What Michael Vick won't be

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by DM72

Be careful. I'm sure Vick isn't the only player that took part in dogfighting.

Innocent until proven guilty, and even then we haven't even gotten a hint of any other players being involved in dog fighting though I bet that there are more then a handful that show up and bet on matches. It would be much harder to find someone that handled their own executions personally like Vick did.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Most of Vicks pounding is because of his style of play not his line. Your also wrong about why Vick became the starter.

the blitz is what has been killing him in the last few games,thats not a style of play,thats an off line issue.I could be wrong about why he was named the starter,my memory is not that great anymore,I thought that was one of Reids excuses when he was being so wishy washy on who to choose

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

And probably did more jail time than the Redskins too.

I'd still take him. But unfortunately for us, the one thing Vick will never be, is a Redskin.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No argument.

If Vick had done what did to human beings rather than to dogs, he would never have seen the light of day. If Vick had hit a dog while driving drunk, he would likely have suffered no criminal ramifications.

As for Stallworth, you'll get no argument from me. Stallworth, however, is not being recast as the victim. etc. etc.

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

[MTK]

Apples and oranges people. You can't directly compare Vick with Stallworth. Different circumstances and laws. It's not as simple as saying Stallworth killed a person, Vick killed dogs, why did Stallworth get off easier?

The case against him was bigger than just the fact he killed some dogs.

What ultimately got Vick into really hot water was his failure to fully cooperate with the federal investigation and then failed a drug test while awaiting trial.

He was operating and financing an interstate dog fighting ring that involved gambling and drugs. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act he could have faced much more severe penalties.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

Matty and JR really nailed their answers, but my thing is the logical fallacies that are becoming normal even in rational debate. I am just asking you to look at the logic in your post. You make several points that are, at best, stretches of logic.
1:if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind.

You are comparing a single instance of murder, to multiple and repeated brutalization of animals. A reasonable comparison would have been a person brutally murdering for enjoyment multiple people. These are known as serial killers and if caught end up in solitary confinement for life (often shortened).
(I also don't think murderers, if paroled, really have a "good" rep. Doubt they walk down the street getting offered million dollar contracts at their preferred profession)

2:So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person.
This is the logic that got me. Vick was punished for brutalizing animals (and more correctly like Matty said, interstate gambling). you gave one incident that shows a man who immediately regretted his actions, humbled himself, and had other mitigating circumstances; and made a huge logic step that somehow you had proven Vick's punishment was "beyond normal limits".


With as dependent as our society is becoming on web facts and individual opinions, I think HS's ought to have serious training in Critical Thinking skills.

[SolidSnake84]

All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.



In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.



No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??

Jeez...Man, take it easy will ya?
This guy should be Freekin' MVP if her were not being victimized by the Freekin' NFL......

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.

Before you make moral judgements, understand what Vick was charged with. Please see Matty's earlier post (#110).

I'm glad that Vick has made the most out of his second chance. However, the moral aspect of this needs to be separated from the legal somewhat. If Vick had simply been revealed as a 'fan' of dog fighting w/no criminal charges, then people could hate him for purely moral reasons & their love of animals. The fact that he funded organized crime for years really made his legal troubles what they were, and as Matty pointed out he exacerbated it by not cooperating & also lying.

C. Cowherd brought up Vick today & named about 20 QBs he would take to start his franchise rather than Vick. He also said that the topic of Vick changes his show & really ignites people. Said he's exciting but not dependable long-term. I think the jury is still out on that (no pun intended). He then had a calller that rambled on about what Big Ben supposedly did & how everyone has committed crimes. Cowherd said repeatedly Ben wasn't charged w/anything, big difference.

Cowherd told the guy he was rationalizing bad behavior. So many people (not saying this to anyone here specifically) seem to do that w/Vick, they seem to think he got a raw deal. Would it have been different if he were running drugs or tied to the Mafia? It's still ORGANIZED CRIME & that's what ultimately was so stupid on his part. You're a franchise qb, highest paid in the nfl, and yet you choose to put funds into an illegal operation.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Before you make moral judgements, understand what Vick was charged with. Please see Matty's earlier post (#110).

I'm glad that Vick has made the most out of his second chance. However, the moral aspect of this needs to be separated from the legal somewhat. If Vick had simply been revealed as a 'fan' of dog fighting w/no criminal charges, then people could hate him for purely moral reasons & their love of animals. The fact that he funded organized crime for years really made his legal troubles what they were, and as Matty pointed out he exacerbated it by not cooperating & also lying.

C. Cowherd brought up Vick today & named about 20 QBs he would take to start his franchise rather than Vick. He also said that the topic of Vick changes his show & really ignites people. Said he's exciting but not dependable long-term. I think the jury is still out on that (no pun intended). He then had a calller that rambled on about what Big Ben supposedly did & how everyone has committed crimes. Cowherd said repeatedly Ben wasn't charged w/anything, big difference.

Cowherd told the guy he was rationalizing bad behavior. So many people (not saying this to anyone here specifically) seem to do that w/Vick, they seem to think he got a raw deal. Would it have been different if he were running drugs or tied to the Mafia? It's still ORGANIZED CRIME & that's what ultimately was so stupid on his part. You're a franchise qb, highest paid in the nfl, and yet you choose to put funds into an illegal operation.

Great points, heard bits of the Cowherd segment and he was definitely on point also.

[MTK]

Let's be clear about another thing, Vick is not the MVP of the league. That's Tom Brady, again.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.

You had your last word and I will have mine:

In no way, shape or form is Vick a victim and only through the most convoluted "logic" could this once-again famous sports media darling ever be portrayed as one.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You had your last word and I will have mine:

In no way, shape or form is Vick a victim and only through the most convoluted "logic" could this once-again famous sports media darling ever be portrayed as one.

Some people are going to hate on Vick no matter what he does.

At least come out and say what you've got against Vick. I know your an animal owner. Is that the reason why? I looked back at your posts and it just seemed to me like you went out of your way to bash the man. Is it something other than that???

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Some people are going to hate on Vick no matter what he does.

So I guess you are on the side of those who will defend MV...NO matter what he does?