Blogging About Critters Since 2007

Friday, July 20, 2007

Vick Case Legal Analysis

Animalblawg has an excellent run-down of the legal implications of the case. They also have information about Virginia state law (and I understand there may be indictments by the State of Virginia in this case as well.

It makes for an interesting read. It's not just dog fighting. It's about a criminal conspiracy.

Pet-abuse.com is also an excellent resource on this. They follow court cases, and do a great job documenting cases like this (and all those cases that don't involve sports celebrites).

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm tired of commenting too much about this. I just hope 1 day all of you who have already convicted Vick get charged with a crime and are denied your due process as well, maybe it will open your eyes as to why the system is supposed to assume your innocence, but who cares about that, lets shot first and ask questions later, right? You are no better than the people you want to convict with that attitude. Is not wanting to circumvent due process breaking the law? Doesn't that make you a bunch of hypocrites? Of course it does, but you can't face the truth about yourself, can you? You are no better than Vick, and IMO, worse. You want to destroy a HUMAN life for that of a pet, which the groups that supposedly protect them are euthanizing at an 85% rate. Where is your outrage at PETA? They are terrorist, for goodness sake, and kill almost all animals given into their care, but thats okay, right?

Alan said...

You are confusing due process (an inherently legal definition that only refers to the legal process) with public opinion. Vick has not been denied due process. He is just starting his legal journey and, to this point, has been given all the legal rights he is due. On the other hand, public opinion is based solely on the individual's -- your's, mine, other's -- personal determination of right and wrong. Public opinion can be wrong. More often than not it is right. It has to be. The vast majority of actions we take in a day's time are based on our opinions not legal determinations. For example, your child gets into a fight at school and you visit the Principal. You listen to the facts and make an internal decision whether to back the Principal's decision or to disagree and defend your child. There was no DNA taken, no fingerprints, nothing of legal sufficiency. You do NOT have to have legally sufficient, incontrovertible evidence to make a public opinion. Our society cannot function if every decision has to meet legal sufficiency. My decision about Vick is based on the facts presented in the indictment. My opinion is that he was, at the very least, knowledgeable of dog fighting and did not take actions to stop it. More likely, he was a full-time financier and part-time participant. Either way, I am fully able to form my OPINION and act upon it. I am willing to use my power as a consumer to back my opinion with action by telling Nike, or whomever, that I do not want to buy products associated with Mike Vick. Non-celebrities get FIRED from their jobs daily for far, far less and without a day in court. Mike Vike is actually being treated more fairly by his employers than most people are in theirs.