From Dogfighting To Cockhunting

Larry Craig has hired Billy Martin, the same lawyer that has been defending Michael Vick against dogfighting charges, to "handle most of his legal affairs."

It will be interesting to see what kind of legal argument will be made to try to retract this guilty plea. I'm no lawyer, but I'm yet to hear anyone who thinks he has any chance of actually doing so. However, it might never come to that... Craig doesn't seem to have much of a game plan yet, and I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyer advised him against it.

As far as dogfighting case, I wish Vick had not plead out. I would have liked to see the debate in court over the "rights" of dogs as more than property (if any) and the subsequent decision. Sounds like Vick got a plea deal too sweet to pass up, though.

If you were a lawyer and had to choose one of the two cases to defend, which would you most like (or least dislike) to take on? Assume for the sake of discussion that Craig's purpose would be to retract the guilty plea.


Bonus: Here is a take on the legality of the Craig arrest from someone who, you know, actually knows something about law. [Via The Volokh Conspiracy blog]

Why I Should be Able to Kill My Pretend Dog

I'm basically of the same mind as my co-blogger, with the difference being that I don't think it is difficult to mount a defense of dog fighting.

Now.....I like dogs and I don't understand why someone would want to torture and kill their dog. But, truthfully, I'm not that repulsed by the stories coming out of the Vick case. It is just an animal, and I think it's best not to assign the same level of care, concern and rights to animals as we do to human beings. That being said, if a local grouping of people decide that they want to impose restrictions of some sort on the care of pets, then I fully agree and support that type of action in a democratic society. It's legitimate response. However, if a locality decided not to criminalize tortuous behavior of pets I would fully support that as well. In my mind dogs, cats, fish, ferrets are the property of owners, and therefore the property owners can decide how they would like to use their property. I think you approach dangerous territory once you begin prescribing rights to animals, of any sort. I hunt, I fish, and I'm one of the billions of people around the world who do so. I'm OK with social mores, i.e. we value dogs more so than quail or turkey or deer. But you're imposing your own morality via the barrel of the state's gun when you say that we are OK with you killing undomesticated animals for fun, but not domesticated animals. Shun the guy, push these type of abusers to the fringes of society...but throw them in jail? Is that an appropriate response? I tend to think not. In the end I think this type of social question is best left to the voters in a particular jurisdiction, much in the same way I would treat abortion.

Note: You can get into the weeds about how dogfighting and the heinous acts committed by Vick post-fights are on a different level from hunting. I would probably agree. However, I don't think I get to draw the line for everyone because different folks would draw the line in a different place. Say PETA for instance. Who's to say I'm right and they're wrong, or I'm wrong and they're right? I understand we have to draw the line somewhere, but leave it up to the localities to decide, it certainly shouldn't be a federal decision.

53 of Vick's Dogs Slated for Execution

I always thought that Michael Vick was a thug and, perhaps even worse, a bad quarterback. The best stats guys in the business, Football Outsiders, ranked Vick in 2006 37 of NFL quarterbacks which really ouches as there are only 32 teams.

But the bigger ouch is for anyone who cares about the NFL and animals and is following the bad news:

Fifty-three dogs seized from NFL star Michael Vick’s property in Surry County, Va., could soon be destroyed, as no one has come forward to claim an ownership stake in the animals. The deadline is today.

Because fighting dogs aren’t fit for adoption, there is little chance they’ll survive unless they are needed as part of the case against the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three others, a police spokeswoman said.

Something to Chew On

St. Paul Saints plans Michael Vick chew toy promotion

The St. Paul Saints minor league baseball team plans to hand out the chew toy to the first 1,500 fans at its home game tonight. It's the team mascot, a pig, in the Atlanta Falcons team colors and with Vick's name and number on it.

A portion of the proceeds from the game will be donated to the newly merged Humane Society,

Saints promotion director Jack Weatherman said the team wanted to take a stand on the dogfighting charges against Vick. Weatherman said the public reaction has been totally one-sided, with many fans asking if they can buy the Vick chew toy - and with absolutely no negative reaction.

No negative reaction? They were expecting angry phone calls in support of Vick? Full blurb here. Via Baltimore Crime.

At Least This Animal Rights Wacko is Behind Bars

Not since Ronald Reagan sold American hostages to the Contras in exchange for a copy of Voodoo Economics for Dummies, which he in turn gave to George H.W. Bush, and that Bush didn't read but instead exchanged for arms with Iran while on an absinthe bender in Paris has something so outrageous as this happened.

Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy "missiles from Iran," FOX News has learned.

[Ellipsis]

The complaint also alleges that Vick would need those missiles because he pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in February of this year.

Sadly, Jonathan Lee Riches's claims against Vick are actually less ridiculous than those the governent has made against him. More here. Suit here.

Feds Dog Ron Mexico

If the allegations made in today's indictment against Michael Vick are true, he's a despicable person and a pretty bad QB, rather than just the latter.

That said, I can't make a libertarian argument that Vick did anything illegal here. If someone can, I'd love to hear it.

Update: The indictment of P-Funk, Ookie, et al.

A Difficult Defense of Dog Fighting

Dog fighting is one of the more insipid practices I'd be willing to consider defending from a libertarian perspective. Truth is, I tend to prefer dogs to people. That said, I think madcap Redskins running back Clinton Portis may have gotten it right when he said this of Michael Vick's apparent dog-fighting fetish:

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not," Portis said. "But it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Portis said dog fighting is a "prevalent" part of life.

Portis, a native of Laurel, Mississippi, added: "I know a lot of back roads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it. But they're not bothering those people because those people are not big names. I'm sure there's some police got some dogs that are fighting them, some judges got dogs and everything else."

How do you argue with Portis, especially from a libertarian perspective? It's tough, if not impossible. Even some Deadspin commenters have picked up on Portis as a libertarian spokesperson on the issue.

I tend to think that people who abuse or kill animals purely for the sake of doing so are wrong in the head. I also abhor anti-human extremists like Tom Lantos, who use people like Vick to grandstand against this sort of practice.

In the end, if animals are property -- and they are -- then their owners should be fit to do with them as they please. As uncomfortable as that sometimes makes me feel.