Even if he goes to jail there are already people predicting he will be back in the NFL by 2009. The question comes down to what is more important to the NFL, their ethics or money.
Vick to be honored... *just shakes head*
Well there's an easy answer to that.
Ok... Vick admits to dog killing and conspiracy: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/michael.vick/index.html
I won't quote any of it. At this point I'm still a bit confused about *exactly* what he's admitted to compared to what he's being charged with... and what the prosecution will seek as a punishment.
Although this one comment kinda proves he's gonna get off easy:
-
Quote: Federal prosecutors agreed to ask for the low end of the sentencing guidelines.
-
... low end of the sentencing guildelines? A slap on the wrist and sent on his way?
Well, it's the right outcome. Vick didn't really do anything. He certainly didn't do any more than the people responsible for putting dinner on the table the other night did.
He never did anything to anyone. Some animals got hurt, yeah. But that's nature. Animals kill eachother every day.
Vick has been the victim of sensationalism. Less than 1% of humans to ever live would consider his actions a crime. Those who do consider it one nowadays are mostly comprised of little old ladies like Prrkitty.
I think you should be a little more respectful of Prrkitty. Would you talk to a woman in person with that lack of respect and manners?
Little old ladies are not the only ones disgusted by animal cruelty. They are probably outnumbered by young and middle-aged people with a well developed sense of ethics.
I think what Vick did is reprehensible and he should be banned from the NFL forever. He should also be forced to volunteer his time to animal shelters for a long time to come. He should also be ass raped by a dog. What a jerk.
While I don't like it when everyone is abhorrently mean to you, Glenn, I can hardly come to your defense in this matter. I can't emphasize enough how much I disagree with you. Animal cruelty is sick.
Glenn the Great wrote:He never did anything to anyone. Some animals got hurt, yeah. But that's nature. Animals kill eachother every day.
Not in a forced fight like people put them through. When it comes to topics regarding animals it's best if you just don't even post in it.
Glenn the Great wrote:Well, it's the right outcome. Vick didn't really do anything. He certainly didn't do any more than the people responsible for putting dinner on the table the other night did.He never did anything to anyone. Some animals got hurt, yeah. But that's nature. Animals kill eachother every day.
Vick has been the victim of sensationalism. Less than 1% of humans to ever live would consider his actions a crime. Those who do consider it one nowadays are mostly comprised of little old ladies like Prrkitty.
You're trolling, right? You can't possibly be this emotionally and ethically bankrupt.
It's a pretty good troll too because practically every post he makes spawns 8 or 9 responses you guys just keep biting and biting!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/michael.vick/index.html
-
Quote: The National Football League has indefinitely suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick without pay, officials with the league said Friday.
Earlier, Vick admitted to participating in a dogfighting ring as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Virginia.
"Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a letter to Vick.
Goodell said he would review the status of the suspension after the legal proceedings are over.
In papers filed Friday with a federal court in Virginia, Vick also admitted that he and two co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well.
-
A victory for animal abuse. 😊 This 'little old lady' is very happy.
Prrkitty wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/24/michael.vick/index.html-
Quote: The National Football League has indefinitely suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick without pay, officials with the league said Friday.Earlier, Vick admitted to participating in a dogfighting ring as part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Virginia.
"Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a letter to Vick.
Goodell said he would review the status of the suspension after the legal proceedings are over.
In papers filed Friday with a federal court in Virginia, Vick also admitted that he and two co-conspirators killed dogs that did not fight well.
-A victory for animal abuse. 😊 This 'little old lady' is very happy.
WOOT!
I just finished spreading the word to my rescue groups/shelters about CK's Spike needing a home. Now I gotta turn around and e-mail everyone about this again.
Glenn I would love it if the ALF kidnapped you in the middle of the night.
The part that I think sucks about this is that it will add to the bad rep of dogs like pit bulls. Most dogs are not mean tempered by nature, excluding Dalmatians, they have to be trained to be mean. Things like this though make people think that certain breeds of dogs are viscous killing machines.
I keep hearing about this on the tv's news and the interweb's news. It's crazy. Really shameful, too. It's seriously the exact same mentality as a little 4 year old putting two bugs in a jar, shaking it, and watching them fight. It's so lame of those types of people
I'm really against animal cruelty, I would like to get into a field of helping them out sometime, too. It really sickens me to see what crappy excuses people have to say when their animals are about to die from neglect and just horrible "care".
Trevelyan_06 wrote:The part that I think sucks about this is that it will add to the bad rep of dogs like pit bulls. Most dogs are not mean tempered by nature, excluding Dalmatians, they have to be trained to be mean. Things like this though make people think that certain breeds of dogs are viscous killing machines.The problem is even if the dog has been trained, some breeds were bred to do violent things.
Let's use pit bulls for an example. The purpose of the dog was to attack a bull if it appeared as if it would attack a farmer. The dog was bred to have powerful jaws so it could basically latch on to the bull and never let go no matter how hard the bull fights. The dog was bred to be powerful and attack animals many times larger than itself, so it's doubtful that a pit bull would be intimidated by the size of a person and naturally avoid violent behavior towards people.
Even if a pit bull is trained to be well-tempered, his natural instincts are protective. A lot of times people have trouble making "threat/safe" analysis of other people, and dogs have this problem too. However, when a person makes an incorrect judgment there is often an opportunity to reason with them and convince them their decision was wrong. It is much more difficult to reason with a pit bull.
This problem is made more difficult with the fact that, through language context and understandings of friendships, most people can interpret friendly violent actions such as noogies from chokeholds. Dogs are not so good at this.
Honestly I don't think the dogs should be banned, but I do think the "oh whatever if you raise a dog right they are perfectly safe" attitude is a bit foolish. The owner should be responsible for keeping the dog leashed or behind some form of fence at all times for the safety of others.
It doesn't really sound like the dogs actually get forced to fight.
They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.
Maybe the dogs should just not attack eachother? :shrug:
The whole issue is absurd. Our culture has gradually started to value animals more than people. Killing endangered animals often carries greater penalties than the murder of a human. Maybe it has something to do with too much watching of cartoons featuring anthropomorphic talking cute animals.
For the God-fearing crowd, how might you explain the Old Testament animal sacrifices? It's like God gives permission to kill animals because they don't have souls, and thus even though the animal body writhes in pain, there is nothing inside of it actively "feeling" anything.
Glenn the Great wrote:It doesn't really sound like the dogs actually get forced to fight.
They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.
The reason why they fight in the first place is usually because they are beaten and mistreated to the point where they become aggressive or they are starved so when they are put into the ring with another dog, killing the other dog (they think) is their opportunity to eat.
If either of those two situations are true, doesn't the whole thing go back to the responsibility of the owner(s)?
Glenn, the animals were egged on to fight. You have to dogs in a ring, if they don't fight, you have to intentionally make them mad to get them to fight. They won't always just fight on their own.
AtmaWeapon wrote:
Honestly I don't think the dogs should be banned, but I do think the "oh whatever if you raise a dog right they are perfectly safe" attitude is a bit foolish. The owner should be responsible for keeping the dog leashed or behind some form of fence at all times for the safety of others.
I agree. I didn't mean to sound as if I thought that every dog breed out there is a big friendly teddy bear that just wants to lick your hand. Owners do need to be responsible for the dogs and realize which breeds are good with kids, etc. and which aren't.
What I was referring to more was the fact that some people see that someone has a pitbull and even though it's behind a fence and leashed they have this absurd notion that it's going to break it's chains and go on an all out killing spree until the entire neighborhood is dead just because it's a pit bull.
Glenn the Great wrote:
They take two dogs, and put them in a ring. Everything else is up to the dogs. Dog A runs in, and sees Dog B, and thoughts of carnage and violence flood its fleshy id-dominated mind. It strongly desires to kill Dog B, and starts doing so.The whole issue is absurd. Our culture has gradually started to value animals more than people. Killing endangered animals often carries greater penalties than the murder of a human. Maybe it has something to do with too much watching of cartoons featuring anthropomorphic talking cute animals.
First off, the dogs are starved, tortured and otherwise enticed to fight one another. Most animals will naturally avoid a fight if they can. When you say that Dog A "strongly desires to kill Dog B" you make it sound that the dog has in fact planed to murder the other dog. That's absurd, humans are the only animals that can carry out pre-meditated murder. The dog is simply hungry and hurt/defensive and sees in front of it both a source of food and a threat.
Secondly, WTF on the endangered animals thing? This is a chart of the penalties for killing endangered animals. Seems that the maximum for KILLING and endangered animal for the first time is a mere $3500. If in fact you could kill a human and get away with less, than I think there would be lots more dead filling our graveyards.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/27/michael.vick/index.html
-
Quote:
NEW: Falcons owner says team won't cut Michael Vick right away
NEW: General manager: Team sends out "demand letter" for $22 million bonus
After dogfighting conspiracy plea, Vick says he's sorry for his actions
Judge sets December 10 sentencing date for Vick
-
So... the Falcons manager is not cutting him right away. I'm honestly surprised by this. He says...
Quote: "We cannot tell you today that Michael is cut from the team. Cutting him may feel better emotionally for us and for many of our fans, but it's not in the long-term best interests of our franchise," Blank said.
-
... not in the long-term best interests of the franchise???!!! In my humble opinion that tells me that MONEY is more the issue here (to the Falcons Manager that is) then the reprehensible actions of what Vick did.
<sigh>
I was just watching CourtTV before I took the puppy for a walk and they said he was going to be suspended indefinitely and the prosecutors were asking for a 12-18 month prison term.
Vick's a dick.
I wrote that not because it's meaningful to the thread, because the rhyme is funny.
^^Don't worry, we all know that it wasn't meaningful. 😊
Even if the Falcons don't do anything, you know that the NFL will suspend him.
The NFL is about playing football, right?
I don't follow football, but I get the impression that Vick is pretty good at what he does on the field. Isn't he?
Did Vick ever cheat in the game or use steroids? Did he gamble on any NFL games?
These are the sorts of issues that I can understand someone being suspended for.
Vick should just pay a fine for the animals, and then keep playing the game.
More or less nowadays, if you play professional sports, what you do on the outside can affect what happens to you on the inside. Doing what he did is against Federal laws, obviously, he got in trouble with the Feds, not too mention lying (obstruction of justice or something other). Lots of people want his head. Suspending him was, in my opinion, for his safety as well as punishment for his activities outside the game.
I would be surprised if I saw him play football again.
One last note: Glenn, you just like to go fishing, so to speak, don't you? 😉
you know, hang that bait out there for everyone else to bite on it?
Well Glenn, that's true, but with public scrutiny, there's no way he can go unsuspended.
There's plenty of jobs where criminal activity can affect your employment status, so I'm not certain why it's a debatable issue.
I think it's debatable because it's a case of collateral consequence.
It's the justice system's responsibility to punish Vick, not the NFL's.
So what if he was convicted of hit and run where the person he hit did not die. Would you suspend that person from the league?
phattonez wrote:So what if he was convicted of hit and run where the person he hit did not die. Would you suspend that person from the league?
Nope. Hopefully he'd continue to hit and run on the field.
He will now be an ex-con. You try to get a job with that on your resume.
phattonez wrote:He will now be an ex-con. You try to get a job with that on your resume.
You act as though there is nothing wrong with the status quo.
People should not have to report their conviction status to an employer.
Once you have done your time or paid your fine, things should go back to how they were before.
Whenever they aren't, that is collateral consequences. It is not a good thing; it is something that needs to be changed.
I am not complacent with how things are right now, as you seem to be.