I hate the backlash involved in this whole ordeal.  It went from being a horrifying event to just a dog.  To minimize the crime, they keep comparing it to killing and murdering humans.  I guess the defense has to do that to build his case, but it's too bad it cannot be kept in the context in which it should be kept.  It also has nothing to do with hunting, which is generally done for food, and I am appalled at the comparison.  I think people miss the whole point.  No, he is not getting negative press as if he killed a human.  The reason his crime is very bad, is because he is more than old enough to know better, for one.  But, mostly, it is because of the atmosphere of dog fighting. It involves making tons of money off watching animals be brutally killed, while being very entertained by it, having them fight until dead or unrecognizable as a dog.  They laugh, have a good time, and become complacent to animal torture. 

I don't recall anyone saying he should get the death penalty, so how are we treating it as if he killed a human?!  Lastly, may I point out that in our society, the other time that we see animal torture can be as a precedent to killing humans...the young man who begins with killing small animals then goes on to murder his class mates.  So the torturing of animals (and let's not forget the cats and rabbits and such fed to the dogs), does not have a good connotation in our society.  We know that Vick isn't going to shoot up a school, but I ask you...if he is fine with the torture of animals, what else is he capable of, what other bad acts might he minimize?  Or, what other things are the group of men who socialize at his dog events capable of doing?  Is assault of a human a huge step, is the killing of a human a huge step?  I am not convinced it is.  Vick has already been in trouble with the law a few times.  I say quit minimizing his crime by comparing it to murder, at least not yet....

Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!