Would you accept Michael Vick on the Redskins?

There aren't too many things that could make me question my love and support for this great football franchise. Signing Vick would be one of them. I heard lots of bad stuff about this fool long before the horrible dog fighting stuff came out.

i have 2 dogs now, have always had pups since the day i was born but i think vick paid more than his debt to "society" compared to what other people get for far more serious crimes (i served as a judicial clerk for a criminal judge, do criminal defense now = seen alot of foul stuff). this kind of thing every person is allowed to be the judge and jury as it comes to their own personal opinion on the matter, no one is wrong in how they feel.

that being said, NO. from a football standpoint we dont need him on the field nor would he sell seats in our sold out stadium.

go skins!!

I'm not sure Vick would agree to be anything other than a QB. Someone will check him out. Hopefully not us.

To be accurate, discrimination is the wrong term. Employers are not permitted to deny opportunity for employment based on race, religion, gender, age, or nationality. So says Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, thereby qualifying as discrimination.

There are no laws against denying employment opportunity against those with criminal records. This is perfectly legal, done all the time, and something I wholeheartedly support.
so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

To be accurate, discrimination is the wrong term. Employers are not permitted to deny opportunity for employment based on race, religion, gender, age, or nationality. So says Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, thereby qualifying as discrimination.

There are no laws against denying employment opportunity against those with criminal records. This is perfectly legal, done all the time, and something I wholeheartedly support.

I support this as well, however I think there's a gray area. For example, if I'm running a bank, I wouldn't hire someone who had a conviction for anything related to theft or financial crimes. However if they were totally qualified but had an arrest for, say, driving with a suspended license or a DWI, I could probably look past it. If every single person with any kind of criminal record was denied employment, the unemployment rate in this country would be through the roof.

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society
In THIS case, I do not believe you can "rehab" mentally defective behavior. What brings a person to torture innocent animals? I think 44ever said it. He's a dark twisted soul. He may not repeat as he has no desire to go back to the slam and deal his cellmate "Ben Dover"............but THAT is not getting rehabbed. Abstenance.....possibly, but not rehabilitation. He'll probably be a good guy until he watches "Silence of the lambs" one to many times......

To be accurate, discrimination is the wrong term. Employers are not permitted to deny opportunity for employment based on race, religion, gender, age, or nationality. So says Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, thereby qualifying as discrimination.

There are no laws against denying employment opportunity against those with criminal records. This is perfectly legal, done all the time, and something I wholeheartedly support.

I am not a con law atty but i believe this only applies to gov't, quasi gov't (water, utilities, schools, etc) and private corporations that receive a certain sum of gov't funding.

if i had a small business that did not provide a gov't type service to the public and rec'v no gov't funding i could hire whoever i wanted. look at hooters, if i apply for a job as a waiter i would be denied b/c i am a guy and they are allowed to do that as a totaly private company.

sorry about the rant . . . point is the constitution in this regard only applies and restricts the gov't and gov't type entities. in america you can be as racist as you want on your dime.

go skins!!

as a football player, yes. as a human being, no. that's up to ownership to decide. and ss33, your company discriminates against people with a record. i personally dont want thugs on the team i root for
To echo what Schneed said. In my "day" job for an IT/telecom no way would I hire a convicted felon, too much potential risk and we can find much better candidates for positions. At my small restaurant, same thing, why take the risk? Do I want a convicted felon with access to my cash register or someone with a clean record?

Vick decided to murder animals for fun, no one forced him to. I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society
You're showing your liberal stripes again :)

Vick is a cold-hearted piece of human garbage. Even if we were guaranteed a Super Bowl....NO WAY!!!!

For you folks trying to equate eating meat with torturing / killing dogs and forcing them to bite/claw/chew each other to death over the course of 15 min to an hour and to not only watch but RUN THE WHOLE OPERATION...give me an f-ing break. I love a good steak, and I tend to believe most meat in the U.S. is produced fairly humanely with minimal fear/pain/suffering to the animals.


Dahmer was probably humanely killing his prey before he ate them.

...ok that's ridiculous but so is trying to rationalize the wholesale killing of animals for your personal gain. I'm a meataterian, I've come to grips with it and I try not to lie to myself when the subject of the treatment of animals comes up.

Humanely or not animals by the millions are put to death and consumed by people...that's pretty barbaric.

Enough with the animals subject. It's distracting the main point. He doesn't belong on the Redskins due to his high profile crimes and he has probably lost his elite atheltic talent.


No to Vick is final answer but we took the scenic route to get to it.