August 20, 2007

Is this going to turn into another one of these? Because we don't need it.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:40 PM on August 20, 2007

I second JG's post. Been there.

posted by tahoemoj at 02:50 PM on August 20, 2007

I was also glad to read that one of the states has every intention of continuing prosecution of Vick on their own statutes. well I understand the seriousness of the charge stems more from the cross-state gambling part than the dogfighting part, at least from the courts eyes (while the public has latched onto the animal cruelty part, for obvious reasons). So while I'm sure he can and will be charged by the state, I doubt he will see anything other than a heavy fine related to that...especially as this is his first offense.

posted by bdaddy at 03:09 PM on August 20, 2007

You overestimate Oakland, rcade.

posted by insomnyuk at 03:39 PM on August 20, 2007

I'm hoping that the intense publicity attracted by this case inspires more local and federal prosecutors to go after dogfighting rings.

posted by rcade at 04:14 PM on August 20, 2007

well I understand the seriousness of the charge stems more from the cross-state gambling part than the dogfighting part, at least from the courts eyes (while the public has latched onto the animal cruelty part, for obvious reasons). In the time period covered by the indictment, the federal dogfighting charges that could have been assessed against Vick were misdemeanors (the law subsequently was changed to make the charges felonies, but this doesn't apply to Vick -- ex post facto and all that crap). So any other charges in the federal case (such as the gambling charges and other charges related to the "conspiracy") are potentially bigger ticket items. That said, my personal belief is that this should be a matter for state law enforcement only. I just don't think prosecuting these crimes is or should be a core competency of the federal government, and the federal basis for acting here (the cross-border aspects) is incidental, rather than central, to the case. For what it's worth, Virginia law imposes more stringent penalties in dog fighting than the federal statute (at least the federal statute that was in place at the time). Also, I predict Vick gets 12 months and serves no more than 6 in the federal case. (Caveat -- I know nothing about the federal sentencing guidelines in these types of cases and whether he would even be eligible for parole, so this is just mindless (and potentially inappropriate) predictacasting on my part.)

posted by holden at 04:46 PM on August 20, 2007

The question is, does Goodell have the balls to enforce his own policy? I've long said that athletes get away with crap that would get an average-joe employee sacked (ie: Spreewell attacking his coach). Goodell has painted hisself into a corner with harsh penalties to second tier players. Now he's faced with a more serious incident with a superstar who pulls in tons of money for the NFL. In my opinion, he has no choice but to issue a ban to Vick.

posted by FonGu at 06:23 PM on August 20, 2007

My personal opinion is that he should never be allowed to ever set foot on any football field, at any level, anywhere, in any capacity (even as a spectator) for life. I know it's not possible, but it would be at least partially just punishment. The real shame is that the fine max's out at $250k, because he needs to be sentenced to give at least $1 million to the ASPCA.

posted by commander cody at 07:30 PM on August 20, 2007

According to Wikipedia Vick's parents were together and wed when he was five years old and his father taught Mike and Marcus the fundamentals of football. It sounds like his father was an involved parent in his upbringing. Vick's mother kept her last name and the kids decided to keep "Vick" as their last name as well. Michael Vick, Wiki

posted by urall cloolis at 08:09 PM on August 20, 2007

I don't know whether to be outraged at the animal cruelty or sad that anyone so talented could be this stupid. He's got a M$130 contract and numerous high dollar licensing deals, yet he decides to get involved in an illegal dog fighting ring that was going to make him maybe K$100. Now the licensing deals are dead and if he's not banned from football for at least a year, I'll be amazed. If he's ever allowed back in the NFL, he'll be lucky to make 1% of his previous salary. A psychologist could write a Ph. D. dissertation on self distructive behavior using Vick as his poster child.

posted by BikeNut at 08:45 PM on August 20, 2007

If he can still play well when he gets out, he will get another chance. Some owner and GM will weather the protests... if not in the NFL, some team in the CFL will take him (see Exhibit A: Lawerence Phillips) My question is has there been another elite athelete that has taken a couple of years off during his or her prime and been able to shake the rust off. What is the impact of not throwing everyday going to be on Vick's skills?

posted by jc at 10:19 PM on August 20, 2007

Also, I predict Vick gets 12 months and serves no more than 6 in the federal case. (Caveat -- I know nothing about the federal sentencing guidelines in these types of cases and whether he would even be eligible for parole, so this is just mindless (and potentially inappropriate) predictacasting on my part.) Feds dont give time off for good behavior. He gets 12 months he does 12 months. Its one of the reasons the Feds are asked to come in on certain cases.

posted by firecop at 10:32 PM on August 20, 2007

For me personally, it is hard to look at this objectivly. I like most animals more than most of the people I run into on a daily basis and think crimes against animals are extremly deplorable. That being said this article rasises a few questions in my mind. I don't fully understand what Vick is being charged on. The animal related charges make sens, purchase, transport ect. but why the racketerring charges (which I assume are more serious) I hear racket and think burly mediterranean guy in a zoot suit offering fire insurance (pay me and maybes your buildin' won't burn down) I'm no law talking guy so maybe I just missed something. Secondly, what is Vick's motivation? NFL athletes are well paid, so money's out. Vick doesn't seem like an iverly cruel person (but I don't know him personally) Is it the thrill of gambling? Not to make him out to be a victim but could he have problem? Before crucifying patsfan, could "some" circles refer to people living below the poverty line or people who were raised in a poverty sricken enviornment (as I am sure Vick isn't hurting for those duckets now) show more of a propensity to mistreat animals?

posted by HATER 187 at 11:01 PM on August 20, 2007

Secondly, what is Vick's motivation? NFL athletes are well paid, so money's out. Vick doesn't seem like an iverly cruel person (but I don't know him personally) Is it the thrill of gambling? Not to make him out to be a victim but could he have problem? Doesnt seem overly cruel?? Man you gotta see dog fighting vids before you make that comment. Theres lotsa ways to gamble without having animals mistreated. I dont know about the most despicable act ever but it is eggregious in my opinion. Hope he never gets to play again... Pretty sick

posted by firecop at 11:35 PM on August 20, 2007

urall cloolis, You may want to dig deeper and get the whole story next time.Wikepedia only shows part of the story. Michael's family situation was something less than ideal. His mother, Brenda Vick, was 16 when she became pregnant with him. His father, Michael Boddie, was just a year older. Already the parents of a girl, Christina, they did not marry for another five years—at which point two more children, Marcus and Courtney, had arrived. Boddie was away more often than he was home during his children's formative years. After spending 2 1/2 years in the Army, he bounced from one job to another. Eventually he found steady work in the Newport News shipyards as a sandblaster and spray-painter. His days started early and ended after dark. The responsibility of raising Michael and his siblings fell to Brenda. She became their savior. In fact, all the kids chose to use her last name. With help from her parents, Brenda ran a tight ship. The family lived in the Ridley Circle housing project on the city's east side. She kept the cramped three-bedroom apartment immaculate. Brenda worked at a KMart, spending every spare dollar she earned on the kids. It sounds like their a little bit happier with thier mother, his dad was around to make babies, ...and to throw footballs. Sounds great. Again I could be wrong. yerfatma As far as the "circles" that I refer to are people who come from poor urban and rural backgrounds who cannot seem to give up or get rid of people who don't care about thier welfare when they become ultra rich, primarily athletes,not black, brown or white. I could've said that perhaps. I guess you only think blacks have dogfighting rings. Sorry you feel that way. My assumption only. ESPN only did a major story when they had an inside guy to talk to, AFTER the story broke. I have seen smaller stories in the past, but nothing of any real substance at this level. Just like steroids, snitching,etc, no one wants to expose or out our HEROS! or make them mad and not get the HOT SEAT interview. You can't tell me that this wasn't out their earlier. Vick has a long history of questionable activity, and when an organization signs someone like this to such a monster contract, it should be examined a little further than the average person. Besides, he isn't that good as a QB anyway. You may want to check out your own hang ups before you assume what someone else thinks.

posted by patsfan73 at 12:00 AM on August 21, 2007

Some pretty serious hate. I'm sorry, but I just can't see how this is the most despicable act ever. It's a little overkill. It's not even close to the most despicable act ever, but it's pretty psychotic and very sadistic. Animal fighting of any stripe (and yes, chickens are less cutesy and lovey than dogs) serves only one purpose: bloodlust and half-assed machismo-laden one-upsmanship. There is no single other purpose to breed, 'train'(abuse), and fight an animal. Of course it's not up there with rape or child abuse or anything of that stripe, but it does present a very twisted perception of what's acceptable and what is entertaining, and any therapist/psychologist worth the paper on their wall will tell you that it sets an extremely disturbing precedent for what an individual taking part in such an activity could eventually do and think that it's not abnormal. There's no excuse for breeding dogs (or any animal for that matter) only to play God and decide which of them are worth keeping to play Russian Roulette with and which just don't make the cut and therefore deserve a swift bullet to the brain or much, much worse. I've known pits that were used as bait dogs in fighting rings. These pits were fortunate enough to get saved and have enough trust in either people and (somehow) other dogs to where they could go on with their lives. The vast majority don't. And that's a fucking shame, because Pit Bulls and other Bully breeds were the most common household dogs in the early 20th century, long before Labs or Goldens were even developed. I don't wish Vick harm for what he's done, mainly because it wouldn't do any good. My only hope is that this will lead to federal and local law enforcement agencies cracking down harder on the practice. I'd hope Vick, if he truly was involved in the direct torture (both mentally and physically) of dogs would get his due process, serve an appropriate sentence in Capital P Prison, and never make a single dollar off of his physical ability. But I fear the fact that those that likely had a larger hand in the program are going to get lighter sentences for selling Vick out, which is a shame. I also fear this will trigger a manhunt for bully-breed-based legislation. I hope that doesn't happen, since it's based on absolute bullshit and local-media hype. Yeah, I'm a cutesy-wootsie doggie lover of many stripes, so I'm a bit sensitive to this. I won't try to make some moral analogy about dogs killed :: children diddled, but it's pretty effing bad. I don't want the kind of person that could murder a dog in cold blood living on my street or on my fantasy squad. May he get the help he needs and try again at life, but his time of using athletic ability to earn a paycheck has, at least in my mind, run it's course. Fair enough?

posted by Ufez Jones at 12:28 AM on August 21, 2007

I was just browsing thru these posting and came across yerfatma's post that accused patsman73 of dancing around what he really wanted to say. basically calling him a racist. Why is it that every time a black athlete or better yet a black person in general is caught doing something wrong its never their fault, it's always about some white person trying to hold them down. From what I gather this act of brutallity is not condoned by pepole of all races. Making that statement when it is obviously not true shows that until we stop using the race card we are setting up our next generation to continue using this as an excuse to bad behavior. Listen I am not nieve to the fact that there are racist acts every single day but I also know that every time a black person gets caught do somthing wrong racism is not the reason. How can our country get past racism when every time something happens the race card is played. The reason Vick is in this situation is because he made bad decision, he killed dogs, he bet on dog fights, not because of anything anybody else did. Its time for him to stand up and take responsability and its time for us to stop using the race card,stop making excuses for bad behavior. If we dont then our kids and thier kids will continue down the same path usng this as an excuse for there bad behavior. As a father thats something I dread my kids having to deal with.

posted by bigpoppav at 03:00 AM on August 21, 2007

You may want to check out your own hang ups before you assume what someone else thinks. Where was the fallout when Bryant Gumble makes remarks about the winter olympics and the lack of true (black) athletes. Oh Ya, he gets the gig on the NFL network for Thursday night games. Rush makes a "True" statement about McNabb NOT winning anything and getting high profile endorsments. He gets the boot. Michael Irvin smokes crack, he gets vacation. Ozzie Guillen makes homophobic remarks, says "Sorry" nothing happens. Sorry if I completely misunderstood what you meant by "circles". What did you mean?

posted by yerfatma at 05:33 AM on August 21, 2007

I can't help but think that before everything is said and done, that the IRS will be on Vick yet too. Let's hope that the lier has started to grow up a bit through all this, and doesn't give the sentencing judge the BIRD when he's sentenced! I had to laugh on last saturday morning I heard something on ESPN. Someone had sent a bunch of Vick's jersy's to a human shelter in Atlanta, with a note "You can use these to clean up the kennels". Poetic justice I thought. What bothers me about his lieing about all this is that how can you put any trust in him as your QB any more. QB is a position that leads the team. Having said that, he shows no real good "lead by example", qualities now. I personal would just rather not see him in the NFL anymore. Maybe now the Falcons can move on now. Sadly all of this will come back to BITE him when it comes ballet time for the hall of fame.

posted by robi8259 at 05:54 AM on August 21, 2007

robi8259, I don't think it will BITE him when it comes to ballet time for HOF since he was not even close to getting there in the first place.

posted by Familyman at 07:38 AM on August 21, 2007

Uh, apoch, it's just bishop spewing crap.

posted by tommybiden at 07:43 AM on August 21, 2007

Ufez (re: Weedy's comment about "some pretty serious hate"): Of course it's not up there with rape or child abuse or anything of that stripe Of course, but I think Weedy has a point. It had struck me that the several threads about Vick and dogs had prompted some expressions of outrage that -- my subjective impression -- seemed both more frequent and more extreme than what we see here in the case of "rape or child abuse or anything of that stripe". That's totally unscientific, and I could be wrong about that, but it does seem to me that folks here are a little more blase about violence against humans, and quite a bit more shocked, angered and vengeful at violence against animals. tommytrump: Uh, apoch, it's just bishop spewing crap. Somehow I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. Just doesn't read like Bishop to me.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:05 AM on August 21, 2007

I'm with lbb, that's so far from Bishop as to be amusing.

posted by yerfatma at 08:17 AM on August 21, 2007

Sadly all of this will come back to BITE him when it comes ballet time for the hall of fame. Let's just hope we don't have to see Peter King or any of the other hall voters in a tutu when its ballet time for the Hall of Fame. firecop -- thanks for the pointer on federal sentencing.

posted by holden at 08:18 AM on August 21, 2007

apoch: the commenter is probably being facetious at best and a troll at worst. Set phasers on ignore.

posted by scully at 08:29 AM on August 21, 2007

Wow. Cool. Spoken as a fan of entropy and people going off the deep end.

posted by yerfatma at 08:48 AM on August 21, 2007

Can you just say what you mean? If you want to talk about why black people are awful, by all means, go ahead. I do hope that was a joke. I'll try to be more obvious from here on out.

posted by yerfatma at 09:09 AM on August 21, 2007

It had struck me that the several threads about Vick and dogs had prompted some expressions of outrage that -- my subjective impression -- seemed both more frequent and more extreme than what we see here in the case of "rape or child abuse or anything of that stripe". That's totally unscientific, and I could be wrong about that, but it does seem to me that folks here are a little more blase about violence against humans, and quite a bit more shocked, angered and vengeful at violence against animals. Sure, there's been an awful lot of knee-jerk "lock him up with a dozen randy Rottweilers" trollish comments, but such is the case on SpoFi (and a lot of other internet places) today. But when was the last time an athlete of Vick's status copped to committing such a heinous crime? When was the last time an athlete plea bargained into association with rape or child abuse? I certainly don't have the widest sports-memory, but nothing springs to mind. Besides, the moral relativism card doesn't fit into play here. The man has admitted that he was involved with some seriously disturbing practices, things that a psychologically sound person wouldn't dream of doing. Is my hope that he no longer make a dollar on the football field or in commercials ever again going too far?

posted by Ufez Jones at 10:06 AM on August 21, 2007

Ufez: Sure, there's been an awful lot of knee-jerk "lock him up with a dozen randy Rottweilers" trollish comments, but such is the case on SpoFi (and a lot of other internet places) today. Maybe, but more than a few of those were from folks whom I don't consider trolls. Again, subjective impression only. But when was the last time an athlete of Vick's status copped to committing such a heinous crime? When was the last time an athlete plea bargained into association with rape or child abuse? I certainly don't have the widest sports-memory, but nothing springs to mind. Not sure how a plea bargain enters into it -- is conviction enough? Seems like a lot of people, not just on SpoFi, are having the "feed him to the dogs" reaction to Michael Vick...but I don't recall quite the same public response to Mike Tyson post-conviction. Au contraire, in that case there were more than a few "bitch deserved it" responses. Besides, the moral relativism card doesn't fit into play here. "Moral relativism card"? What, is everything a "card' nowadays? People aren't playing some kind of card when they wonder how the graphic nature of the anger directed at Vick compares to the ho-hum attitude with which some crimes against humans have been greeted. It strikes me as weird and a little disturbing. I'm not playing some card when I say that. The man has admitted that he was involved with some seriously disturbing practices, things that a psychologically sound person wouldn't dream of doing. Is my hope that he no longer make a dollar on the football field or in commercials ever again going too far? No, it isn't. See, it isn't about relativism of any kind, nor about some New Bedford defense. There's a difference between hot-air emotional reactions ("I hope they get a pack of poodles to gnaw his nuts off!") and consequences. What you're talking about are consequences. I'm talking about the differences in emotional reactions. Two different things.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:54 AM on August 21, 2007

On a football note: The Trade: Doesn't it seem that the Chargers' deal for Tomlinson is even more impressive? Poor Bobby Petrino. This could be the worse job in the NFL right now. A star player is lost and the media spotlight on the team is going to be intense. I expect Blank to go after some of Vick's signing bonus. Are these ever successful? I know it was with Ricky Williams (but he had Master P working on his contract so I'm not sure that it counts).

posted by bperk at 11:00 AM on August 21, 2007

As far as Petrino's job being tough, I think he's got an automatic scapegoat now if he loses 12 games. "It's Vick's fault." he'll say.

posted by Ricardo at 12:27 PM on August 21, 2007

His best bet is in the CFL. Explain please? He's a convicted felon. He's going to have a hell of a time crossing the Canadian border. Canadians read the newpapers and watch the news just as much as Americans. CFL teams are not about to risk offending their ticket buyers for a short term fix on the field. I know as a fan that attends 1 or 2 games a year in Toronto that I would never buy another Argonaut ticket if they signed him.

posted by tommybiden at 01:03 PM on August 21, 2007

Too bad they just remade The Longest Yard Michael Vick/ Adam Sandler Who is worse for America? Or is that more of a locker room debate?

posted by tahoemoj at 01:49 PM on August 21, 2007

People aren't playing some kind of card when they wonder how the graphic nature of the anger directed at Vick compares to the ho-hum attitude with which some crimes against humans have been greeted. It strikes me as weird and a little disturbing. You're not alone in that thinking. Rae Carruth attempted to murder his pregnant wife. Laurence Phillips dragged a woman down several flights of stairs and banged her head against a mailbox repeatedly. Christian Peter raped 2 women. Leonard Little killed a wife and mother. These guys served little if any time, had numerous opportunites to play again in the NFL, and were mere blips on the screen as far as media coverage regarding their "atrocities" I think you're right on the money wondering why "folks here are a little more blase about violence against humans, and quite a bit more shocked, angered and vengeful at violence against animals"

posted by bdaddy at 02:01 PM on August 21, 2007

I think the problem with the stories mentioned above is the average person on the street has no idea who Leonard Little is. These things happened and they weren't news to those people. The same people hear "Michael Vick!" and they are suddenly interested because he is way more of a household name. Mothers who don't know anything about football have their kids begging to buy Vick jerseys or Vick shoes or Vick this or Vick that. Because of this, more of America (and the world) was interested in hearing the story. Instead of feeling the Vick story got too much attention (well, maybe a little), I think it's a case of those stories not getting enough. News outlets aren't to blame here. They reported more on these I bet than when some Joe Blow did the same things. As fans, I think it's our fault for allowing these teams to make these kinds of concessions. PETA and other animal rights will most likely do all they can to make any team wanting Vick, when and if he is allowed to play again, feel the pressure. This is what should be done in those cases above (except for the Carruth case obviously as no action will ever be necessary there). St. Louis should have felt more heat for holding onto Little. I didn't know much about the Christian Peter story, just some vague facts, but after reading up on it, this is exactly what happened when New England drafted him (although he was only ever charged and convicted with one rape ... not to say the other didn't happen). They ended up severing all ties to him and he ended up playing for the Giants and other teams. Maybe he turned his life around, who knows, but maybe these teams should've felt more pressure to not allow him the opportunity. And please don't confuse this with the right to earn a living as I feel playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. He would have been free to dig ditches to earn a living.

posted by Ricardo at 02:30 PM on August 21, 2007

please don't sign your comments.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:13 PM on August 21, 2007

I always thought Vick was a great athlete and a lousy QB. It doesn't matter how well you throw the ball or run around on the field without the real qualities of a great QB, leadership, good judgement, and a certain level of intelligence you can't be called a great quarterback. Vick will have to face the legal consequences of his actions, but his behavior has exposed him for all that he lacks. If he is ever able to return to the NFL it won't be as Quarterback (which is by nature a leadership role) it will be as player in another position. He certainly has the physical abilities. I only wish someone can explain to me how you can be gifted with all this talent, rewarded with outrageous money and celebrity status, and still be this stupid. Was this guy even thinking for a second? The most shocking thing is what it says about him as a person. Let face it, he didn't do it for the money, and he didn't do it for his wonderfull friends who are so quick to roll on him. The real point is he did not do it out of the goodness of his heart, it was the badness of his heart. He did it because he enjoyed the sadistic pleasure of watching dogs kill each other and for the fun of murdering a helpless dog on occaision. That in a nutshell is why normal people are so upset. Fighting dogs may be an acceptable sport in some societies. Even putting a dog down humanely can be forgiven, but when someone wants to drown, electrocute or just slam a dog to its death, it goes beyond any excuse. These crimes were not crimes of passion or necessity, it's clear he has a sadistic streak and the torture, mutilation, and killing of animals is how most serial mass murderers begin their career. If it weren't for his athletic ability, what kind of contribution to society do you think Michael Vick would be making?

posted by Atheist at 03:34 PM on August 21, 2007

I only wish someone can explain to me how you can be gifted with all this talent, rewarded with outrageous money and celebrity status, and still be this stupid. Seriously? I'll give it a try. No one's perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Athletic talent does not translate into good decisionmaking skills. People who are talented can still be really nasty.

posted by bperk at 03:57 PM on August 21, 2007

Yeah, I would say, as suggested upthread, if you spent your entire teens and early 20s being told you were awesome and could do no wrong by fawning adults, you might start to believe it.

posted by yerfatma at 04:23 PM on August 21, 2007

I don't know how often "upthread" is used so I may sound like a huckleberry here, but good use of words.

posted by Ricardo at 04:28 PM on August 21, 2007

Seriously? I'll give it a try. No one's perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Athletic talent does not translate into good decisionmaking skills. Wow that explains why Atlanta never had a chance with Vick as a quarterback. He could run and he could throw but he just had bad decision making skills. This could be a real red flag for all those teams who are looking for a QB. Make a note, good decision making skills a must! Gee when I said this stuff about Vick way before this dog fighting scandal, I was accused of racism, it turns out his lousy decision making skills were noticable to me on the field way before they were confirmed off the field.

posted by Atheist at 05:09 PM on August 21, 2007

Vick's NFL career over? Keep dreaming. Famous athletes have done worse and still received a second (or more) chance. Vick will apologize, pay a fine, and be picked up by some desperate team willing to take a chance. Unfortunately, many people will cry "forgiveness", but it's really a lack of accountability. As long as you say you're sorry it's okay to screw up.

posted by whitedog65 at 05:24 PM on August 21, 2007

I believe that as I suspected, Vick can't go to Canada with a federal conviction on his record. Little issue of crossing international borders and all. There is quite a difference in this regard compared to the standard criminal or civil case. Vick's charges are federal and with them, carry the weight of the U.S. government. While Lawrence Phillips' crimes were undoubtedly heinous, legally, if I'm not mistaken, they don't keep him from travelling. Of course, I don't actually know from nothin'.

posted by THX-1138 at 05:36 PM on August 21, 2007

I wanna see some of those racial epitaphs that were eluded to. "Beneath these mountains lies the remains of the White Race, to lame to live."

posted by yerfatma at 06:17 PM on August 21, 2007

Yeah tommytrump, you sit up there and enjoy your CFL and the quality of your football. Go Winnepeg!!! I know that most of our players that enjoyed a stellar career in college that can't play at the next level here, will opt to go to Canada. I am not going to dispute laws in your fine country as to whether or not they are a "summary offense"? Don't even know what the hell that is. But, you go on and think what you want. As for Ray, I might have mistaken whether she was his wife (Cherica Adams) or girlfriend. Been awhile back. I really believe that is a minor issue in the bigger picture. Another words, who really gives a damn. He killed her. MURDER. Why pick at little details when the bigger issues are she is dead. And, whether it is life or not, you might be right, but I believe it was a life sentence. Usually murder is. What is your point anyway? You just got an itch to scratch? I don't remember pulling your chain. I did state the fact that the CFL did open their arms to Lawrence Phillips and it seems to have hit a nerve with you. Truth hurt? So, what is the matter with you - too real for you too? He did play there did he not?

posted by Mickster at 08:29 PM on August 21, 2007

Yes, well dogfighting is bad, m'kay. I don't think anyone is trying to suggest otherwise. It's cruel and brutal. Everyone agrees. Did Vick drown the dogs himself? Was he actually doing any of the actual literal horrible shit? Or was he paying for it all and other sociopaths doing it? I think there's a bit of a difference in light of such outrage. He's a dick, for sure, but he's hardly the anti-christ. He's the money, from what I can tell. Plus, I just think it's a combination of inflating factors. Everyone gets to take the popular position and scream about the decline of society (like there is a legion of dogfighters out there waiting to sick their dogs on you - they just need a leader) and yummy celebrity driven/public funded interest groups jumping on the opportunity like a, well, dog on a bone, and it makes a lot more noise than my rational brain suggests it should. He was financing a dogfighting ring. In Spain, something similar gets you a sword and the wickedest outfit going. ... And Laurence Phillips sucked in the CFL.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:13 PM on August 21, 2007

In Spain, something similar gets you a sword and the wickedest outfit going. Tito Santana agrees!

posted by HATER 187 at 10:17 PM on August 21, 2007

The woman he murdered (Cherica Adams) was not his wife, but a woman he had been dating. He didn't kill her. His co-conspirators killed her. I'm confused.

posted by tselson at 10:47 PM on August 21, 2007

The woman he murdered (Cherica Adams) was not his wife, but a woman he had been dating. He didn't kill her. His co-conspirators killed her. I'm confused. He did not do the actual killing. He stopped his vehicle in front of hers, his partners in crime pulled their car up next to hers and did the shooting. He was the catalyst and his actions led to her death. As a result he was convicted on the charges outlined above. However, he was not the trigger man. He was responsible for her death, but he did not commit the act of killing her. He was charged with, but acquitted of 1st degree murder.

posted by tommybiden at 11:33 PM on August 21, 2007

It's really sad how Vick let the race card play-out. The n.a.a.c.p showed it's support; so this idiot could turn around and plea out. No class. Shame on you Mr. Vick. All of this racial tension because a grown man made a dumb-ass decision; really sad.

posted by fourthreeforty at 02:41 AM on August 22, 2007

This thread doesn't come close to the shitfest that was in the first Vick thread.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:29 AM on August 22, 2007

It's really sad how Vick let the race card play-out. The n.a.a.c.p showed it's support; so this idiot could turn around and plea out. No class. Shame on you Mr. Vick. Oh, please stop. Can we forever get a moratorium on the phrase "race card." The NAACP took the oh-so-radical position that Vick shouldn't be treated as a criminal based solely on the allegations. No one should be. "If Mr. Vick is guilty, he should pay for his crime, but to treat him as he is being treated now is also a crime," White said at a news conference. "Be restrained in your premature judgment until the legal process is completed."

posted by bperk at 06:55 AM on August 22, 2007

It's really sad how Vick let the race card play-out....No class. Shame on you Mr. Vick I didn't realize that Mike Vick was the one that used the 'race card' to his advantage, or disadvantage. I could've sworn that the 'race card' was used by the media and by some pro-Vick defenders but not by Vick himself. Can we forever get a moratorium on the phrase "race card." You could wish for it but I don't think that'll ever happen.

posted by BornIcon at 07:41 AM on August 22, 2007

On the whole could or couldn't a felon play in Canada issue -- while I'm not sure what the specific requirements are in terms of eligibility under CFL rules, Canada can and will keep out those traveling from the U.S. who have been convicted of crimes, including certain minor offences. (And before anyone goes off on how stupid/unfair/etc. of a policy this is from our neighbors (mostly) up north, the U.S. is as bad or worse.)

posted by holden at 07:59 AM on August 22, 2007

I find it sickening that people can't discuss this without playing the moratorium card. I'm disappointed too. I don't want SportsFilter to become a community where we can't discuss inflammatory issues like this one. Vick's situation is the biggest NFL story of the season.

posted by rcade at 09:28 AM on August 22, 2007

It's a horrible thing to to what Mike Vick has confessed to but why do people think that he's not capable of making a mistake? Is it the $100 million contract? Is it because he's a well-known football player? No matter if you're the President of the United States, people make mistakes, we're human. Are we better than the people that make mistakes? Have we not done things when we were younger that we're ashamed of? What's being said is that Mike Vick got involved before he got into the NFL so he was still in college at that time. Right now, he's just 27 years of age and should've known better than to still be involved in something like this but anyone that's been to college knows that they all experiment and try new & different things, it just so happens that what Vick got involved in was a felony. It's truly a heinous crime and I personally am appalled (as a dog owner) at what's going on but who am I to judge anyone? I'm not better than anyone but I do try to live my life in a positive way. No one but Mike Vick will ever understand why he got involved in the first place. Maybe it was for the money at first, who knows? It wasn't like he got that $100 million contract right out of college but I just think that everyone is entitled to live & learn from their mistakes and people should stop acting like they're living the 'oh-so-perfect' life and stop being so judgemental. We're all have an opinion on this subject, some good & some bad but we should not be so quick to treat it as if Vick is the only individual to ever get involved with this. Dogfights, bullfights & even cockfighting has been around for the longest time. Many of the founding fathers participated in the sport of cockfighting including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, does that make them criminals as well? In ancient Rome, professional fighters fought against each other, wild animals, and even condemned criminals, sometimes to the death, for the entertainment of spectators. I know we're no longer living in those times but to make it seem as if Vick was the first & only individual to ever get involved in something so barbaric makes me believe that no one has been paying attention to our history. Just my opinion.

posted by BornIcon at 09:30 AM on August 22, 2007

Those charges were post CFL career. He had already been cut by 2 Canadian teams at that point. He last played in the CFL in 2003 and that incident happened in 2005. From the linked article: In December 2000, he was sentenced to six months in jail after pleading no contest to felony counts of beating his girlfriend seven months earlier in Beverly Hills, Calif. Phillips then spent two seasons in the CFL, but needed permission from the government to enter Canada because of his criminal record in the United States.

posted by bperk at 09:38 AM on August 22, 2007

Are there others who engage in similar behavior, sometimes even worse? Of course. But these individuals are not famous, millionaire athletes who play in what could be considered to be the most popular sport in the United States. You certain about that? Or was Mike Vick was the only person that was caught (or ratted out)? 2007 is hardly the late 1700's or the time of ancient Rome. But people still do things that went on even in those times. It may not be as blatantly obvious or as out in the open as it used to be but there are people that still engage in things that happened in those times. Just look at bullfighting for example. Bullfighting is often linked to ancient Rome, where many human-versus-animal events were held as a warm-up for gladiatorial sports.

posted by BornIcon at 09:47 AM on August 22, 2007

Sorry, bperk, I missed that, I read the article quickly, and must have missed it. Thanks for the clarification. My apologies, and thanks for the information.

posted by tommybiden at 09:51 AM on August 22, 2007

JJ, without coming across as an assclown (too late for that), you could just easily have said that you disagreed with my opinion and kept it moving. This is the problem with trying to maintain a civil discussion with people that have absolutely nothing interesting to add.

posted by BornIcon at 10:23 AM on August 22, 2007

BornIcon, by your logic, If I, for example, bounce a check at the local grocery store, that "mistake" puts me in the same boat as Vick. It is the violent and possibly sociopathic nature of the "mistake" that draws out the fervor of the situation. I also love your use of the term "ratted out." You make it sound as if that is a bad thing. Nice.

posted by hawkguy at 10:32 AM on August 22, 2007

I never said that what Vick's involved in instead bad. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, you probably would've recognized that with no question. What I have said was that we shouldn't be so judgemental towards other people since I'm sure most of us may have done some things in our younger days (and maybe even now) that we're probably ashamed of. I also love your use of the term "ratted out." You make it sound as if that is a bad thing. Nice. So you're saying he wasn't ratted out by his 'friends' so that they would get less jail time? I sure could've sworn that's exactly what happened in this case. I will never condone anything that involves hurting animals, regardless if it's bullfighting, cockfighting or even dogfighting. I think it's absolutely brutal what people do with these animals after the fact and I'm just happy that at least we're more aware that these things do happen.

posted by BornIcon at 10:47 AM on August 22, 2007

So you're saying he wasn't ratted out by his 'friends' so that they would get less jail time? I sure could've sworn that's exactly what happened in this case. Had he not been "ratted out" I think the odds are pretty good that his actions would have continued. I think it's a good thing that he's now forced to pay some consequences for his actions.

posted by hawkguy at 10:51 AM on August 22, 2007

people make mistakes, we're human Can you please can the Friend to Humanity claptrap you drag out everytime we have a thread like this? It feels like a completely transparent attempt to win points with girls who aren't even in the back of this classroom. I don't know who it's supposed to impress. You grab a bunch of tenuous points and torture them like a dog on a rape stand until they're willing to sit still on the screen long enough for you to hit Post. We're all entitled to our opinion and if you are so bursting with an opinion about how 1. This is bad 2. Dogs are nice 3. People make mistakes that you feel the need to post it, by all means do so. But manufacturing these "reasoned" viewpoints comes across as so much noise.

posted by yerfatma at 11:20 AM on August 22, 2007

BornIcon - Fair enough. If you want it without the assclownishness, your logic is flawed in this thread and was also flawed (in the same way) in the Offerman thread. Employing your logic - according to which, as far as I can gather, anyone who has ever made a mistake of any magnitude is not entitled to comment on the mistakes of others - none of us should be allowed online without a doctorate in computer science, or even allowed to swtich on a computer without first becoming a CORGI registered electrian. If you want to abstain from offering a personal judgement on Michael Vick's behaviour because you don't feel morally qualified to do so, that's your privilege, and truly I'd be delighted to hear less from you, but that in no way means that anyone else should be precluded from voicing an opinion. If your logic allows you to find anything at all to condone the behaviour of someone who drowns a dog for kicks or who swings a baseball bat at someone else's head, then it's flawed and you need to take another look at it. On preview, a lot of what grady's kitchen said - although you did just play the bossman vs henchman card, grady's. And also, what yerfatma said, especially the classroom bit... Right girls? *wink*

posted by JJ at 11:23 AM on August 22, 2007

Had he not been "ratted out" I think the odds are pretty good that his actions would have continued. I think it's a good thing that he's now forced to pay some consequences for his actions. And I totally agree that he deserves whatever he gets as far as jail time is concerned. I just laugh when people get on their 'moral pedestal' and act as if they have never done any wrong in their lives. If your logic allows you to find anything at all to condone the behaviour of someone who drowns a dog for kicks or who swings a baseball bat at someone else's head, then it's flawed and you need to take another look at it. Maybe you need to re-read what I wrote because I made it very clear that I do not condone what Mike Vick did or what Offerman has done. Don't make it seem as if I did in order for you to make a point. All mistakes are not created equal And again, I agree with that statement as well. "All mistakes are not created equal" but people are. One thing I've come to terms with is that people, no matter what they might say, are way too quick to judge others. Can you please can the Friend to Humanity claptrap you drag out everytime we have a thread like this? Funny, I actually chuckled to that.

posted by BornIcon at 11:51 AM on August 22, 2007

Well said, Weeder.

posted by garfield at 12:11 PM on August 22, 2007

I just laugh when people get on their 'moral pedestal' and act as if they have never done any wrong in their lives. For my part, there are certain things about which I feel pretty much obliged to get on a "moral pedestal." These include things like murder, child porn, unnecessary animal abuse. I've made plenty of mistakes, but none of them, in my tiny world view looking out from the shores of the Connecticut River, even approach these on a scale. And, frankly, I really have to view anyone who doesn't take a serious moral highroad on these issues with a great deal of suspicion, in much the same way that P.J. O'Rourke assumes anyone who doesn't drink is an alcoholic. I'll buy a bit of the "cultural differences within the tiny worlds that surround us" argument. The "we all make mistakes" argument creeps me out.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 12:19 PM on August 22, 2007

And my dead horse is getting tired of this, but the reason Vick wouldn't get into Canada would be because of the federal nature of the charges, not the felon aspect of this whole mess, no?

posted by THX-1138 at 01:42 PM on August 22, 2007

What if I hit the President? In the Oval Office. Theoretically speaking.

posted by yerfatma at 02:27 PM on August 22, 2007

I was on Offermans side in that thread. Don't compare what he did to what Vick did. His was spur of the moment anger. Vick's actions were intentional, calculated and sadistic to a great degree. Also, the NAACP is now saying, in lieu of the impending plea, the Atlanta chapter supports Vick's decision to accept a plea bargain if it's in his best interest, but he questioned the credibility of Vick's co-defendants, saying an admission of guilt might be more about cutting losses than the truth. making it sound as if the only reason Vick could be innocent, but is pleading guilty only to avoid the extra RICO type charges. /// pull pin ... count to three ... toss Why does the NAACP have to stick up for this idiot when that time could be spent help deserving black people who are in need of their services?

posted by Ricardo at 03:10 PM on August 22, 2007

fatty, would it be possible for you to play the race card? Card? I bought the entire play-at-home version. Playing outside was resulting in too many bricks to my head.

posted by yerfatma at 05:17 PM on August 22, 2007

But no - I don't hate Vick. I think he's pretty stupid because he had a lot to lose, but I can't bring myself to care that much about the plight of a bunch of dogs raised to fight, anymore than I can for a bunch of cows raised to be eaten. Weedy, So hes stupid only because he had a lot to lose and not because what he did was wrong? Now I'm not a hunter myself but I do like cheesburgers and I have been to slaughter houses where cows were killed and NEVER have I seen one beaten to death or electrocuted. For the record, if I am to be murdered I choose an air gun to head to being drowned... But thats just me. Now, first you were kinda defending Vick because you thought he was just "the money man" and didnt think he did the deed himself. Now that he's been outted as one of the people who (didnt kill these dogs quickly with a rifle) but "slammed them to the ground, drowned them, electrocuted them and beat them to death. Your downplaying the sick nature of this crime because the absolute brutality wasnt directed at a human being. The brutality to me is the part that makes me think. What is a person who is capable of doing these things to an animal capable of doing to a person given the appropriate circumstances? I mean, I read a story about a 12 year old that cut out the eyes of a golden retreiver then set the dog loose to wander in pain. Some locals said it was unfair to ruin a boys life by making a big deal about an animal. My thought was what will this sociopath do when animal victims arent enough to satify whatever urge made him do this? You cant predict the future, but you can sure follow clues that something is seriously wrong.

posted by firecop at 07:37 PM on August 22, 2007

So hes stupid only because he had a lot to lose and not because what he did was wrong? Now I'm not a hunter myself but I do like cheesburgers and I have been to slaughter houses where cows were killed and NEVER have I seen one beaten to death or electrocuted. For the record, if I am to be murdered I choose an air gun to head to being drowned... But thats just me. Well, I thought I was clear that I don't think what he did is in any way good. It's just that it's not any more brutal than a lot of other shit. And I like cheeseburgers, too. I have also slaughtered an animal and eaten it. It was brutal, too. But killing anything is brutal. There's a double standard here - and it's not just because he drowned dogs. And a lot of farms use electrocution in killing livestock. I just don't think that it's worse than doing things to people, which other NFL people have done - and that's a precedent. These guys still go to work. Vick deserves trial by the same standards, I guess. I mean, I read a story about a 12 year old that cut out the eyes of a golden retreiver then set the dog loose to wander in pain. Some locals said it was unfair to ruin a boys life by making a big deal about an animal. My thought was what will this sociopath do when animal victims arent enough to satify whatever urge made him do this? You cant predict the future, but you can sure follow clues that something is seriously wrong. Well, I know there's a link between the behaviour as popularized in serial killer lore, but I'm not thinking locking Michael Vick up is helping prevent him from specifically harming people. It's about operating a interstate dogfighting operation - that's the bulk of the charges.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:41 PM on August 22, 2007

Now that he's been outted as one of the people who (didnt kill these dogs quickly with a rifle) but "slammed them to the ground, drowned them, electrocuted them and beat them to death. Weedy, I don't think the real issue with people's reaction of distaste and horror has to do with dog fighting per se, but rather with the question of what motivated Vick and the others to dispose of these dogs, and the methods used. I think the assumption that Vick was personally torturing dogs is a stretch to make from Pearce's statement of facts. The summary of facts reads in part: "These dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick." They used various methods of execution, including hanging and drowning, the court papers read. Collective efforts could mean that Vick ordered the dog disposed of but didn't specify how. It certainly doesn't mean that Vick was doing the dirty deeds himself. I think we should work with the facts that we have so far, and it doesn't seem that we have enough to call Vick a sociopath.

posted by bperk at 08:05 AM on August 23, 2007

Cause, in the Vick case, all signs point to him being guilty and I for one think the NAACP should find someone who appears a little less guilty to stick thier necks out for. And, if they "stick up for" or point out injustices in the criminal justice system for Joe Blow who seems less guilty to you, how much media attention or coverage would they get? Do you have any idea who they are sticking up for if it isn't covered in the news? I bet not. An organization picks high profile cases to illustrate the things they wish to draw attention to. Do you think PETA and ASCPA are spending more time on this case than if Joe Blow did it? Or is that okay, then, because they agree with you?

posted by bperk at 10:19 AM on August 23, 2007

I don't think because someone makes a mistake, they deserve eternal banishment, but they do need to earn their place back in and the NAACP is trying to give it to him for nothing. That's bullshit. Vick is going to jail. He shouldn't have to go begging to the media for forgiveness to "earn a place back." He requested a meeting with the Commissioner of the NFL. That's who he should be talking to. You don't know if he has remorse or not. You just know that he hasn't boo hooed at a press conference for you. And, if he did, then people would just say that he is doing it all for show. There is no right way for him to handle this publicly. Obviously, fighting to give people a second chance after they have made mistakes and served their time is not a noble cause to you. That's fine. The NAACP is not the organization for you.

posted by bperk at 10:34 AM on August 23, 2007

Not to mention the rest of the defendants don't have whatever millions Vick may have held onto to fall back on once he does get out of jail. And I clearly stated that Vick may deserve a second chance down the road. He just doesn't deserve one now.

posted by Ricardo at 11:59 AM on August 23, 2007

Its kinda tough to quantify how much less I could care. Even worse is I would have made the same smart ass remark had I seen someone else type that. Oh well I guess I will have to fire my editor.

posted by Steel_Town at 12:55 PM on August 23, 2007

Its kinda tough to quantify how much less I could care. Even worse is I would have made the same smart ass remark had I seen someone else type that. Oh well I guess I will have to fire my editor. I like your sense of humor. Smart-assen unite!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:44 PM on August 23, 2007

Smart-assen? Is that kind of like the plural of ox is oxen; therefore the plural of box is boxen?

posted by hawkguy at 01:54 PM on August 23, 2007

Thank youen.

posted by hawkguy at 02:50 PM on August 23, 2007

Ok screw the Vick thread. Tell us of the young varlet, the dangerous renfaire carousel, and the trouble that ensued, lbb.

posted by THX-1138 at 04:52 PM on August 23, 2007

Great, you had to go and play the young varlet card.

posted by irunfromclones at 07:27 PM on August 23, 2007

heraldtribune.com/article/20070818/SPORTS/708180313I think the assumption that Vick was personally torturing dogs is a stretch to make from Pearce's statement of facts. The summary of facts reads in part: "These dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick." They used various methods of execution, including hanging and drowning, the court papers read. You left out the best part of that article. "The court filings also say Peace, Phillips and Vick killed about eight dogs that failed to fight well after testing sessions in April 2007". Or this one "A statement signed by Phillips as part of his plea agreement said Vick participated in the execution of about eight dogs, some by drowning and hanging". from this article http://heraldtribune.com/article/20070818/SPORTS/708180313

posted by firecop at 09:17 PM on August 23, 2007

According to Roger Cossack on ESPN, if the judge doesn't believe that Vick is being truthful in his plea allocution, he can shoot down the whole deal and make Vick go to trial. Or he could accept Vick's plea deal and then just drop the hammer during sentencing.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:03 AM on August 24, 2007

Does your boss scrub the toilets? If he's got a thing for scat, perhaps he does. You and I see killing a dog as, at best, a detestable necessity. Someone else might see it in a different light. Not saying that's so or that there's anything to indicate that it's so, just that, well...there are some strange tastes out there.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:48 AM on August 24, 2007

I know some boxing fans who might object to the "you are what you watch" characterization.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 10:00 AM on August 24, 2007

So why wouldn't the connection you made work at a softer level? If you can make the connection that watching dogs tear each other apart makes you more inclined to want to tear dogs apart yourself, then I would think it's easier (since it's less sociopathic on a scale) to assume a connection between being a boxing fan and being the sort who goes about beating people to a pulp.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 10:59 AM on August 24, 2007

How a Police Dog, Troy the Dutch Shepherd, Led to Michael Vick's Downfall

posted by catfish at 11:53 AM on August 24, 2007

I would think it's easier (since it's less sociopathic on a scale) to assume a connection between being a boxing fan and being the sort who goes about beating people to a pulp. Crafty, I'm sure there are situations that people, not only those who like to watch boxing, would love to beat someone to a pulp (myself included.) I know some boxing fans who might object to the "you are what you watch" characterization. People have the choice to get into the ring and fight. Dogs don't. There is (at least in me,) an overwhelming urge to protect the weaker, less intelligent of all species. (since it's less sociopathic on a scale) I'm not sure it is less sociopathic to walk around beating people to a pulp on a whim, either. So why wouldn't the connection you made work at a softer level? Lastly, as is evident in the Vick case, people don't go around killing (or beating to a pulp) other people because the punishment is far more severe

posted by hawkguy at 01:36 PM on August 24, 2007

According to the statement, Vick also was involved with the others in killing six to eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions last April. The dogs were executed by drowning or hanging. "Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts" of Vick, Phillips and Peace, the statement said. This is just a bit different that what ESPN reported to us earlier. It is definitely admitting to having a part in killing those dogs. I guess we will find out on Monday what he really is pleading to.

posted by jojomfd1 at 05:43 PM on August 24, 2007