I don't want to give any legitimacy to bs rumors, but was there some kind of violent racial incident at Little Italy a few weeks back?  A friend of mine said he read on cleveland.com (I looked and couldn't find any verification) that some LI residents brutally attacked a young black man and then his white friend who came to break it up. 

 

Has anyone heard anything like this?  This kind of stuff is usually easy to find on the PD, here, cleveland.com, the news, but I haven't heard ANY corroborations.

 

It is no secret that the long-time LI residents do not want blacks in their neighborhood.  Always been that way.  Now this was about 15 years ago.... but a white high school classmate of mine was jumped by his neighbors after he moved to LI and threw a party that was attended by other classmates who were black.  He said the neighbors made it quite clear why they jumped him.  Of course, when about 10 of us went and stood outside his house the next day seeing if anybody wanted to engage in a fair fight... none of the neighbors had much to say, shuffling in and out of their homes with their eyes on the ground.

 

Since then, however, I think the neighborhood has changed for the better with a more diverse (albeit not racially) population moving in.  But I still would not recommend that any minority eat at the LI restaraunts for fear of what might be done to the food.

 

I agree, I have relatives that live just north of Euclid near WP and that work at UH and they wont go to LI.

I remember reading somewhere in the last year or so that the Italian population of LI was down to less than 15% from about 50% 10 years ago due to the redevelopment and older population kicking the bucket. Being from an extended family that is mostly working class Italians and growing up in a small rural town. I know that it is a photo finish between Rednecks and working class Italians on who is more intolerent/racist (I am speaking in generalizations). I think LI might be be more accepting now overall, nothing like back in the day, but I really don't get over there much.

 

But interesting point about the food. Watchout.

 

but back on topic...

 

 

 

 

this was by the way... the letter to the editor.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2009/07/future_cleveland_purge_racism.html

 

Future Cleveland: Purge racism from Little Italy

Posted by Scott J. Rose, Cleveland July 12, 2009 04:01AM

Categories: Letters

 

I attended the neighborhood fireworks display in Little Italy on the Fourth of July. I long looked forward to bringing my 12-year-old daughter to enjoy this truly unique Cleveland experience. While the fireworks were terrific, a brutal display of racism by a group of a dozen or so 20-something thugs, many of whom were previously shooting off the fireworks, was appalling.

 

...

^ We can assume, but how do we know the attack was racially motivated.  I wish the author had been more clear on that point.  As he wrote it, it simply seems like he is inferring that the attack was a hate crime because it occured in LI and because one of the victims was a minority. 

A question re: L.I. I went to Case in the 70's . Although there were not a lot of African Americans in the Engineering Program there were some. My classmate Georgio Mc Beath (sp?) lived in the south campus dorms (L.I. side) for four years as did some other black students. No problem with L. I. Toughs that I ever heard (although I did know some Pika's that got into fights with the locals). Also, my girlfriend from India (very dank skinned) lived in L.I. in graduate school. Again no problems. Do the L.I. toughs have esp to know which dark shined people are Case students and are thus Ok to be there and which are not or am I off base here? Doc Broc?

 

I have never been witness to any racial violence in Little Italy, but I can tell you that the older restaurant employees (the ones who have worked there for years and years) are very judgemental of many groups of people, including college students.  I am Italian, but because of my age (25), I still get terrible service at a lot of the restaurants compared to the older clientele.  They must think that cause I'm young, that automatically makes me a bad tipper.  It p!sses me the h@ll off cause I spent some time waitressing, and I have no issue giving 20% or more for good service.  At any rate, going back to racial issues, most of the Little Italy population is now Case students, so the neighborhood is changing.  The mister made the remark one day that if they ever get the E. 120th rapid station moved to Mayfield, the sh!t is gonna hit the fan in terms of racial tension.  We'll see, I guess, but I think the neighborhood is evolving at a very slow pace.

Is this the same little Italy I go to??? I see people of all kinds there and everybody always seems so friendly around that hood.

 

I am sure there is a racial stigma, but where isn't there?  If I walk down to E.105 and Superior, do you think no one would notice the cracker strollin thru?  Or what if I hang out around E55 and Scovill? 

 

Also, look at all the other neighborhoods in Cleveland, and tell me how many are as safe as Little Italy?  Virtually every neighborhood that becomes black becomes less safe.  And while I do not care to get into the socio-economic reasons for it, it's just the reality of Cleveland. 

 

So, is it unfortunate there is a stigma?  Yes.  Is it unfortunate that it deters blacks from eating here?  Yes.  But, is it surprising?  No.

 

Without taking this off topic, we have a race thread, there are plenty of white families north of East 105/superior.  I spend quite a bit of time in Glenville.

 

OK, MTS.  I am just relaying what the students at Glenville told me.  But, of course, you know better than I (and better than the students, the ones who live there).

 

^ We can assume, but how do we know the attack was racially motivated.  I wish the author had been more clear on that point.  As he wrote it, it simply seems like he is inferring that the attack was a hate crime because it occured in LI and because one of the victims was a minority. 

 

It's probably a fair assumption.  However, it's too bad that assumption never goes both ways.

 

Regarding the diversity, I'm actually surprised it's as diverse as it is.  No, there are no blacks (but I didn't know that was the gold standard for diversity?).  However, there are tons of Asians and Indians. 

 

 

It's probably a fair assumption. However, it's too bad that assumption never goes both ways.

 

Well, let's see..... I don't remember hearing a peep about this beating from the media or any outrage by the public.  With all the witnesses, you'd think there would be something more than what McCleveland posted.

 

I wonder how the media and the public would react if a white attorney from Shaker Heights gets beaten by some black hoodlums from Cleveland..... hmmm....

Is this the same little Italy I go to??? I see people of all kinds there and everybody always seems so friendly around that hood.

 

I am sure there is a racial stigma, but where isn't there?  If I walk down to E.105 and Superior, do you think no one would notice the cracker strollin thru?  Or what if I hang out around E55 and Scovill? 

 

Also, look at all the other neighborhoods in Cleveland, and tell me how many are as safe as Little Italy?  Virtually every neighborhood that becomes black becomes less safe.  And while I do not care to get into the socio-economic reasons for it, it's just the reality of Cleveland. 

 

So, is it unfortunate there is a stigma?  Yes.  Is it unfortunate that it deters blacks from eating here?  Yes.  But, is it surprising?  No.

 

Without taking this off topic, we have a race thread, there are plenty of white families north of East 105/superior.  I spend quite a bit of time in Glenville.

 

OK, MTS.  I am just relaying what the students at Glenville told me.  But, of course, you know better than I (and better than the students, the ones who live there).

 

Wow wow, slow you're roll.  Glenville is rather large.  I spend a significant time there, so I do have a good working knowledge of the area.  My father grew up in Glenville, my grand parents, 4 aunt/uncles and 11 cousins own homes in Historic Glenville.  Their kids attend Glenville.  I don't profess to know the inner workings of the entire Glenville neighborhood, but do know there are several white families in the area that they live in, which borders - Superior and Yale and - East Blvd. & 105/108 streets.

It's probably a fair assumption. However, it's too bad that assumption never goes both ways.

 

Well, let's see..... I don't remember hearing a peep about this beating from the media or any outrage by the public. With all the witnesses, you'd think there would be something more than what McCleveland posted.

 

I wonder how the media and the public would react if a white attorney from Shaker Heights gets beaten by some black hoodlums from Cleveland..... hmmm....

 

I meant hate crimes.  And, as you already noted, we do not know the full set of facts from the LI incident.  We know the lawyer was brutalized and almost killed.  That is another difference you fail to acknowledge.  If this kid was beaten to a pulp, guaranteed it would be everywhere.  Hell, that story about the kids getting kicked out of the Philly country club was everywhere. 

I'm posting this, because it p!sses me off!

 

 

Prosecutors say father and son committed multiple violent robberies on Cleveland's West Side

by Donna J. Miller/Plain Dealer Reporter

Thursday July 23, 2009, 7:41 AM

CLEVELAND — Joseph Huber, 40, and his son, Austin Teter, 18, both of Cleveland, were arraigned Monday on charges of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, theft and felonious assault. Huber's bond was set at $100,000. Teter's was set at $50,000.

Prosecutors say the two are responsible for multiple violent robberies. According to police and prosecutors:

 

 

More at Cleveland.com

http://www.cleveland.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/07/prosecutors_say_father_and_son.html

Four years for Teter?  COME ON!!!  :whip: :whip:

wow, just wow. 

FOUR F*CKING YEARS?!?!?! And people wonder what the h*ll is wrong with this country! If you rob a bank with a gun isnt it a mandatory sentence of 20+ years, or use a gun in any crime. Yet a knife isnt looked at in the same way. I have aboslutely no sympathy at all for criminals and would see nothing wrong with a firing squad or hanging taking these 3 worthless scum out of this world.

well I'll say.  A) I'm glad they are off the streets and B) Thank goodness none of our Clark-Fulton, Tremont UrbanOhio members were hurt or affected by this. 

A) I'm glad they are off the streets

 

Its really sad that he will be free to roam the streets and rob again in 4 short years.

Insane, our society is self destructing.  Why are we unwilling to incarcerate sociopaths? Does 40 years sound too light?  These animals are going to kill sombody someday. 

A) I'm glad they are off the streets

 

Its really sad that he will be free to roam the streets and rob again in 4 short years.

True.  Maybe he'll have the unfortunate experience to run up on my cousin.  That will teach him...or kill him.

 

Insane, our society is self destructing.  Why are we unwilling to incarcerate sociopaths? Does 40 years sound too light?  These animals are going to kill sombody someday. 

Agreed!

They slashed a mans throat and held another man hostage with a knife to  his throat while he withdrew money from an atm.

WTF is the matter with these people?  What kind of family is this? Jesus!

Its the liberal trend in our society, and I don't mean political.  Everyone is more concerned about the rights of the accused than the victims.  That thought is what gives us Miranda, Gitmo, hate crime legislation, getting off on technicalities, etc.

 

If people were truly punished for their crimes, we wouldn't need hate crime laws!  Maybe the punishments wouldn't be a deterent for others, but lengthy or more appropriate punishments will prevent them from committing them again!

Sentencing shouldn't be subjective, period.  You do this, you get X number of years.

I agree with Doc Broc, we give WAY to much power to judges.  Somewhere in a book it should state something along the lines of "If you hold a hatchet to someone's neck and rob them you will get no less than 30 years in prison"

 

garbage.

An eye for an eye. If you use your right hand during the crime, you lose the hand along with the prison term.

What a sadistic bunch. Depressing.

4 yrs seems light for the crimes, but we don't have the whole story here.  This forum should not pick and choose which stories the PD is giving you the whole truth about.  There could have been mitigating circumstances not mentioned in the write-up.  He might have agreed to testify against his co-defendants who did not plead guilty.  His criminal past also has to be taken into account.  How serious were the physical injuries?  Were stitches required and/or was there intent to cause significant bodily harm?  Or was there just an intent to intimidate?

 

Unfortunately, putting aside mitigation, the bottom line is $$$$$.  The State simply cannot afford to increase its operations budget for the ODRC past what it is.  Judges have to take that into account.  So for all those who want to throw the book at every criminal defendant that is accused of a crime and send him/her away for life, please show me the large monetary donations you have made to our corrections facilities.   

 

Its the liberal trend in our society, and I don't mean political. Everyone is more concerned about the rights of the accused than the victims. That thought is what gives us Miranda, Gitmo, hate crime legislation, getting off on technicalities, etc.

 

If people were truly punished for their crimes, we wouldn't need hate crime laws! Maybe the punishments wouldn't be a deterent for others, but lengthy or more appropriate punishments will prevent them from committing them again!

 

Yeah... that darn liberal trend started by our Founding Fathers needs to stop.  Criminal defendants should not be advised of their rights.  If they cannot afford legal counsel.... tough sh!t.  Liberty should be sacraficed for our safety whenever the two conflict.... I don't care what Benjamin Franklin said.  And contrary to the Blackstone Ration, it is better that 10 innocent men get locked up than 1 guilty man roam free.

 

Strike out the 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 8th Amendment.  Hell, repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments while we're at it.  All those are just the result of this liberal trend.

Find anything like Miranda in the words of the founding fathers and maybe you have a point, instead of being part of the problem!

"How serious were the physical injuries?  Were stitches required and/or was there intent to cause significant bodily harm?  Or was there just an intent to intimidate?"

 

??? you hold a knife to some stanger's throat and rob them you should loose your right to live in civil society. period.  This is what the "three strikes" laws are all about. 

 

 

Find anything like Miranda in the words of the founding fathers and maybe you have a point, instead of being part of the problem!

 

Ummmm..... ever hear of the 5th Amendment?  I guess not.

 

If defending due process for the criminally ACCUSED is "being part of the problem", then so be it.   

Do you mean this 5th Amendment?  Gee where does it say that if you murder someone, but no one told you of these rights, you can get away with it?

 

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"How serious were the physical injuries? Were stitches required and/or was there intent to cause significant bodily harm? Or was there just an intent to intimidate?"

 

??? you hold a knife to some stanger's throat and rob them you should loose your right to live in civil society. period. This is what the "three strikes" laws are all about.

 

 

 

Did he have "two strikes" already?  I honestly don't know.  What if it is a butter knife?  j/k.... sort of...

 

We simply cannot afford to imprison an 18 yr. old for the rest of his life for these specific crimes.  Not trying to diminish the crimes, but we have much, much bigger fish to fry such as murderers, child molestors, rapists, etc.  Armed robbery is a very, very serious crime, but it does not warrant life in prison, nor could we afford to imprison every armed robber for life.  Our prison system is in the red as it is.

 

On the other hand, he should have got more than 4 yrs.  But we don't have the whole story, such as whether the State needed his copperation to convict the other defendants. 

Do you mean this 5th Amendment?  Gee where does it say that if you murder someone, but no one told you of these rights, you can get away with it?

 

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

I have highlighted the relevant sections for you.  Key phrase - "without DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  Go back and look at the history of the Miranda case if you need further explanation.

 

 

Law & Order:  Cleveland! 

http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink-doink.mp3

It is sad that our society, at least the one's who make the decisions, believes that protecting rights of the guilty is more important than that of the innocent.  We put drug dealers and users away for god knows how many years while real criminals often get relatively easier sentences. 

 

 

It is sad that our society, at least the one's who make the decisions, believes that protecting rights of the guilty is more important than that of the innocent.  We put drug dealers and users away for god knows how many years while real criminals often get relatively easier sentences. 

 

 

 

Yeah, lets prosecute Mike Vick to the fullest, but let these two knuckleheads off easy.

It is sad that our society, at least the one's who make the decisions, believes that protecting rights of the guilty is more important than that of the innocent. We put drug dealers and users away for god knows how many years while real criminals often get relatively easier sentences.

 

Couldn't agree more on the wasted prison funds spent on drug users.

 

The other point, I just have a different perspective.  Nobody wants to "protect the guilty" per se.... at least no one I know.  That is a common misconception attached to judges and lawyers.  To me, it is about protecting the system which, in turn, is designed to protect the "accused" - right to due process of law, right to a jury of your peers, right to be free from self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

There are plenty of countries where due process of law is an unheard of concept, where the simple point of a finger is enough to convict, where your socio-economic status determines your innocence or guilt, where police have no limitations on use of force to coerce confessions, where your accuser acts as judge, where you can lose a hand for stealing an apple.  Thankfully, our brand of justice is more evolved. 

Nobody wants to "protect the guilty" per se.... at least no one I know. That is a common misconception attached to judges and lawyers. To me, it is about protecting the system which, in turn, is designed to protect the "accused" - right to due process of law, right to a jury of your peers, right to be free from self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

 

 

I don't have a problem with this.  I DO have a problem with someone who pleaded GUILTY to MULTIPLE VIOLENT crimes getting 4 years in prison.  Ridiculous.  This kid is 20.  Think he'll be any less of a risk when he gets out and tossed back on the streets?

Nobody wants to "protect the guilty" per se.... at least no one I know.  That is a common misconception attached to judges and lawyers.  To me, it is about protecting the system which, in turn, is designed to protect the "accused" - right to due process of law, right to a jury of your peers, right to be free from self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

 

I don't have a problem with this.  I DO have a problem with someone who pleaded GUILTY to MULTIPLE VIOLENT crimes getting 4 years in prison.  Ridiculous.  This kid is 20.  [glow=red,2,300]Think he'll be any less of a risk when he gets out and tossed back on the streets?

[/glow]

 

Excellent points Mayor.  I 100% agree!!!

I don't see anything evolved about those scumbags' sentences.  They are in no way proportionate to the crimes and in four years that one guy is going to be out and committing who knows what against innocent people.  The problem with the law and sentencing is that it is completely short sighted.  We give the bad guys the benefits of the doubt after they leave prison (unless you're a sex offender) and are then somehow surprised with recidivism rates??? 

 

Also, the constitution is completely broken right now and since there are so many different, contradicting approaches (some do literal translations, some see it as an evolving doctrine, some look to the founder's intentions), there is undoubtedly no consensus.  Personally, I couldn't care less what a bunch of 250 year old men meant or intended since life is very different now than then.  In my opinion, we have to use common sense above everything else, even at the expense of due process, which means that if I put a knife to someone's throat (along with other crimes), it's worth a hell of a lot more than 4 years. 

 

Right or wrong this is the way our justice system works. I don't know the facts but I am speculating the prosecutor is looking at either cutting the kid a deal and he is out in 4 years, while the father is in for 20 or he/she takes a weak case to trial and risks these father and son sociopath duo getting off on a technicality and both back on the streets.

 

I am glad I don't have to weigh those odds, now if the judge just gave hime 4 years beacause he was young, now that is wrong as wrong can be.

 

It ain't pretty either way but it is what is.

 

Mike Vick did him self in. Our legal system awards those who cooperates like I am assuming this kid did and punishes those who resist.

The Michael Vick sentence was beyond ludicrous.  23 months for dog fighting?  Wasn't Stallworth in jail for 18 days? 

The Michael Vick sentence was beyond ludicrous.  23 months for dog fighting?  Wasn't Stallworth in jail for 18 days? 

 

Exactly.  Vick was wrong and so were his family members.  However, the sentence and now aftermath, don't match the crime, compared two these to heartless thugs.

 

Don't get me wrong, Vick and his family members/associates should be punished and made never to forget what they did.

Nobody wants to "protect the guilty" per se.... at least no one I know.  That is a common misconception attached to judges and lawyers.  To me, it is about protecting the system which, in turn, is designed to protect the "accused" - right to due process of law, right to a jury of your peers, right to be free from self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

 

I don't have a problem with this.  I DO have a problem with someone who pleaded GUILTY to MULTIPLE VIOLENT crimes getting 4 years in prison.  Ridiculous.  This kid is 20.  Think he'll be any less of a risk when he gets out and tossed back on the streets?

 

Nope.  And if you look back at my previous posts, I agree that 4 years is light for the crimes he is accused of.  However, IMO a life sentence would have been too heavy.  In the end, though, it comes down to economics and what I find hysterical is that the same people arguing for heavier sentencing laws are the same people always complaining about tax increases.

 

One point about the 4 year sentence I find troubling is that any sentence under 5 years leaves the prisoner eligible for an early shock release.  So, anytime after 6 months in prison, this goon can petition his sentencing judge to be released.  And, yes, cost to the State will be a consideration when he does make that petition.

 

 

self censored. Off topic or had the potential to drag the whole thing off topic.

 

 

We simply cannot afford to imprison an 18 yr. old for the rest of his life for these specific crimes.

 

I am willing to pay to imprison him for the rest of his life.  I am willing to do so ahead of my other tax obligations.

 

Not trying to diminish the crimes, but we have much, much bigger fish to fry such as murderers, child molestors, rapists, etc.

 

He was one step away from killing.  He chopped sombody with an ax while he was robbing them. 

 

 

Armed robbery is a very, very serious crime, but it does not warrant life in prison

 

 

Why not?

 

nor could we afford to imprison every armed robber for life.

 

agian, isn't this our first responsibility as a civilized society?

 

Our prison system is in the red as it is.

 

So what- spend more

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, he should have got more than 4 yrs. But we don't have the whole story, such as whether the State needed his copperation to convict the other defendants.

Ok, I'm really not the one to constantly post crimes on here, but this one p!sses me off again, especially with the suspects ages......

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=118399&catid=3

 

Cleveland: Store clerk shot during robbery

Posted By:   Updated: 7/23/2009 11:55:11 AM Posted: 7/23/2009 11:53:18 AM

Read Comments (7)Recommend Print Article Email Article Larger Smaller

 

CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Police Department is investigating the robbery and shooting of a clothing store clerk that occurred in the 9900 block of Lorain Ave. early Wednesday evening.

 

The store employee tells police that he was kneeling on the ground cleaning when he heard the door open. When he turned to greet the customer, he says the suspect pointed a gun and threatened him.

 

The clerk then told police he was shot after he lunged at the suspect. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to his hand and thigh. He was later treated and released from MetroHealth Medical Center.

 

...

 

© 2009 WKYC-TV

Ok, I'm really not the one to constantly post crimes on here, but this one p!sses me off again, especially with the suspects ages......

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=118399&catid=3

 

Cleveland: Store clerk shot during robbery

Posted By:   Updated: 7/23/2009 11:55:11 AM Posted: 7/23/2009 11:53:18 AM

Read Comments (7)Recommend Print Article Email Article Larger Smaller

 

...

 

Other witnesses near the scene tell police they saw at least two people matching the description of the suspects leaving the area. They are believed to be between the ages of 14-16. The shooter is described as a black male with short hair, black shoes and approximately 5'5".

 

The incident remains under investigation.

 

 

© 2009 WKYC-TV

Why just why? Where are the parents? Morals? They should be imprisoned for life. If you're carrying at gun at 14, there is very very little hope for rehabilitation. This will just give people more ammunition to stereotype all black & men of color as criminals.

If we dnon't incarcerate these individuals as long as possible to get them off the streets these neiborhoods will implode regardless of how much money is invested in them. 

If we dnon't incarcerate these individuals as long as possible to get them off the streets these neiborhoods will implode regardless of how much money is invested in them. 

 

It has nothing to do with a "neighborhood" idiots like these two teens can live anywhere.

I don't see anything evolved about those scumbags' sentences.  They are in no way proportionate to the crimes and in four years that one guy is going to be out and committing who knows what against innocent people.  The problem with the law and sentencing is that it is completely short sighted.  We give the bad guys the benefits of the doubt after they leave prison (unless you're a sex offender) and are then somehow surprised with recidivism rates??? 

 

Also, the constitution is completely broken right now and since there are so many different, contradicting approaches (some do literal translations, some see it as an evolving doctrine, some look to the founder's intentions), there is undoubtedly no consensus.  Personally, I couldn't care less what a bunch of 250 year old men meant or intended since life is very different now than then.  In my opinion, we have to use common sense above everything else, even at the expense of due process, which means that if I put a knife to someone's throat (along with other crimes), it's worth a hell of a lot more than 4 years. 

 

 

To serve 4 years for doing above said crimes is in their mind, probably doing something noble. Bring back the concept of "Scared Straight!"

The Michael Vick sentence was beyond ludicrous.  23 months for dog fighting?  Wasn't Stallworth in jail for 18 days? 

 

As someone who used to work in animal control services, (which was really more like "people control"--keeping idiot humans from doing un-evolved unspeakable things to animals) Has anyone ever witnessed dog fighting? I wonder how many people actually know anything about the brutal rotten sub-culture behind it that promotes and glamorizes violence and crime? Maybe they'd think otherwise about such punishment being inappropriate. I can share some  of the shocking horrors if anyone likes. Its far worse than the title conveys. I actually had a lot worse in mind for "Con-VICK" and yes, the Stallworth thing was a royal and pathetic joke in contrast..yes... Minimum 5 years for anyone else, isn't it? Or 4?

 

For Karma, here is the scenario... If this fool Vick, is allowed to play again, every dog loving defensive lineman will have a bounty on his head in the game.. and squash him like a grape. For Stallworth..who is 'worth-LESS' on the field anyway, he probably gets a career ending injury. If either of these guys had any kind of self respect and respect for life in general....they'd resign from the game. Shameful. And then fans are stupid enough to buy into it by paying their salaries going to games.

 

Oh, yes, I love dogs! Here is my best girlfriend below!! Didn't Ghandi say something like..  "The morality of a nation is assessed by how it treats its animals" or something similar to that. He was a wise man.