Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

paulitik

Prince Shembo Charged With Felony Animal Cruelty

1,037 posts in this topic

You don't punish something that you condone. Like the punishment or not, a suspension is a punishment.

If he in fact kicked the dog, I agree with releasing him to deal with his problems away from the franchise.

A punishment without meaningful impact is no punishment.

Sending a kid to their room, where they have a tv, computer, video game console, etc., is not really punishing the child or teaching any kind of effective lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would note, whether a suspension and fine is appropriate or not is a question for the NFL. My guess is that's roughly what he'll receive. It doesn't address the question of whether the Falcons should have released him though. Hardy got a suspension and fine, and the Panthers still cut him loose. I know Hardy was a free agent, but the Panthers made no effort to bring him back, so I see it as very similar in terms of impact on the player. Unless we have an "out" clause in his contract (and honestly, I hope we do) that deals with stuff like this, he'll get his guaranteed money just like if he'd played, and he can still go to another team subject to any suspension the NFL levies.

I'm glad we cut him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. To me after that act I don't even look at him as a human being anymore. There are certain acts that in my eyes makes people lower life forms. Viciously killing an animal because you can , is one of them. Psychopaths do that.

I agree if your murdering kittens to hear them scream you are probably a little messed up. Yet I also believe housing chickens and cows in hellish conditions for their duration of life just to be slaughter for the sake of a hamburger ks also wrong. Neither one is worse then the other to me. Excusing slaughter houses because Carcasses are used is like excusing puppy executions because dogs are over populated. I just don't like the picking and choosing I'm not arguing for Shembo nor

Slaughter houses. I think both are wrong I just noticed ones dogs are killed, pets or not it really brings the nasty out of folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree if your murdering kittens to hear them scream you are probably a little messed up. Yet I also believe housing chickens and cows in hellish conditions for their duration of life just to be slaughter for the sake of a hamburger ks also wrong. Neither one is worse then the other to me. Excusing slaughter houses because Carcasses are used is like excusing puppy executions because dogs are over populated. I just don't like the picking and choosing I'm not arguing for Shembo nor

Slaughter houses. I think both are wrong I just noticed ones dogs are killed, pets or not it really brings the nasty out of folks.

Speaking of killing dogs because of overpopulation, do you draw a moral distinction between putting them to sleep, as kill shelters do, and stomping them to death?

Do you think there is any reason to require kill shelters to put them to sleep or should we allow them to skin them alive or burn them alive or whatever they want?

Tuggle'2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of killing dogs because of overpopulation, do you draw a moral distinction between putting them to sleep, as kill shelters do, and stomping them to death?

Do you think there is any reason to require kill shelters to put them to sleep or should we allow them to skin them alive or burn them alive or whatever they want?

I mean I seriously want to know myself. Since stomping in a 7lb yorkie's face pretty much equates to getting a bucket of chicken at KFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of killing dogs because of overpopulation, do you draw a moral distinction between putting them to sleep, as kill shelters do, and stomping them to death?

Do you think there is any reason to require kill shelters to put them to sleep or should we allow them to skin them alive or burn them alive or whatever they want?

I support "no-kill" shelters. I donate regularly to one.

Nino11 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support "no-kill" shelters. I donate regularly to one.

I can respect that, but given that we have kill shelters, is there a moral distinction between methods of putting the dogs down, or can we just do whatever we want and it's all equally evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of killing dogs because of overpopulation, do you draw a moral distinction between putting them to sleep, as kill shelters do, and stomping them to death?

Do you think there is any reason to require kill shelters to put them to sleep or should we allow them to skin them alive or burn them alive or whatever they want?

Elongated torture is of course worse. Of course a headshot or fatal dose is the moral thing to do. I don't think Shembo is accused of torturing the dog. I don't know the details of what he did as I wasnt there. It's possible the damage was cause from one massive blow in a moment of rage. If he sat there and did the A town stomp of the dog that's different. I hold my opinions about it because I don't know the truth of what he did to the exact detail. He admitted to killing the dog already. Rather he did it by an all out effort to pulverize the dog or a momentary lapse out of rage remains to be seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I seriously want to know myself. Since stomping in a 7lb yorkie's face pretty much equates to getting a bucket of chicken at KFC.

No it doesn't equate. But what also doesn't equate is condemning a man for being vicious to an animal when you give no thought to animals being hurt when it benefits you. That's all I'm saying. Don't throw rocks in a glass house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support "no-kill" shelters. I donate regularly to one.

I can respect that honestly. If you don't want to see any animals hurt at all I fully concede that you react this way. I just would hope you wouldn't ignore the other animals that go through way longer and harsher treatment as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't equate. But what also doesn't equate is condemning a man for being vicious to an animal when you give no thought to animals being hurt when it benefits you. That's all I'm saying. Don't throw rocks in a glass house.

I can certainly condemn a guilty man of animal abuse. I know where my food comes from. Talk to me in 15,000 - 30,000 years when chickens replace dogs as mans best friend. Cause apparently that might be happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most pathetic thing is how this is pretty much the only way this city shows passion about their team. I bet the Falcons could win the Super Bowl and the thread wouldn't be as long as this one will be or the Vick one was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most pathetic thing is how this is pretty much the only way this city shows passion about their team. I bet the Falcons could win the Super Bowl and the thread wouldn't be as long as this one will be or the Vick one was.

Also true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most pathetic thing is how this is pretty much the only way this city shows passion about their team. I bet the Falcons could win the Super Bowl and the thread wouldn't be as long as this one will be or the Vick one was.

This thread has nothing to do with the team anymore. I also guarantee you if you take this topic, add in what these few people are saying about chicken and dog smashing, and the conversation would go on just as far or further on pretty much any public forum on the Internet (dead serious) Don't make this a woe is me Atlanta sucks thing. This is about people with some down right scary life views. Also, I would love to get these guys to do an AMA on Reddit. "We think stomping some dogs skulls in is okay because this other guy eats at KFC, ask me anything".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has nothing to do with the team anymore. I also guarantee you if you take this topic, add in what these few people are saying about chicken and dog smashing, and the conversation would go on just as far or further on pretty much any public forum on the Internet (dead serious) Don't make this a woe is me Atlanta sucks thing. This is about people with some down right scary life views. Also, I would love to get these guys to do an AMA on Reddit. "We think stomping some dogs skulls in is okay because this other guy eats at KFC, ask me anything".

It still all boils down to a bunch of people arguing over a former player kicking a dog. Wonder how long the AP beating his children thread on the Vikings message board is.

Last part made me chuckle though and sadly probably wouldn't be the worst AMA Reddit has had.

Edit: Then why is it still here? Probably would be better for the integrity of the board for it to be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly condemn a guilty man of animal abuse. I know where my food comes from. Talk to me in 15,000 - 30,000 years when chickens replace dogs as mans best friend. Cause apparently that might be happening.

I've usually agreed with your post in the past but I see you are speaking from a more enotional point of view. A dog isn't my best friend. I've owned dogs and loved them but they were a pet. I couldn't take care of my two sister pit bulls so I gave them away rather then let them be malnourished. Even if a dog was my best friend that's pretty messed up thinking to me as in because dog is "mans's best friend" they matter more then other animals. so if a guy is your best friend you would be more upset if he was killed then if an entire town was taken as slaves and treated harshly? One animal isn't above another animal to me. One human isn't above an human to me. Hroses have been bred for the use of humans far longer then any dog and have provided far more value but do you care they are used for sport then shot out in the field should they get injured? That's kinda

Selfish just cause your more attached to dogs they matter more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive actually been thinking of an idea for how the NFL should handle suspensions for a long time and have been meaning to sit down, really give it some thought, and hash out a decent plan, but ive been putting it off forever so ill just spitball my idea here.

the main reason goodell gets in trouble is because theres no hard guidelines for punishments and no internal consistency between them. what i propose is going down every single US law on the books and defining a minimum and maximum for each one with the commissioner getting to pick between the guideline based on severity. as well as each NFL rule you can break IE tampering with footballs and doing the same thing. a rough outline would be this:

murder - indefinite suspension

rape - indefinite suspension

sexual assault - a year to 2 years

domestic abuse - a year to 2 years

animal cruelty - 6 games to a year

drug violations - 4 games to a year

etc, etc. go down the list. have a guideline for freaking jaywalking if you have to. then have a list for NFL rules violations like if you're caught with footballs under / over the limit everyone involved gets 2 games.

based on initial evidence have it up to the commisioner to then decide if the suspension should kick in immediately, or wait until the person has his day in court and then if the person is found guilty they are suspended. like in this case for example rather than getting to play prince's suspension would kick in immediately because of all the immediate evidence including the lawyer admitting he kicked the dog, the fact its a 7lbs dog, and there's no reasonable way to assume even if he was bitten that his reaction was appropriate. so there is some protection built into the system for people that are falsely accused.

this idea is far from perfect theres a million holes in it right now, but its a base for the NFL to add more consistency to punishments, and at least i think its worlds better than what they have right now given that goodell has had scandal after scandal on his plate. but im just some stupid drunk what do i know, but i honestly cant believe the people in the NFL offices making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to advice goodell havent come up with ANYTHING in the last 2-3 years better than whats going for now. maybe collective bargaining screws it all up, and from goodells position i guess he doesnt want to give up absolute power, but having general agreed upon guidelines for literally everything would take a lot of responsibility and potential for screw ups off his plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive actually been thinking of an idea for how the NFL should handle suspensions for a long time and have been meaning to sit down, really give it some thought, and hash out a decent plan, but ive been putting it off forever so ill just spitball my idea here.

the main reason goodell gets in trouble is because theres no hard guidelines for punishments and no internal consistency between them. what i propose is going down every single US law on the books and defining a minimum and maximum for each one with the commissioner getting to pick between the guideline based on severity. as well as each NFL rule you can break IE tampering with footballs and doing the same thing. a rough outline would be this:

murder - indefinite suspension

rape - indefinite suspension

sexual assault - a year to 2 years

domestic abuse - a year to 2 years

animal cruelty - 6 games to a year

drug violations - 4 games to a year

etc, etc. go down the list. have a guideline for freaking jaywalking if you have to. then have a list for NFL rules violations like if you're caught with footballs under / over the limit everyone involved gets 2 games.

based on initial evidence have it up to the commisioner to then decide if the suspension should kick in immediately, or wait until the person has his day in court and then if the person is found guilty they are suspended. like in this case for example rather than getting to play prince's suspension would kick in immediately because of all the immediate evidence including the lawyer admitting he kicked the dog, the fact its a 7lbs dog, and there's no reasonable way to assume even if he was bitten that his reaction was appropriate. so there is some protection built into the system for people that are falsely accused.

this idea is far from perfect theres a million holes in it right now, but its a base for the NFL to add more consistency to punishments, and at least i think its worlds better than what they have right now given that goodell has had scandal after scandal on his plate. but im just some stupid drunk what do i know, but i honestly cant believe the people in the NFL offices making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to advice goodell havent come up with ANYTHING in the last 2-3 years better than whats going for now. maybe collective bargaining screws it all up, and from goodells position i guess he doesnt want to give up absolute power, but having general agreed upon guidelines for literally everything would take a lot of responsibility and potential for screw ups off his plate.

I can get with that but rape and sexual assault are the same right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in US law they're defined differently. rape is a form of sexual assault, but much more extreme. a sexual assault charge would be for example like inapproriate touching without consent, while rape often involves penetration. ill leave it at that. you can wikipedia the two and its explained much better there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree if your murdering kittens to hear them scream you are probably a little messed up. Yet I also believe housing chickens and cows in hellish conditions for their duration of life just to be slaughter for the sake of a hamburger ks also wrong. Neither one is worse then the other to me. Excusing slaughter houses because Carcasses are used is like excusing puppy executions because dogs are over populated. I just don't like the picking and choosing I'm not arguing for Shembo nor

Slaughter houses. I think both are wrong I just noticed ones dogs are killed, pets or not it really brings the nasty out of folks.

I condemn both which is why I buy free range chicken meat from the local butcher. I condemn anyone who kills just for the sake of killing.

Tuggle'2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in US law they're defined differently. rape is a form of sexual assault, but much more extreme. a sexual assault charge would be for example like inapproriate touching without consent, while rape often involves penetration. ill leave it at that. you can wikipedia the two and its explained much better there.

I got ya and you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I condemn both which is why I buy free range chicken meat from the local butcher. I condemn anyone who kills just for the sake of killing.

Salute to you then. I try to look at things with no emotional attachment but as humans I realize some things that a hard to do. Like it would probably be impossible for me to forgive a rapist having a daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salute to you then. I try to look at things with no emotional attachment but as humans I realize some things that a hard to do. Like it would probably be impossible for me to forgive a rapist having a daughter

My issue isn't with people who don't eat meat. Good on them , I personally like meat, to each their own. My issue is with mainly AnonFalconFan who was condemning anyone who eats meat and said we can't be mad at Shembo because of that reason. Equating those two distinctly different things with one another is asinine. Equating eating a chicken sandwich with the brutal murder of a dog is unequivocal.

Hopefully I wasn't too brash with you. I was under the impression you were siding with that ideology. I have 4 cats and a dog all of which I adopted. I adopted every single pet I've ever had. I don't condemn people for buying pets, it's just how I am.

Tuggle'2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've usually agreed with your post in the past but I see you are speaking from a more enotional point of view. A dog isn't my best friend. I've owned dogs and loved them but they were a pet. I couldn't take care of my two sister pit bulls so I gave them away rather then let them be malnourished. Even if a dog was my best friend that's pretty messed up thinking to me as in because dog is "mans's best friend" they matter more then other animals. so if a guy is your best friend you would be more upset if he was killed then if an entire town was taken as slaves and treated harshly? One animal isn't above another animal to me. One human isn't above an human to me. Hroses have been bred for the use of humans far longer then any dog and have provided far more value but do you care they are used for sport then shot out in the field should they get injured? That's kinda

Selfish just cause your more attached to dogs they matter more

Dogs were domesticated thousands of years before horses were.

I'm not sure when cats domesticated humans, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.