Michael Vick Signed by Philadelphia Eagles

Michael Vick has been signed to a two year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.

My view: He's done his time, he's entitled to re-enter society and get back to work. Football is a sport, it's not a job that requires some greater degree of purity than any other job.

Under the reinstatement plan, Vick can participate in preseason practices, workouts, meetings, and play in the Eagles' final two exhibition games. He could receive full reinstatement at any point, but Goodell said he would grant that by the weekend of Oct. 18-19 at the latest, provided Vick lives up to his end of the agreement.

According to Fox's Jay Glazer, Vick signed a one-year, $1.6-million contract with a team option for 2010. The option is for $5.2 million.


Even the President of the Human Society of the United States is pleased:

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Human Society of the United States, said Vick's winding up in Philadelphia is good news for the anti-dogfighting campaign.

"It's a city we've been looking at very closely because it has a major dogfighting problem," Pacelle said in a phone interview. "So Vick's landing there has the potential to turn around the issue. This gives us a big boost."

I'm glad for Michael Vick. I hope it leads to other employers giving ex-offenders another chance.

< Thursday Evening Open Thread: Woodstock, Director's Cut or Bill Clinton at Netroots Nation | How Much Longer For The Post Partisan Unity Schtick? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good Luck Michael Vick (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:14:12 PM EST

    Fine (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    He paid for his crime. He deserves the chance to rebuild a life for himself. We seem to have lost any sense of rehabilitation  or redemption of criminals. Maybe it's part of our "tough on crime" mentality.

    I have a friend whose son make a stupid mistake at 18 and ten years later still continues to run into a brick wall.

    stupid VIOLENT mistake? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    just curious

    sometimes good people do (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    bad things. Yes, even a person who commits a violent mistake or act who has paid his debt to society deserves a chance to get on with their life. Without wearing a scarlet letter.

    "violent mistake or act" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    excuse me, but this was all planned etc

    violent mistake?! He'd still be fighting and killing dogs if he hadn't been caught. How the F*** is that a "mistake"?!


    in Vick's case it was a (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40:05 PM EST
    violent and intentional act. There are also people who commit violent acts out of momentary lapses in judgment. My comment addressed both kinds of offenders. It makes no difference to me which Vick was because the Judge took it into consideration in imposing his sentence. When his sentence is served, he's entitled to get on with his life and livelihood, no matter what his intent was. That was then, this is now and he paid the priced demanded of him by a Judge who was knowledgeable both as to the serious of the offense and Vick's individual character and history. You, on the other hand, are reacting purely emotionally based on how abhorrent the act was to you. That's not how our system works, thankfully.

    I don't give a rat's backside about how the system (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    deals with this.  I am aware that the system cares little about the torture, maiming, and killing of animals.  I do.  I just cannot view it unemotionally, in the same vein as if Vick had stolen grandma's china.  

    Vick's behavior shows the man has no soul, no compassion, no ability to identify with those who are more vulnerable than he.  Why on earth would anyone want him to be role model, or even on television representing any team?  

    I bet he won't last long on the Eagles, or any other team.  They won't want to put up with the backlash.  


    No soul? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    Of course he has a soul, his soul was lost when he did terrible things to dogs, but he has paid a steep price for that...now is the time to see if his soul has been found and redeemed.  

    I'll take any role models we can get...we especially need role models in redemption before we all start thinking like you and wanna throw human beings in the garbage like dogfighting operators throw dogs in the garbage because they deem themselves superior.

    Jesus H. listen to yourself B.T...I'm worried about your soul man.


    Backlash? (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    Do you really think people that buy season tickets to watch grown men beat each other's brains in on Sunday afternoons will be upset if they have Michael Vick on their team?

    Nope (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    I guess I should have added (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    There will be a backlash if he plays poorly, but if he plays well they will love him.

    Wow, that's not much to say for Philly folks (none / 0) (#100)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:27:52 PM EST
    Only in Philly?  So I've heard.  I'm hoping that it won't fly, even there.  

    I was interested to hear Sal Paolantonio (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    on with Mike & Mike this morning (ESPN Radio).  Sal was at the game last night, and got word of the Vick signing, and immediately set out on the concourse for the owner's box, hoping to get an interview with Jeffrey Lurie and eventually, Andy Reid.

    He said that as he was walking the concourse, people began streaming out from the stands, looking angry and being loud in their dislike of the signing.  A couple people recognized Sal - he was a reporter in Philly for 25 years - approached him and asked if what they were hearing was true.  When he said that, yes, ESPN was reporting that the organization had confirmed the signing, these people were pi$$ed.

    It was an interesting to get a play-by-play from someone in the sports media, who was right there at the stadium during a game to see and hear the reaction of Eagles fans in the moment.

    Sal spoke to Lurie, who told him they consulted with animal rights groups to gauge their reaction; he spoke to Reid - who said he didn't even lay eyes on Vick before the signing, hasn't even seen him work out, nothin; he spoke to Michael Nutter, the mayor, who told him that the Eagles had come to him to see what he thought about how the city might be affected, and who gave his blessing, as it were.  Sal's general sense was that even though the organization had dotted all these i's and crossed all these t's, they might be a little taken aback by the reaction of the actual fans...

    I was glad to get his take on how it all went down last night; I guess we won't be seeing Vick on the field until at least mid-October, and maybe by then all the shouting will be over.


    I was on board with the first judge (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:58:20 PM EST
    I was not with the state. Yes, after sentence served he's allowed a life, but he was never truly sentenced. The state gave him a pass. And that was on the felony animal cruelty charges.

    And yes, I am reacting. I deal with the fall out. Actually, I live with the fall out . . .


    The Surry County animal cruelty trial (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    "People that are involved in this blood sport are on notice. You can throw your life away by being involved in this," he said.

    Along with the prison term, Vick was fined $5,000 and will serve three years' probation after his release.

    Two co-defendants were sentenced Nov. 30. Purnell Peace, of Virginia Beach, got 18 months. Phillips, of Atlanta, got 21 months. Another co-defendant, Tony Taylor, will be sentenced Friday.

    All four men also are facing animal cruelty charges in Surry County Circuit Court. Trial has been set April 2 for Vick, March 5 for Phillips and Peace, and May 7 for Taylor.

    doesn't appear to have happened.

    SURRY, Va. -- Former NFL quarterback Michael Vick plans to plead guilty to state dogfighting charges, a step that could allow him to qualify for an early release from federal prison and into a halfway house, court papers show.

    A violent act? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:44:12 PM EST
    It was NOT ONE mistake, one violent act.  He did it over and over and over and not in the heat of the moment, but planned torture, and death, numerous times, to innocent animals.  

    Sorry, but this I cannot forgive or forget.  Children need to know that his behavior cannot be so easily forgiven and he does NOT deserve to be handed millions of dollars and be a role model!  Sheeze.  


    he did 23 months in jail (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:45:46 PM EST
    that's no slap on the wrist. And the judge took into account all relevant conduct -- sentencing guidelines require them to do that.

    That was his sentence (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:48:38 PM EST
    Handed down mid-Dec 2007. He got out early. Probably good behavior.

    he got off early due to his (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:03:44 PM EST
    enrollment and successful completion of a residential drug treatment program in prison. By statute, you can get up to a year off your sentence for it. It's good policy. There is no parole or early release in the federal system. Everyone gets the same amount of good time, 54 days a year after the first year. He was treated like everyone else in terms of the amount of time he did on the sentence. With the possible exception that since we don't have enough RDAP programs for all the inmates who need them, his getting into the program so quickly after being sentenced and on a 23 month sentence may have been helped along by someone, but I don't know that and it shouldn't be that way.

    You probably have access to information (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:20:11 PM EST
    I don't...I'm relying on what has been published in the media.

    Although there is no parole in the federal system, with time off for good behavior Vick could be released in the summer of 2009.

    And sometimes bad people do (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    bad things, even people with extraordinary athletic talent who used to make millions of dollars.

    I have a hard time accepting that a good person  deliberately tortures and kills defenseless animals; someone who can do that has something very wrong going on.

    Sure, it's possible that his time in prison has changed that very wrong part of him, and set him on a better path, but there are a lot of people who will never be able to look at him without thinking about what he did, and what kind of sickness he must have had in him to be capable of it.

    I don't begrudge him the right to earn a living, but I won't feel guilty for thinking he is something a whole lot worse than just someone who made a "mistake."

    I guess we'll see.


    i realize that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    for heaven's sake, i have the ability to reason, i was simply asking if the kid committed a violent act or not.

    and i was talking about... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:11:45 PM EST
    ...the kid of the friend to whom mmc9431 was referring, not Vick.

    Wayne Pacelle is a F***ing tool. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:19:20 PM EST
    A fund raising tool*. And the Eagles are freakin' fools for signing Vick.

    Tell me, did Vick actually do time for how he treated the dogs?

    * He wanted all the dogs euthed after the arrest. Hello, some of the pups are now therapy dogs.

    Some links:


    Best Friends

    Sports Illustrated

    and a photo spread.

    In my view (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:14:41 PM EST
    People underestimate the severity of his crime.  It was not an accident.  He thinks or at least before he was caught he thought it was pretty cool what he did.

    He can get on with life but allowing him to make millions in NFL again sends a pretty clear message to the youth of America.

    a good message (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:34:40 PM EST
    to youth that good people sometimes do bad things and when they get caught they go to jail. But America is optimistic and believes in rehabilitation and that after being punished, one has the ability and right to rebuild their life.

    Not in this case (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:40:36 PM EST
    Torturing animals is different than regular, run of the mill, crimes.  WAAAAAAY beyond that.  His crime was a soulless act, imo.  I can't abide people who torture innocent, vulnerable beings, like children or animals.  Children should NEVER be taught that all can be forgiven if they torture living, feeling, beings.  

    One of the things a court should be able (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:41:21 PM EST
    To figure out is just that, if someone is basically a good person who had no intention to hurt their victim.

    We know vick did have that intention.  So I don't agree with your description of vick in this situation.


    I would agree that one of the (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bemused on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:00:20 AM EST
    hardestthings for a court to do is evaluate the nature and character of another human being based on evidence and advocacy in court.

    I do not believe that the difficulty of the task and the reality that judgments on such questions will be imperfect should mean that judges should not try.

      Eliminating "judgment" about people as individual human beings rather than numbers who committed a certain offense which did or did not involve one or more items from an exclusive list  of mitigating or aggravating factors was the prime wrong of mandatory guidelines.

      Discretion can be abused; judgment can be flaweed. to me, though that is reason to work to have best possible judges not to curtail the ability of judges to do justice.


    All that is very important (none / 0) (#83)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    In cases where there is a lot of grey area, and in those cases I believe the court should give first time offenders the benefit of the doubt.

    In this case there is no grey area.  Intent is proved by testimony provided by co-conspirators and the evidence that proves vick wanted to make from his crime which indicates a depravity that simply does not exist in other cases.


    I was not directly (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bemused on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:49:28 AM EST
     addressing the Vick case, just giving the general opinion that judges should have discretion to consider all factors in determining a sentence including the nature of the offense and the characteristics of the defendant.

      I don't think there is any question that this was pattern of calculated behavior and I don't agree with those who suggest that this behavior was no reprehensible.

       He was sent to prison, so it's not as if he got the proverbial slap on the wrist. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the senternce was severe enough but among the things a court can and should consider is the likelihoos a person will reoffend.

      Some people might  believe that the nature of the crime demonstrates such stunted character and morals that future criminal conduct is probable. Others might believe that his exceptional abilities and rare ability to earn money makes him less likely to offend than an otherwise similarly situated person.

      Many might think that even if his ability to earn money makes him less likely to reoffend that is unfair for that fact to be considered because it in a fashion punishes those without such advantages. That's a valid opinion because when it's something "external" that makes a person less likely to reoffend we are looking at more the luck of circumstances than the essence of the person.

       On the other hand, punishment is only one of the factors involved in the sentencing calculus and the need to protect society is another important factor and that has more to do with predicted outcomes than the true nature of the person. different people will have differing views on whether a "bad" person who is unlikely to reoffend should receive more or less time than a "better" person who is considered more of a future threat.



    Apologies (none / 0) (#91)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    I incorrectly assumed we were talking about the vick case.

    I'm curious about the rehabilitation part (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    Did his suspended sentence have any requirement attached for whatever psychological glitch allows someone to find excitement in making money watching animals tear each other to shreds with their teeth?



    Not a snowball's chance Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:00:32 AM EST
    Vick needed to spend a lot more hard time,  actual punishment for a truly heinous crime.

    You're completely WRONG about the message this sends to our youth.

    The message sent here is that if you have an elite talent you can get away with almost anything.  A tiny slap on the wrist and then it's back to accumulating wealth.


    I think the nature of the crime... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    ... suggests pretty strongly that Vick is not just a good person who did a bad thing. But still, he paid for what he did. Like many ex-cons, he's almost certainly more likely to get involved in future criminal activity if he isn't permitted to resume his profession, which happens to be as a football player, so I'm in favor of letting him do that. If he actually has learned his lesson and changed his ways, that will become apparent in time. If not, with all the eyes watching him, he'll be back in jail.

    "Good people" (none / 0) (#65)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    don't torture living things in a violent and deadly way.

    And "good people" don't do that and then call it entertainment and sport.

    Vick should be vanished from football forever. He has no place in sports given his participation in a blood sport.

    I and millions of others will boycott sponsors and flood the NFL with protests as long as that monster named Michael Vick steps into any stadium.


    I'm glad you're not the commish... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    but you sound like you'd make a great warden.

    I seriously doubt millions of people will be protesting the NFL...American do love dogs, but we love football too.  It is a business and if that were likely the case Vick would not have been signed.

    Enough of us still believe in a second chance, though its hard to tell with the non-believers squeaking louder.  And thank the sun god for that...I'd hate to see what the place would look and feel like if we no longer believed in a second chance.


    Please (none / 0) (#67)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    remove the 'dog" part of your handle as you obviously have no respect for them as football is more important to you than innocent living creatures. You make that very clear "K".

    Bullsh*t... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    I love dogs (just ask mine:), I just love humanity too, or try to, humanity is often harder to love than dogs since we're capable of much more cruelty...I don't need to tell you Hang 'em High Mike:)

    And I place a higher value on human life, though of course all life should be respected.

    I care about football, but this ain't really about football, its about redemption and second chances and giving ex-cons every chance to make right...the ex-con in question here just happens to be a football player by trade.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    Vick places "a higher value on human life" too so you have something in common.

    I would guess if they would have been your dogs he tortured you would still give him a second chance because his life is worth more than that of your dogs. Right "K"?

    I'm out dude. I don't buy your cover for second chances. He's out of jail, that's his second chance. It should just not be in front of the youth of America shouting loud and clear that you can kill and torture and still come back and be the American Idol. Some message you want to send the kids. You respect them as much as you do animals.


    LOL... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    if you wanna make him an "American Idol" thats your business. And if you wanna have your kids look up to and value athletes over more worthy role models that is your business too.



    So you lack (none / 0) (#85)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    the capacity to use common sense too? Like parents get to chose who a kid's idols are? You live in a reality free zone.

    And oh yeah, you never answered, if those were your dogs Vick killed would you feel the same about his second chance in the NFL? My guess is you wouldn't but correct me if I am wrong.

    And if you wouldn't feel the same then you feel more about your animals than other animals which would put you in the self-serving selfish category pure and simple.

    On the other hand if he tortured and killed your animals and you would still give him a second chance in the NFL then I pity your animals because you value a premeditated animal torturer more than you love your animals.


    I'll say this... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    anybody f*cks with my dog they will answer to me, not the law, the law won't be contacted.  And I hope if remorse was shown I could forgive that person, but ya never really know until it happens.  

    I realize kids look up to athletes, thats  a sign of a society with warped values...we should try and teach kids what a real role model is, what qualities we should value....teach them that athletic ability is to be admired as entertainment, but athletes are not necessarily role models...just like I'm trying to teach my nieces not to look up to Miley Cyrus as a role model, only an entertainer.  Their mother and father are role models.


    Ah OK (none / 0) (#89)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    So your dog means more to you than other animals which puts you in the self-serving selfish category. And then like Vick you would go outside the law to serve your own purposes. And 'maybe' you could forgive him, 'maybe' not. LOL. So your entire motivation is self-serving. As long as it was not your dog he deserves a second chance but if it was then they will answer to you. LOL.

    So as long as something happened to the other guy - no problem. But if it happened to you then it is a big problem.

    So your forgiveness is all based on who it happened to. With that attitude when speaking of role models I'd say you aren't one. LOL

    All your BS about Vick deserving a second chance is just that - BS. Because if it happened to you their only second chance is answering to you. LOL LOL.

    Thanks for exposing yourself as the righteous  crusader as long as it was the other guy who was wronged...

    But if it happened to you f*ck 'em! LOL

    Who was your role model again Mr. "answer to me"? OJ?


    You just don't get it do you Mike... (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    of course my dog means more to me than any other random dog...its my dog.  Doesn't your dog mean more to you than mine?  My mother means more to me than Martha Washington too...duh:)

    I sincerely hope I could forgive a person who done me (or my dog) wrong, I really hope I am that good a person...but its one of those things that can be known until you are put to the test. Just being honest...I don't know.

    I'm a crusader for a sane, humane criminal justice system.  A system that emphasizes a belief in second chances and redemption after rational punishment.  The world and its people are often insane and inhumane, not much choice but to live with that as the deal on earth, but I see no reason why our system of justice need be insane and inhumane too.  I see no reason to throw away troubled people who make mistakes like garbage.

    I'm no role model, to be sure...but I won't be telling the kids I love to look at your posts for guidance, unless it is as an example of what not to become...who is your role model anyway, Nancy Grace?  One of mine is Eugene Victor Debs, you should read up on him sometime.

    Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

    Time will tell (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    He better have a super fantastic season (if he gets to play) because the fans will definitely let him have it otherwise. Remember, this is Philadelphia - a beautiful city - but the Eagles fans are not known for being docile (remember - they booed and threw snowballs at Santa Claus).

    And yes, SOME people deserve a second chance (not all).  Too bad the people I know who deserved a second chance didn't get millions of dollars to start over.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    I wish my old man coulda got a job paying like that right of the joint too, but he couldn't run a sub 4.5 40 or throw a ball 70 yards.  

    Very few can, that is why football players make millions of dollars because people who can't like to watch the people who can.


    Yea (none / 0) (#98)
    by Samuel on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    If you want to fight dogs and remain rich - get crazy fast legs.

    Leonard Little killed a women driving drunk (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    and was suspended 8 games by the NFL.

    Donte Stallworth killed a man driving durnk and got a 1 year suspension.

    Ray Lewis was in the limo when a man was killed and got no game suspensions.

    On and on and on.   Vick is being treated much harsher then anyone else when you consider his crimes.

    Animals deserve our respect but they don't deserve as much respect as human beings and the NFL standard for players is much lower then anything that hasn't already been applied to Vick.

    He was stupid and he broke the law.  He's broke.

    Let him use his god given talents to put his life back together and keep things in perspective.

    Motive (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    Little and staklworth didn't think it was cool what they did.

    I struggle with thinking that animals (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:08:44 AM EST
    don't deserve as much respect as people.  They don't have the complex cerebral cortex that people have, and that is what makes so much more rehabable after such abuse too.  When people begin to abuse living creatures though it is simply degrees of losing our humanity since animals are what makes us human. Dog fighting is a social problem, not just Vick's problem.  Dog fighting is a social problem that will require social answers and I'm okay with what is going down in Vick's situation.  I think that everything that has transpired in his case works toward the betterment of the lives of people and of animals.

    Horrible example for our youth. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:21:06 PM EST
    Vick tortured and killed innocent animals.  He's beyond disgusting.  To put him in front of millions of young kids, who adore football players, is beyond unconscionable.  I've always hated the Eagles and this confirms my opinion of them was correct.  I hope their ticket sales suffer, and their gear, and everything else.  

    Horrible Example? (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    That is nonsense. He was put in jail for 23 months, lost several million dollars, was humiiated on the front pages of most major newspapers, and faced never being able to play football again. The terms he is allowed to play football are harsher than anyone has ever received.  

    If you do not think that is setting an harsh enough example for anyone thinking of doing the crime VIck has done, you are truly a sadist.


    Never commented on the jail time (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:43:21 PM EST
    I am commenting on Vick now being turned into a football player hero, making millions a year.  It's wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.  

    Quite The Opposite (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    It shows that American Society shows gratitude if you pay your dues and then get back to work.

    so, (none / 0) (#17)
    by bocajeff on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:25:39 PM EST
    you're okay with him not making a living?

    I generally agree wtih Jeralyn's view (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MrConservative on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:49:04 PM EST
    He should be forgiven.  I say that from the perspective of an animal rights supporter who finds his crimes absolutely abhorrent beyond the pale.  The sports fans who are treating this as some sort of great civil rights case frankly disgust me.

    However, I think he should've probably gotten more time in prison.  And I think it would be appropriate if he were required to garnish, for instance, 30% of his paycheck and give it to organizations like The Humane Society.  Perhaps have him save the lives of animals instead of pointlessly locking him away, which does no one any good.

    His family has beem a mess (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:02:29 PM EST
    His brother is most likely going to go to jail soon (he's been in trouble much more than Michael), hope MV can get his life on track and surprise us all.  Having Tony Dungy as his advisor/mentor is a good start.  

    It'd be a pretty cool world (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:29:10 AM EST
    If all ex-cons had Tony Dungy for an advisor.

    I'd definitely support that, that's for sure.


    Despite the money (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:10:59 AM EST
    named in the contract - I noticed it was for one year with a a second year option.

    This is a very cautious contract.  Vick will be unemployed quickly if he makes any mistakes.  I'm happy to think that Vick will spend twelve months knowing that any lapse in judgment will mean starting over again.  It's a lot different than being an of untouchable sports idol.

    Long post (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:48:06 AM EST
    but you lost me as soon as you compared it to telling a rude joke.

    that ridiculously long and crude comment (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 12:46:03 AM EST
    you are replying to has been deleted. The commenter needs to read the site comment rules before posting again.

    I'm glad he has a job now (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:48:50 AM EST
    I'm very glad.  The best thing that could happen from here on out is that he begins to bond to dogs in a way that reflects a basic common respect for living things.  Because of who he is, if he truly takes up the cause, he stands a huge chance of making a social impact.  Go Mike Go, I'm rooting for you.

    You want him to get a dog? (none / 0) (#101)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:35:23 PM EST
    So he can practice ''bonding'' with him?  OMG.  

    I would love to see him working with dogs, in an animal shelter, ONLY under supervision, so that he can learn about how dogs suffer when creeps like him abuse them.  I hope and pray that his probation excludes him from EVER having a dog.  


    In our enlightened condition... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    some have graduated to canary fighting.

    Murderers! (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    How could they!

    Maybe they watched too many US children's cartoons, and got the idea from that.


    I always hated Tweety (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    and rooted for Sylvester...

    It is not true (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    that anyone who would torture and kill dogs will abuse women and children.  I think it is likely true though that they are at greater risk for abusing women and children.  We all draw certain lines in the sand when it comes to respecting other living creatures.  I love my cat....he eats squirrels.  In Colorado I would have gasped watching him hunt squirrels.  I used to love squirrels until I moved here and now they plant black walnut trees all over my property that I have to take a massive weedeater to to kill every single year.  They are overpopulated evil beasts on my better days.  When I lived in Colorado I never used pesticides and I even used to take spiders outdoors after capturing them.  I live in Alabama now and I suppose I'm broken forever.  I kill everything scurrying around without remorse or questioning of self.  Carpenter ants bite my dogs....I go outside and spray them down and cackle to myself while doing it.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    was deleted for name-calling.

    Agree. He paid the price that (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by lilybart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    society set for him and so, he should be able to get a job.

    I love dogs, but factory farmers deserve jail just as much for the inhumane treatment of millions of animals.

    Didn't lose me... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    maybe coulda used more a diplomatic tone, but the point is spot on...the law and order hang 'em high crowd are more dangerous to the well-being of this nation than any "criminal" I've ever heard of.  Maybe because so many in that crowd seem to be holding the reigns of our criminal injustice system....and we've got the astronomical prison/jail/parole/probation numbers to prove it.

    What is wrong with this picture (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    A site committed to criminal rights and a liberal one.  Yet I find dozens of comments for ongoing punishment.  Do the crime, do the time is lost and gone forever?  

    As an animal lover with 2 dogs, 2 cats, saltwater fish, pond fish and an occasional foster home for dogs, I find dogfighting awful.  But I find life sentences by the public shameful.  

    Michael Vick deserves the right to play in the NFL.  He deserves the right to work at a car wash which is a great deal of ex felons end up.  Does he deserve to be sentenced to a lifetime of scrubbing cars?

    There is a Jim Croce song here and some good Old Testament desire for vengeance.  I will turn on some Jim and try to erase from my mind the desires of some to see indefinite, perpetual punishment....

    commenters don't speak for the blog (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    I do, and I've made my position clear. I support Vick returning to football.

    i understand that (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    it just seems that "punish indefinitely" has crossed to the left voters, that I find a bit disconcerting.

    If it's okay (none / 0) (#4)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:23:00 PM EST
    to torture detainees in Guantanamo, why shouldn't it be okay to torture a few dogs?


    Um (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    The only problem with your comparison is that Michael Vick has been convicted and served his time while the torturers go free.

    He served his time for fed charges (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:41:06 PM EST
    that had nothing to do with dog torture/murder. If you check out the sentencing guidelines in his state (re animal cruelty/dog fighting), the {insert verbal abuse here} would be in jail still.

    Well Then (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    I am glad that he got out early.

    May you have a similar experience (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    as the dogs did.

    Sorry, I can agree with you on some issues, but not this one. If you think it's ok he was never tried for animal cruelty, it says more about you than I ever could . . . .


    he pleaded guilty and was sentenced (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:32:23 PM EST
    in state court. He got a suspended sentence. He's done his time for all conduct related to his mistreatment of animals.

    No, he did NOT do his time (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    He did not serve ANY time for his treatment of animals. Not one F***ing day.

    The only reason he got the time he did and the attention to animals, was the judge. He was tried on fed charges for running a gambling op across state lines. The felony animal cruelty charges were with the state. Which he severed zero days on.

    Sorry, his treatment of he dogs speaks volumes.


    I honestly got nautious (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MrConservative on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:52:19 PM EST
    reading about his crimes.  It's stupid that we spend millions of dollars locking up pot smokers while we treat this crime with no seriousness whatsoever.

    Last warning, stop with the misinformation (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:52:50 PM EST
    His federal sentence was based upon all his conduct, including his victimization and killing of dogs. Read the plea agreement. The Judge even increased his guidelines because of the seriousness of his crimes.

    As I wrote here:

       Vick was denied any credit for taking responsibility for his crime. Hudson agreed with a federal probation officer's finding that Vick had lied about his hands-on killing of dogs and about his drug use. Vick tested positive for marijuana Sept. 13, violating conditions of his release while he awaited sentencing.

        Hudson recalled that Vick at one point said he only handed over two dogs to co-defendant Quanis Phillips, who killed them. On another occasion, Vick said he dropped a dog after Phillips tied a rope around the animal's neck, the judge added. "I'm not convinced you've fully accepted responsibility," Hudson told Vick.

    ...Court papers revealed gruesome details about Vick's dogfighting operation, including the execution of underperforming dogs by electrocution, drowning, hanging and other means. Those details prompted a public backlash against the once-popular NFL star and outraged animal-rights groups, which used the case to call attention to the brutality of dogfighting.

    I'm trying to be tolerant and let you have your say but you are not being accurate and this is a criminal defense site. The issue is not whether you agree with his sentence but whether there's any reason he shouldn't be playing football now that he's served his sentence.


    My apologies (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:05:03 PM EST
    first, I didn't realize I was under warning and second, I'm from the animal welfare end of life. Misinformation is a judgment call, imo.

    I'm gone for now.


    Hope you will return (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:09:28 PM EST
    on another topic. And I wish you had mentioned in your comments you work in the animal rights business. It explains the emotion in your comments. No one is sticking up for what he did. Only the right, now that he's served his time, to get on with his life and try to make something positive of it.

    Emotion (none / 0) (#51)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:44:38 PM EST
    Might lead one to consider that someone accidentally killing a human being is more of a crime than planning and willfully killing a dog for the profit and the fun of it.

    so clearly there's a lot of emotion in this issue.

    just so's you know, i'm on your side on this issue as far as the legal system is concerned, his jail time seems right, and being allowed to re-enter society and gain employment does too.

    becoming another pampered athlete does not.  there is no purity (as you put it above) but there is incredible prestige and athletes are some of the biggest role models in our society.  


    link to what I wrote (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:53:30 PM EST
    and details of his plea is here.

    In some ways this is a good move (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyjets on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    In some ways this is a good move by the Eagles from a football point of view. Donovan Mcnabb, while a great QB, has been suffering from injuries as of late. At least Vick should be a credible backup.

    The one thing that has been lost in all of this is that Vick is not an accurate passers. The one thing that makes him at least good is the fact that he is a good rushing QB. He is actually a mediocre passer. Considering how long he has been out of football, I have to ask myself how good he is going to be.

    This is one subject on which (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:09:03 PM EST
    I have no opinion whatsoever.

    Hmm (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    If only there were some other way to express that sentiment... some type of folksy cliche...

    BAD! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:28:56 PM EST
    Typical (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    laid back SoCal Chargers fan :)

    ,Not a Chargers fan and (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    Seem to be missing the gene re love of animals. Now baseball ands classical music--whole nother story.

    There are other ways to earn a living, (none / 0) (#40)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    Running a shelter for abused and injured animals might be a good job for him.  Or let him work with children who have been abused.  He'll find out that their abusers also abused animals prior to abusing women and children.  He'll be able to glimpse his own future.  

    I wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:24:08 AM EST
    trust him anywhere near small animals, children or adults for that matter.

    Michael Vick's punishment (none / 0) (#50)
    by Spamlet on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:23:14 PM EST
    is just beginning.

    The fans will have their say.

    And on the field, so will opposing players who love animals, and they won't have their say with words alone.

    Vick, remorseful or not--and I have no information on whether he does or does not feel remorse for what he did--will live with this shame for the rest of his life.

    If he does feel remorse, that will be his greatest punishment.

    That's right (none / 0) (#70)
    by itscookin on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:37:13 AM EST
    He may have the right to return to the football field, but the fans also have a right not to watch him do it. I wish I was an Eagles fan so that I could turn off the game, but since I'm not, anything I would say to the team owners about how disgusted I am would be meaningless.

    Naw, they'll show up (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    Jsut to watch - kinda like watching a train wreck

    For Whatever Reason... (none / 0) (#97)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    Cretins now and then turn on there own. Case in point:

    Martha Stewart
    Bernie Madoff
    Michael Vick
    Ted Haggard
    Mark Foley

    Each of these (and there are many others) were in-crowd players, doing more or less what all the other in-crowd players were, but were singled out to be made example of, stoned, and tossed out of the temple.

    Football is made up almost entirely of violent ignorant Neanderthals: players, coaches, die-hard fans. They run practices in High Schools that intentionally incite fights between the kids on the SAME team to enrage the kids and make them more violent. Most players play for 4 years and are then physically ruined for life. It is a barbaric enterprise top to bottom.

    Michael Vick didn't do anything out of the ordinary for the mindset of the "sport": violent barbarianism is de rigueur. Why they chose to make a public spectacle of him is not clear other then possibly creating the illusion of legitimacy and contrast distraction from the barbarism of the entire enterprise.

    Because (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    Dog fighting is illegal aka a crime. And since in America, dogs are cherished more than humans by many in the US, they had to make an example of him.

    But it is quite ironic, as you point out, that so many here are outraged by the violence of dog fighting, but human's throwing themselves at each other at high speeds in an arena, is just fun and games..

    Mounds and mounds of cultural hypocrisy here, imo.


    Humans have a choice (none / 0) (#102)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:39:53 PM EST
    Vick's dogs did not.  Surely you can understand the difference.  Football players and boxers CHOOSE to beat their brains out for the money.  They have a CHOICE.  The beaten, tortured, abused, ripped apart, dogs did not have that CHOICE.  

    You can't seriously think there isn't (none / 0) (#105)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    loads and loads of illegal activity flowing throughout the football enterprise. The point is, why single out Vick.

    Pete Rose (none / 0) (#108)
    by FolkSongHero on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Was one of the greatest players ever to participate in Baseball, the fans all love him and want him to be reinstated but the Corporate nanny's who own the game won't budge.

    Michael vick however committed an agregious crime against animals, actually served federal prison time, and yet gets to rejoin and go on with his career.

    He doesn't have 1/1000000th the talent, the longevity or girth that Rose contains. He is a typical NFL star, big one day, dead th next.

    NFL prides itself on control and responsiblity. Terrell Owens and Michael Vick prove them wrong.

    I agree (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    If Rose was better looking, he would've been a shoe-in; don't discount that. Rose should've gotten the PR people Vick had. With proper grooming, a sociopath can sadistically murder helpless animals, and be, not only forgiven, but  welcomed back with glee, but gambling gives you a sentence of outcast-for-life.

    Such are times we live in.