So let's say that Vick hooks on with your team, and returns to play at a top-10 QB in the league level. How many community service hours/how many $$'s would he have to do to prove that he truly is reformed, sorry for what he did, and for you to be satisfied that he has done more good for the world than bad?

Obviously what he did was awful, but at some point, if he does enough good to save/significantly improve the lives of 500 people, that has to be worth more than the lives of the 400 or whatever dogs he killed (no idea how many it actually was). Right?

I don't think he is or will ever be reformed or sorry, when you grow up thinking about dogs like he did it just doesn't change.

That said, he served his time, let him play.

Ok so in that case Nagler, would their be a point where you wouldn't care if he was sorry and reformed, and satisfied that he made up for what he did wrong?

Vick has already done more good than harm in his life.

That skunk isn't going to change his stripes.

quote:

---

Vick has already done more good than harm in his life.

---

Spoken like a fellow member of that club

Lots of people want to hate Michael Vick and they are going to use their high horse to justify it

I think what he did was disgusting but as Naglar pointed out he has served his time. I don't really care if he's sorry or not, he voluntarily walked into a federal prison and paid his debt.

On the flip side I wouldn't blame any owner or team for not picking him up in order to avoid all of the negative press. They have a business to run and should be allowed to decide what is best for their business.

Vick became America's poster boy for dog fighting. It makes me sick the way our society treated him. Players in the NFL have beaten wives and girlfriends, and been allowed to continue to play. Violence agianst humans, and we look the other way. Donte Stallworth KILLED A HUMAN BEING while driving drunk, and he got a fraction of the outcry that Vick was subject to. Makes me sick.

While I don't want to diminish how horrible I think Vick's actions were I 100% agree with lostboy.

DWI, spousal abuse, violent crimes are all as bad if not worse than dog fighting but they happen with such frequency that as a society we just decide to look the other way. Dog fighting is something that people can attack because the vast majority of us will never participate in such a thing. Many people drink and drive, etc. so it's harder to attack someone for doing something you do or have done.

just a guess

Well put lostboy and Samsil. I'm sure 90% of texags poster have at some point driven at least as drunk as Dante Stalworth was, they just so happened to not have someone step out into the crosswalk, so people give them a pass. Women are dumb enough to get involved with roid raging athletes, so they deserve to get beaten, that kinda thing, and they're compensated with the lavish lifestyle.

That being said, while Vick's prison time is enough to repay his debt to society, it's not enough (for me) to think he's paid off his debt to the NFL public, his fans, and the fans of whatever team he signs on with. And to get the ASPCA people off of his back.

I think this is a good start:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4385808

Vick was running a criminal enterprise that he planned, coordinated with others on, and worked extremely hard to hide it from authorities. I personally think drunk drivers should be shot, and I'd be the last one to defend them, but Stallworth wasn't spending a great deal of time planning on how he should drive home that night. The situations are like night and day.

My uncle was killed on I-35 in the mid-'70s when he was drunk, trying to cross the highway at night, and hit by a truck. The driver that night did nothing wrong, but technically, he has killed more people than Vick. Does that make him worse?

That's a pretty poor argument counsel. As you know, a culpable state of mind goes to proving guilt, but these two are guilty - that has already been conceded.

In any case, your argument would only hold water if they had both committed the same crime, but the argument it sounds like you're trying ot make is that intentionally or knowingly organizing a dog fighting ring is worse than recklessly or negligently drunk driving simply because the former was premeditated.

Again, they are both disgusting crimes and both showed incredibly poor judgment, but Stallworth put his life and the lives of others in danger. I am a dog owner and love dogs and think that the proper punishment for Mike Vick would have been to put him in one of his "rape harnesses" while in prison so he could see what it felt like. That would probably deter recidivism. Even so, you can't compare killing dogs with killing a man, no matter how premeditated (or not) the act is.

Most of us are disgusted by the thought of killing a dog and would never dream of it, yet many of us will get behind the wheel of a car after a few drinks...and thus vehicular or intoxication manslaughter is a more "sympathetic" crime than dogfighting and cruelty to animals in many of our eyes.

I agree that both are disgusting crimes and both deserve to be severely punished...and I believe that the Vick punishment fit the crime, but if you're going to keep him out of the league, then I think you certainly have to keep Stallworth out of the league. No matter how you paint it, a guy that premeditatedly kills dogs isn't even close to as bad as a guy that recklessly kills people.


[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 8/12/2009 3:45p).]

quote:

---

No matter how you paint it, a guy that premeditatedly kills dogs isn't even close to as bad as a guy that recklessly kills people.

---

who is he talking about that recklessly kills people?

as for someone who recklessly killed someone, then thats different...meaning he doesnt have a habit or track record of killing people recklessly, as in kills.

i wonder how many millions of people have dodged that 'recklessly' killed someone bullet, either by driving after drinking (and i'm not even talking about driving DRUNK), or driving while tired, or driving in bad conditions, or driving a vehicle that is in somewhat disrepair, or even doing other questionable things that have nothing to do with driving. we've all taken chances with other peoples lives and gotten away with it.

my point is that taking the chance was the 'reckless' behavior. just because no one got killed doesn't make those folks any less 'guilty' than the ones whose situation turned out bad (Stallworth etc). so i would venture a guess that most of us who've taken a reckless chance are NOT worse than a despicable pos who purposefully tortured and killed those poor animals. hopefully we all see the tragedy that can happen and STOP taking reckless chances, but what vick did took a rotten brain and soul, and THATS why he's worse.

vicks mind is diseased. he may have paid his 'debt' to society, but he's still a souless pos, imo.

[This message has been edited by Pure Aggie (edited 8/12/2009 5:00p).]

If you get drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, and kill someone (singular), then it is a much more serious crime than cruelty to animals - the end. There is no argument here, it is simply so.

I'm not here to judge who is a worse guy. I don't know either guy and I don't presume to be able to judge them based on what I have read in the paper.

The only thing I'm saying:

As sick as what Vick did to those dogs is, killing a man (even uninentionally) while driving drunk is BY FAR a more grave crime than torturing/killing dogs...regardless of how many of us have driven drunk/tired etc. and how few of us have tortured animals.

I don't know if you should let either guy back into the league, but if you're going to keep Vick out, you have to keep Stallworth out.



[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 8/12/2009 9:57p).]

Pure Aggie

Just because everyone does it, does not mean it is okay. Which seems to be your rational.

I think you need to change you mindset on Drinking in Driving. It seems you have already decided it is acceptable and not malicious but you have proven that it IS Premeditated.

You know you are going to do it before you go out, so if you kill someone it is not just an simple accident. You seem willing to accept that as a possible consequence.

Vick: 1 year, 6 months in jail.

Stallworth: 24 days in jail.


That's disgusting. I feel ashamed of our justice system.

Stallworth deal is not as simple as most people think

Stallworth was ruled not to be at fault in the death of the victim. He was not in the crosswalk and ran infront of Stallworth. In Florida, just because you are drunk you are not at fault for everything, I think in Texas if you are drunk, you are at fault even if you did nothing else wrong in the case of accident.

So by Florida laws it was not the same offense as it would be in Texas.

On a related note, Stallworth is suspended without pay for the whole season. Announced today.

And on a further related note, Vick is signed by the Eagles. Great fit, IMO.

Wow just saw this too. Is Kevin Kolb still there? Seems odd to take that much heat on signing a guy like Vick to have him be your 3rd stringer...

Kolb is injured

Yeah I saw that when I got around to reading the article. He's injured, but it's not supposed to be serious at all, and he should be back by the regular season no problem.

The yahoo guys were talking about using him at RB...

quote:

---

If you get drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, and kill someone (singular), then it is a much more serious crime than cruelty to animals - the end.

---

crime? no argument here, but then again you missed my point aobut your "isn't even close to as bad as a guy" statement.

also, let me ask you this, using your words:
If you get drunk, get behind the wheel of a car, and don’t kill someone (singular), is that a much more serious crime than cruelty to animals?

quote:

---

No matter how you paint it, a guy that premeditatedly kills dogs isn't even close to as bad as a guy that recklessly kills people.

---

I agree, anyone who goes around recklessly killing people is a worse person than vick.

quote:

---

I'm not here to judge who is a worse guy. I don't know either guy and I don't presume to be able to judge them based on what I have read in the paper.

---

ok, now you’re getting to the real point of my comments, namely that vick is a worse person. it takes a rotten to the core soul to do what vick did, no argument, the end. If you irresponsibly drive after drinking, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have a rotten soul, definitely an irresponsible one, but not necessarily rotten. you're also going to jail for the crime you committed.

quote:

---

I don't know if you should let either guy back into the league, but if you're going to keep Vick out, you have to keep Stallworth out.

---

I have no problem with keeping them both out.

quote:

---

Just because everyone does it, does not mean it is okay. Which seems to be your rational.

---

wow. first, I don’t think everyone does it, never have, never will, and didn’t say that, so you couldn’t be more off base. I have no idea how you could have reached that conclusion.

quote:

---

I think you need to change you mindset on Drinking in Driving. It seems you have already decided it is acceptable and not malicious but you have proven that it IS Premeditated.

---

you have written so much there that is manufactured about my comment that it’s almost ridiculous to respond. I will never change my mindset on Drinking and Driving because my mindset is that it is wrong, should not be done, and is as irresponsible and just as wrong whether you get home SAFE or whether you KILL someone as a result.

quote:

---

You know you are going to do it before you go out, so if you kill someone it is not just an simple accident.

---

If you’re saying this as an absolute, I couldn’t disagree more. There is no doubt whatsoever that some people make mistakes in judgment AFTER drinking (my guess is that’s the case most of the time). But whether you decide to drink and drive BEFORE you drink, or AFTER you drink, it is still wrong and irresponsible. The difference between my mindset and yours is that I don’t equate an ‘intent to kill’ with that irresponsible judgment.

let me be clear as to what i was saying:

vick is a low life, soulless, scumball. His despicable crime was premeditated and the result of a rotten brain. Of course he will say anything and do anything to get back, but his rotten brain is unfixable.

Stallworths irresponsible judgment resulted in a 'crime' that was worse: loss of human life. But he did not have intent to kill and he is salvageable as a person.


[This message has been edited by Pure Aggie (edited 8/14/2009 12:31p).]

I think drinking and driving is a worse crime than animal cruelty.

What I have a problem with, is people that drink and drive saying they did not intend to hurt anyone. Even though they went knowling to a bar where they planned on drinking and probably getting drunk.

I think they believe that if they try to drive and intend not to hurt anyone that they are not doing anything to badly. But they aknow they are breaking the law, but it seems like it is a law they do not respect or think they can break because if they don't crash no one is hurt.

I think this mindset is what has to change. If you drink, either get a cab or have a DD. YOU can also ride the bus, train or get a hotel room.

Now some say that this is just not convenient and that is a weak excuse.

quote:

---

vick is a low life, soulless, scumball. His despicable crime was premeditated and the result of a rotten brain. Of course he will say anything and do anything to get back, but his rotten brain is unfixable.

Stallworths irresponsible judgment resulted in a 'crime' that was worse: loss of human life. But he did not have intent to kill and he is salvageable as a person.

---

It's really just a matter of perspective. Do you think that cultures where cockfights or bullfighting is a socially acceptable sport are "soulless"? Fighting dogs is far from mainstream, but it's really not that much different than the others. Vick comes from a place in which dogfighting is...maybe not socially acceptable but definitely a part of the culture. I would say his crime is one of ignorance. I think that bullfighting and cockfighting and dogfighting are all very ignorant but I'm not going to categorically classify all those who do it as soulless and rotten.

Again, I don't presume to be able to judge someone based on one mistake that they made. I think it is ridiculous that you, without knowing any circumstances other than those reported, can be so certain that Vick is "rotten" and that Stallworth is salvageable. You may be right but if so, it would purely coincidental. Unless you know both guys, there is really no way to know...so since we can't know who is the worse guy, all we can do is speculate on which was the worse act (and yes, I agree that we need to consider the things that led up to each particular crime and the fact that Vick's crime was continuous and systematic).

Anyway, I understand your point, I just think that your logic is flawed. Stallworth didn't slip and fall and end up driving drunk. He chose to get into that car and drive drunk and he knew that there was a chance he might injure or kill someone. Any reasonable person knows that.

I can't "prove" my opinion - it is simply an opinion...but my opinion is (and will continue to be) that someone that choses to drink and drive knowing that there is a chance that his/her recklessness will seriously injure or kill a HUMAN BEING is doing something worse than someone that is cruel to an animal(s) (regardless of whether that person is a dog figher, bullfighter, or deer hunter - all three of which are perfectly acceptable in some parts of non third-world countries).

[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 8/15/2009 9:21p).]

IMHO it was the judges responsibility to punish him. He has served that time. I'm not really sure if anyone else has the right to say he needs to keep on being punished for the rest of his life b/c that's not how our legal system is set up. I, personally, think he should have been punished more severely to begin with....and so should have Stallworth and all the others.

In ten years, they probably won't even remember serving that time too much. They need a punishment that will serve as a reminder to be more responsible in the future. Of course, Stallworth has to live with killing someone for the rest of his life.

I think I wanna lean with Harry Dunne on this one. I don't think that Vick is "unsalvageable as a human being." That's a bit extreme, no?

Did anyone watch his 60 minutes interview? "Football don't even matter". He seemed very sincere in his remorse and his answers. If he does put up like he says he will and continues to work with charities and humane societies and whatever, then I'm rooting for him.

135 million$$$ + interest + potential future earnings-actual future earnings says that he'll still remember his punishment 10 years from now.