NAACP on Vick and African American celebs in general. Huh?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I don’t want to hijack this into a debate about hunting, but at most I think this is a matter of degree and not a big difference. Killing an animal for fun is pretty much killing an animal for fun, even if you eat it afterward. I see the cruelty difference, but do most people care that much about cruelty? It’s distasteful, but I don’t think it’s a huge deal to a lot of people. I think people who dislike hunting think it’s unfair, not cruel, and the majority of people don’t seem motivated enough to do anything about cruelty to the animals they eat. To that extent, it’s mainly because this is about dogs.
[/quote]

It’s about intent. When I hunted (I haven’t in years), the whole intent was to put the animal down as humanely as possible. Granted, being shot might not be anybody’s idea of humane, but my intent was not to torture.

Vick’s intent WAS to torture, in an excessively sadistic manner.

So I made a shot and it wasn’t an instant kill. What do I do?

(a) Take a point blank coup de grace

(b) Wet the wouded animal down and electrocute it

(c) Kill it by repeatedly slamming it on the ground

(d) Drown it

(e) Hang it

If you answered anything other than (a), then you missed the intent.

Slaughterhouses kill cattle for consumption. Do they

(a) Use a bolt gun for a quick kill

(b) Wet the animal down and electrocute it

(c) Kill it by repeatedly slamming it on the ground

(d) Drown it

(e) Hang it

Again, intent gives you the answer (hint, it isn’t b-e).

Killing animals for food can be done without the baggage of being a sadistic sick fuck. Torturing animals for fun can’t.

And anybody who thinks for a microsecond that Peyton Manning (for example) would get a pass if he were charged with the exact same thing is an idiot.

22

[QUOTE=burundi]
I think most people really do. It’s why we execute criminals by lethal injection rather than torturing them to death.
[/quote]

I should have specified “animals” there, as this can branch off in even more directions. :wink: I was only trying to state something that’s obvious on reflection: people care about cruelty to some animals and not others, so I don’t think animal cruelty itself is a big deal to the general public.

It’s a reasonable opinion. I’m not sure why R.L. White feels compelled to say what should happen to Vick’s endorsements. That goes a step beyond his “right” to employment, which in itself doesn’t exist.

23

I’m going to agree with Duke of Rat. I don’t know many hunters who’d have any respect for a hunter who tortured, electrocuted or beat a downed deer to death when he could have just shot it again. We really need to have some perspective here - most hunters, at least the ones I know, are not sadistic guys and don’t take any pleasure at all in an animal’s suffering. The objective is a clean, swift kill. Comparing deer hunting and dogfighting is like comparing lethal injection with drawing and quartering.

24

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

And as to that, I feel like there’s a cultural difference between African Americans and white Americans around attitudes to dogs generally. As the CNN article reports, “White also said he didn’t understand the uproar over dogfighting, when hunting deer and other animals is perfectly acceptable.” He’s got a point, it seems to me. Going gaga over dogs is very much a white cultural trait.

But I’m curious whether people agree with me about that.
[/QUOTE]

That’s my unscientific sense as well, since I don’t have polling data to back me up. Most of the recent dog fighting rings I’ve heard about being busted have been run, it seems, by blacks. There’s also a lot of canine imagery in rap (DMX in particular is notorious for it) focused around pitbulls or other “tough” dogs, with a subtext of dog fighting or just using the dogs for violence in general.

Personally, though, I guess I’m an exception, since I’m white and I don’t go gaga over dogs or pets in general, so I prefer a lack of sentimentality towards animals. It’s always seemed weird to me that I could go to KFC five times a week and (indirectly) contribute to the death of bunches of chickens, but fighting a couple roosters is beyond the pale. I figure hunting is legal, fishing is legal, testing drugs/cosmetics on animals is legal, fur is legal, and, you know, eating meat is legal, so what’s the difference? Either way, the animals end up dead, right? I’ll concede that due to the nature of dog fighting dogs may experience more pain in general than a deer shot down in the woods would, but I just don’t find that to be an important distinction.

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]

Vick’s intent WAS to torture, in an excessively sadistic manner.

[/quote]

How have you determined his intent?

25

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
This is not a racial issue, no matter how hard people try to make it one. It is a criminal issue about animal cruelty. Vick was not charged with being black, he was charged with taking part in a dogfighting operation. I don’t care if he is white, black, rich, poor, athlete or clumsy oaf. The charges revolve around dogfighting. Take race out of the picture.

As far as any future career in sports, whatever. The NFL can take him back. I can choose to not attend any NFL games or buy any stuff endorsed/royaltied (?) or NFL “logoed” (?) then. It’s their league and their players, it’s my ticket money.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with this in its entirety. I do also believe, thoug, that the statement from the NAACP made it a racial issue. By definition.

26

[QUOTE=Amok]

How have you determined his intent?
[/QUOTE]

I guess you are asking me. That’s my quote, but not my user name.

I might possibly be getting whooshed here.

Let’s see.

Vick had dogs fight each other to death. I’d say that’s intentional. If I was walking my dog and it got away and killed another dog, the result would be at least one dead dog, but it would be accidental. Not so with Vick. See, when you intentionally put 2 dogs in a pit for the express purpose of killing each other, that’s not accidental. Say his goal was to simply kill 2 dogs, he could do that easily with 2 shots to their heads without having them rip each other to shreds. His intent was not just to kill 2 dogs, but to do it in a brutal manner.

OK, so after the fight he has a wounded dog that needs killing. He could go the the quick and painless shot to the head if his intent was a painless death for the dog. If his intent was to torture it to death, he has a variety of options such as slamming it on the ground or electrocuting it. Since he chose the latter, it appears his intent was to excessively torture the dogs.

Say you have a dog that’s not cut out for fighting to the death. Sounds like a dog with a good temperament. Now when Vick came across such a dog, he could offer it up for adoption if his intent was not to torture it for being a gentle animal, or he could torture it to death as punishment for being gentle. Seeing as how he’s under indictment for the latter, and indeed has plead guilty to doing just that, it does appear that his intent was to torture the dogs.

So Vick had the option of not fighting dogs at all, but he intentionally did so. That shows his intent. After fighting, the losing dogs could be put quickly out of their misery if that was his intent, or tortured to death if that was his intent. He chose torture, that was his intent. Non-aggressive dogs could be sold to non-combatant owners or offered for adoption if his intent was to look after them. It was not and such dogs were brutally killed for not being killers. That shows his intent.

27

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
We really need to have some perspective here - most hunters, at least the ones I know, are not sadistic guys and don’t take any pleasure at all in an animal’s suffering. The objective is a clean, swift kill.
[/quote]

Just to head off a potential misunderstanding, I wasn’t accusing hunters of sadism. I’m aware they normally don’t take pleasure in hurting the animal - but I don’t know that Vick enjoyed hurting the animals either (although it certainly didn’t bother him) and the results of the activities can be the same. The objective isn’t always attained - not because hunters are trying to hurt the animals, just because that’s how it goes sometimes. The kid who killed that Hogzilla pig supposedly shot the animal about a dozen times over the course of a few hours.

Fair comparison. Thing is that lethal injection is supposed to be humane, but studies are showing the results still might be painful and horrible. Is it that big a deal that the pain isn’t the ultimate goal, even if it’s an unavoidable part of the act some of the time?

28

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
they are asking for him to receive the same treatment as other convicted felons have received - like Michael Irvin (just inducted into the Hall of Fame), Leonard Little, who actually did kill a person and is still playing, Christian Peter, who played six years after being convicted eight times in seven years, mostly for assault against women, and fellow Nebraska Cornhusker Lawrence Phillips.

Spare us the outrage - shouldn’t he expect the same treatment everyone else gets?
[/QUOTE]

If I killed someone the only thing I’d be playing is Spades…in jail. So who is this ‘everyone else’ you’re talking about?

29

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
I guess you are asking me. That’s my quote, but not my user name.

[/quote]

My mistake, I typed out your handle and I think I had someone else’s in mind. Sorry.

I don’t agree with your conclusion. His intent, presumably (though I can’t know it for a certainty), was to fight dogs. The dogs’ death in a brutal fashion was a foreseeable byproduct of that, and apparently not one that stopped him, but ascribing any other motives to him is speculation.

30

[QUOTE=Sitnam]
If I killed someone the only thing I’d be playing is Spades…in jail. So who is this ‘everyone else’ you’re talking about?
[/QUOTE]

The convicted felons I mentioned in the quote, who went on to play NFL football after serving their sentences.

Ex: Leonard Little - Got drunk on his birthday in 1998, drove with a BAC of 0.19, ran a red light and crashed into and killed another driver. He (like Vick) pled guilty, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, was setenced to 90 days in jail and 1000 hours of community service.

He was suspended by the NFL for a whopping 8 games.

He is currently employed by the St. Louis Rams and has made over 24 million dollars since he was released from jail.

31

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
See, when you intentionally put 2 dogs in a pit for the express purpose of killing each other, that’s not accidental.
[/quote]

Just so you know, dogfighting isn’t usually to the death. Even though death sometimes occurs as a result, the dogs tend to be too valuable to fight to the death.

32

[QUOTE=Amok]

I don’t agree with your conclusion. His intent, presumably (though I can’t know it for a certainty), was to fight dogs. The dogs’ death in a brutal fashion was a foreseeable byproduct of that, and apparently not one that stopped him, but ascribing any other motives to him is speculation.
[/QUOTE]

That’s like saying your hobby is throwing bricks at plate glass windows, but your intent is not to break them. “Foreseeable byproduct” means he knew what the result of his intent would be.

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]

Just so you know, dogfighting isn’t usually to the death. Even though death sometimes occurs as a result, the dogs tend to be too valuable to fight to the death.
[/quote]

Right, we need to have something left to slam on the ground or electrocte when the fight is over.

33

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
Right, we need to have something left to slam on the ground or electrocte when the fight is over.
[/QUOTE]

Dog fighters don’t routinely kill animals that lose either. They’ll generally only do so if the animal doesn’t show game, is vicious, or is so injured it won’t survive. Remember, dog fighting is a business, and breeding and training a good fighting dog takes a lot of time and money. There’s no point in either 1. Keeping dogs alive that won’t fight or 2. Killing dogs that fight well just because they lose.

34

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Dog fighters don’t routinely kill animals that lose either. They’ll generally only do so if the animal doesn’t show game, is vicious, or is so injured it won’t survive. Remember, dog fighting is a business, and breeding and training a good fighting dog takes a lot of time and money. There’s no point in either 1. Keeping dogs alive that won’t fight or 2. Killing dogs that fight well just because they lose.
[/QUOTE]

That’s interesting.

This quote, from the Vick indictment, indicates that Vick was, according to your account of how dog fighters operate, more sadistic than the average dog fighter.

.

Now it didn’t say Vick electrocuted the dog, but he was the boss. Charles Manson never actually killed anybody, either.

So even though the “norm” in dogfighting is to NOT execute the losing dog (according to you), the Vick operation executed them anyway.

Nice guys.

35

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
I can’t help but thing that if this was a White dogman, that there wouldn’t have been anywhere near the coverage, even if he was a famous athlete.
[/QUOTE]

I doubt that, it’s a dog issue more than anything. A famous white athlete would have been equally targeted.

36

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]

So even though the “norm” in dogfighting is to NOT execute the losing dog (according to you), the Vick operation executed them anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Well, like the indictment says, “after consulting with Vick about the losing female pit bull’s condtion”, so it’s quite possible she was too injured to be able to bring back to health. I don’t really get why Peace was electrocuting the dogs, though. You’d think shooting or poison would be easier.

37

[QUOTE=Lochdale]
I doubt that, it’s a dog issue more than anything. A famous white athlete would have been equally targeted.
[/QUOTE]

Famous athlete issue more than anything maybe. There have been several other “dogfighting” incidents lately, none with anywhere near the publicity. But honestly, a good old boy doesn’t look as mean or media appealing as a dark skin Black man, even when famous. It’s a similar phenomena as the popular media portrayal of white female victims while ignoring female victims of other races and ethnicities.

38

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
This quote, from the Vick indictment, indicates that Vick was, according to your account of how dog fighters operate, more sadistic than the average dog fighter.
[/QUOTE]

If the accounts are true, he is not a very professional dogman, and he is on the cruel side. Also, the sloppy, easily caught nature of the operation wasn’t very professional either.

39

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, like the indictment says, “after consulting with Vick about the losing female pit bull’s condtion”, so it’s quite possible she was too injured to be able to bring back to health. I don’t really get why Peace was electrocuting the dogs, though. You’d think shooting or poison would be easier.
[/QUOTE]

Well, the indictment indicates he (Peace) HAD executed dogs by shooting them, previously. After conferring with his boss (Vick, who had lost money due to this dog’s performance), this dog was tortured to death.

So on his own, Peace had been known to simply shoot dogs. After conference with the owner, boss, and ringleader, electrocution was the torture of choice.

40

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
Well, the indictment indicates he (Peace) HAD executed dogs by shooting them, previously. After conferring with his boss (Vick, who had lost money due to this dog’s performance), this dog was tortured to death.

So on his own, Peace had been known to simply shoot dogs. After conference with the owner, boss, and ringleader, electrocution was the torture of choice.
[/QUOTE]

The indictment also indicates, though, from looking at it, that Peace had also electrocuted dogs before. So, just based on the indictment, we don’t know if Vick said “The bitch isn’t going to survive. Take care of it.” or “The bitch lost me money. Make it suffer.”

I’m not saying Vick didn’t say to electrocute the dog. I’m just saying that we don’t know at this point.

And I agree with Unregistered Bull. This does seem to have been a pretty shoddy, amateurish operation, both in terms of their concern for their dogs and general concealment from the law.