NFL Star indicted for dogfighting

[Tullaryx]

I know one thing I keep hearing about some of Atlanta's reaction to Vick pleading guilty and taking a deal is that even after he's served his time and paid a fine the NAACP chapter of Atlanta is asking, though during their press conference it seemed more like telling, the NFL Commissioner, the Atlanta Falcons and former and current companies with which Vick has endorsements with, to take him back. Their reasoning is that after all the jail time and fines Vick should be given a second chance to revive his career and that he should be allowed to do so since he's already paid his debt to society.

As much as I'm all for second chances and the like, I do have a problem with an organization, even one as esteemed as the NAACP, telling another person and/or groups to take someone back just because that said person has paid their debt to society. I think the public should determine if and when they're ready to have him back. As a private organization the NFL, the Falcons and those businesses who had endorsement deals with Vick should reserve the right to decide on whether they want Vick back.

The way this case's aftermath is going, even wit Vick taking the deal things are still seen down color-lines. Already we have other black athletes and supporters of Vick trying to compare what Vick and his cohorts did with Bad Newz Kennelz with the activity of hunting. They're point is why make such a big deal with Vick and dogfighting when white players who hunt deer and such get a free pass. This argument is so off-base and divisive that I'm surprised they even brought it up. I think they fail to realize that hunting is not a whites-only activity, but one shared by a whole spectrum of people whether they're white, black, orange, yellow or brown.
_________________

[Calvin]

Even if Mike Vick gets the chance to play in the league again, I doubt he'll ever make anywhere near the same amount of money. Most journalists and sports pundits seem to have him serving about a 12 month jail sentence over this plea agreement. This would be in addition to whatever suspension the commissioner gives him, and I've no doubt that there will be a suspension--probably on the tune of 1 year as well. Further, he still might have state charges to face.

If we guess that Mike Vick will be away from the league for at least 2 years (a good estimate that might be a little conservative), than you're talking about a 30 year old quarterback whose been out of the league for two years, and whose primary asset is his mobility. Doesn't sound like someone I'd want on my team, and certainly not someone I'd give a lot of money to.

This of course is if any team is willing to take the brunt of public criticism for signing Vick--which I'm sure there are a couple of teams willing to do that. The Ravens kept Ray Lewis onboard when there were pretty legitimate allegations that he killed a guy.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

[Tullaryx]

I can understand the league taking him back but not forcing him on a team he used to play for. For me if he serves his time then gets suspended or not by the league he should be allowed to try and land with a team who may want to take a chance on him. I know that al Davis and his crazy self would probably take a gamble on Vick if he's ever reinstated. I just think that any organization outside the scope of football shouldn't dictate what should or should not happen to Vick.

I think the NAACP have better worthwhile causes than to link themselves up with a player who never seem to have outgrown the tough streets of his childhood. The fact that he stressed and vehemently denied ever being involved or even knowing about what went on inside the house tells me he's not sorry about what he's pleading to. His apologies seem hollow and rehearsed. I know what he's really sorry about. He's sorry he got caught and want's to move on without really having any sort of stigma at what he has done.

Anyone who knows anyone who has ever served prison time knows that even after they get out there's still a certain stigma and Scarlet Letter on them. Regular people who get out of prison and having served their time still have on their record that they are a former convict. It takes years before employers of note will even consider a ex-con with a record for a job they're applying for.
_________________

[Urn]

[Tullaryx]

While there's probably hunters out there who do kill animals such as deer, turkey and other wildlife for sport, most of the hunters I know personally will gut, dress and prepare their kills as food for later use. It's how I got introduced to venison and other types of game meat. Dogfighting is nothing but just as it implies.

As for groups who hunt exotic animals for sport, I don't know any place in the U.S. which allows such activities. I know in Africa's savannahs and prairies it's still being done, but usually the only people who can afford such activities are not you average hunter. Most hunters are quite law-abiding in that they will pay for their license. Sailor Sexy on the boards is one such person. He and I may joke about him killing Bambi's mom, but he takes the activity seriously and follows all the regulations and guidelines set by state and federal authorities on such activities. He also makes sure that any deer he kills gets used for its meat.

I don't see any similarities between hunting and dogfighting. Hunting has been part of human culture for millenia. It's a way for people to gather food. Even hunting throughout history which has taken on a label of sport were primarily done by the rich and the royal. But even then the animal hunted wouldn't go to waste. Also, hunting is legal to keep the deer population from exploding past a certain point that they become a nuisance not just to the region but to the ecosystem they belong to. There's not enough predators in most legal hunting areas to keep the deer population from oversaturating the region.

Dogfighting (cockfighting as well) is nothing but brutalizing a certain breed of animal not for survival reasons. Pitbulls and other breeds of dogs used for dogfighting were made to be like that through very brutal regimes which will either kill the dog or make it so aggressive that it knows nothing else but to kill.

While there will be clubs who promote hunting as a sport and some who even discard their kills without making use of the meat, most hunters and the clubs they belong to in the U.S. will use their kill. Either taking their choice cuts of meat from the kill or selling them to a butcher who specializes in game meats. I don't see the same sort of recycling done with dogs who are forced to fight.

Also, people also forgot the fact that the house in question that belong to Vick was raided not because of any allegations of dogfighting but reports from neighbors and others sources that the place was a major location of drug-activity. It was by luck that when they raided the house they found the training grounds and saw the equipment and bloodstained sheds which told them something else illegal was going on in the property.
_________________

[Urn]

I am talking about the exotic animal hunting being done in Africa, but we cna be certain that there are similar hunting rings being managed here in the U.S., not for exotic animals but for those whom do not actually acquire licenses. Irregardless of that fact, I am not arguing semantics, I am arguing context. Sure, the majority of individuals who hunt do so legally and dog fighting is illegal. But, I trust that much of the hunters who go out into the wilderness do not do so thinking "Oh, I cannot wait to get home and eat that venison!". They hunt for the sport, the thought of outsmarting the animal and making that kill. Yes, there are responsible ways of doing so. But, to say there are no similarities between dog fighting and hunting is not true. For one, there is training involved, there is animal cruelty (be it done responsibly or not) and there is money involved.

Dog fighting is very much similar to a boxing match and I am in no way defending this activity. But, when you hunt, your intention is to kill the animal and dog fighting involves the same principles from what I understand. One dog is destined to die. The difference is the redeeming value of the kill. Since it is culturally acceptable to eat deer meat one can argue it is fine to slaughter them, but should that be the one distinguishing factor between whether one should be punished for murdering an animal or not? Say for example, we did eat dog, would that make the act less deplorable?

So, I am not talking about whether the sport has redeeming value, i.e. whether the meat goes to waste. I am stating that both dog fighting and hunting can be perceived as cruelty to animals. If you take it into context, where you argue most hunters do so responsibly, can we argue that there is a true difference when people pay money to join a hunting club, get a license and load their shotguns to go head to some federally preserved hunting ground and shoot up animals for fun and paying to see two dogs fight each other when they have been trained to do so? Now, we can argue the deer weren't beaten and forced into being creatures picked to slaughter. Sure, that is a valid argument, but the cruelty the animal has to endure is no less severe but simply culturally accepted.

Of course, dog fighting is dead wrong, but trying to crucify the man for the activity seems a little over-presumptious. Sure, dog fighting will never become a legal event for the fact that it is simply meaningless, but there is plenty of meaningless slaughter involved with hunting. I guess the fact that we eat the meat makes it acceptable. But, what if we loaded up a bunch of dogs and let them out into the wild, got us some licenses and went hunting dog? Would that be as widely accepted as hunting deer? What if we even planned to save the meat and eat it? Would that be any less cruel and sick in our minds?

I know why hunting is legal, my grandfather is hunter and I generally have no problem with it. So, by the general rule if an animal risks over-populating an area it is okay to legally hunt and kill it. That residing principle is not about food it is about preserving our resources.

So, would it be fine to have guys legally round up pitbulls or whatever animal and train them to fight if they were a threat of over-populating? I mean, that is a general justification for hunting, so what makes it so cruel to kill a dog? Interesting notion that I can get all my aggressions out by getting a license, join a hunting club, go to a deer range and shooting the crap out of deer whether I want to eat it or not and people would say, hey that's ok. I don't perceive that as possessing any redeeming value, but hey its legal.

Oh, and I am clearly aware of the other exculpatory evidence revolving around the dog fighting case. I just find the aspect of calling Vick a animal killer and sick to be justified, but kind of funny since hunters kill animals all day and they manage to avoid the label.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS

[Yohn]

[Tullaryx]

I think you read way too much into my beef about Vick's role and ability to continue playing in NFL after he's served his time. My thing wasn't about whether Vick is able to get back to playing football, it's the NAACP making it their mission to try and get Vick reinstated as if he never did anything. They call it redemption. I see it as using the events surrounding his case as another platform to show that blacks are treated differently than whites in the justice system.

They forget to mention that Vick was able to hire some of the top attorneys in the region with his millions. His cohorts weren't so lucky. I never said Vick should never play in the NFL. I did say that as a private organization the NFL, the Falcons and those businesses who had dealings with Vick should keep the right to see Vick what he is and that's a criminal who thought he could get away with doing something illegal.

I won't even go into a debate about the hunting issue since I don't see any similarities between the two. One is legal and the other not. To me that's all that matters until the laws are changed then I'll have to rethink my position (maybe this is why Ujit thought I was an angry white conservative farmer from Kansas).

In the end, the widespread negative reaction towards Vick was all his doing. To say that people are being overly presumptious in their negative reaction to Vick is saying that people should stop being human. Vick could easily have avoided all the demonizing he's been getting from the press and the public if he just avoided doing what he did. The fact that he had been doing it since before he entered the NFL, lied to the commissioner about not knowing or being involved in the matter and then lied to an owner who gave him pretty much all he wanted and coddled him from Day One shows that he's not the victim, deserves what he gets and people should stop trying to justify what he did as anything but criminal and brutal.
_________________

[Ezekiel]

[Yohn]

http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/michaelvick.html

Wanna know how Atlanta's dealing with stuff? Here's our newspaper... we've got a whole category now, including videos.
_________________

"And as the lion slaughters man, I am the wolf and you're the lamb." ~Blind Guardian

[Ezekiel]

I think Marbury's comments are ridiculous honestly. "We build up Michael Vick and then we break him down." He broke himself down when he broke the fucking law. End of story.
_________________

[Geddoe]

There is a marked difference between hunting for food and just killing dogs and having them fight one another 'because you can'. Because that's all dogfighting is to me - pitting two dogs to kill one another just because you can. The difference between dogs doing it and deer hunting is the fact that dogs are domesticated animals and are on the whole to be companions to man. If you wouldn't do it to your best human friend [see bumfights] or any human at all, why put a dog through that? Last I checked, in some respects, dogfighting is not used as a means for survival whereas hunting is. [See: Ted Nugent] On top of that, I doubt that any of the defendants were thinking of using the dog for food purposes once it had died. And then to do it for money? This just reeks of ignorance on Michael Vick's part to me and a serious lack of home training, as my mother would say.

And I'm glad someone noticed that this is not a predominately 'black' thing just because Michael Vick is in the spotlight - the people arrested here outside of Tampa for the same charges weren't black, they were Hispanic, and several Caucasian people. There are all sorts of people that do this thing, and no matter what your color or income background, it's still wrong.

Even in the end, while the dog-fighting aspect of this will be what garners the most attention to the case, it's the fact that he more than likely funded this sort of cruelty and gambled on it that will keep him from ever being able to play in the NFL again. As much as athletes will try to hide behind Charles Barkley's mantra of 'I am not a role model', the fact that you are getting paid stupid amounts of money for what pretty much amounts to a child's game does not exclude you from the attention that people will pay you because you are making that money. Nobody is exempt, so I don't know where people think that 'Poor Michael Vick, all this attention for killing dogs...'

Oh, and lastly but not leastly, if Michael Vick didn't want all of this negative attention, he should have paid better attention to the people he was associating himself with, because it always ends up in the words of Jim Rome, 'You are who you roll with."
_________________

[Urn]

I don't recall mentioning that I had a problem with your issue. My issue is with how the media is spinning this and how the public is reacting to it. I just find it a bit hypocritical, not that it is wrong for them to feel the way they do, but interesting. So, I have no problem with your argument at all. I understand all the arguments against the issue of dog fighting and I support them. I just don't think he is a sick monster as the media is trying to portray him to be.

I find killing an animal for sport in any way shape of form similar in its intent and its intent is not to provide nourishment, but to kill the animal as a way to enjoy yourself. So, the comparison to hunting is still there be it loosely paralleled. I am just putting in the point that it does have a little to do with color-lines and the cultural acceptability of hunting anything that we would not take home to give to a small child as a birthday present and I can see where the players are coming from when they state that argument in his defense.

And the NAACP is not trying to get Michael Vick reinstated as if he never did anything. I don't see where that statement comes from. They clearly know he is guilty of the crime. They are simply arguing that to prevent him of being given a second chance to earn a livelihood in the NFL is extreme. He should be allowed to return to the NFL if there is a team that will hire him. I doubt he will ever be the poster boy for the NFL and the NAACP knows that, but I and they don't see why he should be crucified for this. The statement in reference to is that all they ever do is improper, as well. The NAACP does plenty of things not associated with race that has to do with civil rights and equality under the law.

The jail sentence is and should be punishment enough based on the fact that the punishment was deemed adequate under the law. He should not continually be punished for a crime that he will serve time for. Why shouldn't they come to his defense? Plenty of people came to Imus' and he may be going back on air and what he did was just as offensive to people as what Michael Vick did to many.

The reaction is justified, but over stated in my opinion. My calling people presumptious in no way states that they should not have their negative feelings, I just believe it is hypocritical simply because you can buy a license, set up a hunting range for the purpose of killing some animals and shoot up those animals and you're an upstanding gentleman, but buy some dogs and brutalize them then you're a sick monster.

People hunt deer and other wildlife simply because they can. And I don't see how the fact that dogs are seen as companions makes the crime worse. I could have a pet deer, cow, sheep, pig or chicken (my great grandma actually did have a pet chicken) and nobody would raise an eye brow if I decided to just kill it one day. I wouldn't need a reason or a real justification based on the law. Would that make me a sick and twisted monster, though?

Now, I guess you can argue that killing animals for sport "the right way" makes you a gentlemen, but I believe that killing an animal be it brutally or "gentlemanly" still equates to killing said animal. Maybe if he just brought the dogs set them out into the wild and hunted them then it would have been okay for people? And both are done for sport mind you. Not trying to justify dog fighting or what he did and I definitely believe the time fits the crime, but to be forever labeled a sick monster seems to be stretching it a bit. Jeffrey Darma was a sick monster. Does Vick's crime really warrant such a stigma? Maybe it does, I just don't think so. But, people can do whatever they feel.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS

[Tullaryx]

The NAACP in Atlanta has voiced their opinion on the matter. If Vick serves his time then they want the NFL to not ban him on top of his prison sentence. They want the Atlanta Falcons and Arthur Blank to take Michael Vick back as part of the team. They also want those companies who still have endorsement deals with Vick not to drop him and for those who had deals with him to do business with him anymore.

It sure sounds like they want whatever prison sentence he serves to be the only punishment. It an ideal world that's probably what all criminals should get once they serve their time and paid society for their crimes, but it doesn't work that way and never has. What makes Vick better than the Puerto Rican, Haitian, Caucasian, Chinese, and other person who gets convicted of a crime and don't get their previous job and life prior to their sentence.

Fortunately, the interim head of the national NAACP has tried to put some water on the Atlanta branch's words. He knows that Vick was wrong on all accounts and has put himself in the situation he is in. He has distanced himself from the Atlanta branch's press conference. Only pointing out that Vick should be given a chance to try and redeem himself. I'm all for redemption and chances to be given the opportunity, but I also understand if he doesn't get it right away. The NFL, Falcons, Arthur Blank and his endorsements are not beholden to give Vick a chance if they think he's not worth the trouble. I'm sure after his ban from the league is over a team out there will take on a 30-something former QB-prodigy. I think he'll fit in well with the Oakland Raiders since Al Davis has a tendency to go against whatever the NFL does.

As for him being labeled a sick monster, for some that's probably an apt description. I for one think he's an idiot who tried to "keep it real" with his pre-NFL days. Anyone who has watched The Chappelle Show knows Michael Vick will now be the posterboy for their hilarious skit, "When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong". He's made his bed and he should be the one to get himself out of it without help from those he lied, deceived and pretty much thumbed his nose at.
_________________

[Geddoe]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2990157

Apparently, the NFL doesn't want him back in any great hurry, either.
_________________