Is Michael Vick a cold-blooded killer in your opinion?

Linzyhop · 07-30-2007, 04:28 PM

updated question, replaced murderer with cold-blooded killer.

motivez · 07-30-2007, 04:29 PM

If he's guilty, then most certainly.

Publius · 07-30-2007, 04:33 PM

IF he is found guilty, then yes. If he is found innocent, you people owe him an apology.

As such, I voted "i don't know"

JaJae · 07-30-2007, 04:43 PM

Depends on the verdict. There seems to be plenty of evidence to say he is though. Haven't really heard much of a defense other than "Oh yea those fights were happening on my property, but I didn't know because I'm a good role model."

Stylerod · 07-30-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

IF he is found guilty, then yes. If he is found innocent, you people owe him an apology.

As such, I voted "i don't know"

I did the same. It's not looking good right now though.

hsmith · 07-30-2007, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Depends on the verdict. There seems to be plenty of evidence to say he is though. Haven't really heard much of a defense other than "Oh yea those fights were happening on my property, but I didn't know because I'm a good role model."

He probably is, but how much of the testimony of the people that flipped on him can you trust? I mean, they most certainly are getting something out of the deal to collaborate their stories and flip on him.

SoFlaJDM · 07-30-2007, 04:58 PM

they've got a 95% conviction rate i've heard in these types of cases, so i'm 95% sure he's a sick fuck

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 07:59 PM

He did kill animals, so killer is appropriate. He didn't kill them in a fit of passion or rage, so cold-blooded is also appropriate.

So in the literal sense, he is certainly a "cold-blooded killer". But in the sense you mean it? Of course not. He's a piece of shit and needs to be punished, but it's not even the same sport, let alone the same ballpark, as killing people.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 08:00 PM

That is, of course, assuming the stories are true. Which we don't know.

imind · 07-30-2007, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

He did kill animals, so killer is appropriate. He didn't kill them in a fit of passion or rage, so cold-blooded is also appropriate.

So in the literal sense, he is certainly a "cold-blooded killer". But in the sense you mean it? Of course not. He's a piece of shit and needs to be punished, but it's not even the same sport, let alone the same ballpark, as killing people.

oui, oui.

as abhorrent as his alleged actions are, the words you've chosen are too strong in this instance, as that string (cold-blooded-killer) is typically used to describe people killers.

for this reason i voted 'no'.

RMNIXON · 07-30-2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by imind

oui, oui.

as abhorrent as his alleged actions are, the words you've chosen are too strong in this instance, as that string (cold-blooded-killer) is typically used to describe people killers.

for this reason i voted 'no'.

That is how I read it. Even if Linzy did change the poll from the word murder. If the definition is too broad then swating a fly can make you a cold-blooded-killer. But to torture and kills dogs is still a serious crime and deserves a jail sentence.

thomez · 07-31-2007, 12:21 AM

He's innocent until proven guilty... which is very likely.

Donkey® · 07-31-2007, 12:39 AM

I am not aware he has been convicted of anything...so no.

jimeigh · 07-31-2007, 12:44 AM

obviously... no.

like all humans, he is warm-blooded.

Joe_Cool · 07-31-2007, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am not aware he has been convicted of anything...so no.

He's obviously not asking whether Vick has been convicted. He's questioning the morality of killing an animal.

thatguyoverthere · 07-31-2007, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

IF he is found guilty, then yes. If he is found innocent, you people owe him an apology.

As such, I voted "i don't know"

Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Lots of people have this misconception about the law.

Courts do NOT find people "innocent." They find people "guilty" or "not guilty."

"Not guilty" does NOT mean "innocent"; a verdict of "not guilty" means that, in the judgement of the jury, the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Juries do not do their own investigation, and the defense is not under any obligation to present a defense at all. The burden of proof is on the proscecution, and the verdict in the case is a judgement on the proscecutions presentation.

Please, do not consider a courts "not guilty" verdict as evidence that the defendant(s) in that case are innocent of the crimes for which they had been accused.

Linzyhop · 07-31-2007, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

She's obviously not asking whether Vick has been convicted. She's questioning the morality of killing an animal.

fixed

WickedLou9 · 07-31-2007, 09:49 AM

A rose by any other name...
Don't get hung up on labeling someone and create disagreement where there need not be any.

Donkey® · 07-31-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

He's obviously not asking whether Vick has been convicted. He's questioning the morality of killing an animal.

And nowhere have I seen where it has been proven he killed an animal.

Joe_Cool · 07-31-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And nowhere have I seen where it has been proven he killed an animal.

View Poll Results: Is Michael Vik a cold-blooded killer in your opinion?
yes	7	38.89%
no	5	27.78%
I don't know	6	33.33%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll