Quote:
Originally Posted by LSC9901 It may be a dogs, or any animals nature, to fight for dominance but in what situation ? When being confronted by another threat or just for fun ? These animals were forced to fight or be killed. Slight difference there. OJ got off on technicalities more than the lack of guilt. In such cases there needs to be only "reasonable doubt", not innocence. If the justice system deems that 23 months is the time for the crime, then just what part of that is unfair ? After all he is guilty and was convicted by his peers. No one forced him to abuse those animals and I'm pretty confident that the animals would have chosen a nice comfy loving home versus where they ended up had they had a choice. |
1st point: Of course i see your point but they made a huge example of him which was wrong, 1st offense in most states are only 60 days. Im not condoning that dogfighting or any other cruelty to animals is right but it is a slight bit outrageous don't you think? Most people are treating there pets better than most kids, if parents beat there kids they refer to it as discipline. Have you watched any of the shows on animal planet? They will try to take you to jail if a water pale is turned over by the pet and they assume you haven't given the thing water in ages, people are beginning to get obsessed with these things.
2nd point: ( Everyone in America is possessed with greed)Someone just last year tried to sue me because my jack russell bit him i had a sign up saying beware of dog and i even told the man he would bite but the man walked right up and tried to pet him the dog bit him and his hand began to bleed(no reason to lie i laughed at the idiot) he took me to court and explained the situation it was decided in my favor. The government pulled as much money as they could from vick.
Are views may contrast but i am not trying to offend anyone and sometimes its kind of fun to have a friendly debate with someone whos point isnt just "your wrong and thats it"