Cats, however, are another story...

 Reply

That's still 4 grand less than Princess Lady.

 Reply

You guys all make good points.

I didn't read the Leonard Little paragraph with a very open mind. To be honest, I was so put off by the author's insensitive treatment of the two girls who watched their dog get run over, that I unfairly dismissed the author's point of view.

As crazyjoe said, humans>dogs, but that doesn't mean there can't be a very real and healthy bond between a person and his/her pet.

I saw my dog get run over, and even though she survived, it was upsetting as hell.

 Reply

Perspective says Leonard Little was suspended eight games for killing a human, so killing animals should not warrant more than eight games.

That's oversimplifying it a little bit. Despite Little's terrible acts, he didn't set out to kill anyone, he set out to drink and drive. A stupid act that ended tragically, but there was no malicious intentions during his crime.

Michael Vick was actively brutal, inhumane and savage. No one can argue that Vick's intentions were less heinous than Little's.

You can't judge the two fairly without putting intention into the mix.

 Reply

@Her?: by that oversimplification logic Rae Carruth should have the same punishment as Little because in the end an innocent person is dead.

Punishing Vick more than Little is not a declaration of the value of human life vs animal life. You start a punishment based on the intentions and original action, and adjust the severity of the punishment based upon the results of those actions.

 Reply

And if it doesn't matter, reckless indifference would be as severe as premeditated.

 Reply

a way to satisfy malice aforethought is reckless indifference. In layman's terms, if you are so reckless as to not to give a fuck about what you are doing, we treat you as if you intended every consequence.

 Reply

@Her?: Everything you do is putting people's lives at risk. Talking on a cell phone while driving does the same thing. Should someone who causes a fatal crash because they are on a cell phone be judged as harshly as Little should be? I would say no.

The result of the action always has to be put into context of the action itself. Dogfighting is especially heinous because it shows a willingness to inflict pain onto an innocent animal. Little certainly should have received a harsher punishment, but that's a completely separate issue than what Vick deserves. You can't judge an act of negligence and carelessness side-by-side with and act of cruelty and torture. It's apples and oranges.

 Reply

Mainly because it can be made either way. It's like the hall of fame argument where you compare whether Player A should get in because Player B did and has worse stats or whatever. Does that mean Player A shouldn't get in, or Player B shouldn't have gotten in in the first place.

In this case I think Vick got treated fairly and Little lightly. To say Vick got treated too harshly because Little wasn't treated harsh enough is an awful argument, in my eyes.

 Reply

Common law murder is defined as the:

1. unlawful

2. killing

3. of another human being

4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".

The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":

(i) Intent to kill;

(ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm short of death;

(iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"); or

(iv) Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).

Not trying to be difficult, but you are arguing based off of a wrong assumption.

 Reply

When I was originally arguing the point was that intent matters when comparing two crimes. You correctly pointed out that gross negligence can be treated as intent, and that Little demonstrated gross negligence. I agreed, with the caveat that the people doing the judging are still human and prone to judging intent more severely than gross negligence despite what's in the law books.

So that was a long winded way of saying: I pretty much agree with you, and understand your expertise. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 Reply

I did not understand that you are talking solely from a lay person's perspective and only limiting this to the court of public opinion. Under those circumstances, I agree, people probably weigh specific intent greater than reckless indifference.

For the trier of fact (judge or jury)m they either understand reckless indifference or receive instruction regarding the concept.

Again, sorry if I came off as an ass, I just like people to use legal terms correctly, and intent is a BIG legal term, as you know.

 Reply

I mean testing positives for steroids 3 times is a lifetime ban... and I don't think anyone can argue that it's worse than either Vick or Little's actions. Which is why each situation needs to be judged individually, and not based on the merits of dissimilar cases.

 Reply

@Her?:

You are essentially arguing that it doesn't matter WHAT you kill, what matters is if you intended to kill it.

no I'm arguing that yes it matters what you kill, but it also matters how you killed it, and why you killed it.

 Reply