12/21/24
May 19, 2009
Humane Society will work with Vick: (Hope I didn't blow this - first attempt.) It's easy to be cynical about this, but if Vick is sincere and not just trying to weasel his way back into the NFL, this could be the second coming of Susan Boyle. Full Disclosure: I'm a 30+ year Atlantan, Falcons fan to the bone, and have been adopted by three dogs.
posted by outonleave to football at 07:55 PM - 25 comments
As Goodniteburbank said on Twitter...
"Michael Vick to work w/ Human Society. He'll burn the dogs they can't find homes for."
posted by Drood at 10:53 PM on May 19, 2009
To me, Vick ought to have to spend more than a couple of months working with the Humane Society in order to prove he's sincere about this. That would make it hard for him to be reinstated this year.
However, I won't be surprised if he does get reinstated this year, perhaps after 5 games.
Drood, I like your line about him working w/Human Society...probably the best place for him to start...he can work with the animals later.
posted by dviking at 11:29 PM on May 19, 2009
Hey, I just copied and pasted from the tweet I mentioned. Don't blame me for shite spelling:)
posted by Drood at 12:08 AM on May 20, 2009
Michael Vick ha$ been enveloped by the $pirit of $t. Franci$ of A$$i$i. There'$ change you can believe in.
posted by sandskater at 01:24 AM on May 20, 2009
If i may be a little contrarian, how does anyobdy know just how long someone must be required to do penance for full acceptance by society or places of employment? All the statements by people that Vick needs to do "x amount" more time proving himself just seem to be arbitrary barometers. How do we reach those conclusions?
I thought his penalty was prison. Yes, i know that many require more to be back in society's good graces, but should they require more?
posted by brainofdtrain at 04:37 PM on May 20, 2009
I'm with brain. If two years in federal prison, loss of your income, home, millions in assets, and questionable future prospects aren't enough punishment for this crime, then what is? Vick has already paid a heavier price than practically all of the people arrested for dog fighting in the last ten years.
And here's a question for the community; if Vick's s crimes were so brutal and sadistic, how do we condemn that but still think it's ok for folks to go out and bag their bear or lion or whatever and hang it on the wall? How about the guys who gut their deer while the deer is still breathing? Isn't that almost as brutal and sadistic?
posted by irunfromclones at 05:58 PM on May 20, 2009
I would think that we each are allowed to have an opinion regarding how long one should do penance for a particular crime.
As I stated, I think Vick ought to have to do more than a couple of months service with the Humane Society to prove he's truly changed. You're 100% free to believe differently, I make no judgement of you based on your beliefs.
This is exactly why there are sentencing guidelines for judges that allow for some flexibility. Not even all judges, that are trained in these matters, agree on the proper length of sentences, so why would one expect that we would?
As to Vick paying a heavier price than others due to the loss of millions as opposed to what others make, that is really not a valid argument. If he and I both lose our income for two years we both paid the same in a relative sense. I would lose my job as well, and I don't think they'd be very quick to hire me back the second I got out of the pen.
As to the hunting comparison, I don't know of hunters that force their prey to fight to the death, and/or burn animals that didn't put up a decent fight. Been deer hunting a few times in the past, never heard of anyone skinning a deer while still breathing. Gutting a live fish perhaps, not a deer.
posted by dviking at 06:14 PM on May 20, 2009
Where in the hell did the bs about Vick burning dogs come from?
posted by outonleave at 08:57 PM on May 20, 2009
Got a little ornery for a second there, for which I apologize. But here's my underlying thought on this whole subject: who is certain that they wouldn't have been the same person that Vick was, had they walked their lifetime in his shoes?
posted by outonleave at 09:04 PM on May 20, 2009
Alright, so he didn't actually "burn" the dogs...that was just a continuation of a joke from earlier in the post.
However, from the report on the case as it was in court: According to court documents, dogs that failed to show enough fighting spirit or lost matches were executed. Some dogs died by electrocution and others by hanging or drowning.
So, whether he burnt them or just electrocuted/drowned/hanged them does it really matter?
posted by dviking at 10:44 PM on May 20, 2009
Well I for one am glad to see that someone is throwing Vick a bone.
posted by THX-1138 at 11:56 PM on May 20, 2009
So, whether he burnt them or just electrocuted/drowned/hanged them does it really matter?
Well, it matters that you have convicted him of killing dogs at all, which has never been proven. He admitted to agreeing that dogs would be killed, which is plenty bad enough. There really is no need for you to make it worse by creating a picture that was never proven. The facts are pretty damning by themselves in his statement of facts and in his guilty plea to Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture.
posted by bperk at 10:53 AM on May 21, 2009
There really is no need for you to make it worse by creating a picture that was never proven.
Vick told an FBI agent that he hung a dog. After a polygraph test indicated that he was being deceptive when he denied killing dogs, Vick told his lawyer, "I did it all. I did everything. If you need me to say more, I'll say more."
who is certain that they wouldn't have been the same person that Vick was, had they walked their lifetime in his shoes?
Michael Vick grew up in a home with two parents and was looked after by coaches from an early age because of his athletic ability. His family lived in public housing and received some public assistance, but by his father's account his son never got into drugs or other trouble. To suggest that he had some kind of hard-knock life that made him bankroll a cruel dog-fighting ring for six years and participate in the killings is an insult to the many honest and law-abiding people who grow up in the same circumstances he did.
posted by rcade at 11:28 AM on May 21, 2009
Vick told an FBI agent that he hung a dog. After a polygraph test indicated that he was being deceptive when he denied killing dogs, Vick told his lawyer, "I did it all. I did everything. If you need me to say more, I'll say more."
I don't mean to be flippant, but none of that has been proven. Those are allegations, or, at most, observations by the judge. Vick pled guilty, so he never had an opportunity to challenge those allegations. The only thing that he is guilty of is what he admitted in his statement of fact. It obviously mattered for his sentencing that the judge didn't believe him, but it isn't proof.
To suggest that he had some kind of hard-knock life that made him bankroll a cruel dog-fighting ring for six years and participate in the killings is an insult to the many honest and law-abiding people who grow up in the same circumstances he did.
You don't have to have a hard-knock life to grow up around dogfighting. You just have to grow up in the ghetto, which he did. Not surprisingly, growing up around dogfighting has a tendency to desensitize people to the cruelty of it.
posted by bperk at 12:39 PM on May 21, 2009
Vick pled guilty, so he never had an opportunity to challenge those allegations.
He had the opportunity to face those charges. He decided to take a plea deal rather than face them. Considering the fact that he admitted killing a dog to an FBI agent and his own lawyer said he admitted killing dogs, I think the simplest explanation here is that he did in fact kill dogs.
You don't have to have a hard-knock life to grow up around dogfighting. You just have to grow up in the ghetto, which he did.
Excuses excuses excuses. Vick has had significantly more opportunities in his life than most people who grow up in ghettos. Yet he's the one who poured millions into running a criminal dog fighting operation and they didn't.
I think that if someone wants him to QB their team, that's OK with me. I believe people should be able to be rehabilitated and learn from their mistakes. But let's not rationalize away his crimes.
posted by rcade at 01:49 PM on May 21, 2009
As I stated, I think Vick ought to have to do more than a couple of months service with the Humane Society to prove he's truly changed.
Why does he? To appease you? Vick being locked up in Leavenworth for 2 years is more than any of us would want to do but to also lose everything along the way as well, let it go. Ever hear the expression "You do the crime, you do the time"? Well, Vick has done both and he paid for that so I can understand why people feel the need to want more out of him but don't you think 2 years in a maximum security prison is enough?
Let us all remember the name Leonard Little.
posted by BornIcon at 02:00 PM on May 21, 2009
Excuses excuses excuses. Vick has had significantly more opportunities in his life than most people who grow up in ghettos. Yet he's the one who poured millions into running a criminal dog fighting operation and they didn't.
He did. It was stupid. He is being punished for it. I just understand why he was numb to the violence of it. There are a lot of things that you learn growing up in the ghetto that you have to unlearn. Unfortunately, some people have to learn those lessons the hard way. It is not an excuse. It is just the way things are.
He had the opportunity to face those charges. He decided to take a plea deal rather than face them. Considering the fact that he admitted killing a dog to an FBI agent and his own lawyer said he admitted killing dogs, I think the simplest explanation here is that he did in fact kill dogs.
I don't want to continue this line of thought because I feel like I am defending his crimes when I absolutely don't want to be. I'll just end by saying that we have different conceptions of what truths or facts are to be found in legal proceedings.
posted by bperk at 02:17 PM on May 21, 2009
Just to be clear, Vick has not served his time...not just yet anyways. He still has a couple of months of home confinement to deal with.
As to various charges not being "proven" because Vick plead guilty. That's odd logic, the man says he did it, that's proof enough for me. If you think he's somehow taking the fall for things someone else did, fine, I will not be joining that conspiracy theory group. If the dogs had been on someone else's property, and Vick were a run of the mill mafioso, maybe I'd buy that he was protecting someone, that's not the case here.
BI, why is it so hard to grasp that I, or someone else, might have a different set of values than you do. The punishment dealt out by the courts is one obligation that vick had to fulfill, his being given his high profile/high paying job back is an issue that the NFL has to consider. I know for a fact that most companies would be slow to hire someone back that did time for such a publicized crime. Yep, he did the crime, and yes, he's almost done doing the time. However, I feel that he ought to have to do more than a couple of months service with the Humane Society in order to prove that he changed his ways. Prison is meant to rehabilitate people (at least that's the argument on paper), however, the track record is not very good. Most are not changed, and thus fall back into old habits. All I'm saying is that it will take more than two months to prove that to me.
I will step down from my soapbox now.
posted by dviking at 05:12 PM on May 21, 2009
BI, why is it so hard to grasp that I, or someone else, might have a different set of values than you do
I don't have a problem with that concept at all DV, what I'm saying is how much is enough? 2 years in a maximum security prison isn't enough for anyone to say, "Damn, Vick has spent more time in jail than some people do for murdering an actual person."
What if Vick never spent a day in jail? Humor me here for a moment...let's say that Vick was only given 5 years probation with no jail time, would anyone be in an uproar about that? Would people scream at the top of their lungs that "That's not enough!" I mean, when is enough actually enough already?
I was one who debated whether Vick was guilty or not when this story first came out and I honestly didn't think he did what he was being accused of. So I was wrong for once (*chuckle*) but I found what he was accused of doing to be very, very wrong. I have always been a dog owner and love dogs very much, however, 2 years in Leavenworth is more time than I thought he was going to get but he served that time and was set free. I am not going to say whether should be allowed back into the NFL or not since my opinion on that really doesn't matter but I do feel as if sports fans should worry about their own problems or mistakes and stop judging these pro athletes from theirs.
When I was a kid, I used to catch flies and tear their wings off, I also used to catch fireflies and use their bioluminescences as a night light. I grew up in a pretty rough area and have seen my share of dog fights but have never seen anyone kill their dog(s) after a fight...although I have heard about things like that happening.
I do think it's a shame that sort of thing goes on but if someone is found guilty of a crime, goes to jail for that crime and eventually is set free, I don't believe that people should forget why that person was sent to jail for in the first place but they should forgive that person for their mistakes and allow them the chance to live their lives with a better understanding of what their costly mistake took away from them.
posted by BornIcon at 10:16 AM on May 22, 2009
absolutely, I do want Vick to get a second chance at life, I just want to see proof that he is able to conduct himself in lawful manner outside of prison. Two months of house arrest during which he'll work a construction job and do some volunteer work with the Humane Society is a great start. I'd just like to see more.
Today's Dallas paper has an article that states "Vick did his time, now he has the right to continue his NFL career." Emphasis on right is mine. That's where I disagree. He has done his time and has the right to be a free man, however, no one owes him anything. He will always need to earn the trust of his employer, and in this case fans, and that may take longer, and I'm good with that.
posted by dviking at 11:12 AM on May 22, 2009
Well, he obviously doesn't have a right to continue his football career or he wouldn't have to beg permission from Goodell to play again. The whole point of a right is that you don't have to ask anyone's permission.
posted by bperk at 11:26 AM on May 22, 2009
I just want to see proof that he is able to conduct himself in lawful manner outside of prison.....I'd just like to see more
But that's my point, why do you feel that Michael Vick owes it to you to show you proof that he is a changed man, don't you think that he owes it to himself and his family?
The man just got out of jail a few days ago, let him settle in, do the rest of his time in home confinement and then when all is said & done, let's see if he does in fact take the necessary steps to reclaim his life.
I don't believe that he has "the right to continue his NFL career" but he should be given that opportunity if he feels that he can still perform at the highest level by an NFL team.
posted by BornIcon at 12:10 PM on May 22, 2009
But that's my point, why do you feel that Michael Vick owes it to you to show you proof that he is a changed man, don't you think that he owes it to himself and his family?
If I may address this:
It is because we as human beings operate from the viewpoint of our ego, or sense of self. Not that we think highly of ourselves or anything, but most people (except for possibly those who are true spiritual leaders or more highly enlightened than the rest of us) hold their own opinions above others. It is of a higher priority that we put the oneness on Vick to prove his worthiness, if you will, of rejoining our society. At a basic level, many people see what Michael Vick has been accused (and convicted) of as being a danger to the rest of us as a society. By at the very least giving his consent to the treatment of animals on his property without any real need for the revenue it generated (the man was a millionaire) leads us to believe that he went along with it because he enjoyed the activity. And most people have reached a moral concensus that this is wrong and might indicate a more perverse and predatory nature in him. It is natural for us to shun the sociopath.
So, yes, it is important for each person to individually come to their own conclusion about Michael Vick's mental state. We can't begin to address how it makes someone else feel so we focus on how it affects us personally.
posted by THX-1138 at 02:59 PM on May 22, 2009
yea, what he said.
posted by dviking at 10:36 PM on May 22, 2009
Most important quote:
"He still has to prove himself over time."
I think MV is capable of turning everything around for the better, this is definitely one step in the right direction. I do hope the he knows that this is only one step and that he doesn't expect this action to alleviate the damage he has caused.