PDA

View Full Version : The man is innocent...


redrat11
07-29-2007, 02:17 PM
I'm sorry, but Mike Vick of the Atlanta Falcons has committed NO CRIME! actually, I'M not sorry!

redrat11
07-29-2007, 02:28 PM
dog fighting is not a crime...only a bad decision...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2007-07-28-2225748160_x.htm

BlueAngel
07-29-2007, 02:38 PM
North America
Dog fighting is illegal in all North American countries.

According to a study by the College of Law of the Michigan State University published in 2005, in the United States, dog fighting was once completely legal and was sanctioned and promoted during the colonial period (1600s through 1776) and continuing through the Victorian era in the late 19th century. However, by the early twentieth century, the brutality inherent in dog fighting was no longer tolerated by American society. It has become increasingly outlawed, a trend which has continued into the 21st century.[3]

As of 2007, dog fighting is a felony in 48 states and a misdemeanor in Idaho and Wyoming. In most states, it is against the law to even attend a dog fighting event, regardless of direct participation. According to authorities, dog fighting is increasingly practiced by gangs, and is linked to other unlawful activities, such as gambling.[4]

Despite legality issues, dogs are still commonly used for fighting purposes all across the continent. The American Pit Bull Terrier is the most popular breed used for fighting, but foreign breeds, such as the Dogo Argentino (used widely in South America) and Presa Canario (used in Spain) are also gaining popularity.

------------------------------------------------

Spectators and owners who participate in this BLOOD sport apparently have no problem onlooking while two dogs rip and tear at each other's flesh until death.

Speaks volumes about their "psychological" state of mind.

Don't you think?

redrat11
07-29-2007, 02:44 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
North America
Dog fighting is illegal in all North American countries.

According to a study by the College of Law of the Michigan State University published in 2005, in the United States, dog fighting was once completely legal and was sanctioned and promoted during the colonial period (1600s through 1776) and continuing through the Victorian era in the late 19th century. However, by the early twentieth century, the brutality inherent in dog fighting was no longer tolerated by American society. It has become increasingly outlawed, a trend which has continued into the 21st century.[3]

As of 2007, dog fighting is a felony in 48 states and a misdemeanor in Idaho and Wyoming. In most states, it is against the law to even attend a dog fighting event, regardless of direct participation. According to authorities, dog fighting is increasingly practiced by gangs, and is linked to other unlawful activities, such as gambling.[4]

Despite legality issues, dogs are still commonly used for fighting purposes all across the continent. The American Pit Bull Terrier is the most popular breed used for fighting, but foreign breeds, such as the Dogo Argentino (used widely in South America) and Presa Canario (used in Spain) are also gaining popularity.

------------------------------------------------

Spectators and owners who participate in this BLOOD sport apparently have no problem onlooking while two dogs rip and tear at each other's flesh until death.

Speaks volumes about their "psychological" state of mind.

Don't you think?


BA, you keep writing about "everyone else's state of mind" I'll say this, Is dog fighting any worse than Boxing? think about it?

redrat11
07-29-2007, 02:50 PM
what is more barbaric? Dog fighting or human slaughter on a world wide scale? of course both are sinister in nature!

BlueAngel
07-29-2007, 03:01 PM
redrat11 wrote:

BlueAngel wrote:
North America
Dog fighting is illegal in all North American countries.

According to a study by the College of Law of the Michigan State University published in 2005, in the United States, dog fighting was once completely legal and was sanctioned and promoted during the colonial period (1600s through 1776) and continuing through the Victorian era in the late 19th century. However, by the early twentieth century, the brutality inherent in dog fighting was no longer tolerated by American society. It has become increasingly outlawed, a trend which has continued into the 21st century.[3]

As of 2007, dog fighting is a felony in 48 states and a misdemeanor in Idaho and Wyoming. In most states, it is against the law to even attend a dog fighting event, regardless of direct participation. According to authorities, dog fighting is increasingly practiced by gangs, and is linked to other unlawful activities, such as gambling.[4]

Despite legality issues, dogs are still commonly used for fighting purposes all across the continent. The American Pit Bull Terrier is the most popular breed used for fighting, but foreign breeds, such as the Dogo Argentino (used widely in South America) and Presa Canario (used in Spain) are also gaining popularity.

------------------------------------------------

Spectators and owners who participate in this BLOOD sport apparently have no problem onlooking while two dogs rip and tear at each other's flesh until death.

Speaks volumes about their "psychological" state of mind.

Don't you think?


BA, you keep writing about "everyone else's state of mind" I'll say this, Is dog fighting any worse than Boxing? think about it?

Why do you make statements that are FALSE and/or outright LIES about me? I do not keep commenting on everyone else's state of mind. If you're referring to the posters at BTX, those within the "satanic cult," it's part of who and what they are. Can't write about them without it being EVIDENT as to their state of mind. One need not even point it out. Other than that, your statement is false. Back to topic. As I said, "anyone who can watch two dogs bloody themselves to death, rip their flesh apart," speaks to their state of mind. You don't have to be a psychologist to come to this determination. Yes, dog fighting is worse than boxing. Boxers don't use their teeth to rip the flesh from their opponent. They don't fight to the death. Blood is not as profuse as dog fighting. There are referees to stop one boxer from killing the other. Problem is, RedRat, boxing is legal and the man isn't innocent because dog fighting isn't. Human fighting legal/dog fighting with it's differences illegal. I didn't write the laws.

BlueAngel
07-29-2007, 03:04 PM
redrat11 wrote:
what is more barbaric? Dog fighting or human slaughter on a world wide scale? of course both are sinister in nature!

What world wide slaughter on a wider scale? I assume you're not referring to boxing, because I wouldn't exactly call it human slaughter on a world wide scale.

redrat11
07-29-2007, 04:28 PM
The Man Is Innocent!..


think about those words, Innocent until proven GUILTY! Unlike every backward country in the world, We Americans have this RIGHT.

Now juxtapose this concept to modern reality of our daily lives. trust me, this concept works!

BlueAngel
07-29-2007, 04:49 PM
redrat11 wrote:
The Man Is Innocent!..


think about those words, Innocent until proven GUILTY! Unlike every backward country in the world, We Americans have this RIGHT.

Now juxtapose this concept to modern reality of our daily lives. trust me, this concept works!

Of course, you're right about our legal system. But, you said, "dog fighting" wasn't a crime and therefore, the man was innocent. Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty. That's a given.

I wouldn't be so sure that HE won't be proven guilty. There might be evidence of which the public is unaware at this time. You know, in safe-keeping.

Barbara
07-30-2007, 04:28 AM
IMHO, dog fighting and cock fighting are two of the most despicable pseudo "sports" imaginable, and yes, Blue Angel is correct about dog fighting, but both of these "blood sports" are illegal.

This was never an issue until the uncivilized savages from south of the border started pouring in, bringing their "culture" with them. Other "resident aliens" like Vik have picked up on it as a form of gambling.

I guess in Mexico, Guatemala, Africa, etc., they eat the losers. Sounds about right to me.

Personally, I wish that a conviction on either of these two charges carried the death penalty so I could volunteer to (1) drop the pellets, (2) insert the needle or (3) light up the night with "old sparky."

In a perfect world they would either throw the convicted in with pit bulls or with roosters with 6" steel spurs

Vik, being black and a big sports figure, will get no more than a nominal "slap on the wrist," but I can dream.

redrat11
07-30-2007, 06:46 PM
Barbara wrote:
IMHO, dog fighting and cock fighting are two of the most despicable pseudo "sports" imaginable, and yes, Blue Angel is correct about dog fighting, but both of these "blood sports" are illegal.

This was never an issue until the uncivilized savages from south of the border started pouring in, bringing their "culture" with them. Other "resident aliens" like Vik have picked up on it as a form of gambling.

I guess in Mexico, Guatemala, Africa, etc., they eat the losers. Sounds about right to me.

Personally, I wish that a conviction on either of these two charges carried the death penalty so I could volunteer to (1) drop the pellets, (2) insert the needle or (3) light up the night with "old sparky."

In a perfect world they would either throw the convicted in with pit bulls or with roosters with 6" steel spurs

Vik, being black and a big sports figure, will get no more than a nominal "slap on the wrist," but I can dream.

:-o

Think about this, If you were on a jury, would you find him guilty of yet another victimless crime? Do you realize how many of those type crimes are out there? and the amount of jail-space taken for such 'crimes' of course it is barbaric to fight dogs to the death, but I see no crime here, I would find him not guilty, however bad that may seem, no-person was victimized other than the schmucks who probably lost money in the betting. even American Natural Law clearly states that unless you don't have a victim, then there is no crime committed, animals don't count as people, although the humanist/communist atheists of the NWO would love that, this is a stupid behavior mistake, nothing more, nothing less.

BlueAngel
07-30-2007, 07:14 PM
It doesn't matter whether you see it as a crime or not. It is a crime according to the law.

redrat11
07-30-2007, 07:25 PM
BlueAngel wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you see it as a crime or not. It is a crime according to the law.

Have you ever heard of Jury lawlessness BA, it's really a "hidden right" every American has, and should learn, basically if you happen to be on a jury, and let's say a person does something "horrible" like not pay taxes, well you as a jury member can disregard the law, and vote with your consious, of course this right has been undermined in the court sysyem for years, but it's still there, there was a case I remember where a man was charged with assaulting a officer, who had illegally detained him for some reason, there happened to be a smart juror on that case, the charged man was found not-guilty because one juror saw the injustice that had caused him to assault the officer in the first place.

I would encourage everyone reading this to google jury lawlessness see what you come up with.

remember man-made laws are just that man-made, and therefore rendered void, since all rights come from GOD. and can never be taken away, or so the founders declared.

read here....

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/rulebook.html


Section I
A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS
Jury Duty!
The purpose of this information if to revive, as Jefferson put it, "The Ancient Principles." It is not designed to promote lawlessness or a return to the jungle. The "Ancient Principle" refer to the Ten Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just plain common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments.

In 1776 we came out of BONDAGE with FAITH, UNDERSTANDING and COURAGE. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled our way to achieve LIBERTY. LIBERTY is that delicate area between the force of government and FREEWILL of man. LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go and live wherever one wishes; it leads to ABUNDANCE. ABUNDANCE, if made an end in itself, will result in COMPLACENCY which leads to APATHY. APATHY is the "let George do it" philosophy. This always brings DEPENDENCY. For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are dependent. They delude themselves by thinking they are still free - "We never had it so good." - "We can still vote, can 't we?" Eventually abudance diminishes and DEPENDENCY becomes known by its true nature: BONDANGE!!!

There are few ways out of bondage. Bloodshed and war aften result, but our founding fathers learned of a better way. Realizing that a CREATOR is always above and greater than that which He creates, they established a three vote system by which an informed Citizenry can control those acting in the name of govenment. To be a good master you must always remember the true "pecking order" or chain of command in this nation:

1. GOD created man...
2. Man (that's you) created the Constitution
3. The Constitution created government...
4. Government created corporations...etc.
The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.

As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American Citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.

The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: "A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor."

The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.

YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!

As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:

"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."

"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite."

"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court."

"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resove this paradox."

"More than logic has suffered. As orignally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to funciton effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions."

"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then Citizens called for jury duty could teach the judge a needed lesson in civics."

This information is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation's founders provided to insure that you, (not the growing army of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats, rule this nation. It will focus on the true power you possess as a JUROR, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also the validity or application of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a JUROR.

One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUILTY VOTE!" He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!
Everett Hale

The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!

"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.

The truth of this question has been answered by many testimonies and historical events. Consider the following:

JURY RIGHTS

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."


John Jay, 1st Chief Justice

United States supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."


Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,

1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration
"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."


Oliver Wendell Holmes,

U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."


Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice

U.S. supreme Court, 1941
"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."


U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)
LAW OF THE LAND

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256

BlueAngel
07-30-2007, 09:14 PM
Your initial post was that the man committed no crime.

As I said, "dog fighting" is illegal in all 50 states.

Therefore, it is a crime.

You have now turned the discussion to jury duty.

If you are a juror on the case and decide to vote your conscious and feel the man is not guilty, so be it.

That's your choice as a juror.

However, the man committed a crime according to written law.

God's law, as you say, whatever that is, does not factor in to the criminal justice system.

BlueAngel
08-14-2007, 11:06 AM
J.C. WATTS:
Review Journal

Dogfighting barbaric?

So is abortion

J.C. WATTS

MORE COLUMNSSen. Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, referred to this act as "barbaric." In case you missed it the first time, he repeated it. Again. And again. And yet again.

Byrd acknowledged that he's witnessed one execution in his life, but wouldn't mind seeing another "if it involves this cruel, sadistic, cannibalistic business."

The gentleman from West Virginia got pretty worked up over the whole thing. "How inhuman! How dastardly!" bellowed the senator.

But wait. There's more! "Barbaric!" he yelled. "Let that word resound from hill to hill, and from mountain to mountain, and valley to valley across the broad land. Barbaric! Barbaric! May God help those poor souls who'd be so cruel. Barbaric! Hear me! Barbaric!"

But the 89-year old dean of the Senate wasn't done. He graciously offered that he would not prejudge a man's guilt or innocence on the barbaric actions which instigated his ire, but he left no doubts about his sentiments.

"I am confident that the hottest places in hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt," he said.

In his never-ending quest not to be outdone by a demagogic colleague, would-be President John Kerry wrote a letter describing this as "one of society's most barbaric and inhumane activities."

CNN host Nancy Grace called it "murder" and compared the perpetrator to O.J. Simpson.

What heinous act has these -- and millions of other compassionate lovers and defenders of life -- so outraged? Could they possibly be expressing their condemnation to those physicians who swore an oath to honor and protect life, yet abort millions of viable young lives in utero every year? Could these esteemed leaders be acknowledging that the brutal procedure known as partial-birth abortion is indeed a sadistic and barbaric mistreatment of God's greatest gift -- human life?

Sadly, no. These men and women, and millions others like them, get more worked up over the admittedly brutal and inhumane treatment of soulless dogs, as evidenced by their public proclamations in the Michael Vick case.

Nancy Grace pointed out on her program, over video of two dogs annihilating each other, that the dogs "can't defend themselves." I'm confident Ms. Grace has never shown video of a partial-birth abortion procedure, and I'm relatively confident she has somehow failed to acknowledge that the unborn children are even more defenseless, but she's outraged over this nevertheless. If only they and their animal-rights allies would acknowledge the more precious worth of human life.

(I must note that Sen. Byrd has voted for a ban on partial-birth abortions, but I wonder if he debated in favor of human life with the passion he showed for Vick's canines.)

Please don't misunderstand me. I love dogs. There is no doubt the crime for which Michael Vick has been charged is brutal and inhumane, to say the least. But I fear our culture has degenerated to a level where our priorities are so out of whack, that we decry "from mountain to mountain and valley to valley" the mistreatment of innocent animals, while we turn a collective and legislative blind eye to the premature and yes, barbaric killing of human life in the name of "choice."

What's wrong with this picture?

I am in no way defending Vick, an NFL quarterback, for his off-field enterprises. If the allegations are true, and this happened on his property under his watch, the man clearly should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Vick has had several run-ins with authorities and fans over the past several years. At one point, you heard him say he's just "one of the boys." It's time for him to rise above the level of a boy, and raise the standard of maturity and responsibility for his "boys" to live up to.

Like it or not, being a high school, college and NFL superstar making millions of dollars a year brings with it some responsibility. And as any leader knows, the burden of leadership can sometimes be heavy. Unfortunately, Vick has fumbled the ball.

I've been a dog owner, and I must say I got attached to my critter. I'm not amused by or defensive of the accusations against Vick and his "boys."

But once -- just once -- I'd like to hear the John Kerrys, Nancy Graces and PETA supporters of the world weep over the brutal and barbaric taking of human life that they call "choice."

Absent that, I weep for them and for our culture.


J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com), chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group, is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes twice monthly for the Review-Journal.

-------------------------------------------------

Since Byrd and Kerry are immoral beings," I really don't think they ought to speak on the subject of any inhumane behavior animal or otherwise.

Both voted for the war and apparently have no problem with the slaughtering and wounding of innocent people, but these are not the only reasons I refer to them as immoral.

Please distribute MUZZLES to the appropriate criminals who hold political status and positions of power within all facets of the "secret government."

redrat11
09-25-2007, 09:42 PM
Are You Kidding me?



The State of Virginia says if the eight "animal-cruelty" charges were to be brought forth in a indictment, Vick could have faced 40 years in Prison????



This Country is FINISHED! if laws like that exist, So a Human CHILD at 9 months being born can be slaughtered while fully breathing and alive, yet the mother or father have no culpability because the BABY is classified as NOT FULLY HUMAN,if this keeps up, we will see the day when children up to 3 years of age can be legally killed.


http://www.wral.com/sports/football/nfl/story/1859973/


SUSSEX, Va. Michael Vick and three co-defendants were indicted by a grand jury Tuesday on state charges related to a dogfighting ring operated on Vick's Virginia property.

Vick, who already pleaded guilty in federal court to a dogfighting conspiracy charge and is awaiting sentencing December 10, was indicted on one count of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each count is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The grand jury declined to indict the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and two co-defendants on eight counts of animal cruelty, which would have exposed them to as many as 40 years in prison if convicted.

roscoe
09-27-2007, 08:32 PM
BA-where is this BTX Forum you are referring to?

BlueAngel
09-27-2007, 08:37 PM
www.backstreets.com

Go to the bottom and click on "BTX" and then click on "Enter Ticket Exchange."

BlueAngel
09-21-2010, 06:19 PM
Michael Vick, the dog killer; the man who beats dogs to death with a bat has just been named by the Eagles' coach, Andy Reid, as the team's staring quarterback.

Poor decision by Jeffrey Lurie the owner of the Eagle's.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Eagles-name-Michael-Vick-their-starting-QB?urn=nfl-271387

BlueAngel
09-21-2010, 07:00 PM
Huh?

Excerpt.

In June, I reviewed tape of Kolb's starts to date (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Upon-Further-Review-Is-Kevin-Kolb-ready-to-take?urn=nfl-255695), and I walked away unimpressed. He seemed to have a rudimentary handle on the NFL game, and while that's expected given his experience level, you can't really blame the Eagles for going with the hot hand when Vick's current skill set makes him a threat like few others.

------------------------------------------------------------

Huh?

You reviewed tapes of Kolb's starts and were unimpressed.

How many starts has Kolb had?

Two or three?

Huh?

Vick's "current skill set" makes him a threat like few others!?!

What is a "current skill set"?

You might be impressed with the Eagle's win against a very not so good team, but I'm not.

The only threat Vick poses is to dogs and his skill in beating them to death with bats.

jane doe
09-22-2010, 10:11 AM
Double Huh? Huh?* Where did Vick's deamons go?

*copywrite BlueAngel