How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

Moreover, employers can suspend or fire employees based on hearsay or other types of evidence that a jury would never hear. Employers need not conduct mini-trials or await criminal convictions before firing an employee for inappropriate conduct. People do and should get fired all the time for sexual harassment, racist remarks, etc. even though no trial was held. I'm not sure why we have elevated the "right" to play in the NFL above what it is.....a job.

I don't think many Vick supporters would be happy if some jerk at work who made racist remarks or who exercised his right to free speech by bearing a swastika tat on his forehead had to be convicted of a crime before an employer could fire him.

Excellent post Sheriff.

This is the point that I think a lot of people are missing. I'm not saying throw the guy in jail......that's for the courts to decide. But if the NFL has shown anything under the new conduct policy, it's that they do not have to wait for a conviction from a criminal trial to suspend players. And this is completely consistent with the same standard that 90% of the rest of us in the real world live with every day. Would it suck if Vick was eventually found innocent after being suspended? You bet. Would it also suck if Pacman was found innocent of his alleged crimes after being suspended? Apparently it wouldn't because there wasn't nearly this much support for Pacman when Goodell's decision was handed down on him. What's the difference?

Is it that Vick has been put on Madden covers and paraded around as the NFL poster child all these years while Pacman was villified (and justifiably so) since being drafted? So is our perception that Vick is somehow a better person who deserves a higher level of "justice" than Pacman because of what we've been told (or sold) all these years? They are both being accused of terrible, criminal behavior since coming into the league.....it just took longer for it to catch up with Vick......that doesn't make him any better of a person than Pacman. In fact, if both players are found guilty of what each one is being accused of, I could argue that Vick is actually a worse person than Pacman. But the fact is neither one has been convicted yet.....but one sits at home while the other may be left alone by the NFL. I can't help but think that the NFL wouldn't have such a hard time with this if this was Brandon Lloyd's house and he was the subject of this indictment.

I can't help but think that the NFL wouldn't have such a hard time with this if this was Brandon Lloyd's house and he was the subject of this indictment.
I never thought of it that way. Great point!

Hagams: So you're against the pac-man jones suspension too? He hasn't been convicted of a damn thing either. When this policy came out I said I didn't like the grey area giving Goodell lots of room to decide.

Michael Vick went into the commish's office and said "I didn't do it" and this indictment is pretty damn in depth and the feds nearly always get convictions (mid 90%s). I see Vick being gone for the season just for giving the league a black eye.
What do you think he would have told the commish that he did it and get suspended for dog fighting before he was even indicted? I don't think that would make much sense.

Some have said that an employer could fire any of us if we had those types of charges leveled agsinst us and thats not totaly true. It depends on the state and the employer/employee's contract if they even have one. In Virginia we have a right to work state and we can fire someone for just about any reason. Other states have laws which protect the employee and they have rights which could prevent an employer from firing them before any trial. I would think that the laws in Georgia would have to be considered before they could outright fire Vick. I guess what I'm saying is that there is allot of legal stuff that goes on and I'm sure the NFL and the Falcons are looking into all of their options. This indictment came as a big surprise and I'm not surprised that nothing has been done by either party as of yet.

I highly doubt Vick is innocent but I don't like the notion that we convict someone before he's convicted in court (civil and criminal). It would set an unbelievable precedence to have people convicted by their employer merely for being indicted/investigate.

No doubt, your employer will want you out if you're under suspicion for a criminal act but they don't terminate you right there and then. You reach an agreement and part company amicably.

Sure, they can fire you at will but the truth is there is no such thing when you know your rights. If you're unjustly terminated you have recourse through the court system. Bob, meet my lawyer. His name is John Payme and he likes to get paid and so do I Bob.

If the NFL suspended Vick, it wouldn't mean that they had "convicted" him of anything. It wouldn't reflect their opinion of his guilt, and it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the charges. It would have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they don't want players with countless dead dogs buried in their backyard, 50 dogs tied to car axles in the back yard, bloody carpet, etc in the league. It isn't good for business.

It's simple: if you're an asshole, your employer could fire you. If you smell bad, your employer could fire you. If you engage in unethical behavior, or are suspected of such behavior, your employer could fire you. I believe every employer has that right, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with it.

Another thing: so much of this is based on physical evidence -- not some witness that could be wrong or have an axe to grind. It is clear that Vick owned property where this evidence was found -- he is not disputing that. His only defense is that he didn't know, and that is a totally weak argument.

If the NFL suspended Vick, it wouldn't mean that they had "convicted" him of anything. It wouldn't reflect their opinion of his guilt, and it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the charges. It would have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they don't want players with countless dead dogs buried in their backyard, 50 dogs tied to car axles in the back yard, bloody carpet, etc in the league. It isn't good for business.

It's simple: if you're an asshole, your employer could fire you. If you smell bad, your employer could fire you. If you engage in unethical behavior, or are suspected of such behavior, your employer could fire you. I believe every employer has that right, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with it.

Another thing: so much of this is based on physical evidence -- not some witness that could be wrong or have an axe to grind. It is clear that Vick owned property where this evidence was found -- he is not disputing that. His only defense is that he didn't know, and that is a totally weak argument.
Not knowning is not a totaly week argument but is really his only argument. People have said that if a person is selling drugs from an apartment or a house they rent that the cops could take the house from the landlord which is not correct. If this was the case about 80% of drug bust are in rental properties and the landlords never loose the property or have legal issues. Now if the landlord allowed crimes to go on then the cops could take the property. I'm not trying to defend Vick with this but only clearing up the issue of the landlords.

I voted zero games, because he has not been convicted of any crimes so far. He has no prior convictions or allegations. The Falcons should suspend him without pay for the season and allow him to take care of his legal problems and to divorce themselves from the media barrage. If he is found guilty, the league should suspend him indefinitely and the Falcons should release him. If he is exonerated, no suspension should be given.

I voted zero games, because he has not been convicted of any crimes so far. He has no prior convictions or allegations. The Falcons should suspend him without pay for the season and allow him to take care of his legal problems and to divorce themselves from the media barrage. If he is found guilty, the league should suspend him indefinitely and the Falcons should release him. If he is exonerated, no suspension should be given.
We don't know if the Falcons have the legal right to suspend him without pay but they can with pay.

If the NFL suspended Vick, it wouldn't mean that they had "convicted" him of anything. It wouldn't reflect their opinion of his guilt, and it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the charges. It would have EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they don't want players with countless dead dogs buried in their backyard, 50 dogs tied to car axles in the back yard, bloody carpet, etc in the league. It isn't good for business.

So in essence the NFL can say we don't know if you're guilty but we're going to suspend you anyways because you're suspected of wrong doing? What's the point of our justice system if employers and take upon themselves the power of judge, jury and executioner?

It's simple: if you're an asshole, your employer could fire you. If you smell bad, your employer could fire you. If you engage in unethical behavior, or are suspected of such behavior, your employer could fire you. I believe every employer has that right, and I don't think there is a single thing wrong with it.

Without concrete proof or reason? Without offering a substantial severance package for me to go away? Man, you would make a great employee.

Another thing: so much of this is based on physical evidence -- not some witness that could be wrong or have an axe to grind. It is clear that Vick owned property where this evidence was found -- he is not disputing that. His only defense is that he didn't know, and that is a totally weak argument.

You're scaring the hell out of me.

here's the lastest:

ESPN - NFL, Falcons may urge Vick to take paid leave - NFL (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2943276)