I hate to say this but your comparison is like saying that people who are in battle in the military are "Murderers" because they kill people, and Murderer's kill people, so those things are exactly the same thing.
It isn't.
There is a societal aspect to it. From birth, almost any person within this country is going to understand there is a difference between a domesticated animal and a vermin, which is what a mouse is.
The wanton torture and killing of said animals, not out of any kind of necessity but out of sport and greed, is far different than the killing of something considered a vermin for the sake of health. Much like killing someone upon the battle field is different than breaking into someones home and shooting them dead because you want their stereo.
This isn't excusing what Stallworth did, but I think you're attempting to devalue what Mike Vick did to try and prop up Stallworths, which actually seems to devalue your case against Stallworth.
I'm not trying to devaluing what Vick did, so much as apply the
correct value. The issue is definitely societal. And we've OVERvalued what Vick did to the point that we have already DEvalued what Stallworth did.
This imbalance is already present.
I'm calling for a correction of our views on things, because what they are now is completely ****ed up.
With humans, there can be justifiable reasons to kill someone. Such as while waging war. And there are also unjustifiable reasons.
With animals, there is no such distinction. Killing an animal that you own is
always justifiable. There is no such thing as unjustified canicide.
Torturing an animal is the only thing that can be considered criminal. Simply killing an animal that you own should not be a crime. Ever.
What Mike Vick did that was wrong was the
way he killed the animals, not the fact that he killed them. But they are his property.
If I kill someone
else's animal, I should be charged with criminal damage to property and that is it. That's all I did.
The difference between domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals is that domesticated animals are property, and property rights indicate that you can do wit them as you wish.
If I own a cow, I am allowed to slaughter that animal and eat it with no risk of penalty. I should also have that right with my dog.
What I should not have a right to do is torture that animal. Again, this is where Vick went wrong. If he killed these animals in a humane fashion, such as putting them to sleep, he should have only gotten done up on th eillegal gambling ring.
But at the same time, we aren't discussing the comparison of Justifiable homicide (soldiers at war) and torturing dogs. We are comparing an UNjustifiable homicide and torturing dogs.
Only in a world that has gone completely bonkers is the torturing of animals put on the same level or above unjustifiable homicide.
