Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

stevesnj · Aug 20, 2007, 08:43 PM

So Vick is pretty much guilty of the crimes against him and the NFL will make a decision soon but what is your take on what his fate should be?

Jawbone54 · Aug 20, 2007, 08:50 PM

Never let him play again. Set a standard for behavior that these spoiled deviants have never been expected to meet.

macfantn · Aug 20, 2007, 08:53 PM

Even if the NFL would let him play again, would you want to pick him up for your team? Do you really think the fans would support him? I am a lifelong Steelers fan, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he ever got picked up by them, even if he just played WR or RB. I would certainly think most of America would feel the same.

KeriVit · Aug 20, 2007, 09:02 PM

Football, yes. Where? I'm not sayin'

klb5090 · Aug 20, 2007, 09:20 PM

he should never play again, and i defentially agree with macfantn, even if they would allow it no fan base in any city would support him.

rickey939 · Aug 20, 2007, 09:47 PM

No. way. in. hell.

Dork. · Aug 20, 2007, 09:55 PM

Although it's the mistreatment of animals that has gotten most of the press in this case, it's the association with gamblers that should net Vick a lengthy suspension, if not an outright ban. All professional athletes know that being involved in illegal gambling is a sure ticket to problems. Just ask Pete Rose.

spindler · Aug 20, 2007, 10:07 PM

On a moral level, hell no, both to punish him and just the principle that brutality should make you an outcast.

On a financial level, who's really gonna bring their kids to a football game to cheer for that? Even with the incredibly low standards Americans have for what they watch on TV almost no one is going to cheer for him. It would be like bringing O.J. back.

Randman · Aug 20, 2007, 10:33 PM

He shouldn't be but some team will give him a chance once he gets out of prison and acts contrite. Blames it on his "posse" and claims racial injustice. That said, he'll never be a superstar or command the big money ever again.

Cold Warrior · Aug 20, 2007, 10:51 PM

no way. Horrible crime; absolutely despicable. Also, he was allegedly involved in gambling. The NFL bans player participation in gambling. They should do their own investigation and make the call on gambling if the feds don't include that admission of guilt in his plea.

He's a grade-A turd.

KeriVit · Aug 20, 2007, 10:57 PM

What in God's name was he thinking?

Jawbone54 · Aug 20, 2007, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by macfantn

Even if the NFL would let him play again, would you want to pick him up for your team? Do you really think the fans would support him? I am a lifelong Steelers fan, and I'd be sick to my stomach if he ever got picked up by them, even if he just played WR or RB. I would certainly think most of America would feel the same.

The Cowboys would pick him up

I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan. I was furious when we picked up T.O.

JMan09 · Aug 21, 2007, 02:13 AM

I don't think he should play again, they should ban him for what he's done.

nredman · Aug 21, 2007, 04:47 AM

not in the nfl - canada maybe

Captain Obvious · Aug 21, 2007, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Never let him play again. Set a standard for behavior that these spoiled deviants have never been expected to meet.

Originally Posted by spindler

On a moral level, hell no, both to punish him and just the principle that brutality should make you an outcast.

Animal abuse and torture crosses the line set by his peers? Really? That is somehow worse than the other crimes NFL players have been able to put behind them and still play?

Call me crazy but I think raping the underage babysitter, smashing your girlfriend's head into a mailbox, and killing a lady as a result of a DUI is a little more serious than executing some stupid dog.

They should kick him if the gambling charges stick but I find the fact he killed animals the least troubling violent crime an NFL player has done in my lifetime.

Sherman Homan · Aug 21, 2007, 05:45 AM

One word: Ray Lewis.

Randman · Aug 21, 2007, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan

One word: Ray Lewis.

Leonard Little, a tackle for the Rams killed a woman while driving drunk. A couple of years later, still with the Rams, he got another DUI. As scummy as Lewis may be, at least he didn't have a direct hand (that we know of) in that person's death.

design219 · Aug 21, 2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by KeriVit

Football, yes. Where? I'm not sayin'

Originally Posted by rickey939

No. way. in. hell.

What does everyone else think, can he play in hell or not?

wallinbl · Aug 21, 2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Call me crazy but I think raping the underage babysitter, smashing your girlfriend's head into a mailbox, and killing a lady as a result of a DUI is a little more serious than executing some stupid dog.

I am not excusing any of the things you have listed, however, let me explain why I think Vick's crime is worse. Everything you listed can be impulsive - it happened in a moment. Vick was ongoingly running and maintaining an enterprise centered around the torture of animals. It wasn't a moment - it was a lifestyle - a decision to participate made every day.

I don't think you should go unpunished for a crime of impulse - it's still very, very wrong and you need to be able to control these impulses to freely walk among the rest of us. However, if you can decide every single day to participate in something so despicable, you're worse than the guy that did it once because your values are screwed up.

design219 · Aug 21, 2007, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

... Vick's crime is worse ... it was a lifestyle - a decision to participate made every day ... values are screwed up.

The Captain Obvious response was bothering me. I think you countered it very well. Thanks.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Animal abuse and torture crosses the line set by his peers? Really? That is somehow worse than the other crimes NFL players have been able to put behind them and still play?

Call me crazy but I think raping the underage babysitter, smashing your girlfriend's head into a mailbox, and killing a lady as a result of a DUI is a little more serious than executing some stupid dog.

They should kick him if the gambling charges stick but I find the fact he killed animals the least troubling violent crime an NFL player has done in my lifetime.

I'm of the opinion that if you commit any of the crimes listed above, you shouldn't be able to play in the NFL again. The NFL is developing a serious image issue, much like the NBA. If they want to put a stop to this, they're going to have to come down hard on ALL lawbreakers.

wallinbl · Aug 21, 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'm of the opinion that if you commit any of the crimes listed above, you shouldn't be able to play in the NFL again. The NFL is developing a serious image issue, much like the NBA. If they want to put a stop to this, they're going to have to come down hard on ALL lawbreakers.

Are you of the opinion that a former criminal should be barred from all employment? The NFL is just an employer. If all employers refused to employ former criminals, then they'd simply be forced into more crime due to their inability earn money through employment.

Dork. · Aug 21, 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I am not excusing any of the things you have listed, however, let me explain why I think Vick's crime is worse. Everything you listed can be impulsive - it happened in a moment. Vick was ongoingly running and maintaining an enterprise centered around the torture of animals. It wasn't a moment - it was a lifestyle - a decision to participate made every day.

I don't think you should go unpunished for a crime of impulse - it's still very, very wrong and you need to be able to control these impulses to freely walk among the rest of us. However, if you can decide every single day to participate in something so despicable, you're worse than the guy that did it once because your values are screwed up.

I think we can all agree that Michael Vick is not a model citizen. But he is pleading guilty to charges, and his punishment will come from the government. Once he gets out, (subject to any terms of his release, of course), he will be free to get a job doing something. Whether or not that job is a part of the NFL is up to the Commissioner at this point.

Not to minimize the animal abuse, but as the good Captain pointed out, plenty of other NFL'ers have done worse things to actual people, both premeditated and not, and did not get the lifetime ban. The new commissioner seems to be more of a strict disciplinarian trying to improve the league's image (just ask Pacman Jones, who to my knowledge has not been convicted of a single thing), but if we go by history, the animal abuse alone is not enough to get you sacked from the NFL, but the gambling allegations are.

Part of me thinks that the only reason Vick pleaded guilty was to dodge charges that would implicate him in the gambling ring further, and preserve whatever slim chance he has of playing again. He is not on the Commisioner's good side now, though, after having lied to him on multiple occasions. I predict he will be banned for at least as long as Goodell is running things.

TheWOAT · Aug 21, 2007, 10:35 AM

Once Vick is done with his time, and shows some remorse, I believe he deserves a second chance... doesnt everybody?

stevesnj · Aug 21, 2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Are you of the opinion that a former criminal should be barred from all employment? The NFL is just an employer. If all employers refused to employ former criminals, then they'd simply be forced into more crime due to their inability earn money through employment.

Formal criminals usually lie about being convicted of a crime before or during employment. I for one would not hire anyone convicted of a crime. Maybe not doing the crime in the first place is the best way to go? hmmmm

Dork. · Aug 21, 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Once Vick is done with his time, and shows some remorse, I believe he deserves a second chance... doesnt everybody?

Everyone should be eligible for a second chance, but not everyone deserves one. People who truly admit and show remorse for what they did and pledge to do better in their lives deserve a second chance. Is Vick one of these people?

Dakarʒ · Aug 21, 2007, 10:41 AM

Good luck on seeing him show genuine remorse. I don't think he'll ever feel that.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Are you of the opinion that a former criminal should be barred from all employment? The NFL is just an employer. If all employers refused to employ former criminals, then they'd simply be forced into more crime due to their inability earn money through employment.

No, I'm not of that opinion. But any employer should have the right to refuse to hire someone based on circumstances.

The NFL employs football players who are all role models, whether they like it or not. The NFL has a responsibility to its fan base to show that illegal activity will not be tolerated. The government is taking care of the legal side of things; what the NFL does from this point forward is their own decision. The SPORT'S reputation is dependent upon what they do.

If Vick is released, apologizes, shows genuine remorse (not one of these obligatory prepared statements), and reverses the process by drastically changing his lifestyle, then the NFL should take another look at him and consider whether or not he's worth bringing back.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Good luck on seeing him show genuine remorse. I don't think he'll ever feel that.

Exactly why I'm not too optimistic about his future. He's a scumbag.

To Atlanta fans...

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:45 AM

Just a reminder...

This is what dogl fighting is like...

Dakarʒ · Aug 21, 2007, 10:45 AM

The funny thing is, I remember a few years ago when Marcus was supposedly the bad one.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:46 AM

Where is Marcus, anyways?

[EDIT] Never mind...released this year by the Dolphins.

TheWOAT · Aug 21, 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Everyone should be eligible for a second chance, but not everyone deserves one. People who truly admit and show remorse for what they did and pledge to do better in their lives deserve a second chance. Is Vick one of these people?

Its only been a couple days since his lawyer said that he has accepted responsibility... so its too soon to tell.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 10:54 AM

His lawyer will let us all know that Michael is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very sorry.

I'm sure he also condemns dog-fighting across the country.

wallinbl · Aug 21, 2007, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

The NFL employs football players who are all role models

I think that instead of continually saying that, we should just start telling kids not to look up to them. There are very few people in the NFL that are worthy of being role models.

Dork. · Aug 21, 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Its only been a couple days since his lawyer said that he has accepted responsibility... so its too soon to tell.

True, but the fact that he didn't come clean to the NFL earlier makes me question his level of remorse. There's a difference between admitting guilt of your own accord, or admitting guilt because you've been found out and want to cut your losses. One is more sincere than the other.

Dakarʒ · Aug 21, 2007, 12:12 PM

Dork. you nail my thinking. When someone like Vick apologizes for their past actions, more often than not they come off as apologizing for getting caught.

wallinbl · Aug 21, 2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

True, but the fact that he didn't come clean to the NFL earlier makes me question his level of remorse. There's a difference between admitting guilt of your own accord, or admitting guilt because you've been found out and want to cut your losses. One is more sincere than the other.

I'm willing to believe that a person can realize that what they are doing is wrong, and intend to get out of the practice of doing it, yet not be willing to admit to the practice. He may have hoped that he could stop doing it without any legal or NFL issues. The fact that he tried to preserve his career has no impact on whether or not he's actually remorseful. You'd try to preserve your career as well.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I think that instead of continually saying that, we should just start telling kids not to look up to them. There are very few people in the NFL that are worthy of being role models.

We pay them millions of dollars, put them in front of millions of people, place them in advertisements, and generally make them bigger than rock stars.

Kids will idolize them, even if we try to tell them not to.

Captain Obvious · Aug 21, 2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by wallinbl

I am not excusing any of the things you have listed, however, let me explain why I think Vick's crime is worse. Everything you listed can be impulsive - it happened in a moment. Vick was ongoingly running and maintaining an enterprise centered around the torture of animals. It wasn't a moment - it was a lifestyle - a decision to participate made every day.

Oh I am mineralizing it. I am totally saying that what he did to those dogs is nothing compared to violent acts other NFL players have done. I think the outrage shown here is the result of overly attached pet owners who have no perspective because all they can think about is the same thing happening to their mutts.

Saying that all these other crimes were one isolated instance of impulsive rage is naive. Just because there isn't as large of an audience for the behavior like there is for the dog fights doesn't mean these other individuals didn't have lifestyles that perpetuated the same type of violence that led up to the one big thing they got caught for. Particularly the wife beaters. Which let's be honest is a huge chunk of those guys.

I seriously doubt Rae Carruth stared his history of abuse against women with the murder of his pregnant girlfriend who wouldn't have an abortion for him.
A lot of these people while not convicted had several charges of domestic battery and similar crimes filed against them. Its hardly something they did once.

So do I believe that Vick should be banned for life from the NFL for what he did with dogs when others who have committed far more grave crimes were not? No. Hell no.
If the worse thing he did was smash the skulls of some puppies then I'd feel a whole lot more at ease sitting next to him than Chris Terry. Both did bad things. But I really don't think the moral outrage of throwing a dog into a brick wall is the same as throwing a woman into a brick wall.

design219 · Aug 21, 2007, 01:13 PM

Captain Obvious is obviously not understanding the point he is replying to.

Even the best of people can have poor impulse control. Vick obviously has an ongoing problem.

Captain Obvious · Aug 21, 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by design219

Even the best of people can have poor impulse control. Vick obviously has an ongoing problem.

lol

Yeah dragging a chick by the hair down three flights of stairs is just poor impulse control.
Not at all a sign of a larger ongoing problem.

Let me ask you this peta: if someone took a steet tored boot to your mom's face would be the same as taking a steel toed boot to your pet?

design219 · Aug 21, 2007, 01:31 PM

Nobody is saying violence is good. We are judging character here.

Captain Obvious · Aug 21, 2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by design219

Nobody is saying violence is good. We are judging character here.

Actually, no.
We are asking what warrants a lifetime ban from the NFL.

If all of those other crimes did not. Then why should Vick's dog issues.
I am seeing too much of that "they should have banned" instead of acknowledging that they did not. Therefore my conclusion based on the reality of what's been done in the past is that this is not a sufficient argument for banning Vick.

OldManMac · Aug 21, 2007, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

lol

Let me ask you this peta: if someone took a steet tored boot to your mom's face would be the same as taking a steel toed boot to your pet?

IMO, absolutely! It indicates an underlying problem with devaluing life, period. Many murderers in prison started out as kids killing cats and dogs. Just because it happened to be a non person in one instance doesn't change the underlying issue. The anger and condescending tone often obvious in your replies to people here, and your use of the term "some stupid dog" makes it quite easy to understand why you believe what you do.

Dakarʒ · Aug 21, 2007, 01:50 PM

If you're trying to tell me someone who systematically drowns and hangs dogs doesn't seem far more capable of taking a human life than any other person, I think you're mistaken.

Jawbone54 · Aug 21, 2007, 02:02 PM

Captain Obvious, NO ONE is trying to equate dog fighting with murder or rape. You're going down a path that I don't believe anyone else is even considering.

Vick has now pleading guilty and has definitely been involved in a massive illegal dogfighting subculture that has broken the law for years. In this instance, Vick should be banned from the NFL.

If a man rapes a woman, he should be banned for life. If a man kills a person, he should be banned for life (duh). If a man assaults another person, he should be banned at least for several years. All of these things are atrocious. Some people deserve a second chance, but who does and who doesn't?

Ray Lewis? I think he should've gone to prison.
Pac Man Jones? He doesn't belong in the NFL. Period.
Michael Vick? I don't know. Depends on how deep his involvement was.

Again, NO ONE is implying that what Vick did was worse than any of the other people you brought up. It's not a matter of what was worse; it's a matter of Vick being a felon, a horrible human being, and a terrible figure to allow inside the NFL. He should not be a professional football player. End of story.

SVass · Aug 21, 2007, 02:25 PM

Not to defend Vick, but just to point out the following:

"Vick agreed to plead guilty to the felony charges of conspiring to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiring to sponsor a dog in an animal-fighting venture." NY Times

In other words, the prosecutors are not charging with directly doing anything. They are taking the easy way out and charging him with interstate travel. sam

::maroma:: · Aug 21, 2007, 02:41 PM

The real question is, will Vick read his heartfelt public apology (prepared for him by his lawyer) himself, or will his lawyer read Vick's heartfelt public apology (prepared for him by his lawyer) for him?

goMac · Aug 21, 2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Again, NO ONE is implying that what Vick did was worse than any of the other people you brought up. It's not a matter of what was worse; it's a matter of Vick being a felon, a horrible human being, and a terrible figure to allow inside the NFL. He should not be a professional football player. End of story.

Vick is not the kind of role model that should be in the NFL. Yes, Vick is human and makes mistakes. But on the other hand, he plays for the NFL. Because he enjoys a higher level of living in our society, he should be held to a higher standard. We're not talking about someone who flips burgers at McDonalds.