Do you like this story?
Sick Vick wants dogs again, ‘more than anything’
By Gina Spadafori
December 2, 2009
I’m sure other busted sociopaths miss the opportunity to torture their victims of choice, too. From LAT Unleashed:
Vick told the assembled school-age children that he hopes to one day own another dog — he’s currently legally prohibited from doing so — but that whether he’ll be able to is “up to my judge at his discretion.”
Interestingly, Vick declined an offer by BAD RAP, the Oakland-based rescue group that has worked to rehabilitate 10 of the dogs seized from his Bad Newz Kennels, to see the dogs when his team, the Philadelphia Eagles, played the Oakland Raiders in October.
Let us hope the judge’s discretion is better than that of the money-grubbers at the NFL or the HSUS.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Unfortunately, the liberal judges in CA will let him own another dog. It’s like saying you can foster children even those you’ve murdered a few of them. Let’s hope he will never get a dog again!
Comment by ChrisLWagner — December 2, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I have no words, seriously. In the first place, I would never let a child of mine attend a “talk” by that man.
Secondly…if that man ever owns an animal here again I swear I’m moving to Sweden with Heather H.
OK, apparently I did have words. As I said in my tweet on this: Yeah, and Susan Smith would love to have more children.
Comment by Original Lori — December 2, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
This guy just makes me want to throw up. On him.
Comment by mountain kimmie — December 2, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Yeah Lori, I’m with you. If I had kids and heard that scum was going to be anywhere near my kids’s school I’d keep them home that day and send a letter of protest to the school.
Comment by mountain kimmie — December 2, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Felons can’t carry guns.
And the right to bear arms is in the constitution.
There is no right to own a dog.
So why should Michael Vick be allowed to own another one?
Comment by retrieverman — December 2, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Why does he even want one? I’ve been struck by the lack of emotional depth in his statements throughout all this, and I can’t recall an instance of his mentioning any especial fondness for any animal. So, I have to wonder if there’s any there in this statement at all.
Comment by Eucritta — December 2, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Because pit bulls make you look tough.
I’m feeling sick. Again.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 2, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Well, Eucritta, he doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been researched and tested by his P.R. people. I’m sure they have a reason for putting it on his approved verbiage list.
Comment by Original Lori — December 2, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
The Bureau of Justice Statistics says about 68% of felons re-offend. When I left the District Attorney’s office, I went back and did a review of every convict I ever prosecuted to conviction. The recidivism rate among those I prosecuted was closer to 80%. And both of these hinge on their getting caught, so the percentage is likely to be higher. Vick wants dogs for the same reason he went to prison.
When Wayne Pacelle heard the statement from Vick, I bet you could hear the cringe, even if the quaffed hair and plastic smile did not budge an inch.
Comment by Nathan Winograd — December 2, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
This makes me sick…I wish someone would tie him up and put him into a fighting ring that he can not escape with a pack of Pitts and let them have at him. Give him a taste of his own medicine. I refuse to watch the NFL, I selling pet clothing and we have Jersey’s for the NFL and I refuse to sell the Eagles Jerseys….. I can not stand that scum. (He is not even enough to refer to him as a man).
Comment by Sunshine Stokes — December 2, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Feel like throwing up x3. Now he’s using schoolkids to try to rehab his image - its no wonder our schools are in trouble if this is the kind of judgment they use. He wants the chance to have a dog again? Yeah, wife beaters say they’ll never do it again too….
Comment by Di — December 2, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Chester the Molester just wants his teaching certificate back, too.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 2, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
1.Unfortunately, the liberal judges in CA will let him own another dog. It’s like saying you can foster children even those you’ve murdered a few of them. Let’s hope he will never get a dog again!
Comment by ChrisLWagner — December 2, 2009
Um, Chris? The “liberal” judges in California have no bearing on this issue. Vick was convicted on VA state and federal offenses.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 2, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
If Vick was capable of having any kind of feelings for dogs, he would have gone to visit the ones that were rescued from him.
Comment by C.L.H. — December 2, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Dogs are property and there is a right to own property, but of course there is no absolute right to own ALL kinds of property, and laws/juries/judges limit ownership all the time. Vick will never own another dog. But he will never understand why, either. Thanks again, Wayne, for your moral-free choices.
Comment by EmilyS — December 2, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Sick Vick wants to improve his image.
If I could, I would forbid him to own a dog, not EVER!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — December 2, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
No, no, no, and again, no.
Comment by Glenye Oakford — December 2, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
If there’s any publicity on any application by Vick for removal of the “no dogs” condition, is it possible to make something like a victim impact statement setting out why he should never be allowed to own another dog?
Comment by Social Mange — December 2, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Vic should not own a dog ever. But if by some quirk of injustice, he does then best it be one trained in self-protection and is taught to run away from sick Vic.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 3, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Why is it that $$$ buy behavior that is intolerable for the rest of us who don’t own high-power defense teams (like O.J.) or who have some sense of common decency and moral values???? How can the rest of us who get up in the morning & look in the mirror tolerate these “sub-human dirt-balls ” who do not value anything but themselves ????
SICKO SICKO SICKO
Comment by eloise — December 3, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
oh you think that’s sick. How about HSUS implying they are helping fightbust dogs:
http://btoellner.typepad.com/k.....thers.html
Has HSUS given one dime to the care of Faye, the dog they’re highlighting? To her actual food and medical bills? Inquiring minds want to know (but are pretty sure about the answer)
Comment by EmilyS — December 3, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
The HSUS hasn’t a clue what to do to help pit bulls. But raising money on dogs they don’t have is more than clueless — it’s shameless.
They more than deserve to be exposed for this fund-raising campaign — they deserve to be sued for the money they raise by groups that do more than talk about saving dogs the HSUS had long believed are better off “saved” to be killed. Of course, their fund-raising letter is careful to be worded in ways to prevent that, referring to the featured dog as an example, and mentioning at the end the other “good works” the donations will cover.
It’s still sleazy as hell.
It’s clear Michael Vick learned nothing from his arrest. It’s also clear the HSUS DID learn something: That there is money to be raised from trotting out these dogs — or rather by suggesting that they are able to trot out dogs they don’t have in their possession.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 3, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
HSUS thinks their role in “helping” pit bulls stops when they arrest dogfighters… or people who are subsequently acquitted of dogfighting charges like old Floyd Boudreaux. That’s why, until their public humiliation over the dead puppies in the NC case led to their agreement on a new policy, they advocating killing the victims (dogs) themselves. They don’t really care about dogs at all, and certainly not pit bulls and certainly not the dogs of people who were acquitted of dogfighting charges.. all that mattered is that the dogs were killed. They have always raised money on the backs of dead pit bulls… at the same time proclaiming their role in “rescuing” the dogs.
Comment by EmilyS — December 3, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I am rather sad that HSUS has chosen to use Fay (not Faye)in their fund drive. Fay has never received a dime from HSUS. How do I know? Because I am the one that is fostering Fay. Fay is currently going through expensive surgeries to recreate medically need lips so her teeth do not fall out, her jaw bone stops deterioating, and she can live a normal life. HSUS never contacted us regarding Fay. In the video John states she is in a loving home…really…thanks for the compliment but Fay is LOOKING for her forever home.
If you really want to help Fay, please go to our website, http://www.muttsandstuff.com and click on the donate now button. If you want to help the other 35 dogs we took with their own health issues….please donate. We are a small group that can use the help.
Comment by Gale — December 3, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
On December 3, 2009 @ 8:51 p.m., EmilyS began her comment. “HSUS thinks their role in “helping” pit bulls stops when they arrest dogfighters…” (With all due respect to you Emily - I can tell you care passionately about these dogs) - it is imperative that the public understand that HSUS has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER TO ARREST anyone. The fact that this misperception is creeping into the American subconscious - the absolute myth that HSUS operates under “color of law” - is not by accident. HSUS’s so-called “Animal Rescue Teams” carry badges that look nearly identical to true law enforcement. You, the American public, need to know your rights regarding HSUS, trespass and illegal search-and-seizure (not to mention chain-of-custody laws.) The American public, true law enforcement agencies, and District Attorney offices nationwide should read Erica Saunder’s excellent investigation, “Has the HSUS CEO Paved The Way for HSUS Legal Liability?” http://ar-hr.com/2009/10/29/paving-the-way/. This blog shows Scotlund Haisley - HSUS “Senior Director For Emergency Services” operating under what sure looks like “color of law” - he’s kicking in a door - his own Facebook photo. Be sure to listen to the radio link mentioned early in Erica’s blog, of former HSUS employees who resigned over this issue.
Comment by Tina Perriguey — December 4, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
More than anything I want Vick to be chained in a circle and forced to fight to the death, over and over, with his wounds untended and no loving kindness to touch him, forever.
For that is what he gave too many living creatures and all that he deserves.
Take your PR game and shove it, sideways, Vick, you, and the NFL you rode in on, are as dead as your dogs to me.
Comment by diedmarch172007 — December 5, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
thanks for that note Tina: private entities are given certain police powers (as the ASPCA does in NYC); so while HSUS may not technically be the arresting authorities, they certainly ACT like it and talk as if they are responsible for the arrests. I agree that this is a HUGE problem. BlueDogState blogs often on this subject
Comment by EmilyS — December 5, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Personally, I LOVE this! I think it’s GREAT that Michael Vick wants to own dogs again! Why? Because it gives HSUS exactly what they deserve: a black eye worth $203 million (or whatever the heck their budget is)!
These are the folks that 1) claim to protect animals and, despite raising an insane amount of funds to “save” Vicks dogs, flip-flopped and wanted to destroy them all instead; 2) they refuse to make Vick man up and go visit his own rehabbed dogs and show there is hope in this world for abused animals; 3) prove Vick ain’t rehabbed at all because now he wants dogs again.
If we can’t make hay out of this trifecta of bull puckey and show H$U$ for what they truly are, there’s somethin’ wrong with the cosmos.
Plus, how much of those millions they raised did HSUS fork over to “save” the dogs? That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Comment by Barbara Haines — December 6, 2009 @ 7:44 am
HSUS often gets called out on things they do that many believe they shouldn’t do with regard to fundraising (and rightfully so), but EVERYBODY needs to stop exploiting these dogs for money and media attention. These dogs have been exploited enough for one lifetime!
What is the real reason behind inviting Vick to meet the dogs? If the motives were righteous, then I would assume that all of Vick’s partners in crime were also asked to come meet the dog fight victims they were responsible for? Or was just Vick himself invited since he’s the only one who is a big publicity and donation draw? And have all the other convicted pit fighters from other cases been invited to meet their victims, or would that somehow not have been considered important for the non-famous abusers who don’t have the potential to make national news?
Think about it. If Vick says yes, it’s a big story. If he says no, it’s a big story. Win-win for anyone still making money off the backs of these abuse victims from a case in 2007.
And why on earth would Vick be invited to meet dogs when those inviting him know it is illegal for him to be in the presence of dogs and know that he would have to view the dogs from behind a window and at a legally prescribed distance and couldn’t even be in the same room as the dogs, couldn’t even touch them?
Since this is presumably about the canine victims, the question should also be asked: What good would come from dogs that are abuse victims seeing those individuals who subjected them to abuse?
What Vick did is no doubt despicable and unfathomable to most, but his job being that of a football player doesn’t make him any better or any worse than the multitude of other convicted dog fighters who pit dogs and/or kill them in horrific ways afterwards.
Comment by Robin — December 24, 2009 @ 1:38 pm