Daniel-p, since we all have the capacity for committing atrocities, why do some feel so strongly about the Vick case?
Could it be that Vick's seeming insensitivity to animal cruelty is a result of the pain his ancestors have suffered?
That assumption is wrong on so many levels. First, we're all responsible for our own actions. Despite what ostensibly drives us to commit atrocities, we pay for our crimes. Second, what about all the African Americans who haven't used their ancestry as an excuse for torturing and brutally killing animals? Are they just anomalies? Third, Vick was (I think) one of the highest paid NFL players of all time--and yet, he set up a dog-fighting ring as a side venture. Society rewarded his athletic ability with wealth, and yet he still needed to dabble in black markets and illegal activity.
So, to answer your question: NO. He wasn't just "insensitive to animal cruelty," he actively committed cruelty on animals.
What next, chalk up every crime a black person commits as just a reflection of their ancestry? THat's twisted, sick, dumb, and just plain wrong.