Thu 19 Jul 2007
I can’t believe that anyone would stand up for Mr. Michael Vick, or dogfighting. While I understand that ALL are innocent before the law, and Mr. Vick has not convicted of anything; yet I cannot believe that he has no culpability in this situation, and that if the charges as made are correct he deserves to be punished harshly. I’ve already commented on this once.
Yet it seems that at least Ms. Sandra Rose will take the opposite position to mine. It seems that Ms. Rose thinks that the charges against Mr. Vick are related to his stature as an athlete, his salary, and his race. Ms. Rose even nullifies the cause of the indictment, dogfighting, stating that
Let me take a stab at answering the question she has posed. Perhaps bestiality has not been rampant in Virginia, thus requiring no law. Perhaps the good people of Virginia have no need for a law of this nature as it does not occur. Perhaps if this is a major concern, a law covering this can be made. I honestly can say that I have never wondered if my state, or any, has laws against bestiality as I would hope that it is not something that is occurring. [Let me correct this a bit. I understand, but have not confirmed, that bestiality is a felony in Virginia. Enough said to that.]
That said, cruelty to animals, particularly dogfighting is against the law. The public has agreed that this is not
“… something dogs do naturally anywayâ€
The breed of Pit Bulls was created just for the ability to fight. They are tortured in their training, killed (and in this case viciously with the intent of inflicting pain) for lack of performance, and in general abused. That is not natural. Arranged fights and provoking trained animals to fight is not natural. Anyone who lacks the compassion to treat a pet kindly, to kill without mercy, to inflict pain for greed (there is massive betting in this genre – and Mr. Vick has been accused of betting upwards of $40,000 on various dogs) and pleasure is a dangerous person that might do the same to a human being. It’s not a far stretch.
Beyond that, this is not a Black thing. Like many African Americans I am aware of bias in the law. I have encountered situations where the law, or officers enforcing it, has been abused or ignored to my detriment. I like many have lived with the various forms of racism that occurs in this nation. This isn’t one of them.
It can be argued that the media is unbalanced in discussing African Americans, with or without fame and money, that they shine a spotlight at. Guilty or not bias exists. I’ve discussed it often on several cases including Jessie Davis and the Duke Rape case”.
This is not that. The government did not make Mr. Vick run, or allow to be run, dogfighting on his property. The Feds did not incite Mr. Vick to allegedly bet on the outcome of fights. The local, state, or federal law officials did not promote the drowning, electrocution or other tortures inflicted on these dogs – some of which Mr. Vick has been accused of doing. This is not a witch-hunt.
Would this have gotten the same media attention if this were a White male that was poor? No. Would the same charges exist? Yes. Would there still be an indictment based on the same accusations? Definitely. Is it still a display of a lack of humanity and compassion? In my opinion, yes.
I disagree with Ms. Rose, respectfully. Mr. Vick is culpable at the least. Dogfighting is reprehensible. Comparing one abuse of animals to another is, in my view, silly. To claim racism in an issue that does not involve it weakens the justifiable arguments where it does apply.
I will say it again, as a Black Puerto Rican man of nearly 40, I am familiar with racism. This isn’t that. The fact that Mr. Vick is Black, rich and famous make this a big media brouhaha, but still valid. No amount of wishing, nor accusations of prejudice change that
