Mike Vick: I would like to own a dog again someday

[Deberg_1990]

Why Mike?? Why??


http://content.usatoday.com/communit...gain-someday/1



Michael Vick would like to be a dog owner again.

The Philadelphia Eagles QB -- convicted in 2007 of a federal dogfighting crime -- has said he would like to run full circle and again own a dog if the courts will allow him.

Vick was banned from owning a dog as part of the sentence handed down that sent him to prison for 18 months.

"I would love to get another dog in the future," Vick told TheGrio.com. "I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process. I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love, and my passion for animals."

Vick, enjoying one of his best-ever seasons after winning the Eagles' starting job in September, has tried to make amends for his dogfighting past.

He completed his 20-month sentence, which included two months of home confinement, and began working with the Humane Society.

Vick was banned from owning a dog under the terms of his supervised release in July 2009. The supervised release was set to run for three years.

Vick has since apologized for his role in the dogfighting ring and he now informs young people about the evils of the bloodsport.

He told TheGrio.com he was around dogfighting from a young age.

"I hate to use our culture as an excuse, but it is what it is and that's what happened and that's the way I thought about it growing up," Vick said. "This is just the way we were brought up."

Vick has said that prison changed him and made him a smarter and more mature person for having to endure the embarrassment and personal pain of incarceration.

And he made an interesting note about what advice he would give now to himself four years ago.

"That Mike probably wouldn't listen to nothing that I had to say," Vick said.

[KC_Connection]

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

[Donger]

Originally Posted by AndChiefs

Try typing equivalent into Microsoft Word and then clicking on the thesaurus button. You may be surprised.

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by allen_kcCard

Repeat drunk drivers had the chance of being murder, which it the only one close to rape. All of the other things are nothing....money can be made back or returned, vandalism (really...you compare that?) can be cleaned. If they rape someone else, they cannot be un-raped. Sorry if you don't like being on the list, but your argument here is pretty much utterly ****ed up.

The list works for a lot of people and isn't much of a hinderance on them. Some people might find out about them, but that could be just as easily found out in the library going through arrest reports or convictions. Rape crimes are not at all like other crimes, the same as ones where criminals can be put to death, or sentanced to life without parole.

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.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

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

[seamonster]

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.

[vailpass]

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

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

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

Priceless. Stupid Shit Central, can I help you?

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by luv

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?

Really, really, really stupid people, indeed.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Priceless. Stupid Shit Central, can I help you?

You didn't answer.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by vailpass

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

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.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Phobia

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.

[WV]

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

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by Donger

You didn't answer.

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

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by alnorth

If you are free, you should be free.

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.