# "Sportsman of the Year"



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

There is a huge uproar, specifically on Facebook, about Michael Vick being named "sportsman of the year" by BET. Subway sponsored the event and knew Vick was a contender... they also sponsored his reality TV show. And, Nike just signed him for an endorsement deal.

I, for one, do NOT think he could ever properly pay for what he has done and I don't think he should ever be held up as a role model, no matter how much he pretends to suddenly and miraculously care about dogs. I wish the Eagles never signed him and I wish we required more of our athletes... couldn't we at least require that they not be convicted felons and sadistic animal killers?

Not sure how many of you go to Facebook but if you want, here is one of the links. I will not be buying anything from Subway or Nike again.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-WAY-Subway/173935239336924


----------



## Stosh (Jun 26, 2010)

I agree completely!


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

duttlyn said:


> I, for one, do NOT think he could ever properly pay for what he has done a
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-WAY-Subway/173935239336924


He was tried, convicted served the court pronounced sentence. Does this mean there is no such thing as "doing your time". Does this apply to dog fighters only. Will anyone convicted of any crime where prison is required be held to the same standard? I'm just inquiring as far as the law is concerned. I'd hate to think even think of such a human emotion as forgiveness. 

DFrost


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

DFrost said:


> He was tried, convicted served the court pronounced sentence. Does this mean there is no such thing as "doing your time". Does this apply to dog fighters only. Will anyone convicted of any crime where prison is required be held to the same standard? I'm just inquiring as far as the law is concerned. I'd hate to think even think of such a human emotion as forgiveness.
> 
> DFrost


Well, a couple of thoughts on this:

First, the reason I say he could never properly pay for this is because no matter how much time someone does, they can't simply erase the pain and suffering. I don't believe a child molester can properly pay for his crimes either because the lingering effects on the child are forever. This man participated in unspeakable torture of innocent creatures and so no, I don't think he can ever really "do his time" for that. That said, I do believe people deserve to be left in peace after they serve their sentence but in this case, it does not apply.

There is a difference between being given a second chance to live in society as a good person and being honored and lauded as a hero. As a mom, I feel like I can't take my children to sporting events anymore because the quality of people they choose to make into heroes. 95% of the NFL are just average players who do their job; there are very few heroes. Michael Vick has been allowed to stay a hero with hefty Nike endorsements and "Sportsman of the Year" awards. If I lived in Philly, I don't know what I'd do if my kid wanted to wear a Michael Vick jersey. What example does that set? I dream of a time when athletes make a mistake of this magnitude that they lose their GIFT of being a professional athlete. Maybe then, the younger kids will see what happens when you make poor decisions and they will make better ones. Instead, we live in a time when the almighty dollar reigns and if you can throw a football/basketball/fill in your sport here, you can live the life of a superstar regardless of your behavior. Michael Vick SHOULD be given a second chance but that chance should be to start over, work his way back up the ladder, and to attone for his sins.

Finally, something needs to be set straight on this issue. Michael Vick was not convicted under Virginia animal cruelty laws because if he was, he'd have spent a whole lot more jail time than he did. He was allowed to plead out to ONE count, ONE count of "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fight Venture." Let me quote someone else who already wrote at length on this issue because he sums it up nicely:



> from Chris Durant's World
> "One count. This is unbelievable. Between 2001 and 2007 Michael Vick sponsored dogs in eleven fights. Additionally, he traveled to four states to purchase eleven dogs. Again, could this not be construed as 22 counts? Even with Vick’s meager sentencing this would have equated to 396 months or 33 YEARS!! And even at an absolute minimum, why was he not charged with four counts of the incredibly weak “Conspiracy…”?
> 
> But better yet, if he had been truly tried according to Virginia’s Animal Cruelty Laws he could have been tried for twenty dog fights and nine executions. SIXTY FIVE YEARS! Instead, he was again allowed to plead out (while serving out his Federal sentence) to ONE count of dog fighting (the single Animal Cruelty charge was dropped as a part of the plea agreement) and received a three year suspended sentence for time served on the Federal charges. The prosecutor (Virginia’s Surry County Commonwealth Attorney General – Gerald G. Poindexter) didn’t feel that the costs associated with transporting Vick to Virginia from Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas was worth it. There was also another $2,500 fine which was suspended as well. Nice job, Poindexter. I am sure the good people of Surry County think you’re a real legal eagle, huh?
> ...


So, I guess my point in all this is even if can eventually forgive this man for the heinous acts he committed, I will NEVER believe that he should garner the luxurious life of a superstar athlete and the perks that come from it. There are many upstanding athletes that would kill for the same opportunity he has been afforded... I think we should give it to them.


----------



## Smoktya (Jun 8, 2010)

i know what he did to the dogs was horrible, but you can tell from the news stories around Philly that he really is working with children and the humane society to at least try and help the situation with dog fighting. I know of a few more people in the NFL who have done a lot worse things like drunken vehicular homicide, stabbings, plain old murder......just to name a few. Yet we never talk about those as often as this darn dog case. I think its time to move on. Dog fighting will never go away, especially with the amount of pit-bulls in the inner-cities. I visit those places a lot and all i see are pit-bulls everywhere. BYB at its finest.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Smoktya said:


> i know what he did to the dogs was horrible, but you can tell from the news stories around Philly that he really is working with children and the humane society to at least try and help the situation with dog fighting. I know of a few more people in the NFL who have done a lot worse things like drunken vehicular homicide, stabbings, plain old murder......just to name a few. Yet we never talk about those as often as this darn dog case. I think its time to move on. Dog fighting will never go away, especially with the amount of pit-bulls in the inner-cities. I visit those places a lot and all i see are pit-bulls everywhere. BYB at its finest.


I'm glad he's working in the inner city trying to help the problem but it's really not my point. At what point do we require more from our athletes? Do you really think he deserves to be "sportsman of the year" or receive a lucrative Nike contract after what he did? Isn't it enough that he still gets to play football?! We need to take a stand and say NO MORE. My point is exactly yours, that the NFL has rapists, drug users, domestic batterers, etc. etc. in their ranks. WHEN will we say NO MORE?! Vick gets the most publicity precisely because he is a superstar but it happens in all sports. If you can throw/catch/run on that green field, to **** with whatever felony you commit, we'll still take you and love you and pay you through the nose. If we dumped every one of these lowlife thugs, another kid will move in AND if we have set an example over the years of ZERO tolerance, maybe just maybe, these will be GOOD kids who behaved themselves because they knew they had to if they wanted to be the next superstar.


----------



## ALDuke (May 15, 2011)

I really love my dog...but there is absolutely no way you can compare Vick to a child molestor. That is well beyond grasping for straws. I dont' like him nor what he did...but he did pay his time. How do you know he hasn't changed? I'm sure glad people have forgiven me for my mistakes in life, no matter how big or small.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> There is a huge uproar, specifically on Facebook, about Michael Vick being named "sportsman of the year" by BET. Subway sponsored the event and knew Vick was a contender... they also sponsored his reality TV show. And, Nike just signed him for an endorsement deal.
> 
> I, for one, do NOT think he could ever properly pay for what he has done and I don't think he should ever be held up as a role model, no matter how much he pretends to suddenly and miraculously care about dogs. I wish the Eagles never signed him and I wish we required more of our athletes... couldn't we at least require that they not be convicted felons and sadistic animal killers?
> 
> ...


 
No question that what he did was terrible and he deserved to pay for it. Which he did!

Are you and others suggesting that any convict should be forever condemned for what they were convicted of?

BTW, atheletes are NOT role models for your kid. if they are filling that role, something is wrong!

How about movie stars - should they be role models also? How about holding them up to kids?

Remids me of an old saying my own mother once told me (long time ago!):

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"!


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

ALDuke said:


> I really love my dog...but there is absolutely no way you can compare Vick to a child molestor. That is well beyond grasping for straws. I dont' like him nor what he did...but he did pay his time. How do you know he hasn't changed? I'm sure glad people have forgiven me for my mistakes in life, no matter how big or small.


I never compared him to a child molester... If you read carefully, it was analogy to say that just because someone "does their time" doesn't mean the pain and suffering is erased. And in addition, while I don't put him on the same level as a child molester, I do believe that people who torture and abuse the most defenseless in our society are cut from the same cloth (children, animals, the disabled, and the elderly)... it takes a special kind of individual to be able to turn off to blatant, in your face suffering.

Second, I don't need to know he hasn't changed because that's not the point of my original post. My point is that when as a society will we pick upstanding citizens to honor?

As far as if he has changed, I don't know but doubt it because someone who proclaimed "he got excited" by participating in the death of the dogs probably didn't suddenly change his tune BUT even if he did change, he still doesn't deserve to be honored. Most people have no idea what Vick actually did and NO HE DID NOT PAY HIS TIME. He did not serve ONE day in jail for the systematic torture of those animals. He was convicted on one federal charge that was essentially for gambling. Sorry, I don't buy he "did his time." If you really want the details, read the USDA investigative report on Bad Newz Kennels: http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/BadNewzKennels.pdf because that's the unbiased truth of the matter and you'll see that he wasn't even in a class with "normal" dog fighters... they took it a step further.


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm having to vote with Duttlyn on this one. This athlete has shown a deep psychosis and disregard for life (albeit animal) with his actions. While he may have done his time in the legal aspect (or the time he plead for) the immorality of his actions and the psychosis they exhibited are not cleared. This guy should not have returned to the public eye. He is one sick  and does not deserve that type of income, recognition, or publicity. There are pretty much legal-type crimes that you do time and move on (Martha Stewart as example) and really immoral and sociopathic crimes like this. They just don't rank the same.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> No question that what he did was terrible and he deserved to pay for it. Which he did!
> 
> NO HE DIDN't... not a single day was served for the abuse of those animals. He went to federal prison for one charge of what was essentially gambling.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm completely crazy to hope that we as a society could do a better job of picking our "heroes and superstars"... sigh.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Here's an interesting clip...does this seem like a man with regret who is sorry? I love that he would have lightened his prison sentence.

Michael Vick's Regrets - Sports Show with Norm Macdonald - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Has her served his time? Yes.

That that make him a better person? NO!! That just makes him someone that got caught.

What he did was reprehensible and can NEVER been washed away based on jail time served or community service completed.

I will NEVER support him and will not support those that make $$$ off of him.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Obviously there will be a lot of people who get very emotional about what Vick did, but he has served his time for what he did and deserves a chance to get back into society. Just because he is a pro athlete shouldn't make any difference in that, should it?

Or do a lot of folks feel he should be treated differently? Or maybe that any convict should never be allowed back with a chance to straigten his/her life out after prison?

Interesting question!


----------



## blehmannwa (Jan 11, 2011)

I will not buy any Nike products.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

duttlyn said:


> Maybe I'm completely crazy to hope that we as a society could do a better job of picking our "heroes and superstars"... sigh.


I think PARENTS should do a better job of helping their children select role models and the people they look up to. As upset as people get at pro sports figures for being role models, no matter where you come down on the matter, it's not the athletes fault that kids are choosing them as role models. (Believe me, in no way do I think it excuses any of their behavior) 

As far as Vick only being sentenced on one Federal crime, that was a deal worked out by his attorney and the prosecutors and approved by a Judge. Again, be upset at Vick about his actions, but I get just as upset at the prosecutors who agree to and allow these "sweetheart" deals and the Judges that approve them. At any point, the Judge could have shut down that whole process and told the attorneys that the deal was not acceptable. The prosecutor could also have refused to make that deal.

The decision not to charge him with the State charges may or may not have been a part of the plea bargin, but that would still have had to be approved by the local authorities. In most cases, these are all elected officials. If I lived in that area, I'd be calling for their heads, as well as Vick's.

As much as it grates on my nerves, he did, in the eyes of the law, "pay his debt". 
I also believe that he will be judged by a much more harsh master some day.......and I don't think He gives sweetheart plea bargins.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

ALDuke said:


> I really love my dog...but there is absolutely no way you can compare Vick to a child molestor. That is well beyond grasping for straws. I dont' like him nor what he did...but he did pay his time. How do you know he hasn't changed? I'm sure glad people have forgiven me for my mistakes in life, no matter how big or small.


you're right, because a normal person would hook up battery cables to their ears and throw them in metal pools so they couldn't climb out, just so he could wath them thrash and die. Rather than be a mental deviant and just shoot the underperforming dogs, he beat them into the ground and shoved their heads in buckets till they were dead, you know the normal and humane way to do things. He was just a "product" of his "culture" and completely normal. Vick is a fine upstanding human. Kudo's to him. 
The NFL really wants him to succeed. He's worth a lot of dollars to a lot of people. If he couldn't run fast or throw a ball, this loser would probably be dead in the streets somewhere.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

I will not buy Nike or Subway products. I don't care if he paid for his crime in the eyes of the law, in my eyes he cannot pay for what he did. Do I think that some people can make mistakes, pay for them by going to prison, and come out and be fine, upstanding members of society? Absolutely. Is it possible that Vick has done so? Sure. But I still don't want any of my money to go to businesses that want him back up on his pedestal. I don't think he deserves fame and fortune after what he did.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

Micheal Vick did pay the penalty that the court set. His dogs,many at Dogtown,Bad Rap Rescue and other pit rescus groups are thriving . Vick's behavior is wrong but it also wasa lightening rod for discussion of animal cruelty and animal rehabilitation, I personally find him reprehensible and will cheer against his team. HE WAS NOT A GUY WHO NEEDED THE MONEY ,he did it to be hard ,macho whatever and hopefully his fall.(I wish it could have been a lil harder) has raised awareness of dog fighting and animal cruelty.He is not a child molester but animal cruelty is a sign of an antisocial personality as is breaking the law. There is a correlation between domestic violence and animal cruely however Micheal vick as far as I know has no history of violence against people ,just Dogs.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Obviously there will be a lot of people who get very emotional about what Vick did, but he has served his time for what he did and deserves a chance to get back into society. Just because he is a pro athlete shouldn't make any difference in that, should it?
> 
> Or do a lot of folks feel he should be treated differently? Or maybe that any convict should never be allowed back with a chance to straigten his/her life out after prison?
> 
> Interesting question!


Most people after prison don't get to go back to their normal lives... they work their way back up the ladder, end of story. This man perpetrated atrocities far worse than many criminals and yet he is allowed to easily slip right back into being a professional athlete and spokesperson. That is an honor that should be earned. Shouldn't he have to PROVE in some what that he even has a stitch of remorse?!

Are you telling me that we shouldn't judge someone's actions but rather just take them on their word that they're sorry? At what point is judging someone unsuitable to stand in a place of honor in our society justifiable? Sure, he did his COURT REQUIRED community service... big whoop! Has he done a **** thing above and beyond what is required?! Has he shown remorse? I'm thinking not because if you bothered to watch the video clip you'd see that he says he REGRETS NOTHING about his life other than his prison sentence. He callously laughs and says he wishes it was maybe 5 months instead of 18. WTF?!?! He is also show on tape saying, "we don't give a **** about the dog" when confronted about one of the dogs rescued from his compound. He was given a chance over and over to say he's sorry or show he's sorry and he hasn't done a **** thing. 

Now, please understand that I'm not saying people are the same as animals. I repeat, animals are NOT AS IMPORTANT as people BUT, would you say, "Hey, Geoffrey Dahmer served his time and deserves forgiveness." I doubt it. My guess is you'd probably understand that someone with the propensity to try and give a person a frontal lobotomy has a serious mental defect and shouldn't really be accepted back into society or get a "person of the year" award. Are you saying that because Vick chose to torture dogs and not people, somehow we should just forgive and forget?! I truly don't understand. Do defenseless animals really rate so low on your scale that the systematic torture and abuse of them should rate along the same lines as tax evasion or some other white collar crime? Did you read the PDF link from the government investigation I attached about the bad newz kennels? He attached jumper cables to dogs ears and dumped them in a pool and laughed as they tried to CLAW THEIR WAY OUT!! He laughed and threw his daughters pets into the ring with his dogs just to see them get mauled and thought it was funny!! He beat dogs to death with a shovel!! He forcibly removed the TEETH from a dog so that she couldn't bite back when being raped/fought/whatever the 'F' they wanted to do to her!! They held dogs heads in buckets of water to drown them!!! Are you really trying to tell me that 18 months on a lesser charge somehow cleanses him from these atrocities?! The man plainly admits that he GOT EXCITED by these actions... that is not the statement or reaction of a normal person.

Truly, I'm not getting it. What would someone have to do in order for you to say they didn't deserve a "sportsman of the year" award or Nike contract? What is the level of crime at which point you say, "hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be in the NFL or getting awards and keys to the city." Yes, Vick got the keys to the city of Dallas AFTER the atrocities came to light. 

I'm really disturbed that so many seem willing to look the other way on this one.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Good_Karma said:


> I will not buy Nike or Subway products. I don't care if he paid for his crime in the eyes of the law, in my eyes he cannot pay for what he did. Do I think that some people can make mistakes, pay for them by going to prison, and come out and be fine, upstanding members of society? Absolutely. Is it possible that Vick has done so? Sure. But I still don't want any of my money to go to businesses that want him back up on his pedestal. I don't think he deserves fame and fortune after what he did.


:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

crackem said:


> you're right, because a normal person would hook up battery cables to their ears and throw them in metal pools so they couldn't climb out, just so he could wath them thrash and die. Rather than be a mental deviant and just shoot the underperforming dogs, he beat them into the ground and shoved their heads in buckets till they were dead, you know the normal and humane way to do things. He was just a "product" of his "culture" and completely normal. Vick is a fine upstanding human. Kudo's to him.
> The NFL really wants him to succeed. He's worth a lot of dollars to a lot of people. If he couldn't run fast or throw a ball, this loser would probably be dead in the streets somewhere.


You're right... it's ALL about the dollars.:angryfire:


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> *Most people after prison don't get to go back to their normal lives... * *( and you would know this how? I wonder!)* they work their way back up the ladder, end of story. This man perpetrated atrocities far worse than many criminals and yet he is allowed to easily slip right back into being a professional athlete and spokesperson. *That is an honor that should be earned. (how? By being a "nice" person according to your definition?)* Shouldn't he have to PROVE in some what that he even has a stitch of remorse?!Are you telling me that we shouldn't judge someone's actions but rather just take them on their word that they're sorry? At what point is judging someone unsuitable to stand in a place of honor in our society justifiable? Sure, *he did his COURT REQUIRED community service*... big whoop! *(This is all he has to do!)* Has he done a **** thing above and beyond what is required?! Has he shown remorse? I'm thinking not because if you bothered to watch the video clip you'd see that he says he REGRETS NOTHING about his life other than his prison sentence. He callously laughs and says he wishes it was maybe 5 months instead of 18. WTF?!?! He is also show on tape saying, "we don't give a **** about the dog" when confronted about one of the dogs rescued from his compound. He was given a chance over and over *to say he's sorry or show he's sorry* *(what the heck difference does this make - he still did the stuff he did - I really don't care whether he is sorry or not. Saying "SORRY" has no impact whatsoever!) *and he hasn't done a **** thing. Now, please understand that I'm not saying people are the same as animals. I repeat, animals are NOT AS IMPORTANT as people BUT, would you say, "Hey, Geoffrey Dahmer served his time and deserves forgiveness." I doubt it. My guess is you'd probably understand that someone with the propensity to try and *give a person a frontal lobotomy has a serious mental defect and shouldn't really be accepted back into society or get a "person of the year" award*. *(Are YOU saying this is equivalent to what Vick did?)* Are you saying that because Vick chose to torture dogs and not people, somehow we should just forgive and forget?! I truly don't understand. Do defenseless animals really rate so low on your scale that the systematic torture and abuse of them should rate along the same lines as tax evasion or some other white collar crime? Did you read the PDF link from the government investigation I attached about the bad newz kennels? He attached jumper cables to dogs ears and dumped them in a pool and laughed as they tried to CLAW THEIR WAY OUT!! He laughed and threw his daughters pets into the ring with his dogs just to see them get mauled and thought it was funny!! He beat dogs to death with a shovel!! He forcibly removed the TEETH from a dog so that she couldn't bite back when being raped/fought/whatever the 'F' they wanted to do to her!! They held dogs heads in buckets of water to drown them!!! Are you really trying to tell me that 18 months on a *lesser charge* somehow cleanses him from these atrocities?! The man plainly admits that he GOT EXCITED by these actions... that is not the statement or reaction of a *normal *person. *(Your definition?)*
> Truly, I'm not getting it. What would someone have to do in order for you to say they didn't deserve a "sportsman of the year" award or Nike contract? What is the level of crime at which point you say, "hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be in the NFL or getting awards and keys to the city." Yes, Vick got the keys to the city of Dallas AFTER the atrocities came to light. I'm really disturbed that *so many seem willing to look the other way (WHAT ????????) *on this one.


duttlyn,
What exactly would you have Vick do after prison, if it were up to you?

Is it really worse that he happens to be rich, famous, and a great football player?

Certainly, I am not condoning or excusing his actions in any way, but many folks seem to think that this man is the worst criminal ever and deserves to rot in you know where forever.

You one of them?

BTW, why does a criminal (any of them) have to "REGRET" his actions to be saved? He did the deed, he got caught and he paid whatever the legal system in the US demanded that he pay - case is closed! 

You have of course got the right not to forgive any criminal you choose but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to go back to work and make money and live his own life.

Do I like Vick - no! And think that he served more prison time BUT that is not what happened.

Why not vow to not watch any of his football games on TV ever, and also just not buy any products that he endorses?


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

I think the problem is that society as a whole does not see his behavior as reprehensible. There are many criminal offenses that require the offender to take responsibility amd make amends, Vick showed little to no remorse. Vick's victims are animals who were defenseless and there are still many in society who see animals as things and that they do not have rights .This is changing very slowly.Vicks torture of animals makes me believe he is antisocial and definitely has some psycho pathic deviance.The problem is society says if you can throw a football and make money we will overlook your behavior. Again dont like him; hope his season sucks this year but I think the NFL,BET and Subway are just as bad or maybe worse.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

I hate him, I dont even want to say his name, if ever I saw him in person I would definitly give him a piece of my mind.

He knew what he was doing was wrong while he was doing it. The only thing he is sorry about is that fact that he got caught. He participated in the torturing and killing of those dogs, anyone that can do that to an animal is a sick individual and does not deserve to be free and amongst us.

The day he dies will be a great day for me. I can only hope that he feels some pain before he passes. 

I dont care if that makes me sound like a bad person or not.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I really do not care either way. To me, there is nothing sportsmanlike about being paid millions to play a sport and live the lifestyles that these athletes live, regardless of whether they are criminals. Try a sport where YOU have to PAY millions for your own training, equipment, competition, etc and usually the best you get out of it is a college scholarship, a sport where there is no "season" you train 8 hours a day year round to stay at the top. That is devotion and sportsmanship. I was a competitive gymnast so I have sympathy for no other athletes, lol. "professional" sports are a joke to me.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I wish our society held higher standards. If it did, we would not tolerate anyone who was convicted of any crime to be utilized as a marketing tool.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Lilie said:


> I wish our society held higher standards. If it did, we would not tolerate anyone who was convicted of *any crime* to be utilized as a marketing tool.


 
Wow! That is a very high standard! 

Would you include a traffic ticket, as well? They did break the law after all.

Would you let such scum get a regular job, maybe in a factory?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

codmaster said:


> Wow! That is a very high standard!
> 
> Would you include a traffic ticket, as well? They did break the law after all.
> 
> Would you let such scum get a regular job, maybe in a factory?


There is an economic difference between utilization as a marketing tool and employment.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> duttlyn,
> What exactly would you have Vick do after prison, if it were up to you?
> 
> Is it really worse that he happens to be rich, famous, and a great football player?
> ...



Well, you didn't answer one of the questions I asked you so it's difficult to debate with you.

I am already boycotting Nike and Subway so I am voicing my opinion that way.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

codmaster said:


> > Originally Posted by *duttlyn*
> > *Most people after prison don't get to go back to their normal lives... * *( and you would know this how? I wonder!**)*


Is that an accusation? Whatever it is- I can't read it any other way than rude. Wow... :thinking:


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm still voting with Duttlyn on this one. 

Due to his fame and money, this guy did not get nearly what he should have for the magnitude of the crimes. Any other average guy would be sentenced to many years in prison and fines like crazy. Famous guy gets off light. He didn't get what he deserved, it was all a "deal". THAT in itself is frustrating and plays into this thread. 

The sheer cruelty and sociopathic aspects of his actions warrant some pretty intense rehabilitation. Has that been done? He got a thrill from torturing animals. Here some time ago he told the press when his probation time is over, he wants a dog. That would be no. Who would be monitoring this? It wasn't just dog-fighting. It was SO extreme and cruel. The extremity of the cruelty plays into this thread.

The rescued dogs are thriving, it is said. Not the dogs that they had to euthanize (5 I think) or the ones he tortured and killed. How about his kid's pets that were used as bait/sport? How about the dogs his dogs fought and killed or maimed so they were destroyed by their owners? The sheer numbers and waste of life involved play into this thread.

I am really surpised how many comments on this thread suppor this guy. Do you really think it is OK or is the argument purely based on "what if it were criminals of X or Y or Z crimes then?" If you have ever watched "Most Evil" the series, they talk about a scale to rank killing-type crimes. Planning, magnitude of cruelty, and pleasure gained from the killing play into it. This guy ranks at #1 according to that scale. But it must be OK because they were animals and not humans. Well, they just did a study and dogs love, think, and feel. They are not automatons purely responding to stimuli and training/environment. They have been bred over time so that their neurochemicals are very similar to ours. They mourn, they feel pain and sadness, and they love. They simply do not deserve to be tortured. You really can't compare this to human-on-human crime. However, if you did, are you really sure companion animals are lesser life forms or is that just human ego and ignorance to deem them LESSER rather than different?

So he is welcomed back into the public eye after his little spank on the wrist. What does this say about our society and what it values?There just are some things that should not be caused or condoned by a reasoning species. I, for one, choose not to condone by my support such deviance. If it was just dog-fighting I probably would have said he did his time and move on, but the extra cruelty just ranks this in TOO deviant for TOO little payment.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

Mom2Shaman said:


> I'm still voting with Duttlyn on this one.
> 
> Due to his fame and money, this guy did not get nearly what he should have for the magnitude of the crimes. Any other average guy would be sentenced to many years in prison and fines like crazy. Famous guy gets off light. He didn't get what he deserved, it was all a "deal". THAT in itself is frustrating and plays into this thread.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

Thanks for the thumbs-up. Just wanted to say still praying for your cousin. (Not meaning to hijack thread). Continue on with the business about Michael Vick . . .


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> Well, *you didn't answer one of the questions I asked* you so it's difficult to debate with you.
> 
> I am already boycotting Nike and Subway so I am voicing my opinion that way.


And that is your right, of course!

Thought I did!


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> duttlyn,
> BTW, why does a criminal (any of them) have to "REGRET" his actions to be saved? He did the deed, he got caught and he paid whatever the legal system in the US demanded that he pay - case is closed!


Because, Regret/Remorse/repentance is the first step in being forgiven or accepted. It's hard to move past someone's crimes when they have no remorse and while the legal case may be closed, the court of public opinion is still overwhelmingly open. The NFL is a private institution, as are Subway and Nike... they can hire/fire for a myriad of reasons and are not obliged to give second chances to felons. They chose to do so and so I choose to not patron them anymore.

His callousness after his release from prison shows that the the intent to torture animals is still in his heart... at least in my opinion and that grosses me out on the highest levels.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> And that is your right, of course!
> 
> Thought I did!


Some of the questions left unanswered:
At what point is judging someone unsuitable to stand in a place of honor in our society justifiable?

Are you saying that because Vick chose to torture dogs and not people, somehow we should just forgive and forget?

Do defenseless animals really rate so low on your scale that the systematic torture and abuse of them should rate along the same lines as tax evasion or some other white collar crime?

Did you read the PDF link from the government investigation I attached about the bad newz kennels?

What would someone have to do in order for you to say they didn't deserve a "sportsman of the year" award or Nike contract?

What is the level of crime at which point you say, "hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be in the NFL or getting awards and keys to the city."

I really don't understand where you're coming from and I can't figure out what the guy would have to do in order for you to feel he shouldn't be heralded as a hero.


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

Just for completeness -- here is the data I mentioned in my last post (I had to bugger off and do some work files before searching for the info). This also does tie into the Duttlyn's post above and some of the unanswered questions, in a way.

Here is the Stone Scale -- IF you wish to compare Vick's to the legal process of human-human crime (pay the penalty, rejoin society, forgiveness, etc.) you need to consider this. Where does Vick rate on this? Oh, about 18 as I read it and some into 21.



> 01 Those who have killed in self-defense, and who do not show traces of psychopathy.
> 02 Jealous lovers who committed murder, but that although egocentric or immature, are not psychopaths.
> 03 Willing companions of killers: aberrant personality, impulse-ridden, with some antisocial traits.
> 04 Those who have killed in self-defense, but had been extremely provocative toward the victim for that to happen.
> ...




If you feel that animals are lesser beings only responding to stimuli, this article is mostly made of examples, but I will quote the basis for it. Here is the link to the full article: Can Dogs Love? A True Story | Modern Dog magazine - the best dog magazine ever I again have to ask if the human perception of animals as lesser is actually accurate. Are they just different and not understood by humans fully? Is the human perception of animals as lesser solely a human invention to compensate and justify hunting, eating, domesticating, working, etc. No, I don't work for PETA, I don't necessarily feel animals should all be free and undomesticated, but I do feel that they are beings worthy of companionship, care, and honor for the many abilities they have. I may be "pack leader" but they have skills I rely on in my pack to make things work (ala team leader and team members). Here is the root of the article:



> Marc Bekoff, a behavioral biologist at the University of Colorado, . . . notes that dogs are social animals. All social animals need emotions, in part as a means of communication-for instance you need to know to back off if another animal is growling. More importantly, however, emotions keep the social group together and motivate individuals to protect and support each other. Bekoff concludes that strong emotion is one of the foundations of social behavior and is the basis of the connection between individuals in any social group, whether it is a pack, a family or just a couple in love.
> 
> Recent research has even identified some of the chemicals associated with feelings of love in humans. These include hormones such as oxytocin, which seems to help people form emotional bonds with each other. One of the triggers that causes oxytocin to be released is gentle physical touching, such as stroking. Dogs also produce oxytocin, and one of our common ways of interacting with dogs is to gently pet them, an action that probably releases this hormone associated with bonding. If dogs as social animals have an evolutionary need for close emotional ties, and they have the chemical mechanisms associated with loving, it makes sense to assume that they are capable of love, as we are.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

*That is an honor that should be earned.* *(how? By being a "nice" person according to your definition?)*

I don't think it's by "my" definition. He sadistically tortured animals so by ANYONE's standard, he's not a nice person. Typically we honor people who have done honorable things... what is it that he's done that is honorable? Was it the drugs, the torture of dogs, the gambling, or is it just that he can throw the football down the green field? Maybe I just don't find that "honorable."

*he did his COURT REQUIRED community service... big whoop!* *(This is all he has to do!)*

OK, maybe this isn't directed exactly at you because I don't think you have said it but I've heard over and over from Vick supporters that he's changed, he is sorry for what he did, he's working hard to change the world of Dog Fighting, and he cares. Well, because he's only done the bare minimum, what was required by law, it shows that he's not sorry or remorseful and he doesn't give a hoot about the dogs.

*to say he's sorry or show he's sorry* *(what the heck difference does this make - he still did the stuff he did - I really don't care whether he is sorry or not. Saying "SORRY" has no impact whatsoever!*

It may not matter to you but it matters to many of us. We are being asked to "forgive and forget" and let the man move on. Well, if he isn't sorry for what he's done and nothing matters to him except that he got caught, than I don't think he deserves to move on. When he appreciates the magnitude of his crimes, then maybe I can let go.

*give a person a frontal lobotomy has a serious mental defect and shouldn't really be accepted back into society or get a "person of the year" award.* *(Are YOU saying this is equivalent to what Vick did?)*

See, this is where it gets frustrating to debate with you because in the statement above this one I very clearly stated that people are more important than animals and you know I'm not comparing what the two did... it's like you glossed over the point so you didn't have to answer the question. The point is, at what point is someone's crime enough to require some level of social isolation? Dahmer is clearly sociopathic and his actions prove that out... I'm asking you if you consider Vick's actions to show he is sociopathic? Does the fact that the victims were animals change the determination?

*that is not the statement or reaction of a normal person. **(Your definition?)*

I feel like your purposely being obstinate... are you seriously arguing that someone getting excited by the routine and sadistic torture of animals is NORMAL?! What is your point here?

*so many seem willing to look the other way* *(WHAT ????????)*

Again, very confusing response. The prosecutor looked the other way, the NFL looked the other way, the fans looked the other way, Nike looked the other way... this man did very little time, didn't actually do time for the animal abuse, was given a sweetheart deal by the prosecutor despite plenty of evidence, was welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, was given the keys to the city of Dallas, and was given a deal by Nike. I suppose your answer would be, well, he served his time BUT the fact for many of us is that this level of animal abuse should preclude him from professional sports and should garner a little bit of societal outrage. Apparently there are no better candidates for any of these positions than a convicted felon. That's what I call "looking the other way."


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

This thread baffles me. All these posts on a DOG forum. This guy didn't get what he deserved because he's famous, did horrific stuff described by the investigators as taking cruelty to an especially high level, and admits having enjoyed it. This is like arguing about the definition of "is" -- it's a given. This jerk is not deserving of endorsements, awards, or public exposure that might appear to condone his actions. If he were in a lot of jobs (medical, education, legal, for example) his career would be over entirely no matter how much he paid, how much time he served, etc. He would get a certification pulled. This is just an example of a lucky low-lifer feeling above the law and society is holding him up to be that. This guy is sick and should not be exalted.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Mom2Shaman said:


> I'm still voting with Duttlyn on this one.
> 
> *Due to his fame and money, this guy did not get nearly what he should have for the magnitude of the crimes. Any other average guy would be sentenced to many years in prison and fines like crazy. (Again, where did you get the info that your comment is based on? About sentencing for federal prison time for this type of crime? Many years would be = 10 or 15 or ??)* Famous guy gets off light. He didn't get what he deserved, it was all a "deal". THAT in itself is frustrating and plays into this thread.
> 
> ...


Mom2Shaman - you seem pretty addament about this guy.

So you think he got off lightly because of his fame, huh? How many other people do you know about who got federal prison time for dog fighting/cruelty?

I would be very interested in where you got the information that your comment is based on. And didn't he have to pay a fine as well? Some might argue that he received this punishment *because* he was rich and famous.

It would really help if this thread could be based on facts, rather than just emotion (and i realize how emotional the subject is).


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Originally Posted by *codmaster*  
_Quote:
Originally Posted by *duttlyn*  
*Most people after prison don't get to go back to their normal lives... **( and you would know this how? I wonder!**)* 
_
Is that an accusation? Whatever it is- I can't read it any other way than rude. Wow... :thinking:

An accusation of *WHAT*? I was merley asking where he/she got the info that was stated in the above sentence that "*Most people after prison don't get to go back to their normal lives". Did you see something wrong in that question, or did you simply accept the premise as a fact to be believed?*

*I know a couple of folks who did some time and they did in fact come out and resume a normal lfe. So I wondered about the statement that seemed to factually state the opposite and just asked for some information to substantiate the statement. Sorry if you were bothered by my question.*

*And BTW, I found your accusation kind of rude.*


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Mom2Shaman - you seem pretty addament about this guy.
> 
> So you think he got off lightly because of his fame, huh? How many other people do you know about who got federal prison time for dog fighting/cruelty?


Dude... I swear it's like you're not reading the facts or specifically ignoring them. Going to federal prison was the EASY way out not a harsher penalty because he was famous!! Michael Vick was not convicted according the Virginia Animal Cruelty laws. Instead he was indicted in Federal Court and pled guilty to one (1), I repeat, one count of “Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fight Venture”. An offense that carries a two to five year sentence.

Between 2001 and 2007 Michael Vick sponsored dogs in eleven fights. Additionally, he traveled to four states to purchase eleven dogs. Again, could this not be construed as 22 counts? Even with Vick’s meager sentencing this would have equated to 396 months or 33 YEARS!! And even at an absolute minimum, why was he not charged with four counts of the incredibly weak “Conspiracy…” charge?

If he had been truly tried according to Virginia’s Animal Cruelty Laws he could have been tried for twenty dog fights and nine executions. SIXTY FIVE YEARS! Instead, he was again allowed to plead out (while serving out his Federal sentence) to ONE count of dog fighting (the single Animal Cruelty charge was dropped as a part of the plea agreement) and received a three year suspended sentence for time served on the Federal charges.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Mom2Shaman - you seem pretty addament about this guy.
> 
> So you think he got off lightly because of his fame, huh? How many other people do you know about who got federal prison time for dog fighting/cruelty?
> 
> ...


And still you ignore the many questions posed to you. I've given facts AND asked if you read the actual government investigative document... you haven't answered. It would seem you just want to plead the case for the poor people in the world who have to start over after committing a felony and getting out of prison but not actually address the questions posed so that we can understand your position. I don't understand. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but since you won't give any in depth answers, we can't understand.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Mom2Shaman said:


> This thread baffles me. All these posts on a DOG forum. This guy didn't get what he deserved because he's famous, did horrific stuff described by the investigators as taking cruelty to an especially high level, and admits having enjoyed it. This is like arguing about the definition of "is" -- it's a given. This jerk is not deserving of endorsements, awards, or public exposure that might appear to condone his actions. If he were in a lot of jobs (medical, education, legal, for example) his career would be over entirely no matter how much he paid, how much time he served, etc. He would get a certification pulled. This is just an example of a lucky low-lifer feeling above the law and society is holding him up to be that. This guy is sick and should not be exalted.


No joke! :angryfire:


----------



## ALDuke (May 15, 2011)

I actually have to change my opinion. Everything I saw on this in the past was talking about dog fighting (not that dog fighting is to be taken lightly in the least) and didn't realize how demented he was. I really have to backtrack on my earlier post.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> Dude... I swear it's like *you're not reading the facts* *(Haven't been a lot of FACTS in evidence, just unsubstantiated opinions. Nice in America that we can all have our own!)* or specifically ignoring them. Going to federal prison was the EASY way out not a harsher penalty because he was famous!! Michael Vick was not convicted according the Virginia Animal Cruelty laws. Instead he was indicted in Federal Court and pled guilty to one (1), I repeat, one count of “Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fight Venture”. An offense that carries a two to five year sentence.
> 
> Between 2001 and 2007 Michael Vick sponsored dogs in eleven fights. *Additionally, he traveled to four states to purchase eleven dogs.* *Is this a crime?* Again, could this not be construed as 22 counts? Even with Vick’s meager sentencing this would have equated to 396 months or 33 YEARS!! And even at an absolute minimum, why was he not charged with four counts of the incredibly weak “Conspiracy…” charge?
> 
> If he had been truly tried according to Virginia’s Animal Cruelty Laws he could have been tried for twenty dog fights and nine executions. SIXTY FIVE YEARS! Instead, he was again allowed to plead out (while serving out his Federal sentence) to ONE count of dog fighting (the single Animal Cruelty charge was dropped as a part of the plea agreement) and received a three year suspended sentence for time served on the Federal charges.


 
Bubba, 

How many folks are actually tried on the original things that they are initially arrested on. Check and get back. Might help you understand.

Second, have you ever been in a federal prison? Expect and hope not - not nice places.

Do you have any idea why VA authorities did not prosecute in place or after the federal trial. Why not check before the rant?

Then, you can get upset about those people.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

in many areas, what Vick did is considered a misdemeanor, if prosecuted at all. The typical sentence in AR (before it was recently made a felony) was a short time on probation.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Bubba,
> 
> How many folks are actually tried on the original things that they are initially arrested on. Check and get back. Might help you understand.
> 
> ...


What difference does it make that many people are tried on different charges than they are arrested for! They had plenty of evidence to charge him with EXACTLY what he was guilty of if you bothered to read the investigative report. He actually admitted to most of it. How condescending of you to say, "might help me understand." I understand just fine but just because we have a broken and occasionally corrupt judicial system DOESN't make the criminals any less guilty.

Second, thankfully I HAVE NOT been to federal prison, have you? From what I understand, there is no **** difference between federal and state prison. It all depends what state and what facility so it really has no bearing.

And yes, we are led to believe that money was the reason Vick wasn't charged by Virginia Authorities. The prosecutor (Virginia’s Surry County Commonwealth Attorney General – Gerald G. Poindexter) didn’t feel that the costs associated with transporting Vick to Virginia from Leavenworth penitentiary in Kansas was worth it. Now, if you do the math it doesn't hold water so something more was going on. I'll quote Chris Durant on this one:

"If Surry County had actually tried Vick they could have charged him with those 29 offenses and reaped $72,500 in fines. Another area I am not an expert in, is travel logistics, but I cannot imagine it would come any where near $72,500 to transport Vick the 1,160 miles (I Google Mapped it) – I mean, that’s $62.50 a mile!? They could have fueled an Abrams M1 armored tank (probably one of the world’s worst gas efficient vehicles) for the entire trip for a mere $3,420."

And finally, again I'll say, why don't you answer any of the questions posed to you? You are very defensive, elusive, and to me it feels as if your specifically being contrary without addressing any of the legitimate concerns of the anti-Vick sentiment.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Dainerra said:


> in many areas, what Vick did is considered a misdemeanor, if prosecuted at all. The typical sentence in AR (before it was recently made a felony) was a short time on probation.


That's very sad.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

ALDuke said:


> I actually have to change my opinion. Everything I saw on this in the past was talking about dog fighting (not that dog fighting is to be taken lightly in the least) and didn't realize how demented he was. I really have to backtrack on my earlier post.


I know exactly what you're saying. Dog fighting is wrong on every level BUT there are dog fighters who consider themselves reputable and consider it a legitimate sport. They aren't the ones using bait dogs, pulling out the teeth of dogs, and torturing the animals. Do these "good" fighters make it OK, no, but you can almost look past it from a social perspective and these people can be forgiven and learn from their mistakes. Then, you have the ones like Vick who derived great pleasure from torturing the animals and found unique and grotesque ways to do it. If you look at the investigative report that I posted earlier, even the investigators felt it was taken to an extreme level and they see fighting all the time. Vick is not simply a guy who fights dogs to make money but someone who gets off on the pain and suffering of the animals... quite sadistic.

I appreciate you delving further and then sharing that you've changed your perspective.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Dainerra said:


> in many areas, what Vick did is considered a misdemeanor, if prosecuted at all. The typical sentence in AR (before it was recently made a felony) was a short time on probation.


Very true! And also very unfortunate!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> And still you ignore the many questions posed to you. I've given facts AND asked if you read the actual government investigative document... you haven't answered. It would seem you just want to plead the case for the poor people in the world who have to start over after committing a felony and getting out of prison but not actually address the questions posed so that we can understand your position. I don't understand. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from but since you won't give any in depth answers, we can't understand.


Ok, lets try.

Your questions include the following that I have seen:



duttlyn said:


> ..............
> Again, *could this not be construed as 22 counts?* ...... And even at an absolute minimum, *why was he not charged with four counts of the incredibly weak “Conspiracy…” charge?.........*


Answers: *1*.NO, *2*. Because the prosecuters decided not to do this.

Why don't you check with the prosecuters to get more details of their reasoning (esp. if you happen to have any legal expertise; (I don't, so have to accept their expertise) or maybe they might have even answered this question in their news releases or perhaps they have some explanation documents. Have you found any or even looked for for any of these?

Now I hope that I have answered at least a couple of your questions? Thank you and have a nice day.


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

Nope, you haven't.... again, you seem awfully combative and I'm truly trying to understand where you are coming from. The list of questions was this:

At what point is judging someone unsuitable to stand in a place of honor in our society justifiable?

Are you saying that because Vick chose to torture dogs and not people, somehow we should just forgive and forget?

Do defenseless animals really rate so low on your scale that the systematic torture and abuse of them should rate along the same lines as tax evasion or some other white collar crime?

Did you read the PDF link from the government investigation I attached about the bad newz kennels?

What would someone have to do in order for you to say they didn't deserve a "sportsman of the year" award or Nike contract?

What is the level of crime at which point you say, "hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be in the NFL or getting awards and keys to the city."

Dude, I'm not trying to be argumentative. We can agree to disagree but if according to you, I'm beyond off the mark and for me, that's confusing. I'm trying to understand and you're not helping me. Maybe you don't want to and I guess that's OK, too.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

codmaster said:


> Why don't you check with the prosecuters to get more details of their reasoning (esp. if you happen to have any legal expertise; (I don't, so have to accept their expertise) or maybe they might have even answered this question in their news releases or perhaps they have some explanation documents. Have you found any or even looked for for any of these?.


That was my question several posts ago. What the Feds did had little/no bearing on the case that the State could have brought. EVERYONE had to agree to the course of action that was settled on, including Judges and both State and Federal prosecutors.
I absolutely HATE what Vick did and no one is trying to excuse his actions. I'm willing to bet that things were a lot worse (if that's possible) than what anyone will ever know. I'm sure his group of hangers on left out several key points.

My guess, and it's only a guess, based on 25 years in law enforcement is that the State didn't think they'd be able to get a conviction against Vick, if the case came to trial in a State Court. It only takes one person to vote "no" on a jury and then the jury is considered hung. Then, after the approriate legal matters are considered, he would have to be tried again.
This appeared to be a rather complicated and involved investigation and would probably have been easy for Vicks very high priced legal team to get enough reasonable doubt raised to get him off.
Everyone knows that OJ Simpson was guilty and that Casey Anthony should have been found guilty, but both of them were acquitted by a jury.
Any jury trial is crap shoot. Again, all of this is my opinion from a law enforcement/investigative perspective.

I would love to know why the State case wasn't persued. I will also boycott both Subway and Nike.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

duttlyn said:


> Nope, you haven't.... again, you seem awfully combative and I'm truly trying to understand where you are coming from. The list of questions was this:At what point is judging someone unsuitable to stand in a place of honor in our society justifiable?Are you saying that because Vick chose to torture dogs and not people, somehow we should just forgive and forget?
> Do defenseless animals really rate so low on your scale that the systematic torture and abuse of them should rate along the same lines as tax evasion or some other white collar crime?Did you read the PDF link from the government investigation I attached about the bad newz kennels?What would someone have to do in order for you to say they didn't deserve a "sportsman of the year" award or Nike contract?*What is the level of crime at which point you say, "hey, maybe this guy shouldn't be in the NFL or getting awards and keys to the city."*
> Dude, I'm not trying to be argumentative. We can agree to disagree but if according to you, I'm beyond off the mark and for me, that's confusing. I'm trying to understand and you're not helping me. Maybe you don't want to and I guess that's OK, too.


bubba, 

Since it is another group(s) that are hiring the person and/or giving him an award; that is up to them, isn't it? 

Or maybe you think that you can be the best judge of what person someone else wants to hire or maybe give an award?

Of course you or any one else can have an opinion, but it isn't up to you or me or anyone except the group themselves what they want to do. 

Just a thought, how about you answering a question - If Vick were a plumber and did the same nasty things, do you think that he should have been able to get a job as a plumber when he got out of his legally set sentence? 

Or is it the amount of money and fame that he is now enjoying that you resent? 

At any rate I am done with this thread that is so highly charged with strong emotion and feelings.


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

Oh Codmaster, you are so right. Michael Vick is just an amazing athlete, role model, and reformed citizen who did his time for his minor transgression and now his slate his clean. Thank you for enlightening me. Oh, and I giggle girlishly every time I see your oh so clever screen name too. NOT.


Wondered how long it would be before I got argued against. So the word is "because" not "is". Whatever. The guy didn't just commit the crime of dog-fighting. He was intentionally and exceptionally cruel to the animals. Are there no laws against cruelty to animals? Animals may not be "equal" to us, but perhaps that was a fallacy all along in history. Nevertheless, in any case, if animals are animated possessions or highly intelligent and loving beings, they deserve ethically and legally, a life free from pain and torture. There are laws to protect a minimum level of care for animals and protection from cruelty. That jerk did not do the time for his cruelty to animals. Yea, I am adamant. What he did was socially, morally, ethically, and legally wrong. He didn't pay even close for the extent of the crimes. There are facts presented all through this thread, it's not emotion, it is knowledge of the facts and deeming them unacceptable. 

Codmaster do you actually believe your own arguments in favor of such a reformed and now upstanding person or did you just latch on the thread for this week's entertainment value? Or is it more like "thank you for playing" on to the next thread. How very sad that anyone would believe such, argue such, and would still own dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

CassandGunnar said:


> That was my question several posts ago. What the Feds did had little/no bearing on the case that the State could have brought. EVERYONE had to agree to the course of action that was settled on, including Judges and both State and Federal prosecutors.
> I absolutely HATE what Vick did and no one is trying to excuse his actions. I'm willing to bet that things were a lot worse (if that's possible) than what anyone will ever know. I'm sure his group of hangers on left out several key points.
> 
> My guess, and it's only a guess, based on 25 years in law enforcement is that the State didn't think they'd be able to get a conviction against Vick, if the case came to trial in a State Court. It only takes one person to vote "no" on a jury and then the jury is considered hung. Then, after the approriate legal matters are considered, he would have to be tried again.
> ...


Good explanation!


----------



## duttlyn (Mar 30, 2011)

codmaster said:


> bubba,
> 
> Since it is another group(s) that are hiring the person and/or giving him an award; that is up to them, isn't it?
> 
> ...


First, if the term Dude upsets you, I'm sorry... it is a common name around our house and I use it without malice. I assume it annoyed you because you've called me Bubba twice.

Second, you're still not answering the question... you're asking other questions. I'm trying to understand what YOU consider to be something that would cause you to boycott or think that someone didn't deserve to go right back into society to their normal lives. Is there any crime that is over the line for you? I'm actually trying to understand this but since you're done with the thread, I doubt I'll ever get an answer. 

It's not the money that bothers me. It is the fame and position... I believe in the idea that certain positions have a moral code of conduct higher than others. Judges, lawyers, police officers, child care workers, professional athletes (to name a few). Droves of kids aren't wearing Joe the Plumbers name and number on their back. They aren't going to bed dreaming of being the next Joe the Plumber. Is it Vick's fault that kids look up to him, NO, but at the same time, it's the hand he drew and he's paid mightily for it. By default, kids look up to him and with that comes a level of responsibility. He failed in that responsibility. So, if Joe the Plumber pays his time and gets out, sure, go back to being a plumber and I wish you luck... but I don't want to see your face on my TV and the windows of my sandwich shop every day.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Mom2Shaman said:


> Oh Codmaster, you are so right. Michael Vick is just an *amazing athlete (this happens to be true!)*, role model, and reformed citizen who did his time for his minor transgression and now his slate his clean. Thank you for enlightening me. Oh, and I giggle girlishly every time I see *your oh so clever screen name too.* NOT.
> 
> *Now we get personally insulting. For shame. Did I ever say anything bad about your screen name?*
> 
> ...


Generally on this forum, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't call for personal insults.

All I said was that according to our USA legal code, Michael Vick was tried in court, found guilty and served his sentence according to the laws in our country. Do you disagree with this?

Whether we think it was appropriate is irrelevant to his situation. Is their any predujice in his charging? - it could be argued in either direction just like for any rich and/or famous person charged with a crime. 

This is it!


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

codemaster you are on a Dog Forum espousing Micheal Vick is a good guy who made a bad decision and you thought they would applaud. My bet is the average forum member has been involved in animal rescues .Some maybe even with the organizations that helped save Vick's dogs. Your talking about core values ,things people on here dedicate themselves to both in their life ,their money or their time.As for we dont know about federal prisoners.I worked with Washington DC inmates as they became Federal inmates and I have watched hardened guys become quite emotional re going to any number of Federal institutions.Many of the guys I met had an overworked public defender , not a dream legal team. I have worked with federal and state parolees and have been involved in corrections for about twenty years. I've met guys in Ohio that I wonder if there was a lawyer in the county ,let alone their trial. I also ran a dog program in a state prison and I have worked w/ the guys noted as supermax and being shipped to the Federal supermax in Colorado. I ve met some hardened cons but most guys I met inside saved food for the dogs in the program ,wanted to buy toys for them and in general the biggest problem I ever had was our dogs got fat. i dont know what your experience in the correction system is and that's for another forum but what Vick did was torture and even the guys who I worked with who had violent charges didnt do the crap he( Vick) did to a weaker living being. I tend to find that arguing and debating my left wing views w/ ultra right wing groups is gonna end one of two ways me pissed off or me walking away. Abortion.religion and other controversaial subjects are just that because they represent our core beliefs.This forum is about preserving and finding the best possible way to nuture and save dogs so I think Micheal Vick ain't gonna get much holler here.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

Sorry I mispelled your name used .Codmaster


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

I was waiting breathlessly for that response. Can't take a little "poking" about the name, eh? You created it to make a statement. Statement made. The NOT actually applied to the whole statement about you not actually convincing me that Vick has done his time. Just "poking" at you about the name because that is an awfully dramatic screen name. Sorry it upset you. Sorry if my screen name disturbed you too. Mom and Shaman (my dog's name) are quite controversial, I know.

Here's the NO emotion version just for you Codmaster, dude, bubba, fellow CA resident, (insert name), however you wish to be addressed acceptably:

There are things that should not ever happen in a civilized society. There are punishments for doing them. This individual got a deal to avoid most of the counts of the many illegal acts. Deals cheat the public of the repayment of a debt to society, whether human-on-adult, human-on-animal, human-on-child. If a person of any age acts in an illegal manner, they should get the sum total of their crime penalty. That is why the system is set up that way. He was found guilty and there was a laundry list of counts and penalties. He did not serve or pay for each item on the checklist. He pled to a lesser charge and got it. He got to do this because he and his employers paid lots of money. If he had nothing more than a public defender, this deal would not have been offered to him by the court system. Furthermore, he admitted he got pleasure from his acts. He has not come out and publicly demonstrated that he has now received on-going counseling and psychological treatment for same. He has not stated that he recognized the grave harm he did to many caring life forms, weaker life forms than himself, and dedicated himself to showing all who will listen about his former error and his new awareness. He has not offered any way morally or ethically to atone for the extremely deviant and illegal acts he committed. He only participated in some very minor activities regarding anti-dog fighting. He did not offer to participate in activities related to extreme cruelty to animals in order to bring his error and awareness to the public eye and offer atonement.

Since he has neither made amends morally by demonstrating either deep horror or offering to do some good to partially offset the bad OR served/paid fines to the full rack-up of every since illegal act, then his actual debt to society is yet to be repaid and he should not be receiving honors, endorsements, and such. He should have none of the priviledges (I did not say rights) afforded to law-abiding citizens or to those who actually have served fully and atoned fully for a crime or crimes.

Thank you for playing and have a nice day.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

there is a simple reason that Prosecutors cut deals with defendants - money.
someone mentioned that the state of VA would have collected $72,000 in fines. Of course, that assumes that he was found guilty on all counts and received the maximum fine for each charge, but for the sake of argument lets say that is the case. So, he now owes the state of VA $72,000.

Now, how much did "profit" did the state make for this trial? These numbers are CA, but the numbers from VA wouldn't be drastically different.

Average daily cost of running a Los Angeles Superior criminal court (including supplies and salaries of judges, prosecutors, public defenders and support staff): $9,459

Length of average criminal trial in Los Angeles: Two weeks. (of course, a high profile case will usually run longer than that)
The Cost of Justice - Los Angeles Times

so lets say VA is 1/2 the price at $4729.50 and that the trial goes quickly and only lasts 2 weeks. So, just the trial is $66,213. Of course, he would appeal any guilty verdicts, so that will be more money. Then incarceration cost for 1 year is around $25,000 from most of the info I have found. 

Those numbers don't include the extra personnel that is usually hired when a high profile defendant is on trial either. So, for many/most states its a simple matter of budget. Anytime that a trial can be avoided, they will try to do that. 
In animal cruelty cases, most defendants get off with a simple "don't do that again" http://www.greatdreams.com/eeyore/anmlws.htm outlines the penalties by state
Shoot, in our local court system, the typical penalty for spousal abuse is 6 months probation. Stay out of trouble for that amount of time and you are cleared.

ETA: the state can't dictate the type of job that you are allowed to hold after you have served your time, except in careers that involve what you were convicted of. IE child molesters can't work with children. Some White Collar Fraud penalties preclude working in the financial industry etc

If they (Nike/Subway/NFL) choose to hire him, they have weighed the risk of boycott vs the potential profit.


----------



## Glacier (Feb 25, 2009)

He served his punishment, who are we to say it's not enough? I find it funny that child/spousal abusers don't catch the amount of flack that he has. I will agree that society as a whole lets famous individuals get away with too much(Charlie Sheen comes to mind), with little or no consequences. But this man went to jail(how many actors even go to jail period?), lost his spot on his team, as well as having to pay fines. His actions were horrible and cruel and he was tried for it. 

I also agree with a few of the posters here, your child shouldn't be idolizing the actors and athletes on television, it's a parent's role to intervene. I'm sure Nike and Subway have weighed the pros and cons of endorsing him and by doing so seem to think the profit loss is worth it in the end.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

My way of thinking in light of the results of a recent trial, I think he should be sportsman of the year again next year. Kind of puts the Vick case in perspective. 

DFrost


----------



## Mom2Shaman (Jun 17, 2011)

Can I then judge the legal system as joke for allowing such travesties of justice?

Can I also feel greatly disturbed that people no longer care enough to stand up against something horrific and just shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" while eating their sandwiches and wearing their over-priced running shoes?

While Mr. Vick served whatever our messed up courts gave him and he has a right to go back to his life and even his job, he does not have to be held up above others in a position of honor, above good people who make a positive impact in society by caring for others. "Sportsman of the Year" is supposed to espouse not only on-the-field ability but off-the-field conduct, the total package if you will. If he is THE Sportsman of ALL sports there are, isn't that a joke? If I were a sports-figure, especially a good one who also started a foundation or worked with charities or such, and I were overlooked for someone who had been intentionally and exceptionally cruel and deviant, I would be bitter.

This isn't about legal issues, it is about moral and ethical issues. This is about what is right and wrong within the collective of a civilized society. This is about holding up in a position of honor someone who doesn't really deserve honor. Sure he did time and can go back to his rights. That is not the same as being honored. That is a priviledge to be earned by exceptional few outstanding individuals. He is simply not an exceptional outstanding individual on and off the field.

It certainly is my right to say this and can't be argued against. Whether emotional, fact-based, or a combination of both, I personally do not believe in condoning cruel and deviant behavior by my inaction or my support. Speaking to not only this thread, but the recent trial about which I have actually seen people on Facebook say "Oh well, that is just the way it goes, don't worry about it", I personally would prefer if people would speak out against what is just not right. 

If you read this WHOLE thread, Duttlyn and I agree that Mr. Vick got off easy (for whatever reason), was exceptionally cruel and deviant according to the impartial report, and has not made obivious public efforts to do good to remotely off-set the wrong or even truly express understanding of the error of his ways and a shift in his paradigm; thus, this individual does not DESERVE this award. You can argue the slippery slope of forgiveness, restitution, how parents manage their children's idols, the legal process, bibilical concepts, the fact that none of us here are actually on the sportsman of the year committee, that individuals within several sponsor corporations "know what they are doing", and any myriad of word definitons and subtle connotations of words used in our statements. At root, this is not about any of that. It is simply the fact that of all the sportsmen and women of all the various sports, this particular athlete is flat-out a horrible choice and not deserving of special honor because he does not espouse good sportsmanship and good conduct on and off the field, that this is a whetstone of how apethetic our society has become, and that some of us desire to stand up and say "this just isn't right". 

The good thing that Duttlyn and I realize, is that through this argument, there are people who have read this and learned more about what really happened in this case, people who can form their own opinions, and, if they so desire, people who can decide against being apathetic about this or something else important that will make a difference.


----------



## cpatrzyk (Sep 21, 2008)

"Vick" and "man" should never be used in the same sentence.


----------



## beaderdog (Dec 23, 2010)

No Subway, no Nike, no BET in this house. Vick has had ample opportunity to show real remorse for brutalizing & murdering dogs - he has yet to show anything other than that he's sorry he got caught. His tie-in with the HSUS is strictly for his image (as are his carefully-vetted appearances), he has given nothing to the support of his former dogs that wasn't court-ordered, and he himself has said he has no regrets. He never served any time for animal cruelty, so no, AFAIC he hasn't "served his time". He should never have been allowed back into the NFL, much less been given awards & endorsements. Vick is sick.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

So Vick got "sportsman of the year" by BET. Anyone got the actual criteria that was used to give it to him?

I doubt that high moral standards or ethical treatment of dogs were any part of it.

But I can't see why it is so important to anyone why this obscure (to me) designation fo him is so emotionally troubling?

Is he a jerk? Of course. A felon, yes! A **** of a football player, yes!

Should we worry and fret about the moral character of a football player (no matter how famous?) - NO!

Did Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon deserve to be president? Not if one counts morals and truthfullness and remorse over what he did.

A football player (or politician or a business executive) should never be considered a "Role Model" for anyone - if anyone does think that they are or should be - they should make sure that that they have taken their medicine for today!


----------

