July 30, 2007

Does The NAACP Endorse Dogfighting?

Michael Vick had a bad day in court, as one of his co-defendants apparently flipped and will cooperate with federal authorities. However, Vick got some public support from the NAACP -- which accused the government of "piling on" in prosecuting Vick:

The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."

"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."

Will the NAACP clarify this statement? Are they now endorsing dogfighting and opposing the prosecution of those who allegedly stage these events and slaughter dogs who don't perform? Filing charges in court when grand juries hand down indictments does not qualify as "piling on" -- unless one wants to argue that the alleged activity should go unprosecuted completely.

Vick could be innocent of the charges, but that will be the jury's decision. In the meantime, the NAACP just take a 5-yard penalty for offsides, and perhaps keep their mouths shut until after the trial. Something tells me that Vick can afford better representation than Dr. White.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (22)

Posted by RBMN | July 30, 2007 5:47 PM

I think OJ Simpson has volunteered to help Michael Vick find the real dog killers. So, maybe the NAACP can help fund the search....

Posted by kingronjo | July 30, 2007 5:57 PM

This is not a fight the NAACP should be involved in, unless they think that the dogs were violating Mr Vick's civil rights.

Posted by wolfwalker | July 30, 2007 6:08 PM

Are they now endorsing dogfighting and opposing the prosecution of those who allegedly stage these events and slaughter dogs who don't perform?

I really doubt it. There is in fact a legal tactic known as "piling on," in which prosecutors generate a very long list of charges against a defendant, with the goal of setting up a plea bargain on reduced charges. The NAACP may be trying to argue that the indictment against Vick includes some piling-on, and that the prosecutors wouldn't be doing that if Vick was white.

Posted by HumboldtBlue | July 30, 2007 6:19 PM

Hmm, maybe Dr. White could contact his NAACP peers in North Carolina. They certainly know just what piling on means outside of a court room, it means labeling three demonstrably innocent men guilty of a crime that never occurred.

Then again, that would require intellectual honesty.

Vick isn't under fire from every corner because he's black, no, he's under fire and will never play another down in the NFL because his name was listed 50 times in an indictment detailing depravity, cruelty and barbarity.

One pundit was getting hammered over the weekend because he made bumbling attempts to compare the Vick case with Kobe Bryant's alleged sexual assault.

But look at it honestly, if Vick had been accused of rape he'd be getting the benefit of the doubt because of the he-said she-said nature of the charge. Instead, he's accused of treating animals viciously, animals that have no voice of their own.

Posted by negentropy | July 30, 2007 6:46 PM

The NAACP should know something about piling on - after all, they piled it high and deep in North Carolina.

Posted by Rhymes With Right | July 30, 2007 7:13 PM

Isn't this the same NAACP that adopted the stance that the Duke lacrosse players needed to be punished before there were even charges against them, much less a trial?

Could it be that the life and reputation of a black man matters more than those of white men? And the word of a stripper is worth more than documentary and video evidence?

Are they once again proving that the NAACP is nothing more than the "Klan with a tan"?

Posted by Philip | July 30, 2007 7:20 PM

It racism. Racism pure and simple. Racism from the NAACP.

Posted by Pierre | July 30, 2007 8:17 PM

Captain why haven't you commented on the case of Stanislav Shmulevich who is being prosecuted for putting a koran into the toilet?

Posted by Mark1971 | July 30, 2007 8:18 PM

National Association for the Advancement of Canine Pugilism

Posted by LuckyBogey | July 30, 2007 8:31 PM

I saw on the Atlanta news where protesters had signs that read "Black Atlanta For Vick". Vick also gave an interview on the radio today and has now found God and really misses his teammates. I can picture Vick driving a White Pickup truck down Peachtree before he becomes the starting Quarterback on the prison football team!

The judge in Richmond will not allow this to turn into another OJ. I'm sure the Judge will provide a Bible to read in his jail cell. Moral of this story: Black or White, Don't kill dogs in the Bulldog Nation's backyard.

Posted by James I. Hymas | July 30, 2007 8:47 PM

Main Stream Media

The NAACP officials said they are not sure of whether Vick is guilty or innocent but said they are sure the NFL moved too swiftly when they banned Vick from Falcons training camp. They also criticized Vick's sponsors, such as Nike, for suspending their endorsement contracts with Vick.

"Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be you are piling on because Mr. Vick has not been convicted of anything and until he has been judged by the legal system to be guilty, we should refrain from viciousness and allow the legal process to take its course," Dr. White said

No discernable relationship to " endorsing dogfighting and opposing the prosecution of those who allegedly stage these events and slaughter dogs who don't perform".

Completely irrelevant to "Filing charges in court when grand juries hand down indictments".

Posted by Dusty | July 30, 2007 9:19 PM

I'm blowing the whistle and calling a penalty for unsportsman-like conduct on the sidelines by the waterboys.

Posted by Bennett | July 30, 2007 9:23 PM

While it is true that Michael Vick is wealthy and capable of providing an effective defense for himself (attorney wise I mean), his money is really nothing compared to the resources available to the state. I don't take this as the NAACP speaking out in favor of dog-fighting, I take it as a concern that the defendant be afforded every right he is entitled to have, just as we all would want for ourselves, whether the charges be dog fighting or shoplifting. This is especially true when the charges are heinous as it is so easy to inflame public opinion before a single witness has been sworn. The gov't. can obtain all the indictments it wants, it still has to prove its case and convince a jury to convict. Until that happens, Michael Vick is innocent and he should be treated as such. Otherwise, we're no better than some third world dictatorship putting on show trials.

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 30, 2007 9:28 PM

Black or White. Dr White seems all white about black. Black letter law?
wikipedia - Black letter law
Justice should be color-blind. If not. Why not?

Posted by John Adams | July 30, 2007 9:44 PM

The so-called “piling on” is blatantly obvious. Since when is the FBI free to divert scarce federal resources into activities under the jurisdiction of sheriff Billy Bob (who could have resolved the matter in a few weeks without making a federal case out of it)? Are the FBI now clearly stating that they suddenly have sufficient resources to investigate the alarming reports from responsible citizens regarding wild eyed foreign Arabs taking very suspicious “flight training”. Or are we simply back to pre-9/11, the FBI as usual, leaving an undefended America to face who knows what while they investigate dog fighting to get their name in the paper and collect awards from the SPCA? And what is a federal prosecutor doing in the middle of this? Are we back to the state lines nonsense? Even fifty years ago, with that horse’s behind Hoover still around, making a federal case out of dog fighting would have gotten nothing but a good laugh. Gee, I guess we better re-think taking the cat on vacation to Florida again this winter.

Posted by unclesmrgol | July 30, 2007 10:23 PM

What you have to realize is that this isn't the NAACP national organization speaking here -- its the President of the Atlanta chapter (who may or may not speak for the chapter itself, and may nor may not speak for the national organization).

If he isn't really speaking for the NAACP itself, we'll soon know, won't we?

Posted by ck | July 30, 2007 11:49 PM

I hardly think Vick needs help - I wish the NAACP would jump on some relevant cases or cases in which people actually need help because they can't defend themselves.

Posted by Tony | July 31, 2007 2:55 AM

Like the NAACP is worth listening to in the first place.

Glad to see the comparisons to the Duke case. I wonder if Jesse J. will give Vick another scholarship.

Posted by Jim | July 31, 2007 9:21 AM

Google NAACP and Duke...

Posted by truthogre | July 31, 2007 9:46 AM

It is not a question of whether or not the NAACP endorses dog fighting. The simple truth is that the NAACP will jump into a fray purposely ignorant of any facts just to play the race card and pump up the PC cancer that has been festering for decades. They have no need for the truth, they have no need for facts, all they need do is play on the liberal Political Correctness that infests this country and they will be not only heard but also given merit. It is comical how simple the people are that listen, believe and follow PC propaganda regardless of the facts. It also amazes me how quickly someone with facts, with truth is crucified under the PC banner if they speak out against a so-called minority. Isn't it clear enough to mainstream America what is happening? Is it not bad enough that our judicial system has flipped from one for victim’s rights to one for the rights of the offender? Do we now wish to continue down this road that the few have so much power over the many under a PC doctrine? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Posted by Monkei | July 31, 2007 10:16 AM

Lets see ... Black's support Vick just because he is black? Wingnuts support Bush just because he is GOP? Neither deserve the support yet they both get it.

Same old song.

Posted by docjim505 | July 31, 2007 10:24 AM

There is merit in both sides of the argument.

1. The NAACP certainly isn't making itself look good by playing the race card in favor of a man against whom there is credible evidence of dogfighting and other barbaric cruelty to animals, BUT...

2. He hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Not so long ago, many of us rightfully decried Duke University for punishing the lacrosse players before it was ever shown that they were guilty. Shouldn't we reserve judgement of Vick unless and until it can be clearly demonstrated that he is the loathesome and cruel monster that he appears to be?

And as for the argument made by John Adams about the FBI... Yeah, I do sort of wonder if the feds don't have anything better to do with their time.