I know everyones tired of hearing the Michael Vick Case but hear me out?
Is it not Innocent until proven guilty ? If so then why has the media dam there killed Vick. Nike , Reebok , 2 card companies took away deals and pulled items. It seems the other way around " Guilty until proven innocent " . I dont agree with Dog fighting, but when dogs fight naturally no one has nothing to say about it ? Animal cruelty is up against Vick right now too. But many pet owners spay and nueter their dogs. Animal Cruelty ? Pit bulls have been and are being banned (if you say know, check out what going on in Cali) at this very moment and being put down (sleep) due to this banning yet the governent is passing these laws & when dog fighting happens then its a problem. Sound Hypocritical ? or even a Double Standard. Is there no money put into banning or removing something ?
for those saying theyre not being banned check these out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pit_bulls...
http://www.stoppitbullattacks.com/...
Those are in the US.
Read it then Let me know what you think.
Answers:
first of all, a dog is not electrocuted, drowned or beaten when they are spayed or neutered or put to sleep. of course companies will drop him...think of all the people who WOULD NOT support them or buy their products with him promoting...a lot more than you think. don't they say the first sign of danger in a young child is when they are mean to animals? what happens when an adult intentionally hurts an animal?? even if he isn't gulity...his counterpart just pleaded gulity and said vick was funding the operations. he may not have been the one hurting the dog.but his checkbook sure was helping.
HE IS A LIABILITY! Good riddance!
People ahve a right to spend their money anyway tehy want. If these companies don't want to be associated with Vick for any reason that is their right. Besides vich wasn't that good anyway.
It is innocent until proven guilty, and when the accusations were first made his innocence was assumed. Technically the people should still assume his innocence, but the evidence against him is bad. Two dogs naturally getting into a fight is one thing, and the owners of the animals are responsible. But what has been alleged against Vick is so inhuman and immoral that to stick up for him now is unbelievable.
The dogs were so badly kept that they were killed after every fight. All of the dogs were so mistreated and vicious that they are all being put down. That is NOT an acceptable way to treat life.
No dog is born mean..they are taught to be that way.
Ban bad owners, not the dogs.
Have you ever seen a dog fight? It is a nasty, cruel, horrible thing. These animals are fighting for their lives, fighting to the death. How can you not see that as cruel? Spaying and neutering does not hurt animals and prevents many thousands of unwanted kittens and puppies being born to starvation and cruelty. The animals experience little more than a bit of discomfort.
That guy is supposed to be a sportsman. Sportsmen are supposed to believe in fair play. Dog fights are cruelty for the sake of bloodthirsty, sadistic deviants. If there were no dog fights, perhaps we could breed pit bulls for a pleasant temper and wouldn't have to ban the breed to keep children, old people and animals safe from them.
Media and advertising deals are not part of the law, and publicity is based on impression, not law. The companies fear they will lose money using Vick, as currently he has a "bad" image - which he is not helping by showing indifference to the charges. Regarding dog fighting, two angry dogs put into a pit to fight is not an accident. Neutering and Spaying are long-accepted means of insuring that pet animals are not abused by having no one to take care of them. It does not prevent them from having sex, if the pheromes are available, just from producing offspring. The problem has long been that PEOPLE will not accept their responsibility to protect the rest of the public from their undisciplined animals, not the poor animals, who are not sentient as humans are - and it is absolutely not allowed to break the responsible human's neck when his/her dog bites my child, so, laws have to address the problem, which, as always, is with the humans, not the animals.
The private companies removed endorsements. They did not find him guilty. They did what they did because of appearances, not because of guilt.
At this time, it appears Vick was involved in some way even if that small way was just to condone it on his property - not actually participate. Even if that was his only involvement, the companies saw a negative from that. They did not wish to have their companies associated with any involvement at all.
When & if he is found innocent, they can always meet & confer to try to sign him up again at which time it would be Vick's decision.
And it is true that natural dog fights are not an issue. They are not an issue because it is natural. But, come on, you know darn well that is NOT what this case is all about. It is an invalid issue completely. The issue here has nothing to do with natural animal fighting. The dogs involved are trained to be vicous & to fight until the death. The dogs are put into pits so they cannot escape but are forced to fight - not at all like a fight in the wilds where a weaker animal can run away to escape. You hurt your argument to even try to equate the two.
As for your sources, there is a reason most colleges do not accept wikipedia as a valid research source. But I do know there are a many areas working to outlaw pitbull ownership which is a pity since they can be a very loving & gentle animal when raised properly. They are not inherently vicious. They are vicious when trained to be vicious. I have several friends who have or had pit bulls & everyone of the dogs was no more vicious than a toy poodle.
Vick appears to have been in the wrong or negligent. HE either knew about what was happening on his proeperty & did nothing to stop it OR he was negligent for not keeping track of what was happening on his property. A jury will decide which.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: