Because responsible hunters don’t shoot to wound so as to enjoy the animal’s suffering.
I don’t think he ought to go back to play football until he’s dragged around by a rope tied around his testicles, behind a car, at a Nascar race. Then someone should come out and kick him in the head with a steel toed boot. I sound like I’m just mouthing off, but I would really and truly , with all of my heart, volunteer to do it.
That would certainly put you amongst the pantheon of the most moral ever.
Vick has (or will have) paid his debt to society for his crimes. Whats the point of the criminal justice system if we don’t allow convicts to integrate back into society? Employment in the NFL is unrelated to his crimes; I see no reason he shouldn’t play again.
“Paid his debt to society” means he’s not committing any more crimes and is no longer in jail for them. It doesn’t follow that we have to forget the whole thing ever happened, and his employers do not have to let him resume the same life and job he had before he went to jail. For example, maybe it’s fair to ask that he actually do something of his own free will before somebody offers him hundreds of thousands of dollars to play pro football. He had no choice about going to jail and he made no effort to come clean about the whole dogfighting business until he was dead to rights. He’s not required to be a great guy, but if he wants people to forgive him to the point where it makes sense for a team to sign him and “reintegrate” to the privilege of playing pro football, perhaps he can do something other than acting in self-preservation and making self-interested PR moves.
No…Employment in, say, the assembly line at a factory is unrelated to his crimes. Employment in the NFL makes you a public figure. There’s a big difference.
We still try to believe that public figures , by choosing to live under the public’s scrutiny, have to show responsibility to the public’s values.
We teach little kids that sport is as much about developing character as it is about winning.
We want to believe that it’s true. We want to teach kids to look up to sport figures with admiration and respect.
So we can forgive sports figures for certain unadmirable and disrespectful acts of bad character… but not torturing dogs.
Which means he is not guilty of murder. He pled guilty to an obstruction charge, and was fined $250,000 by the NFL, according to the wiki article, which has the following quotation from ESPN’s legal analyst who was following the proceedings: “As to Ray Lewis, there is no evidence that he assisted anybody in a stabbing or encouraged anybody to do a stabbing which would make him a party to felony murder, malice murder, or felony assault with a knife.”
For which he received a five game suspension without pay, estimated to have cost him $190,000. He was never charged or convicted of any criminal offence in relation to the incident, apparently because the other player, Andre Gurode, did not want to press charges.
As for the arrest warrants and indictments, they are not proof of guilt, only that charges have been begun and court process issued. The arrests warrants were both dismissed by the judge on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and were not renewed by the District Attorney’s office. The indictment is apparently for misdemeanor traffic charges, which do not appear to have gone to trial yet.
This episode happened just last month, and the trial has not yet occurred. The Browns and the NFL are apparently reviewing the matter. Since the matter has not yet gone to trial, let alone had a verdict, and the season won’t start for several months, it doesn’t seem unusual for the NFL to wait and see if there are any further developments in the criminal case before the season starts.
But none of them have yet resulted in any conviction of any criminal offence for violence against another human. The NFL has issued discipline against two of them, and is waiting to see what happens to the third. So none of the examples you give involve the league harbouring a criminal.
By contrast, Vick is a convicted felon under both state and federal law, having been sentenced to 23 months in federal penitentiary.
I find it very appropriate that Michael Vick was released in the midst of the thoroughbred racing Triple Crown, the most prestigious events of a “sport” where men enslave horses, sit on them, and beat the crap out of them to make them run faster (while others gamble on them).
Michael Vick was singled out because he was a celebrity participating in a barbaric form of entertainment. Unfortunately for him, it wasn’t one that involved lots of wealthy white men.
You’re entitled to your opinion and all, but I just can’t fathom this attitude. A person isn’t a role model by virtue of their position or job; they are a role model by virtue of their actions. Stan the Man? Roberto Clemente? Those are role models. Michael Vick? Not so much, no matter what job he happens to hold. If we teach our children to respect respectable people and not just whoever happens to be famous, we will be much better off as a society.
As some have said, Vick has paid for what he did, and should be allowed to get on with his life.
Fine. Let him.
Even if he somehow turns into the greatest player that ever lived, I still won’t think any better of him.
Let the market decide. Anyone who cares enough, can simply stop going to or watching the games he is playing in, and/or not renew their box seats or season tickets. They can choose not to buy any products he endorses (how about autographed shock collars or signature series cattle prods?). Money talks, sometimes louder than words.
Do people at dogfights enjoy the animals’ suffering?
I don’t know anything about dog fighting and am not making any claims, but I would have assumed that the spectators look at the fight much as spectators at a boxing match do - not to enjoy anyone’s suffering but to see this really tough guy stomp all over a lesser tough guy. I don’t think people at boxing matches enjoy the suffering of the loser (or the winner), it’s just the nature of the competition.
Do you know otherwise?
Boxers aren’t deliberately trying to KILL each other. They weren’t FROCED into it either. I know, that’s just a minor nit.
I was not equating the moral issues in boxing to those in dog fighting.
I was suggesting that the enjoyment that the spectators get out a dog fight might be comparable to the enjoyment that the spectators get out of a boxing match (& not involve enjoying the suffering).
[FTR, I object to both dog fighting and hunting for pleasure.]
I think Vick is scum and even though he has served his time, he is a reprehensible human being.
Personal feelings aside though, the statements/idea that keep bothering me is if he has done his time he should be able to work (in the NFL) again. I don’t agree with this.
Using a personal example, if I were convicted of a felony - any felony - and whether I served jail time or got probation, the fact that I have a felony conviction would IMMEDIATELY make me ineligible for employment with my current employer or with any other business within my industry (Banking, Financial). Just because I served my time does not give me a free pass back into my chosen career.
So why do people feel the NFL has any obligation to give him a job back? Michael Vick can work, perhaps as a construction worker, a truck driver, a waiter, etc. There are obviously less job opportunities for convicted felons but there are some. Why does HE have any right to return to a career in the NFL?
MeanJoe
Well, I don’t agree with this either. Unless you were embezzling or something, you shouldn’t be barred from the banking industry just because you sold drugs to some friends. I think felons should be able to vote and own firearms, too, so I guess that makes me an outlier.
However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say any felon has the right to a job, either. Employers should be able to hire and not hire whoever they want. I just think it is stupid to fire otherwise competent and qualified people because of something unrelated to their job. My problem is with the people angry at the NFL. If the Falcons, or any other team, wants to risk their money on an extremely unpopular quarterback, what is it to you or anyone else? It isn’t your decision nor should it be.
Obligated? No. But he shouldn’t be banned either. Reinstate him and allow him to opportunity to make his case with a team. Maybe no one will take him. Maybe they will. He will know he is on a very short leash (no pun intended). Probably with a contract for league minimums with a very strict morality clause.
I guess I don’t see sports and its players as anything special, even at the professional level. It’s about entertainment, not character or privilege. If a potential employer thinks he’ll be useful, then they should hire him. If people don’t want to watch him play, then they shouldn’t.
Putting sports players on pedestals and then making a fuss when they fall off is silly. Don’t put them up there in the first place.
Hunters usually go for a quick, clean kill, not a prolonged, violent brawl to the death. Nor do they beat, hang or electrocute said animals to kill them.
I never put Michael Vick on a pedestal. In fact I never even liked him. I’m just pointing out that even if he’s “paid his debt to society,” he is not automatically entitled to the riches and privileges associated with the life he lead before his dogfighting ring was discovered. (Whether or not he is “anything special,” he was the highest paid player in the league at one time, and he’d still be very rich if he wasn’t so stupid with his money.) The NFL may choose to reinstate him, but I was pointing out that he has done nothing to earn it other than waiting until his jail sentence expired.
Which is why, even if Vick is reinstated, he will never play a single down in the NFL ever again. The publicity and subsequent media blitz and boycotts would drown any team that even sniffs in Vick’s general direction.
He is done, regardless of what the NFL decides.