I think maybe they have good intentions but they choose a shit bag way to go about it in most cases.As far as Vick goes,if he would mistreat another dog ever in his life,then he is truly the dumbest mother****er alive.

Considering the state in which you reside I have no doubt you mean that in the biblical sense.

Their intentions are mostly political. I doubt they give two shits about animals above their own organization, and it sickens me.

People on Sports Nation's facebook status are comparing killing dogs to molesting children. There are some really stupid people in this world.

Why not let him? Everyone is so sure that he means what he says when he says he didn't know it was wrong and is now rehabilitated. Why not let him prove it once and for all? Why deprive his kids of the privilege of owning a dog?

Ok maybe I didn't say it right.Maybe their "don't mistreat animals campaign" was intended to help,but they still go about things like a bunch of douche bags pushing an agenda clearly far from actually helping anything but themselves.

Pretty much sums it up.

Pretty much what I meant.

Especially considering that many people would love to see him fall again.Was that part of his parole agreement?Not owning a dog I mean.

LMAO................no seriously, **** you!

It must be, considering he can't do it until after he's off parole. Seems like a logical condition.

Don't understand the problem or the issue here. It's not like he has a inner urging to kill dogs.

See, I just didn't read it that way. Unless I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong), I think mikey was not saying that dog fighting is as heinous as child molestation. I think he was just pointing out that perhaps him having a dog isn't a good idea (just like a pedophile adopting a kid is not).

Or, me saying that perhaps handing the pyromaniac the lighter isn't a good idea.

This argument is completely stupid. You glossed right the hell over the alternatives I was bringing up as if I didnt say them and was instead advocating that we release all pedophiles and let them run wild. Let me spell it out for you, clearly and slowly.

If you want to impose the death penalty for child rape, fine. If you want life in prison for the crime, fine. If you think someone is genuinely crazy where they aren't responsible for their actions so prison is not appropriate but they are still a danger to society and have to spend most of their life in a mental institution, fine.

I am not saying lower the punishment, if anything it should be higher, so your high and mighty "oh how dare you underestimate these crimes" argument is misdirected, wrong, and irrelevant. You want to bring the hammer down, then bring the hammer down.

But, your lists are bulls**t. If you are free, you should be free, period. If you are that damned scared of someone being free, perhaps they shouldnt be free.

:D

Vick should have self respect and show some class. Runing around pissing and moaning to the public about wanting to own a dog, after a majority of the US public is giving him a pass while at the same time crucifying Lebron James for being an immoral heathen, shows a continued lack of his surroundings

And I don't care about somebody "doing their time". If they've commited some obvious psychopathic acts there needs to be a vetting process after they've been pushed ouf of thei prison system for the general good of the public, and the animals.

Is this like the whole felons can't own a firearm thing?

LMAO Priceless. Stupid Shit Central, can I help you?

Really, really, really stupid people, indeed.

You didn't answer.

Thats a good one, and works equally well. Probably should have used that analogy of supposedly free people unjustly having their rights taken away. People who shut their brain off in the whole sex offender list issue are often more sympathetic to the argument for felons and guns.

If you are free, you should be free. If we are scared of felons, they should remain in prison.

I think punishments should fit the crime. What does restricting him from dog (any dog) ownership have to do with owning a ring of fighting dogs?

Give him a poodle or a lab. It's not like he's going to cull or fight one of those.

I would imagine that since he has tortured and viciously/inhumanely killed dogs in the past, that perhaps he should have ANY breed of dog.

Make him get married, once he's neutered the urges will go away.

I did earlier. The guy shuld be allowed to have a dog.

I do see some merit to this. I work in the real estate business, and have several tenants on the 'Megan's Law List" (In CA).

It bothers me a little bit, since these men have done their time, but I think the logic behind it is as follows:

What is known is that there is an EXTREMELY high recidivism rate amongst sex crime offenders. It seems that no matter what is tried (besides castration ,which is the only thing found effective actually) nothing has worked on a consistent effective basis in terms of a 'cure' for these men.

Therefore, when you are dealing with crimes (and criminals) of this nature, you have some options. You can lock them up for life (expensive, but not risky to the public)....You can free free them (Cheap, highly risky)...Or you can release them in a limited capacity, monitor their locations and notify the public of their whereabouts (much cheaper than incarceration, but but much less risky than just freeing them).

I think that there aren't too many people who want to see these high risk types back out on the street, when it is proven time and time again that they will repeat their crimes given a chance. However if monitoring their location, and taking away some of their freedoms helps reduce the rates at which they repeat their crimes after they are released (a known, serious problem) then taking this option actually is better for everyone than locking them up or executing them. If someone wants to undergo self-castration (the only proven method of ending these impulses 100%) then they can feel free to be removed from the list.

Got it....alcatraz for everyone because different levels of rehabilitation is wrong.

No, you didn't. Here's the question:

Would you let a convicted pedophile babysit your kid after they have served their time?

What does this have to do with the thread topic?

Some folks on this thread are arguing that pedophiles should just be free and clear once they do their time. So, if that is what they think, would they be okay with these pedophiles babysitting their kids?

If you knew him, Would you let Michael Vick watch your dog? That is a more appropriate question...

Hell you could still have tarantula fights. The guy paid a HUGE price. What are going to do, not let him own any animal? As a society we go beyond reeruned with this scarlet letter legislation. To me what the city of Denver has done is far worse. Now they want their stupid BSL to apply to the disabled's service dogs even though it is against Federal law to do so.

And the answer would be yes.

Sure. My dog probably has a higher IQ, though.

Mine too, that is my point.

oh come on now, people are acting like he committed murder. He wants a dog, let him have a dog. Do people really think that if he was going to use this dog to fight that he would have come out to the public and said he wanted one?

Wait, what's your point?

My point is anyone comparing pedophiles to Mike Vick is a ****ing idiot

I agree.

These lists are not rehabilitation, they are permenant scarlet letters. Rehabilitation implies that you could be rehabilitated and there's a light at the end of the tunnel, but there's not. This is forever, guilty at 18 and out of jail at 29? You get to live with this until 125 with no recourse.

The logic that says these lists (and restrictions on where you can live) is fine could also be used to say that these sex offenders should have an old fashioned cattle iron in the shape of an S heated in a fire and seared into their forehead for all to see and avoid. Why not? we can give them painkillers and have a doctor oversee it so there's no health risk.

If we are so scared of these people that we think these extraordinary measures are necessary to be safe, then they should not be out. If someone is cleared to be free, they should be free.

This is simplistic logic. If they would rather be released, and the public is OK with them being released so long as they comply with sex offender lists, why should that not be done? If they don't want to be on the list, then they can go back to jail....they have that option.

I don't get your point anymore....are your panties in a wad over them not being in jail long enough? Or thinking that reporting their address and work location to authorities is cruel and unusual? If it helps protect kids and women from people that have been proven by their peers to have done something to harm them in the past, then what are you so hellbent against it for?

If it's just a case of wanting something because he doesn't think he can have it
that's not a good sign -I'm kinda leary of his sincerity anyway
but it's only a dog

Hell, I'm all for this. "Why not?" is right.

However, I'd rather them have a brand of a penis on their forehead, not an S. It would be a sort of permanent mushroom stamp.

Only a dog? ONLY A DOG?!?!?!

Hehe, yeah its just a dog. :D

Its principle. My criminal record is clean (except 3 or 4 speeding tickets), and I know of no one personally who is impacted. I sincerely believe if you are free, you should be free, none of this half-assed bullsh*t.

If anything, these lists could be dangerous to the very people you want to protect. Having these lists available makes it more likely that we decide its ok to let an iffy marginal case go "well, the public will be informed so our conscience is clear. If someone is hurt, oh well we did the best we could." Bullcrap, if someone wants to reoffend you think a damned list will stop them? Your kids wont memorize faces and even if they do they would be ambushed. The offenders are also usually capable of walking more than 1,000 feet at a time.

Its security theater to give you the false illusion that you know where all the bad people are, so you feel safer. Well you arent safer, to the extent that danger exists, these lists do squat, all you do is make life miserable for the Romeo and Juliet bullcrap cases who shouldnt be on the list while not protecting anyone at all from the people you are scared of.

If someone is dangerous, dont think that a list will make everything all better, increase the sentences or declare them legally crazy.

In a related story, Steelers QB Ben Roethlisburger has told friends he would like to settle down and force himself on the right girl.

At first glance, I thought the title was Mike Vick: I would like to drown a dog again someday

You're a ****ing idiot.

fyp

:D

Again, your logic is massively flawed. Your example of a 'marginal case' where someone is KNOWN to be very dangerous (immediate danger) still, but released anyway is bogus...Please show some evidence for this. How is having a list MORE dangerous than not having a list for the community?

In the VAST majority of these cases both the prisoner AND the prison system wish for the prisoner to be released....the prisoner having served their time. Again, how is having a list more dangerous than not, when we are BOUND to release these prisoners?

If you have a problem with the length of punishment for certain crimes, that is a completely separate issue than a list....I mean if you think the time served should be 'life in prison, or until we can show 100% that this person will never commit a crime again' that is an even higher standard than murder....I could possibly agree with it though.

It seems like you don't really understand what you are even arguing for...

ROFL @ People acting like he has an uncontrollable urge to kill dogs.

Yes, he should be allowed to own a dog.

Comparing a dog to anything human is pretty much reeruned.

No shit.

LMAO

I think he should be able to.

WHO did you say adopted me?

http://mytabletennis.net/Forum/uploa..._Funny_dog.jpg

Owning a dog is great and all but this dudes financial situation is beyond ****ed up. Getting a dog shouldn't even be a blip on his radar

Don't worry...he is a nice guy...
http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-cont...vick_gypsy.jpg

Don't be a moron. It's not like he's going to put it in a dog fight. You honestly think he would be stupid enough to do it again and look like a hypocrite? Use your brain.

I saw an interview his did a few weeks (maybe a month) ago saying that it would be a family pet. I seriously doubt he let the dogs he had before near his family.

:rolleyes:

Please...because soon as he was released from prison he was a changed man. Steered clear of those people he hung out with prior to his life changing experience...other than the man shot at his 30th bday party shortly after his release...he is a NEW person. NEVER will go down THAT road again.

But I must me wrong....you saw an interview. An interview... And he speaks the truth...right commissioner...?so it must be true. An interview...you got me. Brilliant source..straight from the dogs mouth.

Please.

Naive much?

You honestly think he's going to do something with the whole country watching and his career is on the line?

Wouldn't put it past an individual who thought he would get away with it the first time given his situation he was in...

The difference now, people are aware of his fetish...

Your avatar is perfect for you. I hope you never have any real authority.

What if he wants to get a Yorkie? Assholes.

I was thinking that same thing, if he does intend to get a dog it had better be the smallest most non-violent type dog in the world and say his kid brought it home or something

One thing I find disturbing is the amount of people who absolutely hate this guy or find so much disdain for him....it sure seems like he gets a tougher rap than some freaking murderers. I mean hell...is anyone debating if Stallworth wants to get another car? I like animals and really don't care much for Vick, but holy crap this guy takes a lot of heat.

In a related story former Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards has told friends he is exploring the possibility of another run for the White House in 2016.

Ditto.

So if someone stole a candy bar, then you better ****ing keep him out of every possible retail store and gasoline station out there, CUZ OMG HE MIGHT DO IT AGAINZ!!!!?!?>!?!?
Stupid ass comparison aside, I am pretty sure with how much that dude lost, he will probably never dogfight again.

SOme people just don't believe in redemption or second chances. He paid his debt to society. He didn't kill a ****ing person...it was dog fighting. Which is barbaric, but it doesn't quite reach the same level.

Some people deserve second chances, and I think Vick is one of those people. He's doing everything right, and I'd bet he did indeed come out of prison a changed man. Give him a break, he's paid his debt and is doing things right.

Is Vick getting a dog that serious? I doubt with all the bullshit and all the millions of dollars he lost he wants any part of dog fighting, but then again their athletes. The ones who make millions of dollars but still decide to drink drive when they could simply hire a driver. Or the ones who know they're in the eye of the public and continue to beat their wives or something stupid. But in all I don't think it's that serious...let the man get a dog, just Vice steer clear of pits. Why would he want a pit anyway...small dog would probably be the best choice.

I think Vick was treated more harshly than the average Joe because of his celebrity, just as Plaxico Burress was. They both served a hell of a lot more jail time than most people would for the exact same offenses.

That being said, it's not a smart move on his part to make a statement about wanting to own a dog again. All he has accomplished is to make everybody talk about dog fighting instead of his remarkable season.

If I were his publicist I'd tell him to shut up about dogs.

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Well we aren't dealing with the SMARTEST man alive here. This is a man that tried to sneak weed on a plane inside a water bottle. LMAO