11/05/24
July 26, 2009
T.O.'s a judge of character?: Terrell Owens says the NFL should reinstate Michael Vick immediately.
I think they should reinstate Vick and suspend TO...
posted by Mickster at 09:12 AM on July 27, 2009
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" He did the crime. He did the time. Let the SOB play, if anyone will have him.
posted by pullmyfinger at 11:43 AM on July 27, 2009
Heard he bought a condo in Minnesota, 1 floor below Favre's. No pets allowed.
posted by cixelsyd at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2009
T.O says that Vick has already suffered so much. Aw. Muffin. Suffering because of choices he himself made to cause suffering to tons of other animals.
He did the crime. He did the time. Let the SOB play, if anyone will have him.
The NFL can also take into account the crimes that Vick committed against their image and their reputation. The second he's back in the league, they're the league who wants him back. I'm fairly certain they're not eager to take on all of that just yet.
posted by dfleming at 01:19 PM on July 27, 2009
too late, they already have. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9859346/Goodell-conditionally-reinstates-Vick-to-NFL
posted by texpat at 04:34 PM on July 27, 2009
Yes, and I'm sure some team will grab him. I believe it's a small list, though.
posted by jjzucal at 07:46 PM on July 27, 2009
The Raiders feel like a perfect fit. They have a history of signing malcontents and bad guys. Davis seems immune to public opinion. And you've got to imagine that more than a few of their fans have been involved with dog fighting themselves.
posted by cjets at 08:41 PM on July 27, 2009
I think he should sign with the Browns. He'd be a great fit for the Dawg Pound.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 08:47 PM on July 27, 2009
While I was appalled by the cruelty Vick displayed to those dogs (and if you watch The Dog Whisperer you've probably gotten a pretty good picture of what he did), I think once you've done your time, you should be considered rehabilitated. That's the whole point of prison, isn't it? Rehabilitation?
We have racist players, homophobic players, players with crime convictions of all sorts, players with reputation as men who cheat on their wives, players who are borderline insane prima-donnas, and players with all sorts of other anti-social histories and qualities (of course, the great majority of players are probably decent people).
Vick deserves every taunt and insult he gets hurled at him for the rest of his career. I imagine that he'll be greeted with a rousing chorus of "who let the dogs out" every time he plays - probably every time anyone sacks him.
If he can still play, and play well, let him. Doesn't mean we should forget and I don't think anyone's going to let him forget, you know?
posted by Joey Michaels at 05:29 AM on July 28, 2009
I think once you've done your time, you should be considered rehabilitated. That's the whole point of prison, isn't it? Rehabilitation?
That may be the point. But prison has been a stunning failure in rehabilitation. According to the the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. Rate of recidivism is approximately 67%.
Or, to put it another way: Would you let Michael Vick walk your dog?
Vick served his time and has the right to work for an employer of his choice. However, that doesn't mean that the NFL, or any specific team, has the obligation to hire him.
And though I'd agree that Vick has the legal right to work for any NFL team, it would be great to see them all turn their back on Vick and make him a cautionary tale for other young knucklehead athletes.
posted by cjets at 01:20 PM on July 28, 2009
I agree that Vick has served his debt to society but I am not so sure he could be considered rehabilitated. If he went to prison and just sat his entire time while their I fail to see how that helps him. In my opinion what Vick did are the actions of a sociopath. All sorts of antisocial behavior starts with animal torture and animal killings, so if he didn't receive any kind of in depth psychological help than I would consider him far from rehabilitated. I know that this is the internet so I feel I should clarify, Vick is not the next Charles Manson but his actions should be cause for concern. I hope he received more treatment than just being locked in a cage while he was in prison.
By the letter of the law Vick served his debt and if that is enough for the NFL to reinstate him they every right to.
posted by HATER 187 at 01:29 PM on July 28, 2009
And though I'd agree that Vick has the legal right to work for any NFL team, it would be great to see them all turn their back on Vick and make him a cautionary tale for other young knucklehead athletes.
You quote sky high recidivism rates then encourage the very behavior that makes recidivism so high - former convicts unable to get jobs. If we would like to fix recidivism rates, then we have to encourage the hiring of people trying to get their life together not discourage it. Obviously, you don't hire a dog killer to work at the pound. You don't hire a thief to work at the bank. But, we have to get away from continuing the punishment of people after their sentence is complete if we want people to stay on the straight and arrow. I hope that any employer, including the teams in the NFL, recognize that ostracizing Vick and any other former convict creates more problems and solves none.
Vick is already a cautionary tale. Now, we need to see if he can become an example of a person getting his life back on track after a terrible crime.
posted by bperk at 01:59 PM on July 28, 2009
And though I'd agree that Vick has the legal right to work for any NFL team, it would be great to see them all turn their back on Vick and make him a cautionary tale for other young knucklehead athletes.
I'm always curious to know why it is Vick, in this case, that should be made an example of? If legal justice (i.e., serving your time) isn't enough, what is?
To change the context a little bit, take Dany Heatley for example: second-degree vehicular homicide ... had been drinking (albeit not over legal limit), drivin' like a knucklehead ... kills a man. Now he's flaunting his no-trade-clause and acting pretty prima donna-ish. Why not make an example of this knucklehead?
Arland Bruce of the Toronto Argonauts isn't breaking any laws and he's being unofficially suspended by the team for bein' a knucklehead.
All I'm saying is that I'm always curious to know why people draw the lines regarding their moral stance on athletes' behaviour the way they do. For the most part, we can't seem to get a consensus on any of this ... and as long as we are so contradictory, incongruent, inconsistent, and subjective/relative ... we'll never get any consistently recognizable form of "justice" or any uniform morality to guide our actions on (and responses to) these issues in the future. But I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Spitztengle at 02:09 PM on July 28, 2009
Vick is already a cautionary tale. Now, we need to see if he can become an example of a person getting his life back on track after a terrible crime.
I disagree. If Vick does become a star again and plays for several more years, then he ceases to be a cautionary tale because his actions and his subsequent time in jail will seem more like a blip in his career than the thing that killed it.
Young moron athletes could look at Vick in that scenario and think that they could do what they want, spend a year or two in the slam and then come back and play.
I hope that any employer, including the teams in the NFL, recognize that ostracizing Vick and any other former convict creates more problems and solves none.
In terms of the NFL, which creates makes millionaire celebrities out of its players, I couldn't disagree more. If the NFL ostracizes Vick and other criminals then they may influence future potential criminals not to do the crime if they want to make it in the NFL.
Vick has a right to earn a living. That doesn't mean he has a right to earn a living playing for the NFL.
To change the context a little bit, take Dany Heatley for example: second-degree vehicular homicide ... had been drinking (albeit not over legal limit), drivin' like a knucklehead ... kills a man. Now he's flaunting his no-trade-clause and acting pretty prima donna-ish. Why not make an example of this knucklehead?
Why not?
All I'm saying is that I'm always curious to know why people draw the lines regarding their moral stance on athletes' behaviour the way they do. For the most part, we can't seem to get a consensus on any of this
First, from a legal point of view, the teams have the right to employ whomever they want as long as they aren't in jail or suspended. But from my personal point of view, I'd prefer that teams not hire people that kill others while committing a felony (Leonard Little, Dante Stallworth) beat their wives (too many to name) or run criminal conspiracies while torturing and murdering their dogs.
And if professional teams did stop employing the small percentage of athletes who commit criminal acts, it might make those athletes think twice before doing something stupid.
As it is now, we have people clamoring for Vick's right to play in the NFL and that's a pretty sad state of affairs (I'm not talking about the specific comments in this thread, just in general).
posted by cjets at 02:49 PM on July 28, 2009
I disagree. If Vick does become a star again and plays for several more years, then he ceases to be a cautionary tale because his actions and his subsequent time in jail will seem more like a blip in his career than the thing that killed it.
If Vick were to come back and play well, let's say he plays even better than the way he played before he went to jail, how is that not a cautinary tale? The man was locked up for 2 years and yet was able to overcome everything that he has done to himself and still succeed. Not everyone that goes to jail can come out and become a success story. It just may be time for people to get off of their little pedestals and understand that Vick committed a malicious crime and he's paid for it. Now it's time to move on and let the man attempt to get his life back in order and continue taking steps towards becoming a decent human being. Having a man as respected as Tony Dungy by your side helps a lot as well.
posted by BornIcon at 03:49 PM on July 28, 2009
If Vick were to come back and play well, let's say he plays even better than the way he played before he went to jail, how is that not a cautinary tale? The man was locked up for 2 years and yet was able to overcome everything that he has done to himself and still succeed.
That's not a cautionary tale. That's a tale of redemption.
If he comes back and succeeds now, the message is "hey you too can commit heinous crimes and still be a star in the NFL after you served your time."
posted by cjets at 04:12 PM on July 28, 2009
And if professional teams did stop employing the small percentage of athletes who commit criminal acts, it might make those athletes think twice before doing something stupid.
However, until such a time that the NFL does stop employing former criminals, why should they begin with Michael Vick? As you and I both pointed out, there are a number of former criminals already playing. If they're going to be consistent with their own hiring practices, Vick deserves the same consideration as any other former convict.
... but he also deserves to be razzed mercilessly by fans every time he steps onto the field.
posted by Joey Michaels at 04:57 PM on July 28, 2009
If Vick does become a star again and plays for several more years, then he ceases to be a cautionary tale because his actions and his subsequent time in jail will seem more like a blip in his career than the thing that killed it.
Vick will never get back what he lost. He has zero chance of making the kind of money that he lost. He has filed for bankruptcy. Kids are not going to be buying his jerseys in mass numbers. He will never be the face of a franchise. He lost at least two prime playing years. If he has success, people will wonder what kind of success he could have had if he hadn't missed two years. If he fails, people will attribute it to the lost years.
If the NFL ostracizes Vick and other criminals then they may influence future potential criminals not to do the crime if they want to make it in the NFL.
You give far too much credit to criminals. Vick wouldn't have been a criminal if he had any sense and thought about consequences. The same goes for anyone who follows in his footsteps. No matter what happens to Vick, criminals will still be stupid and unthinking. People involved with criminal enterprises will still think they are smarter than the cops. Vick probably did make some athletes skip the dogfights, but continuing to punish him won't make any difference in that regard.
posted by bperk at 07:57 AM on July 29, 2009
sVick will never get back what he lost. He has zero chance of making the kind of money that he lost. He has filed for bankruptcy. Kids are not going to be buying his jerseys in mass numbers.
Unless he leads a team to the Super Bowl. I would agree that it's unlikely but it's not zero chance.
You give far too much credit to criminals. Vick wouldn't have been a criminal if he had any sense and thought about consequences. The same goes for anyone who follows in his footsteps.
People refrain from breaking the law every day to avoid the consequences.
If the NFL decided that, for the good of the league, that they were no longer going to hire convicted violent felons, I think it could have a significant impact. I'd agree that simply punishing Vick alone would not do it. But if this were the start of a comprehensive policy towards convicted violent felons, that could change people's behavior.
posted by cjets at 05:31 PM on July 29, 2009
If the NFL decided that, for the good of the league, that they were no longer going to hire convicted violent felons, I think it could have a significant impact.
I agree completely. This would make Roger Goodell's job much easier, because it often seems all his duties call for is him to meet with jackasses like Vick, Burress, etc. in order to decide how they should be penalized. Get rid of all of them. The league would do much better, in the long run. The only downside is we'd then have more uneducated idiots without any legal way of making a living.
posted by dyams at 07:07 PM on July 29, 2009
People refrain from breaking the law every day to avoid the consequences.
Exactly. Those are the non-criminals because they are thinking! The vast majority of people who are committing crimes do not think about consequences. It doesn't matter if the consequences for Vick are bad or terrible, most criminals are not going to be discouraged because they don't think.
posted by bperk at 10:17 AM on July 30, 2009
Huh, Terrell Owens commenting on Michael Vick via TinyURL. Penis Bird? 2girls1cup? goatse?