Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03
I'm really sick and tired of people making this comparison, because it's effing lame. Stallworth was determined to have been negligent and reckless in a one-time incident. He did not have a history of DUI, bad driving, or other reckless behavior. Vick, on the other hand, continued this "operation" for over two years. He didn't just run a dog-fighting ring for a month or two. NO. His "operation" went above and beyond simple dog-fighting. He killed animals who didn't "win," he set up rape racks to allow other dogs to violate each other when it wasn't appropriate, he didn't take care of the animals he had in his ownership.
|
OK - let's make it "Leonard Little" instead. Needless to say, I think this line of reasoning is horrifically flawed.
Also, leaning on "intent" is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion - Stallworth's sentence was unreal light, and is a byproduct of shitty Florida laws mixed with celebrity/wealth. Most states have "instantaneous premeditation" for 1st-degree murder. "Intent" is a VERY loaded word when you kill another person.
I lack the moral compass or authority to determine whether killing a person after repeatedly putting yourself and others at danger via a preventable act (drunken driving) is worse than a pattern of barbarism against animals, but there is certainly some argument that Vick is being maligned MUCH more than those who have killed people or performed acts of barbarism against humans.
Threaded Mode
