'CSI': Dogs of war

The dogfighting plot actually hurt me. Good on them for trying to shine some light on a very terrible "sport". But with the whole Michael Vick controversy... I mean...yeah, we know.

I could have done without the actual dogfighting scene. it wasn't graphic, but it made me want to cry. Seriously.

Anyways, besides that..

I kinda like the whole conspiracy with the LVPD thing and especially how it ties in with Vegas mobsters. I find it really interesting. I wonder who the informant is.. if it's a seldomly seen character or possibly someone more relevant?

Poor Warrick though. My baby is just going downhill man...

I hated the dog fight scene and the scene with the bandaged dog at the clinic. As gory as other episodes have been this was the hardest one for me to watch, because of all those poor dogs. I was holding my dog through every dog fight scene. She was actually paying attention to the screen when she heard the whining dogs. I heard that George Eads is a dog fan, I wonder if this episode was hard for him to film.

Yeah, the dogfighting was hard to watch, and part of me wanted Stokes to say to the kid "Oh, get outta here, champ, you killed that little *****."

I don't know how they did that scene, don't really wanna know. But well done on the director's part to make it so real to really make this case nail the heartstrings. Daring, but extremely effective.

I am a pet owner/lover, but I didn't wince at the scenes of the dog fighting. There isn't much out there to turn my stomach or disgust me, especially how our senses are ***aulted on a daily basis. If you ask me, the exploded face on CSI:NY was more gruesome this week than the dog fighting.

I think people need to see the violence and after-effects to truly understand the horrors of it all. That is the one thing that I think has helped Vick and his image (what is left of it). We constantly see images of war, crime, sexual abuse, auto accidents, etc. to the point it doesn't shock or surprise us. I applaud the show's team for showing us something we rarely see depicted. Of course they used the signature CSI graphic flair to get the point across about animal abuse. With all the talk about Vick and the media attention, it made sense to use it as a story inspiration and was done to make a point. Admit it, before this, how many people even thought about how horrific this whole situation truly is?

The dog-fighting scene interested me only for how it was shot, not for what was depicted. I'd like to know if the same person who handled the dogs for this episode (and there is a way to do this with no harm done to the dogs at all, but I have no idea how) is the one who choreographed the dog fight in The Journey of Nattie Gann, a Disney movie from the mid-1980s. Yeah, people who think dog fighting isn't that bad probably needed to see this episode, if only because it was well-done and very realistic. This isn't a couple poodles humping each other; this is a blood sport, and it is a needless, savage waste of good animals, no matter in what part of the country it happens. Unfortunately, the stereotypes of inner-city thugs and southern-bred folk being the only ones who like this garbage was the only real negative of the episode. Just watch the movie Hostel to see how the supposed upper-crust acts towards their fellow man (or woman, as the case may be), and one can make a strong case that a Wall Street executive is just as likely to watch two pit bulls maul each other to death as a member of the Crips. As for Warrick being relegated to a barely-B plot after last week's stellar turn for the character, I was rather disappointed at the truncated plot. I am wondering if this is going to be going on for the remainder of the season, though, given the ominous phone call right at the end of the episode. Undercover, perhaps? As long as it's played well, I won't mind Warrick being the focus of several episodes, but if it's just watching a character on a downward spiral, we get enough of that on other, lesser shows. Now, of course, we'll have to wait and see. As an aside, I probably have a sick mind, but somehow I just knew that the cigar was going to explode. I suppose it could have been worse...don't know how, exactly, but still...

What I found most interesting in all those comments is how you all mentionned how hard the dog scenes were. Sure, they were violent and I do not condone cruelty against animals. But in no way will I ever put animals first before a human being (no matter how sadistic that human is). There is absolutly no justification for the young boy's murder. As much as someone may be a pet lover. they are just that, pets (unfortunate animals turned into submission by humans!).Sure, the woman should have gone to prison and pay for her crimes but her death is in no way justified. Coming from the carribean and south america, I noticed that a lot of north americans treat their pets better than other human beings and that is a most ridiculous and sad thing. I'm always laughing out loud when I hear some PETA demonstrations against seal hunting and such but I never hear the same p***ion about fair-trade, abolition of sweatshops or the CIA's implications in civil wars in South America or Africa. Obviously, some people's priority should be set straight: humans first.

Joalissa, I appreciate your point of view. Unfortunately, to quote a friend of mine, "It's so much easier to feel pity for an abused animal than it is to do the same for an abused child, because at least there's a chance you can adopt the abused animal." When there is a choice between what is easy and what is difficult, we humans often take the one that will cause us the least amount of emotional pain; thus, the seeming interest in the welfare of an animal above that of a human being. Speaking for myself, and not for all North Americans, I don't put animals above humans, but it is true that a lot of Americans especially treat their animals a lot better than they treat their fellow men, women and children. Also, the American and British media are not really all that interested in sweat shops being abolished, or women in the Middle East being treated like human beings (as opposed to walking birthing machines and little else), or wars stopping altogether. Blood is the life force of the media, and if the blood stops flowing, their livelihood goes away. Caring about pets is easy; caring about fate of the people of Darfur isn't, at least not according to the people who manufacture the news. To quote the old Pogo comic strip: "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." I agree, humans should be first, but I guess the inevitable question follows: which humans? Those who care about people in bad regions of the world, or those who buy diamond-encrusted collars for their Lhasa Apsos? We may not like them, but they're people, too. Therein lies the paradox.

I thought the discussion here was about a CSI episode, not about the old and tired argument about people over animals and vice versa.

Animals should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their status in society case closed.

I was pretty horrified over the dogfighting in this episode. I don't think they should air that kind of stuff. It still bothers me to think of it. The sounds of the dogs crying and fighting, the obvious show of the dogs fighting. I hate it.

Luckily, we taped this episode to watch at a later date, something we always do mainly because my husband goes to bed so early and misses all 9:00 EST shows. Anyway, this particular episode I was especially glad we taped, because we fast forwarded through the dog fighting scenes. I simply can't stand to see any animal being hurt and in pain, but it's worse for me being the dog lover/pet owner that I am. I spared myself what I considered to be the worst part of the episode. Really, though, I could have done without the A plot entirely. I heard enough about the whole Vick thing through the news. I don't think a CSI episode on this topic was needed. Let's leave that to the other 'ripped from the headlines' show, that being 'Law and Order.