Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
I understand what you're saying, as far as an emotional response to what he did; at the end of the day, he's done his time and should be allowed to move on with his life, like anyone else.
But even looking at it from an unemotional, logical point of view, his financing of the dog fights was a big part of what allowed it to happen, at least on that large scale. Allowing the dog fights to happen is "actually harming" the dogs (unless you know of some types of dog fights where no dogs are harmed). I think it's hard to minimize his culpability in this.
|
I don't think anyone is minimizing his culpability (in the sense that he was the 'proximate cause' of the dogfighting and subsequent injuries) - there is no doubt that he has blood on his hands from each dog that died or was injured.
However, while the actual dogfighting is barbaric in and of itself, you can certainly question his involvement in the barbarism that went above and beyond what was 'required' of dogfighting ipso facto. Basically you need to think more like a juror and less like an attorney, is what I'm saying - that whole "'Responsible' means different things" issue.
Threaded Mode
