Michael Vick Wants To Own A Dog Again?

[Camilla and Darwin]

I believe people can change and redeem themselves... but I hate the thought of this guy having ownership of a dog, ever. How do you all feel about it?

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/15/mike-vick-wants-to-...

[Sue, Murphy and Bella ()*o*()]

Personally, I would love to be done talking about him as just seeing his name on the Forum page when I log on gives me a yucky feeling.

[DAVID N PATTI]

i think mike has learned his lesson....it was more a gambling thing...and he was wrong...and believe he knows it....and if owning a dog MAKES HIM A BETTER MAN...THAN SO BE IT.....but if he crosses the line again...send his ass to jail....do not pass go...do not collect 200 dollars

[Lisa, Daisy & Dexter]

And what about the poor dog that gets to see if he's all better or changed, the guinea pig if you will?

[Ricki and Tara (doodle)]

I wonder if he had any "pets"  at home during the time when he was killing and maiming dogs at his dog fighting facility?

 

I agree Lisa- who wants to be that first dog???

[Adina P]

The fact that he seems to want it for rehabbing his image doesn't sound good to me.

But I think there is a considerable difference between a 'former' pedophile (as someone mentioned) and a 'former' dog fighter.  Pedophiles (I think) may continue to have sick feelings and desires toward children, but I don't think former dog fighters have ongoing 'lusts' to go hurt dogs or make dogs fight.  I think they are entirely different types of thinking.

 

I don't think he's a sadist either. To me dog fighters seem like people who tell their morality to shut up a few too many times for the love of money and power and based in a culture (meaning peer influence) that continually reinforce the idea that it's cool.  Some people are strong enough to see past peer influence, he obviously wasn't the smartest or most moral of his peers.  As far as him not thinking it was wrong...there are a lot of things that are illegal that not everyone thinks are wrong.  The wrong of breaking the law was one thing for him, I presume.  And the wrong of the actual activity was another.  He may very well be telling the truth that he didn't think it was morally wrong based on how he grew up.  The reason I don't think he's a pure sadist is because I don't think dog fighting is an activity born out of a DIRECT and FOREMOST desire to hurt dogs.  Otherwise why make dogs fight and put money on a dog winning?  Why not just main and kill the dog yourself?  I think they just ignored their conscience till it shut up while they got high off the excitement of big money, gambling, and peer influence.  I think the 'high' and excitement is similar to that which people get while watching boxing and other fighting sports.  The critical difference is that, at least. people get to choose if they fight and they aren't being forced into putting their lives on the line.  That critical difference is huge, though.

Who KNOWS if he realizes how awful and cruel he was?  If the judge ruled NO dog for him...then I think it's totally fair for him to pay that price.  Forgiveness doesn't erase consequences.  That's one thing that it seems people like him, juvenile delinquents and other less mature wrong doers have a hard time understanding.  They may be forgiven, even accepted back into society, but the consequences don't just vanish.  Especially not when he wants the consequence to be reversed (let him have a dog) for the sake of image rehab.  Let him volunteer in shelters or do work that helps dogs in other ways to show himself as a new man who cares about animals.  But simply buying/adopting a dog and then getting lots of media attention for it does not a animal lover prove.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think you said it just right on all counts.

[Richard Crowe]

The only dog I hope he ever gets is a service dog to help him after he has a spinal cord injury which paralyzes him from the neck down.  Then that worthless piece of trash couldn't drown that dog.

 

I can practice New Testament Christian forgiveness in some cases.  In other cases I opt for Old Testament punishment!

 

IMO... The comment that this was "only a gambling thing" holds no water.  Not too many gamblers cut the ears off the people they gamble against or drown them in tubs of water. 

 

[Camilla and Darwin]

Yes exactly. I think it's important to note that he was not just running a dog fighting ring and gambling. It was that he tortured and killed dogs that didn't perform. That is what says a lot to me. If those dogs weren't performing well, he could have done anything to get rid of them. "Put them down" by shooting them even. But cruelly maiming and torturing before he killed them...that is a different story.

[Adina P]

That's a good point.  I haven't read enough articles about all the specifics.  Definitely his going beyond the torture of fighting puts a diff spin on things.  I just don't particularly like reading about Vick.

[F, Calla & Luca]

I read an article somewhere once about the horrors these dogs had been through. It was enough to make one ill.

[Linda, Webber and Seda]

On the View someone said that it was Vick's daughter that wanted the dog and he didn't know how to explain to her why she couldn't have one!!  Excuse me....guess he should have thought about his daughter and/or future children, a bit earlier.  One of the consequences of his actions, besides jail time, was to never have another dog.  Why is this even up for discussion?

[Sue, Murphy and Bella ()*o*()]

I think he should explain to his daughter why she can't have one because she will hear about it elsewhere someday. At least he can squirm a little confessing to her, but it still can't compare to how those poor dogs squirmed while he was torturing them.