home

Michael Vick Pleads Guilty, Makes Public Apology

Live Update: Michael Vick Statement. For most of his life he's been a football player, not a public speaker. He wants to speak from the heart. He wants to apologize for all the things he's done and allowed to happen. Apologizes to the Commissioner and other team people. He was not honest in his previous statements to them. He was ashamed and disappointed in himself.

He apologizes to young kids out there for his immature acts. What he did was very immature, he needs to grow up.

Asks for forgiveness and understanding as he moves forward to better Michael Vick the person, not the football player.

He was irresponsible and those things didn't need to happen. He blames no one else. He had bad judgment and made bad decisions. Dog fighting is a terrible thing. Through this situation he has found Jesus and has asked for his forgiveness.

More...

He accepts responsibility and will pay the consequences. He has a lot to think about in the next year. His deepest apologies to those affected by the situation. He is most disappointed in himself for letting all the kids out there down, he was a role model. They should use him as an example to make better decisions and judgments.

He will redeem himself, he has to. He has a lot of down time.

End of statement, he takes no questions.

*****

Michael Vick Pleads Guilty

NFL star Michael Vick pleaded guilty this morning. The plea agreement is here.

He agrees to cooperate with the Government but cannot request a sentence of less than the bottom of his guideline range, 12 months.

Vick and the Government agreed that his offense level should be bumped from level 13 to level 15 because of the egregious facts. With 2 points off for acceptance of responsibility, that leaves him at a level 13, or 12 to 18 months.

The agreement is not binding on the Judge, who could impose a higher sentence. The maximum is five years.

Sentencing is September 10.

Vick will make a statement at 11:30 am ET.

Update: The cable news stations keep saying he didn't admit any specific details in court. He agreed with the plea agreement, which outlines the facts here.

< Reactions to Gonzales' Resignation | Takes on the early list of potential replacements for Gonzo >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Dog Fighting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    The link below is a picture of my dog.
    Alex

    His mother was a golden retriever and his father a pitbull.

    This is a dog that might have been selected for dog fighting had I not adopted him.  I am thankful that he is with me rather than with people like Vick.

    Dog fighting is a disgusting, depraved activity that should be dealt with harshly.

    In my view, commercial sports, by its emphasis on big bucks and celebrity, is an invitation to corrupton. So it's not surprising that people like  Vick exist.  

    I don't think players should be rewarded for beating either people or animals.


    Who is being rewarded? (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    As far as I can tell Vick is being punished quite harshly, probably 12-18 months in a cage, and a loss of over 20 million dollars in past/future earnings.  But that ain't enough for the extremists, they want the NFL to discard Vick like a dog.

    Unfortunately, there is no shortage of disgusting, depraved acts committed by human beings here on planet earth.  The trick is to deal with disgusting, depraved acts without becoming disgusting and depraved ourselves.

    [ Parent ]

    you do.

    But, imo, to call a possible permanent ban of him to join a private club (the NFL)
    "disgusting and depraved" is the same whackadoo extremism BanVick displayed. No?

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:47:00 PM EST
      I'm having a hard time finding a decision by a private employer not to employ someone whose conduct it (reasonably, in my opinion) finds reprehensible "disgusting or depraved."

      I might find it a bit "extreme" if the NFL banned players for life for smoking a joint or illegal parking but even that would not strike me as "disgusting or depraved."

      I ask you. If one of your employers  admitted to and was convicted of something similar, what would you do? If your business was a highly publicized one which would face financial loss due to negative publicity would that affect your decision? More, to the point would you hire Michael vick if he came to you for a job where it would be known you hired him?

      Is it "disgusting and depraved" for the companies with which Vick had business relationships to endorse products to invoke the conduct clauses of those contracts and cut him loose? is the fact no "mainstream" company will ever again associate with Vick "disgusting and depraved"? If not, why would a decision by the NFL not to do business with him "d and d?"

    [ Parent ]

    Good point Decon and Sarc.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    I recant, banning Vick for life cannot be called disgusting and depraved.  I would call it excessively harsh and maybe cruel and unusual.

    To answer Decon...If I owned an NFL team, and the commish said it was up to each team whether to hire Vick, I'd be at the front of the line when he gets out of jail.  Frankly, I wouldn't see the animal rights whack-a-doos as my core customer base that I need to please.  I think the average NFL fan who buys jerseys and tickets and the satellite package wants the best possible product on the field, and that requires the players with the most athletic ability, regardless of criminal history.

    As for the endorsement end, I don't care much either way who drops him....thats their call choosing the face for their product.  But for the NFL to ban him....thats like sending a carpenter to jail and never letting him be a carpenter again....cruel and unusual, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    this will probably happen: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    "To answer Decon...If I owned an NFL team, and the commish said it was up to each team whether to hire Vick, I'd be at the front of the line when he gets out of jail."

      Even if it is initially announced as a "ban" he'll probably get a shot down the road if he says and does the "right things". (Lawyers who get "disbarred" and have their licenses annulled are not infrequently reinstated). If that happens, I would be amazed if he wasn't signed by someone because his talent (even eroded) will make him a bargain. He won't be able to command anything and signing him to a vet minimum contract with incentives, will be deemed worth the bad publicity by someone.

      As for "cruel and unusual" the NFL is not the government and its punishments don't have to respect anyone's take of that phrase. But, in any event, no one is saying he  can't be a football player again. Even banned by the NFL he'd be free to play all the ball he wants in the park with his buddies and likely with semi-pro or even arena leaguelevel teams. He'd just be banned from playing at the highest and most lucrative  level. i suspect that some of the best and highest paying companies that employ carpenters don't hire people with felony convictionsbecause--  as with the NFL-- as long as their are other capable people without convictions  and the supply of labor is sufficient to fill jobs with people without records many employers choose not to take the risk.

       

    [ Parent ]

    All right then (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:18:14 PM EST
    I think the average NFL fan who buys jerseys and tickets and the satellite package wants the best possible product on the field, and that requires the players with the most athletic ability, regardless of criminal history.

    Given this standard is it any wonder that so many citizens refer to the "Thugs" in professional sports.  Jokes like, "if it wasn't for the NFL and NBA the jail population would be much higher."  Etc.  Do you find this way of talking objectionable?

    [ Parent ]

    Not particularly.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    Everybody is entitled to their opinion....personally, I don't generally refer to ex-con athletes, or ex-cons in general, as thugs.  After the debt to society is paid I give 'em a clean slate till they screw up again.

    I reserve the thug label for politicians and government officials:)

    [ Parent ]

    kdog, the cases you (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    refer to happened before goodel took over as commissioner. he has stated, emphatically, that the the league will have a "zero tolerance" policy for illegal acts. we'll see if he follows through, with respect to mr. vick.

    that said, as far as the league is concerned, the dog fighting wasn't the primary issue, the gambling is; they don't want an NBA or MLB situation on their hands, where people question the legitimacy of a game's outcome.

    with regards to the dog fighting, would you want mr. vick taking snaps from center for your team? the pressure is tough enough as it is, would you really want to add the reaction his presence is going to generate? were i an owner or coach, i don't think i'd want that added distraction put on the rest of my players.

    My team is the J-E-T-S.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    Jets, Jets, Jets!....and I'd take him in a heartbeat.  They guy can flat out play ball...I'm not looking to root for a bunch of choir boys.  I'd prefer "character" guys, but the number one priority is "can he play".

    If the NFL is going zero-tolerance, zero-common sense comes with it.  

    Did he even admit to gambling in the plea agreement?  I haven't heard that.

    [ Parent ]

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:49:15 PM EST
     he admits to multiple bets.

     

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    does anyone know if the NFL has a blanket gambling ban or just a ban on betting on football?  

    I ask because I've read stories of NFL'ers frequenting NYC underground card rooms and seen NFL'ers at Vegas casinos.

    [ Parent ]

    Torturing Animals for Fun and Profit is Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cmpnwtr on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    Mistakes were made" Sound familiar? How about "what I did was wrong, cruel, and inhumane?"

    Torturing animals for entertainment and money is immoral and illegal. Michael Vick can redeem himself  by devoting his life and resources to compassionate treatment of animals. How about some personal time and resources given to the Humane Society? Everyone can change and find redemption if they seek it enough.

    There are many programs of young offenders working with dogs that help them develop a sense of responsibility and care towards others, while they experience the warmth and bonding with a dog adopted from a shelter, preparing the dog to be adopted by a family. There is a program in Oregon at the state youth correctional facility. It's called Project Pooch. There is zero recidivism for these young men. Michael Vick could devote himself to a program like this- www.pooch.org

    Michael Vick still in denial, as is America (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Aaron on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:12:12 PM EST
    Listening to Michael Vick's apology, I was struck by the fact that he failed to specifically state that his actions were wrong, instead using the term immature.  To my way of thinking Michael has obviously not excepted the fact that in this society, the slaughter of domesticated animals, pets, puppy dogs, is morally wrong in addition to being illegal.  Until he uses that word, "wrong" I don't believe Vick has, in his mind, entirely accepted the immorality of his actions.  I suppose it will take some prison time behind bars before he makes the vital connection.  I suppose that's what it takes for some people, and that's why prisons are necessary.

    I hadn't really seen the racial aspects to the Vick condemnations in this case, but after watching Bill Maher the other night, and listening to Michel Martin, who appears to be something of a race-woman, I began rethinking my assessment.  And after seeing some of the protesters from around the country, I am forced to accept the fact that a large segment of the US population feels comfortable expressing their conscience and unconscious racial bigotry in situations such as these. The evidence is there for anyone with eyes, white folks who dress up their children and toddlers in clothing expressing hatred for Vick is a prime example, as is calling for Vick's execution and makes use of lynching imagery.  Teaching your children to hate, under the guise of defending animals, is simply not acceptable, and inherently transparent. This incident simply allows a segment of the population who have pent-up racial hatred to vent their repressed racist beliefs.

    Viewed in its entirety, this whole incident just serves to demonstrate the continuing ugly and brutish nature of the primate known as man, the naked ape, which prays gleefully not only upon every other species on this planet, but just as readily upon our own kind as well.  I reject my humanity, for it is a sham and a lie, I will not continue to pretend like my kind is somehow inherently superior to other life forms on this planet.  In light of this incident I find myself ashamed and disgusted with all humankind.

    Now I'm off to watch the end of the Bengals Falcons football game. So pass me a beer and turn on the HD TV so I can see every expressions of agonizing pain in exquisite detail, and turn up the 6.1 surround sound so I can hear the subtle nuances of snapping bone.

     Yeah, that's it, kill em!!!  

    Dog fighting (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    You know, I do not have any real sympathy for Vick but it is pretty sick that if Vick had been arrested for say, beating his wife or something, everything would be pretty much ok for him.

    that's BS (1.00 / 0) (#2)
    by BanVick4Life on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    What makes you think he could beat his wife and get away with it? He apologized to everyone that he lied to or that he let down, he made NO mention of being sorry for his responsibility in killing and maiming animals. Vick should be banned from the NFL for life.

    You're nuts..... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    Your extremism replulses me almost as much as what Vick has done.

    I think what BTD is referring to is the list of NFL players who have been charged and convicted for beating their wives, sometimes savagely....with little to no repercussions from the NFL.  To ban Vick for life is preposterous and ignores all NFL discipline precedent.

    Or take the case of Leonard Little...he killed not one but two people and the Rams signed him to an extension.

    You animal-rights extremists only hurt your cause...I'd be inclined to agree with you guys more if you weren't so far out there.


    [ Parent ]

    k-dog (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by glanton on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    That players who have beaten their wives and committed other violent crimes are still playing in the NFL is a big problem: all those would be kicked out of the NFL too, if it were up to me.  
    Like them, Vick should never play in the NFL again.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I'd let them all play..... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:38:03 PM EST
    after they've paid their debt to society as decided by a judge and/or jury...not the commisioner.

    Maybe its because my old-man was an ex-con...I believe in second chances and redemption. I think we should make it easier for ex-cons to rejoin society and make a living the best way they know how... be it football or carpentry.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    An analogy too far (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by glanton on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    At some point, buddy, you gotta let go of the carpentry/professional athelete analog.

    K-Dog, I respect the hell out of you and am typically 100% on board with your distrust of the sriminal justie system, and your calls for convicetd criminals to be able to go on with their lives after paying their debts.

    But every time a pro athelete commits a violent crime and then, after the legal dust has cleared, winds up back in the limelight thronged by cheers and advertising deals, this sends a message to the youth who worship them.  

    Playing for the Atlanta Falcons is a long, long ways removed from carpentry, my friend.

    [ Parent ]

    To clarify.... (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    the carpentry analogy a little bit.  Vick has a very specialized skill, he is one of 32 NFL-caliber starting quarterbacks in the whole country.

    So say Vick was a carpenter, one of the 32 best carpenters in the whole country.  And every carpenters union in the country refused to let him on a job after his release.  Vick suffers by losing his livelyhood, and the profession of carpentry suffers by losing one of the 32 best tradesmen in the whole country.  I don't see what's accomplished by such a ban except vindictiveness.

    [ Parent ]

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:56:39 PM EST
     the 33rd best carpenter being rewarded for his combination of good skills and good behavior and being given a shot?

      How about the best carpenter learning a lesson that there is more to being a good human being than being good with a bow saw and learning to be a more humble and better person?

      How about the lovers of fine woodworking getting an object lesson that if it could happen to the world's best carpenter it could happen to them, so they should live moral and law-abiding lives?

      How about, people relaizing that we put too much emphasis on fine woodworking and have been debasing ourselves and veering toward decadence by excusing the behavior of people simply because they make things we like?

       I'm sure you could come up with a few too if you tried.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds Like (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    Vick's already done that. He found Jesus,

    [ Parent ]
    All points taken.... (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:03:51 PM EST
    However, if I was planning the most intricate of woodworking jobs, and I had a choice between the 10th best carpenter in the country with a past and the 33rd best carpenter with the record of Mother Teresa, I'm taking the guy with a past because I'm working with wood, not writing a moral code.  

    [ Parent ]
    And Where Does It Stop (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    If the intricate woodwork was a beauty to behold would it be less beautiful because it was made by a ex-con. Polanski, Wagner, and Billie Holiday commited crimes. Does that diminish their works?

    If anyone of them were prohibited from doing their craft society would suffer IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    Polanski fled to Europe so was never (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    tried, only charged. Nevertheless, I don't see his films.

    [ Parent ]
    I Know (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    I also understand why someone would not want to see the films because of his behavior. Many won't listen to Wagner because he was such an anti-semite.

    It is hard for me to imagine not liking someones work because of the their behavior. Unless I knew the person and had a really nasty experience with them. Then it would be hard to even look at their work.

    [ Parent ]

    I have voluntarily seen Wagner's Ring Cycle (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    twice and enjoy Woody Allen's work too.  Not all that purist I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    That is a commitment. I am a fan of Wagner myself although have not sat through the ring even once. My fav is Tristan and Isolde.

    I am a Polanski fan and have seen all of his movies more than once. The Pianist is pretty breathtaking, but so is Knife in the Water.

    [ Parent ]

    No the beuaty of the wood (none / 0) (#75)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:45:47 AM EST
     created by the carpenter and  the physical prowess of the athlete would be unchanged by their immoral behavior.

      But, the question is are we debasing OUR morals by putting our selfish pleasures before any consideration of morality. In a country where people don't hesitate to buy fashionable clothes made by small children working under slavish conditions, perhaps it's not surprising that the idea that morality should be part of the equation is not surprising. Sad, but not surprising.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Selfish pleasures? (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    Is it selfish to give a guy a second chance?  

    [ Parent ]
    It is if your (none / 0) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:35:49 AM EST
     reason is that he provides something from which you draw pleasure.

      Again, the idea of "a second chance" need not be synonymous with the "same chance." As you are one who consistently decries the use of incarceration to provide sanction for misbehavior, don't you think it is thus incumbent upon you to advocate the use of "extra-judicial" sanctions to provide consequences.

     Assume (although it seems unlikely) that Vick was placed on probation. would you still believe the NFL should simply allow him to suit up as soon as he's in game shape?

     

    [ Parent ]

    Poor Analogy (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    Comparing a extraordinary craftsman making a unique object to exploited child labor doing mass production is weak at best. And even weaker when compared to the future employment potential of an extraordinary athlete who has been convicted of a crime,  shown remorse,  and serving time for it.

    [ Parent ]
    To the extent the analogy is imperfect (none / 0) (#79)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    -- as are all analogies-- would it not strike rational people that the flaw is that the comparison does not do justice to the condition of the exploited child who has done no wrong relative to to the pampered and privileged athlete who has done wrong?

      In any event, the point (which will no doubt continue to elude you) is that the willingness to excuse or rationalize the inexcusable y because of the desire to serve our own convenience, financial benefit or pleasure is selfish.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Rationalize The Inexcusable? (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    How is it inexcusable for someone who has paid their debt to society to work in their chosen field, that they happen to be one of the best at.

    BTW- all analogies may be imperfect, but yours is essentially a non-sequitur.

     

    [ Parent ]

    What is inexcusable (none / 0) (#81)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    is Vick's behavior. the issue then becomes what is appropriate for private actors to do in response to behavior that is inexcusable. i never said it would be inexcusable for private actors to employ Vick or for others to enjoy watching him perform. I said it would be SELFISH because it is placing persoanl interest ahead of any desire to allow morality to influence our decisions.

      As I said, I did not expect you to get the point that there is a similarity between looking the other way regarding vick's behavior because he can help your team or you enjoy watching him play and buying tennis shoes made by 8 year olds in sweat shops because they are fashionable. I don't expect you to recognize the similarity because that would require thinking.

    [ Parent ]

    Vick Is Not Getting Excused (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:16:32 PM EST
    He is going to jail. You can shift the argument all you want comparing mass produced fashion to excellence in a given field, it is still bs spin on your part.

    A more apt comparison would be a child chess, musical, or, math prodigy or that spends hours on the road laboring for others entertainment. It would still be a non-sequitur though.

    [ Parent ]

    I used to think you feigned obtuseness (none / 0) (#83)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:35:48 PM EST
     You've convinced me otherwise.

     Is this really hard to understand:

     From the CONSUMERS' perspective there is a similar selfishness involved in wanting a football player to play despite the bad thing he has done BECAUSE YOU ENJOY  his playing and buying clothes from a person despite his exploitation of children (Which is a bad thing-- hence the similarity! Get it?) because you enjoy wearing the clothes.

      That's as simple as i can possibly make it and about ten tiomes the effort that should be necessary to explain it to any sentinent being. With this I give up.

    [ Parent ]

    Non-Sequitur (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    You may as well shift the argument to starving children in India.

    The argument here, save for your non-sequitur is whether or not an extraordiary talent should be allowed to play football after paying society for his crime. Unlike exploited children this is something he loves to do and is singularly admired for his particular extraordinary level of skill.

    I get it that your authortarian streak colors your thinking. You believe that Vick should be punished for the rest of his life and not ever be allowed to play professional sports again because what would the children think.

    The children would think that it is bad to get involved with illegal activity because if caught you will go to jail. The children will also think that if you work hard enough you can excell in a given field. The children will think that we live in a just society.

    It seems that you would prefer to see posters of him plastered in every ghetto wall depicting him sweeping streets while wearing a sign that says criminal dog killer. From your argument that would stop children from getting involved with illegal dog fighting.

    So be it. We have different values. I guess you will be voting for Giulliani.

    [ Parent ]

    Add, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    that the private club he was invited to be a member of has the option of revoking his membership for failing to uphold some minimum requirement of membership, is not an unfair thing, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    I say let each team owner decide.... (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    I wouldn't blame Arthur Blank in the slightest for never re-hiring Mike Vick after getting burned by him.

    I'm not saying the league has to hold a place for him either, just that after he pays his debt to society he should have the chance to convince another owner to give him a job.

    [ Parent ]

    to make just these kinds of decisions.

    Even if the above isn't exactly correct, the owners have also - of their own free will - chosen to join the same private club.

    If they now decide they don't like the way the club's run, they can try to change the way it's run and/or they are free to leave.

    This is the very essence of freedom, no?

    [ Parent ]

    I Couldn't Agree More (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:49:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    crowd, but, to be sure, Vick ain't no carpenter and the NFL ain't no Local 125.

    I'm sure if the NFL shut him down, there would be plenty of coaching, etc., opportunities for him. As well as other athletic venues like Arena Football. Bet he could be a Olympian-class javelin thrower if he wanted to. World class pentathlete maybe. Hit the public speaker circuit maybe. Let us not forget he has a college degree (in animal sciences, ironically).

    That is, if he needs to ever earn another dime in his life.

    (Kidding about the animal sciences, but he does have a college degree.)

    [ Parent ]

    With all due respect glanton..... (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    I think that role-model, message to kids crap is whooey. If society wants to make role models out of athletes and celebrities thats society's problem. That's not a good reason for a lifetime ban.

    If the Local 3 wanted to ban all ex-cons from joing their union and by extension prevent those tradesmen from making a living the best way they know how, I'd be just as against it.  I wanna leave the punishment in crime and punishment in the hands of the crimnal justice system, as flawed as it is. I don't want employers doing the work of the Dept. of Corrections.

    But it looks like I'm in the minority.  

    This is probably another stretch...but the "ban 'em for life" brigade is too reminiscient of a lynch mob for my taste.  Let the guy do his year and a half to make amends and be done with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Employers versus Corrections Officers (3.00 / 1) (#46)
    by glanton on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    An important discinction, no doubt.  

    Is the role model stuff really hooey though?  Conversationbally it can be made to seem so, but it's interesting to ponder where would professional sports in America be exactly if you divorced it from a commodity culture (jersey sales, commercials for shoes, fast-food, soft drinks, etc.) that specifically targets the young?

    But who knows, maybe I'll feel differently about Vick and football when he comes out of his sentence.  It wouldn't be the first time my thoughts and feeling changed.

    But you know, the most distressful thing to me is how quickly everybody is turning their thoughts to whether or not Vick will be playing football.  His guilty plea isn't even a day old!  The real issue for me at this point, as I have stated before, is whether or not Vick will grow from this, get past whatever is in him that has led him to this point.

    [ Parent ]

    Point taken.... (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    we're all jumping the gun...as usual:)

    But when somebody comments under the screen-name "BanVick4Life", I gotta voice my opposition to the overly-punitive mob.

    [ Parent ]

    Justice (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    this sends a message to the youth who worship them.
    And the message is if you commit a crime you will pay a penalty for it. Once reformed you can resume your life.

    Sounds like the way it should be. Not a life sentence after jail.

    [ Parent ]

    But, the message also needs to include (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    among other tings:

    that YOU don't get to decide when you are "reformed" and that your bad acts will have consequences above and beyond the criminal justice system and that other people do not have to either accept that you are reformed or to think that your reformation requires them to act as you wish toward you.

     You can resume your life,  but not with the rather childish expectation that your life will be just as easy for you as if you had not committed the bad act.

    [ Parent ]

    Childish Expectation? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    Tell that to Eliot Abrams, John Poindexter, Scooter Libby et al.

    The message is quite clear and obvious. A person who has big talent, or is very rich, or has powerful friends, will always be valued save for unusual circumstances.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes childish! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:53:51 PM EST
    (Amazing you don't see it)

      Your blindness is even more amusing when YOU PROVE in your very post how utterly childish it is for people to expect that everyone will ignore their prior wrongdoing and treat them as if they had never done the bad thing. I think Libby understands that he will NEVEr be regarded the same of have the same opportunities he would have had if he had refrained from breaking the law -- because people hold it against him.

      For the 10 millionth time, try thinking before you writer.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    The amount of power, talent and money are have a great impact on how someone who commits a crime fares after penalty or getting off.

    The ability to resume life as it was before commiting a crime is directly related to the above. BTD points that out here, with biting irony.

    It is childish to think otherwise.


    [ Parent ]

    Do you never get it? (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:48:13 PM EST
     How brilliant of you  figure out --despite how well concealed the reality is-- that it is better to be rich, powerful and talented than poor, weak and lacking any marketable skills. Soon you will no doubt  regale us with how you've discovered it's easier to be attractive than ugly.

      The point, however, is that among people from similar strata those who are convicted of serious crimes should expect to have it worse than those who are not.

      Yes, both Michael Vick and Scooter Libby will have it much easier than people who committed similar crimes and lacked their advantages. But, Michael Vick will have it worse than other world class athletes who play highly lucrative sports and Scooter Libby will have it worse than other very well connected lawyers and political operatives. Is that really so difficult to understand?

    [ Parent ]

    Life Sentence (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by glanton on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    Not being able to play professional football is not the equivalent of a life sentence.

    [ Parent ]
    Right, I am nuts (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by BanVick4Life on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    Playing pro football is a privilege. I am not an animal rights extremist. What he did was reprehensible. Just because other players have gotten away with other heinous acts does not excuse his behavior. I tell you what, I am for banning players for committing violent felonies. Whether they be against their wives, girlfriends, dogs, fluffy bunnies or slow-witted fans. I don't have a cause. But I do think that people that fight dogs should be stopped. OMG though don't let anybody interfere with stupid entertainment like football or cock fighting. That's extreme. Nothing is important as football. Anything other than football is extremism. Because if you aren't with football you are obviously with the terrorists....

    [ Parent ]
    I'd feel the same if he was a carpenter.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    and you'd want him banned from carpentry for life.  I love football, but thats not what this is about to me...its about taking vindictive punishment too far.  Vick is being punished quite harshly, imo, don't call for the NFL to take away his livelyhood after he's paid his debt to boot.

    [ Parent ]
    he said (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by BanVick4Life on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    he was willing to take responsibility for his actions, and plus he found jesus. So yeah, I don't think because he had a lot to lose, losing it is punishment enough. I think jail time is in order. I think playing ball ever again is too lenient. He's young let him learn a new career path. He should have thought about that before he committed the crimes. You would think that considering what he had to lose, he would never get involved with something like that were he not some kind of sadist.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he's a sadist..... (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    maybe he's a loyal friend who bankrolled his buddies, and got a dime dropped on him for his trouble.  You don't know, I don't know.

    The dog-fighting operation is shut down, he's going to jail, and losing more money than I can fathom.  Enough is enough....why not just chop off his hands?

    [ Parent ]

    Let's approach it this way: (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:59:14 PM EST
     Kdog, what, if any,  crimes do you believe serious enough to warrant lifetime exclusion from the NFL? Mass murder?  One Murder?  Forcible Rape? Kidnapping? Voluntary manslaughter? Armed Robbery? Assault with a deadly weapon? Domestic battery? Repeated domestic batteries?

    [ Parent ]
    Betting on NFL. (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:00:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's the only one... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    ty oculus.  I'll leave the punishment to the state for all other crimes.

    If a football player convicted of murder, after serving his sentence, had an owner willing to sign him, I've got no problem with it.  

    [ Parent ]

    So, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:25:38 PM EST
      if a guy rapes and kills your wife and daughter and does his time, after he is paroled you'd hire him to do your woodworking because it would be wrong for you to punish him by not allowing him to earn his living exactly as he chooses?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Peaches on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    I don't think Kdog would be human if he hired the guy who raped and killed his wife and daughter. Personally, we are all vindictive and tend to hold grudges. We all might like to think we can forgive, but in some cases (such as the raping and killing of ones family), forgiveness might not be possible. However, we do strive as a society to be fair and tend to lean toward the idea that a sentence is rehabilitative as well as punitive. Once one has served one's time for a crime, we all like to believe we can give a person a second chance. So, while Kdog might not hire the guy who raped and killed his wife and daughter, he still might be able to hire the guy who raped and killed yours(or mine).

    My opinion is that Vick should play in the NFL again once he gets out of jail. I hope the NFL allows him to. I am glad he was caught. I am satisfied with his punishment and the fact that he  will do time. I hope he learns his lesson and never dabbles in dog-fighting again. I hope he plays in the NFL again and is able to resurrect his career as a top quarterback in the NFL.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:47:36 PM EST
     if I don't have the give the guy who committed the crime that personally affected me  complete absolution and allow him to work for me as if he had never done anything wrong, why should those not personally affected  do so? What he did is still just as bad. Do I have to be personally affected to believe he is unworthy to work for or associate with me or my organization?

       It's one thing to say that the victim (or the victim's survivors) should not  be able to dictate the course of the criminal's life. It's another entirely to say that it is wrong for "non-victims" to hold his conduct againt him as long and completely as they believe warranted.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peaches on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    I think that a construction company should be able to make those discriminating decisions in hiring employees.

    The more I think about this, the more I am not sure. I don't want to tell mom and pop business's who they can and can't hire. But, I would like to give larger companies less ability to restrict employment of people with criminal backgrounds.

    But, you make a good point, Decon. I suppose I don't want to write legislation saying employers must not discriminate against felons or excons, but I's like to think that most people would not arbitrarily decide that some crimes should lead to lifetime bans from occupations that were previously the livelihoods of the felon. Sitting out a year or two of multi-million dollar contracts is quite punitive enough in my view.

    Sticking to Vick's case, I have to say I am appalled by the Vick's crime. But, to argue that if Vick plays again in the NFL, his punishment was not punitive enough is ridiculous considering the amount of money from salaries he will subsequently lose as well while serving his time. Not that your arguing that, I just agree with Kdog that those asking for a lifetime ban and particularly those who create a moniker touting this position, are NUTS.

    [ Parent ]

    If we ever see anyone even propose (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:25:40 PM EST
     that convicted felons be made a "protected class" for employment discrimination claims i'll be beyond stunned.

       We regularly see employers held liable for negligent and hiring and supervision of employees who harm people in the course of their employment.  

      I'll ask another question. As it obviously would be extremely unfair to require employers to hire persons convicted of violent crimes and then hold the employers liable for  subsequent violent acts of the employees (not to mention insurance issues), would anyone support legislation creating immunity for employers who hire known violent felons and forcing the injured party to bear the burden without being permitted to seek damages from the employer for allowing an unreasonably dangerous condition and leaving the only recourse against the almost certainly judgment proof employee?

     

    [ Parent ]

    Was it Dukakis who was confronted w/ (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    a similar premise, only as to application of the death penalty?

    [ Parent ]
    not really similar (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:42:08 PM EST
     Dukakis was asked by Bernard Shaw if he would favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife. He said no and rather dispassionately expounded on his policy views. Many feel it was one of his biggest blunders of the campaign (not saying "no" but showing no emotion and addressing it as an abstract policy question).

      I'm asking if Kdog is really wedded to the ideal he states:  that no "extra-judicial" punishment of any type should be imposed based on individuals' or entities' values, beliefs, emotions, etc.

      would that not be  an exteme derogation of liberty if we were not all free to decide for ourselves how to trat other people based upon their actions? If we can't even discriminate against people because they committed heinous crimes, what can we do when we just don't like them and don't want to associate with them?

     

    [ Parent ]

    If an NFL GM hires Vick after he (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    has completed his sentence and parole, the NFL fan can vote with his/her feet and TV remote.

    [ Parent ]
    If a guy rapes and kills a member of my family.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    and I know he did it beyond any doubt in my mind, I'm killing the bastard and going on trial myself.  Would you hire me upon my release?

    Anybody else comes to me for a job, or to rent an apartment, or to shoot hoops, I'm not asking for their criminal background history....if that answers your question.

    [ Parent ]

    probably not (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:12:40 PM EST
     I'd defend you and probably give you an "empathy discount" on the fee but even if I was 99.9% sure it was an act unlikely to be repeated by you, I could undoubtedly hire someone else to do the job who would not expose me to the same legal and moral liability if something did happen while you were working for me. Unless you were a close friend friend or family I likely wouldn't take the risk.

    [ Parent ]
    That's were we differ.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    if I was looking for a lawyer, I wouldn't ask for your criminal history, I'd ask for your qualifications.  If I found them satisfactory, which I'm sure I would, I'd hire you on the spot without digging into your past criminal history.

    If I get burned, I get burned...I'd still feel better about it than if I dismissed you based on a debt you already paid.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, by and large (none / 0) (#62)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    lawyers tend to have limited criminal histories.  I certainly do-- a few traffic tickets. Some get reinstated after relatively serious convictions but the percentage convicted of serious crimes is quite low and many of those are not ever reinstated If you ever do need a lawyer to represent you in court i'd suggest you do a lot more research than "qualifications."

      While a lawyer's past won't be submitted to a jury, it's likely to be known by most everyone else with influence over the case and hiring a "shady" lawyer with good "qualifications" can cost you at many stages of the case. (There are a lot of other things you should know about your lawyer besides trouble with the law that might not be accurately termed "qualifications.) In short, don't hire a lawyer "on the spot."  

    [ Parent ]

    my extremism is mainstream (none / 0) (#85)
    by BanVick4Life on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    Gallup poll of NFL fans reported this morning on NPR: 58% OF NFL FANS want Vick banned for life. So I guess that puts you on the fringe and well, an Animal-Cruelty "Whack-a-doo."
     
    According to the survey, 58 percent said he should not be allowed to play in the NFL anymore. Only 22 percent said they would want the team they root for to try to acquire him should he return.

    In addition, 35 percent said they believe he should serve a long prison sentence, 51 percent said they favored a short one, and 12 percent said they believe he should not serve any time.

    Vick's sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 10. The federal sentencing guideline range is projected




    [ Parent ]
    Congratulations (none / 0) (#86)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:06:49 AM EST
    You're mainstream. You're properly outraged. You are part of the mob. You can be extreme and be justified.

    So, go forward. You can get donors and start a BanVick4life foundation. Start a campaign and run for office with your clear mainstream objectives stated. Do not rest until you're stated goal is accomplished, for you are mainstream and therefore you must be RIGHT.

    [ Parent ]

    As I see on the wall (none / 0) (#87)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:14:50 AM EST
     of my daughter's classroom:

    "Doing what is right is not always popular and doing what is popular is not always right."

      That's a message I heartily applaud, but it should not be misconstrued to suggest:

      "Doing what is right is always unpopular and doing what is unpopular is always right;" or

      "Doing what is wrong is always popular and doing what is popular is always wrong."

    [ Parent ]

    Of Course, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    Vick is/was a popular athlete. Our outrage at him is media driven as was our awe of his athletic prowess.

    I am not criticizing those who are fans of seeing greatness in sports, nor am I criticizing those who are outraged by the atrocities associated with back alley dogfighting.

    I am criticizing those who bought Vick jerseys to identify with the popular sports personality as well as those who have now made avenging Vick their life's obsession.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 0) (#89)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:40:09 AM EST
      People learned about his conduct through the media, but I don't think many people are outraged because the media told them to be outraged. MAny people who learned by first hand observation that their neighbor was doing this would be  outraged even if it never even made the local paper.

      I'm not sure why you criticize people who bought Vick (and presumably other's) jerseys.  I  don't think it fair to suggest that people who actively express outrage (and even choose case specific pseudonyms) have made it their life's obsession. That seems an attempt  (common here but not from you)  to evade the issue raised by dismissing the party that raises it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    not many people pop up with monikers like Bushwarcrimes or craigisahomo or even defundthewar. I would, likewise dismiss such posters for their obsessions, and not take much interest in the content of their posts.

    My tastes are not mainstream. I don't where or buy jerseys (unless I found one that fit me in a second-hand store for a buck - then I might where it while digging in the dirt). I don't publicly criticize those that do, but inwardly I question the American propensity to conform.

    They just sold chewed-up Vick football cards on ebay for $7000 some dollars according to the front-page of my daily scribe this morning. Talk radio is still saturated with Vick discussions. You don't hear much else on ESPN talked about these days either. I don't know how anyone could ignore the role the media has played in our outrage over Vick. We can go on all day whether the media is driving tastes or tastes are driving the media in a chicken or the egg type discussion. My only point is that it is Vick's celebrity status that makes his case stand out among other crimes and that should say something about our culture - much more than the crime he was charged with say's about us - imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Its early (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    and I'm still a cup of coffee short.

    wear

    [ Parent ]

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 09:43:44 AM EST
      "animal rights activists" have seized on this case because it allows THEM to get attention they would not get if, as I said before, it was "Bubba."

       What's wrong with that? If people espousing a cause near and dear to my heart exploited a high profile case to get publicity they couldn't get otherwise, I'd be glad they were getting the attention I think their points deserve and that the evil media was no longer (at least temporarily) ignoring them. (Media explitation beats the heck out of other methods "extemists" sometimes employ.)

      As for the media we could spend eternity simply listing let alone describing its shortcoming. Controversy gets attention and ratings. Celebrity ditto. Combine the two and asking the media to downplay it to "our" idea of its relative significance is akin to asking left-wing and right-wing blogs all to  apply the same logic and standards Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani. It ain't gonna happen but you can always turn off the TV or computer.

    [ Parent ]

    And, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    You can always point out hypocrisy, obsessions, and media attempts to manipulate our tastes when you see them.

    I doubt our personal views on Vick's crimes differ much and you are simply making the valiant attempt to defend those who wish to use his crime to further their objectives by using the media to highlight his crime and gain support for animal rights or whatever.

    I am making a similar valiant effort to defend those who are infuriated by these tactics that place Vick in this role to be exploited for their efforts. Not because I am fan of Vick and not outraged by Vick's crimes, nor because I am against ethical treatment of animals. Rather, I am more sickened by our media and technologically driven culture that is very difficult if not impossible to turn off or get away from. That this is my truck and a losing battle I am more than aware.

    [ Parent ]

    haha, I'm so mainstream (none / 0) (#93)
    by BanVick4Life on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    Peaches, I was mertely pointing out that the SUPPORT VICK AT ALL COSTS crowd that were calling me a "whack-a-do" are actually in the minority of FOOTBALL FANS as gallup polls. But they polled "football fans" which I am not. There is overwhelming evidence that people that start off abusing animals go onto other abusive behavior. Usually with helpless populations, children, the elderly, & the infirmed. Domestic animals are very much the canary in the coalmine to alert us that "hey you might want to keep an eye on this person."
    So 58% of FOOTBALL fans. I guess the number of whack-a-do's like me would be a lot higher. Lol.

    [ Parent ]
    Canary? (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    There is overwhelming evidence that people that start off abusing animals go onto other abusive behavior. Usually with helpless populations, children, the elderly, & the infirmed.

    Judging by your comments, which are pretty abusive, you are on well on your way down the slippery slope that you describe above.

    [ Parent ]

    Your point was obvious (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    if not trivial.

    The evidence is well known and substantiated. No one is arguing that Vick has not done a crime, but rather what his punishment should be. The time for the NFL to ban him for life is now while the public is most outraged and before Vick has an opportunity to ingratiate himself in the publics eyes. Thus, the campaign by whack-a-doos.

    A poll two years from now might reveal a different opinion among the public and football fans. Tastes and opinions are finicky and change frequently as well as easily manipulated.

    I am rarely bothered nor comforted by the results of a poll agreeing or disagreeing with myself, nor would I cite them unless trying to predict an outcome. So, continue on your campaign to get the commissioner to act and you probably will achieve your objective of banning Vick for life with the hope of bringing greater awareness to the issue of abuse in our society. I believe your campaign, while worthy, will have little effect in lowering the cases of abuse in society and instead supports our continued fascination of cult celebrities keeping the cycle of violence in our society alive and well.

    There is little we can do about the abuse of animals and people through national media campaigns in my opinion. Rather, if we wish to lower the incidence of abuse we should create nurturing institutions supporting individuals, families and animals in our own communities, while  punishing violators of the community standards with fair and just sentences.

    [ Parent ]

    My thought (none / 0) (#97)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:48:48 PM EST
     is the NFL should "ban" him now. Not for the reason you suggest and not because I don't think he should ever under any circumstances be allowed to play again in the NFL.

      As an occupational hazard, I tend to view things in terms of burdens of proof and persuasion.  I think that with a "ban" the burden is,  at least symbolically, placed upon Vick to persuade that he has in fact demonstrated affirmative rehabilititaion sufficient to "deserve" a second chance and establishes that he has to do more than merely do his time and say out of other trouble.

      Granted a "suspension" bundled with conditions for reinstatement  might amount to much the same thing in practical effect, but I think it would  send a different and weaker message to Vick, the public and other players.

      I think he needs to do more than serve his time and stay out of trouble to deserve the privilege of playing again. He needs to come forward with facts regarding his conduct and character.

    [ Parent ]

    banishment by whom? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    Should it be part of his sentence or merely the choice of the private enterprise called the NFL.

    I think the NFL will operate on what will promote its product best, a banned Vick or a playing Vick. Vick rehabilitation will have little to do with this decision.

    Of course, people who don't like Vick's crime and don't want to support him can, as you say, always shut of the television when he plays or quit watching the NFL altogether.

    But, I understand your point and I think a prison sentence in way is a form of social ostracizing. It is a banishment from the community, something that is often referred to in myths and biblical stories. Returning to the community requires that the person ostracized demonstrate his new value to the community as a changed individual. Vick's prison sentence might not be the same as most peoples - due to his celebrity status -if he can come out and resume his career and role in the spotlight. Most of us, if we are so unlucky to to be incarcerated, would not find find our employers waiting for us with a job once we were released unless we were able to demonstrate we had been rehabilitated and would be a value to the company that outweighs the risk from hiring someone else.

    [ Parent ]

    the NFL (none / 0) (#99)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:06:31 PM EST
      The government currently has no power (thank God) to do that. If the subject was whether football players should be required to be licensed by the government to play, I'd be sounding like Kdog.

    [ Parent ]
    All right, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peaches on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:20:46 PM EST
    I think I now have solidified where my views and beef with all this is.

    I don't have a problem with the gov't sentencing Vick for his crime and Vick serving out his sentence.

    I agree that the NFL is a private enterprise that should have the freedom to decide if Michale Vick can ever play in the NFL as should every team have the freedom to decide whether or not to offer him a contract, subject to the NFL's overarching approval. In order to reach a decision the NFL would need to read the Public's opinion of Vick and the effect that Vick playing in an NFL uniform would have on the NFL's product. All that is fine and dandy and I would have no problem if the NFL decided that Vick should be banished in the interests of the NFL - profit.

    What I don't like is the attempt by outside forces to manipulate the publics opinion and maintain the outrage over his actions to further their own objectives. Most of my objections are unavoidable, just as the political fallout from privately financed public elections is for the most part unavoidable, but that does not make the practice any less unappealing from where I sit.

    What the NFL does should be between the NFL and Vick and everyone else should stay out of it. But, of course we live in a free society and we are free to start letter writing campaigns, etc. blah, blah, blah... As I said, it does not make it any less unappealing.


    [ Parent ]