Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Stallworth did get into his car saying I'm going drinking, then said I'm not giving my keys to anyone, which set up his poor judgement. So he fully intended on driving home whether he intended to kill a human or not. If I got out an shoot a dog and then its owner but they can only bring me up on one charge, it should be the human. Stallworth killed a human, Vick killed dogs....I think the human's life means more.
|
Nobody is saying it wasn't poor judgment. But it was also poor judgment for Mr. Reyes to run out into the street in front of Stallworths car too.
I really don't get your analogy. Your making extreme "what if's" to argue Stallworth vs Vick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzus
Vick never killed dogs himself. He was charged of bankrolling the operation that contributed to it.... So it's not accidental but it's not personally premeditated... It's premeditated for someone else to do it..... Kinda like it's premeditated for us to send someone else out to kill the cow for us, did we kill it ourselves? I think killing a person is worse than killing a dog regardless of intent. It's my personal opinion I could give a rat's a** about the legal interpretation of it.
|
He absolutely did kill dogs. Did you watch him on 60 Minutes? He said he he did. There's legal documentation of him telling authorities he drowned and electrocuted dogs.
These analogies are killing me. Stop making extreme examples in some ridiculous effort to make one reality worse than another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
I haven't ever wanted to debate legal interpretation because what they think the greater good for the greatest amount of people means "Whoever whines the most influences my opinion". In the real world, not the legal world, killing a human is worse than killing a dog.
|
No ****, Matlock. But this isn't so simple to say "humans vs dogs....humans win." Which is why this whole Vick vs Stallworth debate is ****ing stupid to begin with.