Thursday, July 19, 2007

Dog Eat Dog World??? Maybe for Vick....

There are many things to consider when looking at this entire thing.

FIRST - We all know that with the mess that happened with the Duke LAX case, there was not going to be an indictment unless the government had enough to work with. They clearly do.

SECOND - How much or little did Michael Vick participate in this entire operation? Let us not be naive enough to think that Vick had nothing to do with the fighting ring. Even if he wasn't an active member of the actual fighting and betting, he still owned the property on which the fights took place. So if he was an active member of the ring, betting, and supplying dogs, we punish him severly. If he had nothing to do with the ring other than it took place on his property, he is still guilty of negligence. How can you "not know what goes on" at your own property. It's flat out irresponsible.

THIRD - People keep bringing up this issue about caring about all the other awful things that occur in this world. Yes, Bin Laden has not been found. School's are underfunded, etc. etc. blah blah blah. I don't mean to undermine these issues in any way shape or form. What I do mean to emphasize is that just because there are other things happening doesn't mean that we divert our attention from this. THIS IS A CRIME! It cannot be ignored.

FOURTH - Lastly, we come to the inevitable, and probably touchiest, aspect of the entire situation. The race issue. While there does seem to be a tendency, it IS a generalization to say that all blacks are supporting Vick and all whites are condemning him. Is it true that you are innocent until proven guilty? Yes, although a lot of people tend to see it the other way around. This part goes back to my second point. Is Vick guilty of participating in dog fighting? As of now, there is nothing to say he is and that we should condemn him. But he is guilty of SOMETHING. Beyond the issue of which race is supporting and which race is condemning (as I said, this is more a generalization than a fact), I need to address what was said on ESPN's 1st and Ten.

****(TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THIS WAS SAID BY A BLACK CO HOST)****

I will not attempt to quote directly, but the general idea was that whites react differently because on a while, whites are dog lovers. Blacks tend to react as, "It's just a dog."

FIRST, i have no statistics to back that claim. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. What does matter is even if that IS how Black people feel on a whole (or even White people), IT IS A CRIME TO FIGHT DOGS, OR COCKS, etc.


What it comes down to is that this is about dog fighting. Dog fighting is ILLEGAL. So even if he didn't participate in the dog fights, he is still guilty of allowing them on his property.

1 comment:

DougBushBC said...

Shins, I can't agree with you more, but the real question begs, is he being singled out because of who he is?

Two of his associates now have struck plea bargain deals, and I think we can safely assume that these deals are for testifying AGAINST Vick.

Now if he simply allowed it on his property, why should the perpetrators of this crime be given the deals and the person who merely allowed it be targeted? This would be like if you and me decided to kill Levy (likely), and you drove the car while I got out, shot DL1 12 times in the face, and then hopped back in the ride to escape. Then when it all came down to it, I got a plea deal so that they could target the famous Mr. Matt Shineman.

I don't know man, just playing the devil's advocate here.