How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You have already tried and convicted him. You say eyewitnesses placed him at the scene. You know this because of what you have read in the report but it still has not been proven. I'm not sure what the argument is for having him suspended now and not afterwards. If he is convected of this he will go to jail and the Falcons will let him go. When or if he returns he will then have to wait out his suspension which will probably be a year so he will get what is coming. I think its going to be fun to watch this unfold as he tries to return to pratice next week. It would almost be doing the Falcons and Vick a favor if they suspended him. I'm not supporting Vick at all but feel justic should run its course.

No, I have not tried and convicted anybody. What I'm saying is the NFL did not wait for a conviction for Pacman to suspend him. Why do they have to wait for a conviction for Vick? I'm simply pointing out the similarities between the two situations and saying that there is an argument to be made that Pacman's situation is at least somewhat precedential here.

[dallass-blows 2]

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by dallass-blows 2

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?

I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?

Without pay you say? For an entire season? What for? So I can drown on my own sorrow? No one but fans think about what's best for the team. I mean, you don't go into work everyday and think to yourself "by god, I'm going to do what's best for the team."

Sure, if you have TB you probably would, and rightly should, think of others first but when it comes down to your paycheck, your team and your employer it's all about you. It's all business. Pay me to sit at home if you want me to "take unpaid time off" otherwise see you tomorrow Bob.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

If there is a dead guy, on top of your car, which is sitting in your garage, I think a suspension is warranted. To think that Vick is innocent of the charges is almost crazy. How a guy doesn't know that he has several buildings painted black on his property with dozens of dead dogs in his yard escapes me. If he's not guilty of running a dog-fighting ring, he's guilty of being one of the dumbest guys on the face of the earth.

Besides, as others have noted, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal proceedings. A person can be held civilly liable for misconduct if a jury simply decides that it is more likely than not that the person committed the tortious act. For example, OJ was NOT convicted of a crime, but was held civilly liable.

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.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by saden1

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

According to the newest policy-

If your past history of hit-and-runs has damaged the reputation of the company, then yes, you should be suspended.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

If there is a dead guy, on top of your car, which is sitting in your garage, I think a suspension is warranted. To think that Vick is innocent of the charges is almost crazy. How a guy doesn't know that he has several buildings painted black on his property with dozens of dead dogs in his yard escapes me. If he's not guilty of running a dog-fighting ring, he's guilty of being one of the dumbest guys on the face of the earth.

Besides, as others have noted, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal proceedings. A person can be held civilly liable for misconduct if a jury simply decides that it is more likely than not that the person committed the tortious act.

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 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.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?

The reality is this isn't just about him, it's about the NFL players as a whole. They seem to be getting into trouble more and more and more, and I hate to say it but something needs to start happening now if not for any other reason than to make it clear to players that if they are even considering criminal activity, think twice. People in the public eye are made examples of all of the time. Conviction or no conviction he was indicted and I think that deserves action by the NFL. He needs to be suspended.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

According to the newest policy-

If your past history of hit-and-runs has damaged the reputation of the company, then yes, you should be suspended.

OK, are any of Vicks past transgression comparable to his current one?

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by saden1

I highly doubt Vick is innocent but I don't like notion that we convict someone before he's convicted in court (civil and criminal). It would set an unbelievable presence 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.

again.. I think this is not as simple as an employer/employee relationship. He is a public figure, and that does make a difference in how you handle these things.. and it will also send a message to the young players out there watching how the NFL responds. As a pro athlete he has a responsibilty to the public, as an individual at work you do not. He didn't respect his role in life, or his priviledge of being who he is.... All that god given talent that he has, and he made a choice to be "involved" in this..and you think he should get away with this because he's a paid employee? It's not right.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

again.. I think this is not as simple as an employer/employee relationship. He is a public figure, and that does make a difference in how you handle these things.. and it will also send a message to the young players out there watching how the NFL responds. As a pro athlete he has a responsibilty to the public, as an individual at work you do not. He didn't respect his role in life, or his priviledge of being who he is....

So you think public figures should be held to a higher standard and when they falter we should make an example out of them? The NFL is the parent, Vick is the older child, and younger players and the public are the younger children? Do I have it right?

You think too highly of public figures. They are people just like the rest of us. They're only responsible for themselves, their family, and to people they care about.

Originally Posted by hesscl34

All that god given talent that he has, and he made a choice to be "involved" in this..and you think he should get away with this because he's a paid employee? It's not right.

Were did I say that?

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by saden1

So you think public figures should be held to a higher standard and when they falter we should make an example out of them? The NFL is the parent, Vick is the older child, and younger players and the public are the younger children? Do I have it right?

You think too highly of public figures. They are people just like the rest of us. They're only responsible for themselves, their family, and to people they care about.



Were did I say that?

No, they are not only respnosible for themselves. Not when they have thousands of young kids looking up to them.

And I wasn't talking about "you" saying that.. just over all.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

All fair points Saden. We merely differ in our opinions as to what the NFL should be able to do here, regardless of the outcome of US v. Vick. I also agree that celebs like Vick are people just like you and me and should be held to the same standard (not higher or lower).