| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] |
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name:
They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by Ophelia
I get all of this.
I guess it's just the general idea. most people don't know (or care) about anything you pointed out (doesn't make it any less relevant....it's just most people don't have a need to know this stuff, you know)
so someone like my husband...who is relatively smart  and educated, can use what he sees as an everyday person to deduce that we as a people punish animal abusers more harshly than we do spousal abusers.
I guess that is my point. the general sentiment that is conveys...more than the legal/technical stuff that people "in the know" know, you know? 
what you take from this is :Michael Vick abuses animals and is involved in dog fighting and does hard time.
Chris Brown beats, chokes, and threatens his girl friends life and will have to remove graffitti from the walls of Va. when he's not on tour, making movies, promoting an album, or otherwise living a fabu life.
and people got mad that Vick was allowed to play football once he was finished?????? up in arms about that, after he had SERVED.
Brown has his "service" revolve around HIS schedule.
it's a scary message, IMO, to put out there.
I'm just explaining my rationale for choosing the option "or are the two somehow different enough that they cannot be compared?" from your OP. Whether other people don't know that or don't care about that didn't factor into MY rationale for my choice.
And I still say may people take away more from this. The vast majority of my friends are non-lawyers and they all recognize from reading the news that Michael Vick was facing some very serious federal charges related to organized crime that are just not present in the Chris Brown case -- and it was THOSE charges that led to the deal he took and the sentence he received.
As for this being a scary message to put out there -- no one entity put this "message" out there. I'd also venture to say it's more of an interpretation of two unrelated events over a message, though. Our courts don't collude together and weight the facts of one person's case against the facts of a completely and totally unrelated case -- with good reason.
I agree with those who say that the penalties for domestic violence aren't harsh enough (and that the penalties for animal abuse aren't harsh enough either)... but Vick's case wasn't really all about the dogs as the media portrayed it.
Message edited 8/27/2009 2:18:00 PM.
|
Posted 8/27/09 2:17 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
MeNBobs
*****
Member since 4/07 3765 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
This topic is misleading. The Brown Vs Vick really got me excited.
I thought those two were going to wrestle until death then pitbulls would be released to eat the loser and possibly the winner if he was not fast enough.
The sentence that Brown received was laughable. How wonderful for the court system to accommodate his work schedule while I can hardly get my job to accommodate a doctor's appointment.
Hopefully the backlash against Brown will be so big that he won't have any work to work around. I will never buy anything that will help further his career, never watch a show or movie he is in and if I hear his song on a radio station they will get an email from me. If enough people do this the only time we will ever have to see his face again is on a show on VH-1 in 2045 called "Whatever happened to...."
|
| Posted 8/27/09 2:20 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by Kara
As for this being a scary message to put out there -- no one entity put this "message" out there. I'd also venture to say it's more of an interpretation of two unrelated events over a message, though. Our courts don't collude together and weight the facts of one person's case against the facts of a completely and totally unrelated case -- with good reason.
this is not what I meant to imply in any way, shape or form. I just wanted to put that out there. I am not thinking about it as a "legal" person but as a layperson.
you are exactly right. its the interpretation by the general public that I think is scary. perhaps that would have been better to say than "message".
our courts sometimes can't even work together...let alone collude
|
| Posted 8/27/09 2:39 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by MeNBobs
Hopefully the backlash against Brown will be so big that he won't have any work to work around. I will never buy anything that will help further his career, never watch a show or movie he is in and if I hear his song on a radio station they will get an email from me. If enough people do this the only time we will ever have to see his face again is on a show on VH-1 in 2045 called "Whatever happened to...."
I hear you and agree with you!
But don't you know, he's a changed man! Show Chris some love!
I just don't get that song- why was it even written?
|
| Posted 8/27/09 2:59 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
I don't think you can compare the two.
My feeling is that a person that tortures animals is no better than the man beating up his girlfriend...and the torturer of animals is a few steps away from disregarding human life. A man beating up his girlfriend (while not an excuse) could be based on emotion, whereas torturing animals is a calculated move.
As for their punishments, as Kara already stated, there were different charges involved, therefore different consequences. I don't think you can say it is a representative of valuing a dog's life over a humans.
I realize I'm rambling, but I definitely value human life over an animals any day.
|
| Posted 8/27/09 3:09 PM |
| |
|
MAC222
LIF Adult
Member since 12/08 3860 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Michael Vick did not just run a dog fighting ring, and abuse animals.
He murdered them. He drowned them, shot them with guns at point blank range, hung them with nooses from trees, electrocuted them and buried the bodies.
It is so far beyond just being called violent, it is psychotic. There were over 64 dogs recovered, and something like 15-20 bodies found.
I don't know why I look at the Chris Brown situation so differently...Rihanna stayed with him after he did it, and that didn't help me feel differently...either way, NEITHER sentence is fair, and celebs get away with way more than your average joe...but that's life...
Message edited 8/27/2009 3:17:48 PM.
|
| Posted 8/27/09 3:13 PM |
| |
|
MrsA714
Baby #2 is here!
Member since 8/07 8806 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
I see the point you're trying to make here, but as some previous posters mentioned I really think it's hard to compare the two. Personally speaking, I think they are both horrible people and they both committed heinous crimes.
Do I think it makes any sense that someone who beat up his girlfriend would not have to serve any jail time as opposed to someone who ran a dog fighting ring? No. But I also don't think it's fair that Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan, and so on are only required to serve a 10-15 minute sentence due to 'overcrowding' when some of the crimes they were convicted of could have had dire consequences (drunk driving, etc). Call me crazy but I have the feeling had it been me, I would have ended up serving a little more than a 1/2 hour in a jail cell. Or what about rapists and murderers who go free after several years for good behavior  ? That doesn't seem just either.
Someone mentioned that celebrities are treated differently and they're right. They are either treated too leniently or they are made an example out of. Call it politics, call it what you want, but it's a huge problem if you ask me and it really makes me question our legal system at times. The way 'we' pick and choose who we are going to make an example out of is just ridiculous. You do the crime, you should do the time (no matter what your celebrity status is).
|
| Posted 8/27/09 3:15 PM |
| |
|
HoneyBadger
YourWorstNightmare.
Member since 10/06 15979 total posts
Name:
BahBahBlackJeep
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
I think the law made an example of Michael Vick which is why he was sentenced to as much jail time as he was. If you look into it, his cohorts didn't even receive as stiff of sentences.
Why they chose him and that crime vs. other athletes and crimes they've committed (ie. murder) I don't know.
Do I think we as a society put more value on one crime over the another? Yes but I think it has more to do with what's happening at the moment in the media and how much media attention it gets and thus public outcry.
I think had the outpouring of sympathy and outrage been as profound as it was during the MV case, Chris Brown would have received a stiffer sentence.
So in conclusion, I think it has more to do with what people are "lobbying for" at the time than the actual crime. KIWM?
I hope that made sense...
|
| Posted 8/27/09 4:24 PM |
| |
|
pinkandblue
Our family is complete, maybe
Member since 9/05 32436 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
I think in general that animal abusers are usually given a slap on the wrist so I am THRILLED that Vick got the punishment he did
that is not to say that Chris Brown did not get off light
|
| Posted 8/27/09 6:43 PM |
| |
|
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by eroxgirl
Interesting question.
I think Chris Brown is worse. Not to get the animal lovers up in arms, but people - human beings - should always come first, which makes Chris Brown's crime the bigger offense.
By the same token, how can we blame Michael Vick for his cruelty to animals when the Chris Browns of the world treat people the way they do? If you can't treat the woman you love with basic decency how in the he l l can you expect someone to treat an animal properly.
i have to agree with this. as much as i am an animal lover, i think what Chris Brown did was worse.
|
| Posted 8/27/09 8:02 PM |
| |
|
DiamondGirl
You are my I love you
Member since 7/09 18802 total posts
Name:
DiamondMama
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Very interesting.
I have not thought of it in this way.
I think that people see the animals as harmless, where as they feel that as a person Rhianna may have played a part.
It is sickening to think that a man who abuses an animal gets time and a man who abuses a woman does not 
I believe that CB should have to do some time.
What he did was truly awful, closed fist punching repeatly?
He could have caused brain damage for goddsake 
|
| Posted 8/27/09 9:25 PM |
| |
|
lovemy2boys
LIF Adult
Member since 10/07 3915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by MrsList
Posted by glinda-goodwitch
While an animal can cause more damage with its teeth, I still feel like animals are more defenseless than humans. You can repeatedly abuse an animal and they have no recourse. At least a person can choose to go to the police, file charges, and leave on their own will (unless kept hostage, which is not the case with most domestic abuse). BOTH forms of abuse are horrible and I'm sure it is so hard for a woman to leave this type of situation. But in most causes she has the ability to leave and fight back. An animal doesn't.
Very well said and exactly what I was thinking.
ITA
|
| Posted 8/27/09 11:00 PM |
| |
|
J9-13
We're gonna be big sisters!
Member since 6/06 14887 total posts
Name:
J9
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by glinda-goodwitch
While an animal can cause more damage with its teeth, I still feel like animals are more defenseless than humans. You can repeatedly abuse an animal and they have no recourse. At least a person can choose to go to the police, file charges, and leave on their own will (unless kept hostage, which is not the case with most domestic abuse). BOTH forms of abuse are horrible and I'm sure it is so hard for a woman to leave this type of situation. But in most causes she has the ability to leave and fight back. An animal doesn't.
I agree 100% Beth
|
| Posted 8/28/09 9:55 AM |
| |
|
shiv
Twinsanity!!
Member since 5/07 4747 total posts
Name:
Shiv
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
They are both horrible people. I agree that Chris Brown should have gotten a harsher sentence. However, I think he didn't because it was a first time offense and he plead guilty.
Vick's sentence was more because it was continuous abuse of animals, not a one time thing.
|
| Posted 8/28/09 10:18 AM |
| |
|
greenfreak
.
Member since 9/06 11483 total posts
Name:
greenfreak
|
Re: Chris Brown vs. Michael Vick...which is the lesser evil?
Posted by MAC222
Michael Vick did not just run a dog fighting ring, and abuse animals.
He murdered them. He drowned them, shot them with guns at point blank range, hung them with nooses from trees, electrocuted them and buried the bodies.
It is so far beyond just being called violent, it is psychotic. There were over 64 dogs recovered, and something like 15-20 bodies found.
I don't know why I look at the Chris Brown situation so differently...Rihanna stayed with him after he did it, and that didn't help me feel differently...either way, NEITHER sentence is fair, and celebs get away with way more than your average joe...but that's life...
Thank you, I kept reading that he abused them and wondered when someone would bring up that they murdered the underperformers and losers of the fights too.
Consider that one pit bull, Ginger, a female, showed up at DogTown, a no-kill shelter. When they examined her, they found she had no teeth. None, at all. They tested her for disease.
You know why she didn't have teeth? Because after she was done in the ring, she was such a good fighter that they decided to breed her. But what happens when a championship fighting dog gets mounted by another? She's gonna kill them, probably, right?
So they REMOVED ALL OF HER TEETH. SURGICALLY. Which means some kind of veterinary professional was in on all of this.
Then they strapped her to a RAPE RACK and ran a parade of other champion male dogs to increase their chances.
These kinds of things went on constantly, for years and years. His friends were involved, professionals, they painted their buildings black and blacked out the windows so helicopters couldn't see the fights going on at night.
This was so much more than a case of abuse.
Dogs don't have a voice, so we have to speak for them. They need advocates. Battered persons do too, but they can explain, they can defend, they can act.
I am glad Vick got as stiff a penalty as he did, and even more glad that so much light has been shed on these situations. And even happier that very few of the dogs left at his compound were euthanized. A very very smart law official gave them a chance to be rehabilitated. A majority of them are now placed in their forever homes, away from the horror of their previous lives.
As far as Chris Brown goes, he's a disgusting excuse for a human being also. I don't think he got enough for what he did, and it shouldn't matter how willing or unwilling the victim was in the proceedings. The punishment should not only encompass what he DID but ensure that even if he's not regretful of his actions, he will be regretful of future punishments if he should try it again.
I don't think he's learned his lesson, there haven't been many real repercussions. I think it's a travesty and sending a terrible message.
|
| Posted 8/28/09 11:37 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] |
