Mike Vick Indicted for Dogfighting

[Hew]

In case you missed it, here is Clinton Portis on dog fighting, when the whole Vick thing came out a couple months ago.
https://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2878099

 

[occulum]

In theory you're correct, but PLEASE. Are you honestly going to tell me he had no clue this was going on? No way. Of course he will lie about and hope not to get in trouble, but there is just about a ZERO chance that he didn't know about this and probably was directly involved as well.

definitely agree.

I had no idea he was so arrogant until I watched that vid that plays after the Portis vid.
absolutely 0 respect for Vick. ..

.. cuff'em n stuff'em ..

 

[lcummins]

In theory you're correct, but PLEASE. Are you honestly going to tell me he had no clue this was going on? No way. Of course he will lie about and hope not to get in trouble, but there is just about a ZERO chance that he didn't know about this and probably was directly involved as well.

No, I never said he had no clue or that he wasn't lying... that's just it, I don't know, because I don't have all the facts. Only a jury of his peers can decide if he knew or was lying. I'm just saying, must we always grab the torches and form a mob at the first hint of wrong-doing?

 

[Hew]

No, I never said he had no clue or that he wasn't lying... that's just it, I don't know, because I don't have all the facts. Only a jury of his peers can decide if he knew or was lying. I'm just saying, must we always grab the torches and form a mob at the first hint of wrong-doing?

I just watched an interview of a confidential police informant on this very case. This "highly reliable" source put MV at dog fights, and described him as a "high roller," spending 40k or more on individual fights.

As far as the torch grabbing goes, I am guilty of that myself. But the court of public opinion is not bound by any official rullings or lack thereof. I'm sure we can all think of several examples.

 

[Anzik]

Also, if we are discussing "responsibility" when it comes to law... what do you think of Parent Liability Laws that are being passed in many states across the union? Should a parent or guardian be financially responsible for crimes, damage, etc. caused by their child, including gang activity in some states? Should a Grandmother who is the guardian of a teenage child, be made to pay fines because that child is in a gang and she can't control them?

So if someones kid decides to throw a brick through my window, or spray paint my house I should have to pay for the repairs?
Yes they should be liable.

 

[El Roranous]

Also, if we are discussing "responsibility" when it comes to law... what do you think of Parent Liability Laws that are being passed in many states across the union? Should a parent or guardian be financially responsible for crimes, damage, etc. caused by their child, including gang activity in some states? Should a Grandmother who is the guardian of a teenage child, be made to pay fines because that child is in a gang and she can't control them?

This is why I will never have a child....among many other reasons.

I mean no offense at all to the people who do have or want children....they just aren't my thing.

 

[lcummins]

So if someones kid decides to throw a brick through my window, or spray paint my house I should have to pay for the repairs?
Yes they should be liable.

I agree, for financial responsibility, they should be liable and have insurance to cover property damage and loss of life, but what I'm talking about are laws that charge a parent with a crime because their child committed a crime, or levy huge fines that can go as high as $5000 to $25000 because of their child's actions. Is that really fair? Sitting at a computer, it is easy to say yes, but what happens when your child does something (which you have lectured them about in the past) which ends up ruining you financially or even puts you in jail? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

And just to throw out a factoid... the first parental liability law was passed in Hawaii way back in something like 1846 (or it might be 1864).

 

[El Roranous]

I agree, for financial responsibility, they should be liable and have insurance to cover property damage and loss of life, but what I'm talking about are laws that charge a parent with a crime because their child committed a crime, or levy huge fines that can go as high as $5000 to $25000 because of their child's actions. Is that really fair? Sitting at a computer, it is easy to say yes, but what happens when your child does something (which you have lectured them about in the past) which ends up ruining you financially or even puts you in jail? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

And just to throw out a factoid... the first parental liability law was passed in Hawaii way back in something like 1846 (or it might be 1864).

Parents should be held liable to an extent but not fully. No matter what you do sometimes it can be impossible to control the actions of another human being. We all have free will and should accept the responsibility for our actions. If a child does commit a crime like murder without any encouragement from their parents, than that child should face the punishment on his/her own.

 

[El Roranous]

So if someones kid decides to throw a brick through my window, or spray paint my house I should have to pay for the repairs?
Yes they should be liable.

I think that kid should be held liable honestly. Either make him a slave of the government till he/she pays off the damage or throw the child in jail. That should teach them some responsibility.

Or go and break something of theirs if all else fails ...just don't get caught.

 

[Anzik]

What is pathetic is that we need laws to tell people they need to actually parent, and parent responsibly.

 

[El Roranous]

What is pathetic is that we need laws to tell people they need to actually parent, and parent responsibly.

I agree.

 

[IrishJedi]

So does that mean if I owned an apartment building, and drug sales were taking place there, I should be held responsible?

Only if the tenants were staying there rent-free.

This was Vick's house and he didn't have any contracts or leases with the folks staying there. Therefore, he is 100% legally liable for anything that occurs on that property.

 

[Bodie The Cursed]

*pokes Lonnie w/ pitchfork*

 

[Bannister]

*pokes Lonnie w/ pitchfork*

 

[LOTRFan]

Vick has been linked to the scene by eyewitnesses and the actual indictment (if you have read it) is nauseating.

Soaking dogs in water and electrocuting them .... :emperor


I sense a boycott of Home Depot coming.

 

[wofford29]

Arthur Blank doesn't own Home Depot anymore.

 

[LOTRFan]

Arthur Blank doesn't own Home Depot anymore.

Oh, well then I'm heading there this weekend. :chew :chew "Honey-do" list back on ...

 

[Bannister]

Oh, well then I'm heading there this weekend. :chew :chew "Honey-do" list back on ...

 

[Bannister]

Vick has been linked to the scene by eyewitnesses and the actual indictment (if you have read it) is nauseating.

Soaking dogs in water and electrocuting them .... :emperor


I sense a boycott of Home Depot coming.

Reading all the various ways they killed the dogs, it was almost as if that stuff was a sport to them as well.

 

[Darth Madden]

Too bad Atlanta doesn't play at Cleveland this season... I bet The Dog Pound would have some choice words (or something worse) for him.