[QUOTE=Billdo]
I think a salient difference is the matter of intent. Killing someone in a drunk driving accident is, at its core, an accident, if one that was caused by the extreme recklessness of the drunk driver.
[/QUOTE]
This is why they don’t call them drunk driving on purposes.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Don’t even bother complaining to the NFL. Organize boycotts of the sponsors, and do it very loudly. Let them know they face a year without your business for every minute Vick spends on a football field. Getting it right a day late should cost them sixty years.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
You don’t even have to be loud or showy about it. Just don’t go to the games or buy NFL stuff. Money talks. If enough fans stop financing the league through ticket sales etc, the NFL will definitely notice. Again, money talks.
[QUOTE=megatraum]
It’s striking and saddening to see how quick many of you are to wish pain, bankruptcy and even death on another human being, all while claiming to take the moral high ground. Michael Vick did a horrible thing, and he deserves the sentence he gets, but this needs to be looked at in perspective. Michael Vick didn’t kill another human being. He didn’t even hurt another human being. He hurt/killed dogs. I know a lot of people (myself included) are dog owners/lovers, and it’s so easy to picture someone doing this to your dog and get riled up, but dogs are not people.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I know a few folks are wishing death on the man, and pain. Me personally, I’m not even interested in bankruptcy. I’d just be happy if he no longer gets to be a multiple millionaire doing the extremely PR-heavy job he did before he decided to be pointlessly cruel.
For the record, Jon Kitna threw for more than 4,000 yards last season, with 21 touchdowns and a completion percentage over 60%. He plays in a Mike Martz offense with two big-talent wide receivers that relies on a strong pocket passer who can throw and throw and throw - even minus personal issues, a quarterback like Vick would be lost in a Martz offense. The Lions wouldn’t want Vick for Kitna straight up right now.
I think you’re overestimating the market for the services of a tainted 30-year-old quarterback coming off a two-year layoff who was never substantially better than the median even in his athletic prime (which will be over by the summer of 2009).
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
What’s this mean to his career? Assume he does little or no jail time (suspended sentence or what not), do you think he’ll ever play pro-ball again?
[/QUOTE]
I think they’re talking about 18 months as almost for sure. No, I don’t think the NFL wants any more bad press. I think he’s done.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Anyone catch the RealSports segment on dogfighting? It was some seriously fucked up shit. Not directly tied to Vick, but rather about dogfighting in general.
Apparently it isn’t unheard of for the people involved to steal pet dogs out of people yards, “hobble” them, then toss them to their fighting dogs to get experience killing.
One example was a smallish pet dog whose mouth was taped shut to make it defenseless. She did not survive. (They showed the video of that “fight”. Ugh.) Another was brutal; they shattered one of the dogs hips so that it couldn’t defend itself. It somehow survived and amazingly managed to limp its way home, where it promptly collapsed. Its horrified owner took it straight to the vet. It’s still alive, but has effectively become a three-legged dog due to its permanently destroyed hip.
Gruesome.
[/QUOTE]
I agree it’s gruesome. I will never understand the attraction no matter how they try to justify it as a “sport”. Hmmm…I wonder why the general public doesn’t look at dog/cock fight enthusiasts the same way they look at kids who torture animals, i.e., they are mentally ill and will progress to other evils as they get older. I mean, should we fear these dogfight guys the way we would fear the Jeffery Dahmers of the world who tortured animals as a kid?
[QUOTE=tbdi]
I heard an NPR piece on this earlier today and there was an absolutely amazing caller who claimed that Vick is being persecuted because of race. Apparently since dog fighting was once a “sport” of upper-class British and nobody convicted them of it there’s no justification for vilifying Vick. The logic was so incredibly twisted I couldn’t believe it.
As far as I’m concerned Vick should spend about 15 minutes with some of his champion dogs.
[/QUOTE]
The NAACP has come out supporting Vick, though I think they are saying it isn’t due to race.
Actor Jamie Foxx (quite the authority) has also gone on the record saying it’s a race thing. According to him, white folks just don’t understand that in the ghetto people fight dogs and it’s not a big deal, so Vick probably didn’t even realize it was illegal (or some such nonsense).
Of course, Jamie Foxx is also the same one who said he wouldn’t let white people in his house, so I’d take what he says with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=megatraum]
this needs to be looked at in perspective. Michael Vick didn’t kill another human being. He didn’t even hurt another human being. He hurt/killed dogs. I know a lot of people (myself included) are dog owners/lovers, and it’s so easy to picture someone doing this to your dog and get riled up, but dogs are not people.
As for Vick’s NFL future, those who claim that he has no chance of being a starter again are crazy.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s try this thought on for size:
“dogs are not people” = playing football is not a right.
“They were only dogs, Vick shouldn’t suffer a major penalty” = “it’s only football, Vick won’t miss it.”
I’ll match your dismissal of an animal’s suffering with my own dismissal of football’s importance in the grand scheme of things.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Friend, I will tell you this; the perspective I have is not actually visiting Michael Vick personally. I’ve been fighting fires for 16 years, and my heart breaks the same if I pull the body of a dog (or cat or other beloved pet) or the body of Aunt Sadie out of that burning building, because the heart of whoever loved either the pet or Aunt Sadie breaks as well.
Admittedly, it breaks more when it’s a human child, that’s just nature. Still, the love I have for my dogs (and by proxy, all dogs) is the same as one might have for thier child, and by proxy, all children. I have had dogs my entire life, I will have them until I die. They are pure, innocent and good, they love without condition, and are loyal beyond all imagination. These qualities are hardly found in humans, yet we tolerate them anyway, because it is necessary to do so. Anyone that would treat something so good, so kind and so loving with the disdain, violence and abject hatred that Michael Vick did, deserves the same fate (IMO)as one who molests and/or kills innocent children.
[/QUOTE]
BRAVO!
Sailboat
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
The NAACP has come out supporting Vick, though I think they are saying it isn’t due to race.
[/QUOTE]
I really thought that you had to be making this up.
I mean, it would be one thing to have been trying to keep him from being convicted in the court of public opinion, which the NAACP also did - quite correctly.
But according to this article, R.L. White, the president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP is suggesting Vick should be allowed back, because of the enjoyment he’d give NFL fans in the future.
Besides, “White also said he didn’t understand the uproar over dogfighting, when hunting deer and other animals is perfectly acceptable.”
:rolleyes:
Though, to be fair, that’s not the whole NAACP, just a single chapter.
Here is the actual plea agreement, along with the summary of the facts, that Vick signed today. (warning: 22 page pdf file)
He did not admit to actually killing dogs and did not admit to gambling. The summary of facts says, “Vick did not gamble by placing side bets on any of the fights. Vick did not receive any of the proceeds from the purses that were won by Bad Newz Kennels.”
My understanding is the gambling aspect of the whole sordid mess is what could end Vick’s career in the NFL. So it remains to be seen whether this carefully parsed language will work for him.
As a Falcon fan since 1966, I hope we never see him in a Falcon uniform again!
[QUOTE=Labdad]
Here is the actual plea agreement, along with the summary of the facts, that Vick signed today. (warning: 22 page pdf file)
He did not admit to actually killing dogs and did not admit to gambling. The summary of facts says, “Vick did not gamble by placing side bets on any of the fights. Vick did not receive any of the proceeds from the purses that were won by Bad Newz Kennels.”
My understanding is the gambling aspect of the whole sordid mess is what could end Vick’s career in the NFL. So it remains to be seen whether this carefully parsed language will work for him.
As a Falcon fan since 1966, I hope we never see him in a Falcon uniform again!
[/QUOTE]
That means that Virginia can still prosecute him for stuff he didn’t plea out of, AFAIK, if they think they can make a case.
[QUOTE=Labdad]
He did not admit to actually killing dogs and did not admit to gambling.
[/QUOTE]
He agreed that the dogs died “as a result of the collective efforts” of himself and two co-defendants. Sounds like he killed them to me. I mean, if you die as a result of my efforts, haven’t I killed you?
He did admit to bankrolling the gambling operation, and absorbing the losses, while not receiving any winnings. Sounds like gambling to me. Shitty odds, but gambling none the less.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
He agreed that the dogs died “as a result of the collective efforts” of himself and two co-defendants. Sounds like he killed them to me. I mean, if you die as a result of my efforts, haven’t I killed you?
He did admit to bankrolling the gambling operation, and absorbing the losses, while not receiving any winnings. Sounds like gambling to me. Shitty odds, but gambling none the less.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Contrapuntal, but that language was hammered out for a reason.
Here’s an exerpt from today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
[QUOTE=Labdad]
I agree with you Contrapuntal, but that language was hammered out for a reason.
[/QUOTE]
My guess is that the lawyers were trying to justify their fees. I can’t see the wording helping with the sentencing, or with the NFL (as far as the gambling aspect is concerned.) I mean, he admitted to bankrolling a* gambling enterprise,* but not placing side bets? So what? Who’s more important, the house or the player?
Maybe in his mind he gets to salvage a few reputation points. IMO, his supporters already think he is being railroaded, and his detractors believe he executed each dog himself. Lawyer speak won’t change that.
Basically I agree with the last two sentences in your cite.
NFL suspends vick indefinately for acts that were not just criminal but 'cruel and reprehensible.
[QUOTE=wring]
NFL suspends vick indefinately for acts that were not just criminal but 'cruel and reprehensible.
[/QUOTE]
Busted link.
fixed sorry.
[QUOTE=wring]
fixed sorry.
[/QUOTE]
Looks like the NFL didn’t buy that “side bet” bullshit.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Looks like the NFL didn’t buy that “side bet” bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
as well they shouldn’t have. Ditto for the “I just stood by while others killed the dogs I owned on my property”.
Vick to Roger Goodell, “I am shocked! I’m shocked to find that gambling is going on here!”