A point is made by one of our more troubled readers:
Mr. Vick clearly admitted today to killing dogs. OK, OK..you say (he says) he participated in a small group collectively responsible for the death of six to eight dogs. You might claim we are arguing semantics, but I say that is killing dogs.
But what does 'collective' effort mean in this case?
The sensible read - based on the government's acceptance of the plea and not forcing Vick to clearly say he physically killed any dogs - is that in this case Vick's contribution to the collective effort in killing the dogs was providing the property and means.
Clearly, if Vick had done any damage with his own two hands, our government prosecutors would have demanded full accountability.
So, most legal experts agree that the wording of the plea is an indication that Vick is admitting that he provided the land on which the killings took place, payed for the electricity to electrocute them and payed for the water to drown them.
As this case winds down it becomes clear in the language of the plea that Vick's guilt was not so much of being an active and physical participant. But rather, that he had a knowledge of and - through his silence - supported the operation.
Now, Mr. Vick must pay for his lack of vigilance in the upkeep of his property. And he will spend some time contemplating the company he keeps.
Hopefully, Vick learns what is unquestionably the most important lesson here:
Friendships without loyalty are no friendships at all.
Let's all take the harsh lesson Mr. Vick has learned to heart.