits government. Keep in mind also that any powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people (10th amendment). You should also note the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[lsbskins1]

The Constitution can not possibly and does not specifically address every right that IS NOT protected. It enumerates classes of rights that are absolutely protected. Just because it does not specifically deny, does not mean you have an absolute right to anything. Show me where the Constitution says I can't pour toxic chemicals in my yard. Show me where it says I can not beat my children. The states can limit it all, as long as they allow me to vote in elections and freely participate in the process, unless they are specifically enjoined from limiting. That is the point of the bill of rights.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The Constitution can not possibly and does not specifically address every right that IS NOT protected.

As I said in various other posts on this and other threads, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits government. You and sooooo many others seem to think that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution then there is no right to it. So, again, where does the Constitution say people do not have the right to engage in dogfighting.

It enumerates classes of rights that are absolutely protected. Just because it does not specifically deny, does not mean you have an absolute right to anything. Show me where the Constitution says I can't pour toxic chemicals in my yard. Show me where it says I can not beat my children. The states can limit it all, as long as they allow me to vote in elections and freely participate in the process, unless they are specifically enjoined from limiting. That is the point of the bill of rights.

No, the Constitution does not enumerate classes of rights, it limits the federal government (while it does indicate that the federal government is absolutely prohibited from infringing on certain rights, those rights do not come from the Constitution itself but pre-exist the Constitution). In an earlier post I quoted the ninth amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") and referenced the tenth ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").

To use your examples, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to tell you that you can't pour toxic chemicals in your yard or beat your children. However, since the 14th amendment arguably placed the Constitutional limits of the federal government on the states as well, one could take it to mean the states can't tell you that you can't pour toxic chemicals in your yard or beat your children, or - to get back to the topic of the thread - train your dogs to fight and kill each other.

[Mia]

The constitution specifically relegates decisions like that to the individual states, it most certainly does not prohibit them. All states have made dog fighting illegal. All but two make it a felony. The Federal aspect comes from any illegal activity crossing state lines.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor As I said in various other posts on this and other threads, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits government. You and sooooo many others seem to think that if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution then there is no right to it. So, again, where does the Constitution say people do not have the right to engage in dogfighting. No, the Constitution does not enumerate classes of rights, it limits the federal government (while it does indicate that the federal government is absolutely prohibited from infringing on certain rights, those rights do not come from the Constitution itself but pre-exist the Constitution). In an earlier post I quoted the ninth amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") and referenced the tenth ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). To use your examples, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to tell you that you can't pour toxic chemicals in your yard or beat your children. However, since the 14th amendment arguably placed the Constitutional limits of the federal government on the states as well, one could take it to mean the states can't tell you that you can't pour toxic chemicals in your yard or beat your children, or - to get back to the topic of the thread - train your dogs to fight and kill each other.

Seems you are confused as to the definition of enumerate, so let me help you:


e·nu·mer·ate /ɪˈnuməˌreɪt, ɪˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-noo-muh-reyt, i-nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing. 1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.


Read the 1st definition very carefully and tell me again that the Constitution does not enumerate rights, and I will know you have trouble with reading comprehention. Let me make it a little plainer:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks a little like a list, doesn't it? Rights listed, one by one? As in ENUMERATED.

And I have said time and again that the Constitution, as a binding, legal document does GRANT legal recognition of rights, therefore it does GRANT SOMETHING.

Also, take a gander at what #10 on that list says. Mia and I are, sadly for you, correct.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Seems you are confused as to the definition of enumerate, so let me help you: e·nu·mer·ate /ɪˈnuməˌreɪt, ɪˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-noo-muh-reyt, i-nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing. 1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. 2. to ascertain the number of; count. Read the 1st definition very carefully and tell me again that the Constitution does not enumerate rights, and I will know you have trouble with reading comprehention. Let me make it a little plainer:

Go back and read what I posted. First of all, I'm well aware of what "enumerate" means. I said the Constitution does not enumerate "classes of rights." If you're going to disagree with me then I insist you disagree with what I said and not with your interpretation of what I said.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is putting limits on the federal government with respect to those rights.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Again, it's putting limits on the government.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Again, a limitation on government.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, a limitation on government. Pay attention to words like "shall not be violated."

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, limitations on government.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

While this may seem to be giving a right, it's really putting limits on government.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Again, a limitation on government.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Again, a limitation on government.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That certain rights happen to be mentioned in the Constitution does not mean those are the only rights the people have and it does not mean that by being listed these rights are being "granted" by the Constitution. By the way, I cited this amendment in earlier posts.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Again, that certain rights happen to be mentioned in the Constitution does not mean those are the only rights the people have and it does not mean that by being listed these rights are being "granted" by the Constitution. By the way, I cited this amendment in earlier posts. This particular amendment really does show that the federal government was intended to be limited in its scope.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks a little like a list, doesn't it? Rights listed, one by one? As in ENUMERATED. And I have said time and again that the Constitution, as a binding, legal document does GRANT legal recognition of rights, therefore it does GRANT SOMETHING.

I don't give a rat's behind that you said something over and over, the Constitution does not grant rights! The rights of the people were presumed to already exist (if you doubt this, go back to the Declaration of Independence). The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government.