NAACP: Vick Should Return to NFL

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_new ... yid=102078

Michael Vick should be allowed to return to the NFL after he finishes serving out his punishment on charges related to his participation in a professional dogfighting ring, the president of the Atlanta NAACP said during a news conference Wednesday.

RELATED VIDEO: NAACP Statement

"Humans are redeemable," said Dr. R.L. White. "We feel that whatever the courts demand as a punishment, once he has paid his debt to society, then he should be treated like any other person in the NFL."

Vick’s attorney said on Monday that the star quarterback agreed to accept a plea deal in the case and a likely prison sentence in order to avoid additional federal charges.

Dr. White went on to say that, despite that plea agreement, he is not convinced that Vick was completely aware of the depth of the dogfighting ring in which he is accused of taking part in the execution of several animals.

"I think there might have been some involvement," White said when asked if he believed Vick was involved in dogfighting at all. "I'm still suspect that there's a vendetta to get Michael Vick and I'm still suspect of the co-defendants who made their plea, that it was coerced in order to save their own necks from deeper sentences in jail."

White also said he believes the star quarterback has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being. "He would not have been persecuted that much if he had killed somebody."

He acknowledged that many animal lovers are outraged at the notion Vick would have executed pit bulls that lost him money during dogfights.

"Let's maintain our [healing] when we are trying to remedy the entire situation," White said. "Yes, there are many dog lovers, fans in the NFL but there are also many, many other people who just love Mike Vick and these people, too, are significant in numbers."

Is there a more irrelevant fucking organization? These assholes must be run by racist white guys who want blacks to look like idiots. They continue to cause a divide. Very sad.

[Winnow]

"Let's maintain our [healing] when we are trying to remedy the entire situation," White said. "Yes, there are many dog lovers, fans in the NFL but there are also many, many other people who just love Mike Vick and these people, too, are significant in numbers."

What a moronic thing to say. You don't have to be a dog lover to despise Vick for what he did.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This has nothing to do with race. I am so disgusted by this.

[Aslanna]

Is there a more irrelevant fucking organization?

I'm not sure. Provide more arguments for your case and we'll decide.

[Sabek]

Even better on the cnn.com article the guy said dog fighting is no big deal.

White also said he didn't understand the uproar over dogfighting, when hunting deer and other animals is perfectly acceptable.

Ummm last I knew hunters didn't hose the deer down and electrocute them, or hang them from a tree until they die.

What an idiot.

[Hammerstalkerx]

Why is the Naacp even involved. Yes I know Vick is a black man but what a stupid thing for them to get involved with. He committed a crime and will be punished, end of story but they have to get involved like it is "The Man" behind all of this.

[Kaldaur]

I hate everyone who is defending Michael Vick right now. Jon Stewart talked about him last night on the Daily Show, and how all the sports pundits can't stop talking about when he'll be back.
Here's a clue: teach a lesson to America's youth that their athletes need to be held to some sort of ethical behavior. Putting down dogs because they aren't vicious enough doesn't meet that bar.
He's a fucking cretin.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I hate everyone who is defending Michael Vick right now. Jon Stewart talked about him last night on the Daily Show, and how all the sports pundits can't stop talking about when he'll be back.
Here's a clue: teach a lesson to America's youth that their athletes need to be held to some sort of ethical behavior. Putting down dogs because they aren't vicious enough doesn't meet that bar.
He's a fucking cretin.

Deon Sanders and Starbury....two excellent role models for kids....couldn't get off the fact that he is a superior athlete and that it's a shame for Atlanta that he won't be performing for them.

[Siji]

Vick is a dick!

[Fash]

I don't understand why the NAACP is involved... It's capitalism. If the NFL wants him, he'll play... if they don't, he won't. No one else has a say!

It's like the NAACP put out a press release: Hey don't forget we're still around!! btw we love criminals, especially if they're brown!

[Xyun]

Imagine if you actually lived in this shithole city and run into people or overhear people justifying Vick or dogfighting and shit. It sickens me the way people can be so fucking ignorant as to put fucking athletic ability above integrity, honor, and humanity.

That fucking guy is an idiot. I consider torturing and massacring dogs the way he did on par with murder and worse than manslaughter. He should be fucking jailed for 25 to life.

[Boogahz]

I don't understand why the NAACP is involved... It's capitalism. If the NFL wants him, he'll play... if they don't, he won't. No one else has a say!

It's like the ACLU put out a press release: Hey don't forget we're still around!! btw we love criminals, especially if they're brown!

WTF does the ACLU have to do with any of this?

[Fash]

fixed. lol. they're both pretty useless.

[Wulfran]

The comparason of dog fighting to hunting was (originally? supposedly) made on the weekend by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury. Guess you can put him in the same retard ward as Clinton Portis.

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story/?ID=216656&hubname=nba

As for the NAACP, I read the statement and I laughed. People may be redeemable but Vick violated a clause on the front page of his contract, with regard to maintaining the public image of the NFL and the Falcons, thus the NFL can do whatever the hell they want. Playing in the NFL isn't a right, its a privilege granted to athletes who have the ability AND the intelligence not to bring a bunch of shit down on their employer's image. To add insult to injury, the fucker and his lawyer got on a podium when this began and said they'd defend his innocence: i guess they must have meant those OTHER charges...

Hell, if any of us who is in the working world had this shit revolving around us, what do you think the chances are that you'd retain your employment? Some of us, who don't deal with the public MAY get the benefit of the doubt until a trial, but as soon as we pled guilty or were convicted we'd be out. End of story. Why the fuck should this asshole, who had the world as his apple, be given more consideration than the rest of us would be?

[Somali]

I don't know if I equate what Vick did to animals to Manslaughter, but it is pretty f'd up. I think his NFL career as a QB is over. He may be able to come back as a RB or WR, but I doubt it. I think most teams don't want to risk the bad PR, but who knows. People watched Tyson fight after he got out of jail.

[Fairweather Pure]

This should be a career ending ordeal. I notice the NAACP dosen't mention that Vic continued to lie about the fact he was involved at all right up until he plea bargined.

They should've been the first to condemn him, not be one of the few to stand up for him.

[masteen]

And they wonder why the negative stereotypes just won't die. Every person who makes an excuse for Vick is keeping it alive. When the NAACP does it, it's even worse.

[Siji]

but who knows. People watched Tyson fight after he got out of jail.

Tyson actually being guilty (if you're referring to the rape) was questionable to most people.

[rhyae]

This is what Deion Sanders send about Vick: "I believe Vick had a passion for dogfighting. I know many athletes who share his passion. The allure is the intensity and the challenge of a dog fighting to the death. It's like ultimate fighting, but the dog doesn't tap out when he knows he can't win.
It reminds me of when I wore a lot of jewelry back in the day because I always wanted to have the biggest chain or the biggest, baddest car. It gives you status"

[miir]

I believe Tyson had a passion for rape. I know many athletes who share his passion. The allure is the intensity and the challenge of rape. It's like normal fucking, but the chick doesn't just open her legs.

[Somali]

Miir,

That was fantastic word substitution. Oh so wrong on many levels, but a wonderful parody of Deon's quote. I lol'd.

[Sylvus]

but who knows. People watched Tyson fight after he got out of jail.

Tyson actually being guilty (if you're referring to the rape) was questionable to most people.

I haven't actually read any of the official documents, are people saying that Vick actually did the electrocution of the dogs, or just that he facilitated it through financing that allowed the dogfighting ring to exist? I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, I think he belongs in jail, but there is apparently a perceived vendetta against Vick (per the NAACP statement). The fact that he was indicted on conspiracy charges makes it so that all of the defendants can be found guilty for what any one of them did, which could be why Vick was pleading out, not because he actually did the dog abuse himself. If you're going to get convicted regardless of the level of your involvement, you might as well make the deal.

Like I said, it's not a view I share, but the idea that some people are unfairly targeting Vick for racist reasons seems no less plausible than some of the off-the-wall conspiracy theories (read: 9/11 being perpetrated in part by the US gov't) I've seen from a number of posters on this board. Quite a bit more plausible, in my opinion.

While this appears to be a "crying wolf" situation, I don't think I would go so far as to call the NAACP irrelevant because of a poor decision or two. They've done a lot of good things as well. Or at least their mission statement says they're trying to.

[Kaldaur]

I don't have a bias against the NAACP. They frankly don't register on my radar at all. I think they're irrelevant and pointless, but I'm not campaigning against them in any way. They can exist just like the AARP or the NRA. What I do have a problem with is any organization that would support someone who kills golden retrievers because they didn't make the cut. It's not bias, it's bloody lunacy.

[Somali]

I assume golden retrievers was the first type of dog that came to mind right? They don't actually use retrievers as fighting dogs do they?

Oh, and what I have heard said that he was both a facilitator, and was directly involved. I'm not positive as to what he accepted guilt for by way of the plea though.

[Sylvus]

I assume golden retrievers was the first type of dog that came to mind right? They don't actually use retrievers as fighting dogs do they?

Oh, and what I have heard said that he was both a facilitator, and was directly involved. I'm not positive as to what he accepted guilt for by way of the plea though.

I think they generally use Pit Bulls. Which, ironically, are a breed that only exists because they were bred specifically for dog fighting. IIRC.

[Somali]

Some info: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2983121 and http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 0335/1022

Perhaps this is what people are keying off of with the sympathy for Vick:

Vick contended he knew nothing about a dogfighting operation at the home, where one of his cousins lived, and said he rarely visited. The former Virginia Tech star also blamed friends and family members for taking advantage of his generosity and pledged to be more scrupulous.

and

Vick is charged with conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. He pleaded not guilty to the charges last month, and a trial date was set for Nov. 26. But three of his co-defendants reach plea agreements with prosecutors, leaving Vick as the only remaining defendant until he agreed to plead guilty.

And "the Man" keeping Vick down must have bought off his alleged associates with reduced sentences to get them to say,

Two of Vick's co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, testified that Vick assisted them in killing eight dogs who did not perform well, either by hanging or drowning the animals. Vick also faced the possibility of a superseding indictment that might have included more charges.

At least he wasn't brought up on doggy rape charges:

The case began April 25 when investigators conducting a drug search at a massive home Vick built in Surry County found 66 dogs, some of them injured, and items typically used in dogfighting. They included a "rape stand" that holds aggressive dogs in place for mating and a "breakstick" used to pry open a dog's mouth.

What's the breakstick got to do with the rape stand? Am I missing something here?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

They need to put Portis and Sanders and the rest of these asshats into a ring and make them fight to the death.....and then hang or electrocute the ones who lose but don't die. I am betting there are a shit ton more of these assholes still in the NFL that have just not been uncovered yet...and I hope they take every one of those thugs and bankrupt them and stick them in jail on a rape stand for the rest of their pathetic lives.

[Somali]

Yeah I'm fairly certain Pitt Bulls are the most common for american dog fighting. I was just curious if these nutjobs were trying to use retrievers to do the job and then killing them off for sucking at it.

Chow's and Shar Peis supposedly do quite well also. The Shar Peis because of the loose skin.

[Somali]

I feel quite certain there are more in the NFL. I've spoken to an ex-NFL player that owns "big dogs that can be used for fighting" and he said as much. At the time, we were talking about labeling certain breeds as vicious. He was actually defending that the breed itself wasn't vicious, but very obedient and wouldn't attack unless instructed to or threatened. During the conversation he'd mentioned the charges against Vick and said they were crap and that all sorts of guys in the league were doing it and that it was pretty well accepted.

[Winnow]

During the conversation he'd mentioned the charges against Vick and said they were crap and that all sorts of guys in the league were doing it and that it was pretty well accepted.

If that's true and a lot are doing it, I can only hope there will be a bunch of NFL players going to prison soon. At the very minimum, I bet they stop doing it which is also at least a positive step.

[Sylvus]

At the very least they should switch over to cockfighting. Because seriously, fuck chickens.

[Funkmasterr]

At the very least they should switch over to cockfighting. Because seriously, fuck chickens.

Ok, that made me crack up

[Sylvus]

The comparason of dog fighting to hunting was (originally? supposedly) made on the weekend by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury. Guess you can put him in the same retard ward as Clinton Portis.

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story/?ID=216656&hubname=nba

I just saw this "clarification" of Marbury's comments.

Here is his complete, unedited statement:

"It is not uncommon for my comments to be misconstrued in the media, but I feel compelled to put my recent comments in the right context.

What Michael Vick did was wrong and he has admitted his guilt. He should be punished. However, he should be given a second chance as others have received for more serious crimes.

There is no list for which animals should be killed and which shouldn't. As a spiritual being, I respect GOD's divine order. We're all created by GOD and animals are GOD's creatures as well. I love animals and none of them should be harmed. However, we don't react the same when other animals are being killed for sport or the sake of human pleasure.

Should we, as a society, stop wearing fur coats and eating meat or hold those accountable who are responsible for the demise of those animals? In order to receive forgiveness, we must all forgive in order for healing to take place.

As an athlete and celebrity, I realize we are convenient targets for scrutiny, often unfairly. When I received a DUI, I learned from the mistake and vowed never to do it again. I came out a better person as a result.

I'm sure he will learn from this mistake and become a better man. My family's thoughts and prayers go out to him and all of those impacted by this unfortunate situation."

[Sueven]

I think they generally use Pit Bulls. Which, ironically, are a breed that only exists because they were bred specifically for dog fighting. IIRC.

I believe you do RC. However, 'pit bull' is a pretty loose term, and there are lots of other fighting dogs as well. My impression is that many fighting dogs are blended from various bull terrier strains. I remember reading somewhere that Vick also bred Presa Canario's, which are pretty badass fighting dogs, but I don't remember reading anything about him fighting or killing Canarios.

Now, I don't mean to defend Vick at all, clearly his behavior is heinous and I'm glad he's going to jail. But...

You can't just ignore the moral equivalence between hunting and dog fighting. Clearly there are a number of ways in which the moral equivalence does not hold (for instance: the dogs are specifically bred to be killed. they fight in a theatrical way that maximizes bloodshed and pain. they have no chance to escape the existence. there are more). The fact that these nonequivalences exist is why dogfighting is significantly worse than hunting, and why dogfighting is strictly illegal while hunting is only regulated.

But there are ways in which the moral equivalence does hold. Both hunting and dogfighting involve causing the violent death of an animal for the enjoyment of humans (ignoring those who hunt for food). While hunters would generally prefer to kill their prey as efficiently and quickly as possible, a quick death is not always the result, especially if you're hunting with a smaller weapon, a bow, or a knife. The least "sporting" methods of hunting (ie, shining a spotlight on a group of deer and mowing them down with high-powered weapons as they freeze) are also the most humane, while the most sporting (bows, knives, etc) are the most painful and cruel. Is being electrocuted, drowned, or slammed to the pavement repeatedly that much worse than being shot in the hindquarters, tracked for miles as you flee bleeding, and then shot to death when you run out of strength? Is it that much worse than having your throat cut with a knife?

Michael Vick is being treated as the absolute lowest of all possible scum. Leonard Little killed a man in a drunk driving accident. He doesn't attract nearly the same scorn. Many players have collected multiple DUI's, meaning that they've created significant risks for the lives of other humans, even after being convicted once. Many players have committed various forms of sexual and physical assaults. These people do not attract anywhere close to the degree of hatred and derision that Michael Vick does. Nor do they generally receive punishments of the same significance.

Hunting lies somewhere on our moral scale. Dogfighting lies in a worse position on that same scale. Is the difference really so great that hunting is perfectly cool A-OK while dogfighting is ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE MAKE HIM FIGHT TO THE DEATH AND SEE HOW HE LIKES IT unacceptable? Is the difference so vast that sexual assault, physical assault, DUI manslaughter, DUI, etc, lie between the two extremes?

Michael Vick also knowingly gave a woman herpes. That earns more of my disrespect than dogfighting.

And consider the perspective of a person who is black, poor, and without access to all the information possessed by those of us who have constant internet access, top-notch reading ability, and skill & practice in sorting through different media accounts to arrive at truth. Such a person knows that Michael Vick is being heavily prosecuted for dogfighting. He also knows that lots of other people participate in dogfighting but are not being prosecuted at all or with nearly the same vigor as Vick. He also knows that Michael Vick is black, and not only black but that sort of 'urban' black which mainstream America seems to have the most problem with (Allen Iverson vs. Kobe Bryant, etc). He also has probably seen images similar to these fairly frequently:

http://www.braintan.com/gallery/moraskythumb.jpg
http://www.hunting-stories.com/Images/C ... CF0005.JPG
http://www.hottrails.com/Images/FreddyHaney-buck.jpg
http://www.sportsmansblog.com/DeerPic3.jpg
http://www.sportsmansblog.com/DeerPic2.jpg

And has undoubtedly noticed that the faces which pop up in these pictures, which are acceptable and celebrated, are nearly exclusively white, while the photos associated with dogfighting feature an awful lot of black faces. Are you totally unable to understand how such a person would read some level of racism into this-- not of Vick's prosecution per se, but of our society, it's structure, the value choices we make that lead some activities to be classified as 'acceptable' and others as 'unacceptable?'

The cafeteria staff where I work are exclusively black, low-income, and from the city. When I went down yesterday, the man who served me my pizza talked to me about Vick for a little while. He concluded by shaking his head and saying "I just don't think it's right." He wasn't saying that Vick is a great guy, or that Vick didn't do anything wrong. He's expressing a generalized frustration with a system that JUST HAPPENS to judge dogfighting as VASTLY worse than hunting, crack abuse as VASTLY worse than cocaine abuse, and so on. He's expressing his frustration with a system that results in people like him having far fewer opportunities, vastly higher incarceration rates, and so on. And I can understand that.

So when you mischaracterize the position as "they think that Vick should get off because he's black," then of course it sounds stupid, and it's easy to say "well he's an asshole regardless of his race," because it's true. But that's mischaracterizing the point that's being made.

The NAACP specifically is making a slightly different point. They're saying "others who have committed similar or worse acts have been allowed to resume their careers. please don't prevent michael vick from doing so simply because his crimes have elicited a visceral reaction more serious than the reactions received by other players in similar circumstances." And make no mistake, there are similar players-- Leonard Little, as mentioned before, or Jared Allen, along with a number of others. And the reason the NAACP thinks that they, specifically, need to say this is because they think that the REASON Vick has experienced such a visceral reaction is because of his race. Not simply because he's black, but also because he's 'urban' black, and also because his crime is perceived as a 'black' crime. The think that if Vick was a more white-acceptable black man, and if his crime wasn't strongly associated with negative black stereotypes, the reaction wouldn't be nearly so bad. And Leonard Little provides a strong example in their support.

Obviously there are other factors that come into play. The strength of the reaction is due largely in part to Vick's megacelebrity when compared with other athlete-criminals, and the fact that there was a healthy amount of anti-Vick sentiment in the country prior to this (of course, was that initial anti-Vick sentiment race-based in itself? maybe...). I'm not endorsing this sort of argument wholeheartedly. I am saying that there IS validity to it, and to act like it's just total meaningless crap is simply to mischaracterize, dismiss, and ignore the argument, and then bask in the fact that you have the luxury of doing so precisely because YOU are the one who occupies the privileged space in society and THEY (the ones who are making the argument) do not. Claiming that there is nothing whatsoever to the argument, that there's no legitimate experience or feeling behind it that deserves attention, is actively embracing ignorance. The argument is about a lot more than whether Mike Vick ought to go to jail or not.

[Funkmasterr]

The comparason of dog fighting to hunting was (originally? supposedly) made on the weekend by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury. Guess you can put him in the same retard ward as Clinton Portis.

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story/?ID=216656&hubname=nba

I just saw this "clarification" of Marbury's comments.

Here is his complete, unedited statement:

"It is not uncommon for my comments to be used by the media to make me look like the douche I truly am, but I feel compelled to put my recent comments in the right context.

I'm a worthless excuse for a human being, as is Michael Vick, and, well... Almost everyone in the NFL, hell professional sports period, is as well"

Fixed.

[Sueven]

Just to add: Kevin Kolb, the Eagles (white) quarterback of the future, recently informed us Eagles fans that he enjoys knife hunting for wild hogs. Was the reaction "my gosh! what kind of satanic, demented person could POSSIBLY take ANY PLEASURE WHATSOEVER in MURDERING poor innocent pigs with KNIVES with his OWN HANDS?" No. It was "man, what a badass. He must be a tough motherfucker. Good for him."

And again, I agree that hunting should be legal and dogfighting should be illegal. But you don't see a LITTLE BIT of an equivalence between the two cases? You don't see how this could appear AT ALL fucked up to someone who might not share your cultural background with regard to the ethics of dogfighting and hunting?

[Somali]

Let me start by saying I completely understand your previous post concerning why the NAACP should be looked at like a complete bunch of morons for their statement.

Then let me counter your most recent statement.
If Vick were in there fighting the Pitt Bulls with a knife rather than forcing to Pitt Bulls to fight for his entertainment. I'd say. Whoa. He's got some serious cajones. Pretty fucked up that he's killing the dogs, but feck me, the boy must be tough.
If he ate the dog after fighting it, my regard for what he did would be lessened further.

I tend to think that killing animals purely for entertainment is pretty f'd up in general. Hunters that kill animals just to watch them die are a little off as well. I've hunted. I've eaten what I killed. Animals are animals and I'm a meat eater. The meat has to come from somewhere, so I can't place the exact same constraints on someone for killing an animal as I do a person. With that said, I stand by the sentiment that people that kill entirely for sport, and do not partake of the food it provides are borked in the head. I'll place a caveat for people that kill an animal in self defense of themselves or their families. As for the guys that hunt with more primitive weapons; their a little off too, but at least they are making it a little more fair for the animal. The hog has a better chance escaping the crazy white dude that jumped out of the tree with a knife than the guy with the 12 gauge.

[Sueven]

Sorry, I'm a little bit unclear on your position. To clarify:

Would you say that someone who hunts deer, solely for pleasure, without having any intention of eating the meat or otherwise using the deer, is the moral equivalent of Michael Vick? If not, why not?

[Wulfran]

I can understand some of what you are trying to say Sueven, and I guess one facet, at least in my mind, is that hunting IS far and away morally superior to dogfighting.

I don't hunt, but I used to. The animals I hunted were animals I intended to eat and believed in killing as humanely as possible. Thats where a lot of the skill in tracking and sneaking up on your prey comes in. I never used a bow and I wouldn't take a shot unless it was a good clean shot that had a high chance of an immediate kill (its how my dad taught me to hunt). When I was a teenager, I'd get home after school in hunting season, grab my shotgun and my dog and go tramp in the bush for an hr or 2 looking for grouse. On weekends I'd go out with my dad or my buddies and go after deer and moose. Personally, I came to a realization that what I enjoyed about it was the spending time outside with dog/Dad/friends and I could do that at times without a gun or killing anything... but I also love the taste of wild game. The kill, be it a grouse, duck, or deer was never something I took a lot of enjoyment from, it was more the necessary part of completing the task. To be honest I got more pride/enjoyment out of landing a nice sized fish when I was fishing than I ever did from killing something when I was hunting.

In terms of the public reaction to Michael Vick, I think a lot of it is because the animals he was dealing with are dogs. I know people who had pitbulls and say they're not as bright as other breeds but are loyal and can be lovable friendly pets. Most of us in the public, make an association of dog with friend/love/loyalty and I think thats where the passion of the reaction comes from. As far as anti-Mike Vick sentiment I think a lot of that stems from football fans in general, from a couple camps: first they hate Atlanta and anything to do with it. second they think Vick is over-rated as a talent. I don't think its racial because I don't see the same attitude with Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, Vince Young. I think there is additional reaction in that this case involves a celebrity's fall from grace, much like we all laughed about Paris Hilton going to jail.

As far as the NAACP, I have a limited knowledge of them. I'm not American so I have a general but limited knowledge of yuor system works. The main response I have to the NAACP's statement is this: as a member of the viewing, franchise merchandise consuming public (I got my copy of Madden 08 already! and I watch football on TV) why should I forgive him and want to see him back? He had the world as his oyster, as the old saying goes, but he was willing to piss it away and lie to us (the viewing and paying public) about it on top of that. And its not like his ass is going to broke even if he never plays another game in the NFL: how many millions has he tucked away in the last 5 or so years? I do believe in 2nd chances but I also believing punishment for trangressions too and Mike Vick hasn't paid his dues yet so he has no right to ask for 2nd chances yet, IMO.

And your knife wielding boar hunter isn't a badass, he's an idiot: those animals used to kill people in the days they hunted em with spears. I'm sure there's technique and skill involved but it smacks of thrillseeking more than hunting.

[Sueven]

I think that's a very reasonable post. Just a few responses:

You sound like you were a very responsible hunter. I'm sure you'll admit, though, that there are hunters who do hunt for the thrill of the kill, who do not intend to eat what they kill, and who are not concerned with killing as humanely as possible. I assume that you think that this sort of hunting is less ethical than the sort you practiced (if that's an unsafe assumption, tell me). How big is the gap between your hunting and their hunting? How big is the gap between their hunting and dogfighting? Is that sort of hunting more like your hunting or more like dogfighting?

I know people who had pitbulls and say they're not as bright as other breeds but are loyal and can be lovable friendly pets.

True. They're sweethearts.

I don't think its racial because I don't see the same attitude with Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, Vince Young.

I don't think all people need to react the same way to every black quarterback in order for their reaction to one black quarterback to be racist. When I wonder if there's racism inherent in their pre-existing disdain for Vick, I don't mean conscious racism-- I'm not picturing people sitting here saying "doesn't Mike Vick know that black folks shouldn't play quarterback?!?!? (although, living around Philadelphia, I have heard people express exactly that sentiment when Jeff Garcia played so well last year-- "I've been saying it for years, all we need is a white quarterback"-- verbatim). I'm talking about subtle systemic biases that lead us to associate certain aspects of the way Vick looks, speaks, presents himself, etc, with negative feelings. And I do think that many black quarterbacks suffer from similar associations (VY especially). It's not as strong with regard to any other QB's, likely because Vick is not only black but also an asshole, and this magnifies any effect.

why should I forgive him and want to see him back? He had the world as his oyster, as the old saying goes, but he was willing to piss it away and lie to us (the viewing and paying public) about it on top of that.

Well, you shouldn't forgive him and want him back. You should just afford him the same chance to return that any other NFL player who does something similarly heinous would receive, and grant him that chance regardless of a society-wide visceral emotional reaction that may unconsciously be partially based on race (as well as being partially based on the fall from grace story, as well as being partially based on our perception of his being an overrated player, as well as our love for cute fuzzy things).

And its not like his ass is going to broke even if he never plays another game in the NFL: how many millions has he tucked away in the last 5 or so years? I do believe in 2nd chances but I also believing punishment for trangressions too and Mike Vick hasn't paid his dues yet so he has no right to ask for 2nd chances yet, IMO.

Maybe. I remember reading that the Falcons may go after up to $22 million of his guaranteed money. I don't know if they're going to do it or not, but $22 million is a lot and I would not be at all surprised if that entirely knocked out his wealth. The man has made a lot of money, so it might not, but I think that saying "fuck him, he's set for life anyway" is a dangerous and potentially untrue assumption.

Also I agree that Vick has no right to ask for second chances at this point, but he's not asking, the NAACP is. I would imagine that if he stabs a man in prison they would probably not continue to request his reinstatement. I think they're just kind of assuming that he will pay his dues here.

[Winnow]

Just to add: Kevin Kolb, the Eagles (white) quarterback of the future, recently informed us Eagles fans that he enjoys knife hunting for wild hogs. Was the reaction "my gosh! what kind of satanic, demented person could POSSIBLY take ANY PLEASURE WHATSOEVER in MURDERING poor innocent pigs with KNIVES with his OWN HANDS?" No. It was "man, what a badass. He must be a tough motherfucker. Good for him."

Were they betting on the pig killings? Were the pigs eaten afterwards?

I have a friend that lives out here in Az but has a cabin in Michigan and goes back every year for deer season. He uses a bow. I don't know if he actually kills anything with the bow but after he manages to kill a deer one way or another, he guts it and turns it all into edible meat. I've had some of the deer jerky he brings back. (at least I hope that's what it is...will have to trust him on it) Good stuff!

I see a clear difference between hunting for something you will eventually eat and betting on animals fighting each other that you torture later if they lose or mistreat them in other ways on top of forcing them to fight. Black people hunt as well. He'll, a common name for the jigaboo is "spear chuckers" after all*. I don't see anything wrong with a black man chucking spears at deer as long as he eats them...I suppose "those people" could chuck spears at dogs as well but you've got to eat them afterwards!

For the record, I don't understand the fun in shooting animals for sport, much less torturing them. I even think all the oppressed crickets in China should be released.

*dont' get all excited, I'm kidding. At least it wasn't a pedo reference.

[Wulfran]

You sound like you were a very responsible hunter. I'm sure you'll admit, though, that there are hunters who do hunt for the thrill of the kill, who do not intend to eat what they kill, and who are not concerned with killing as humanely as possible. I assume that you think that this sort of hunting is less ethical than the sort you practiced (if that's an unsafe assumption, tell me). How big is the gap between your hunting and their hunting? How big is the gap between their hunting and dogfighting? Is that sort of hunting more like your hunting or more like dogfighting?

I take your point. I always viewed many hunters as hazards and as people who should stay out of the bush and stick to supermarkets (and so did Dad ). One story I remember is about a friend of Dad's was going down a pipeline right of way (a trail cut in the bush where a pipeline is buried) and he heard a shot not too far away from him. He stopped and a minute later heard another shot. And another. And Another. He realized they weren't in his direction and kept making his way down the right of way, to where it came up to an oilfield satellite ( a gathering point and junction in an olilfield. a number of individual wells would tie in to a satellite to meter them then go on to a larger processing facility). When he got there, a guy was standing there with a rifle by a pick up and said "damn that must be a tough moose down there. I've shot about half dozen times and he falls but keeps getting back up". It turned out when they walked down the trail a bit they could see it was a pumpjack (one of those oil well pumps that bobs up and down) about a half a mile off and the guy was shooting at the movement of a black object. I always held people like that in disdain and viewed them as hazards because they have no idea WTF they're aiming at. Its a way people can get hurt. In terms of the moral scale, I do view people who are there for the kill but not the meat as morally inferior. If they are being wasteful and not appreciative of the harm they can do, I do see that gulf as fairly significant. But its still not the same as breeding an animal to do nothing more than fight/die in a pit.

I don't think all people need to react the same way to every black quarterback in order for their reaction to one black quarterback to be racist. When I wonder if there's racism inherent in their pre-existing disdain for Vick, I don't mean conscious racism-- I'm not picturing people sitting here saying "doesn't Mike Vick know that black folks shouldn't play quarterback?!?!? (although, living around Philadelphia, I have heard people express exactly that sentiment when Jeff Garcia played so well last year-- "I've been saying it for years, all we need is a white quarterback"-- verbatim). I'm talking about subtle systemic biases that lead us to associate certain aspects of the way Vick looks, speaks, presents himself, etc, with negative feelings. And I do think that many black quarterbacks suffer from similar associations (VY especially). It's not as strong with regard to any other QB's, likely because Vick is not only black but also an asshole, and this magnifies any effect.

See when you add in the part that Vick "is not only black but an asshole" this signifies to me a more probable cause as to why he's disliked more than Culpepper, McNabb, Young et al. People react to assholes. Maybe there is some unconcious racial aversion to some people but I still think its less about the race than the man and his actions, be they past or present.

Maybe. I remember reading that the Falcons may go after up to $22 million of his guaranteed money. I don't know if they're going to do it or not, but $22 million is a lot and I would not be at all surprised if that entirely knocked out his wealth. The man has made a lot of money, so it might not, but I think that saying "fuck him, he's set for life anyway" is a dangerous and potentially untrue assumption.

Also I agree that Vick has no right to ask for second chances at this point, but he's not asking, the NAACP is. I would imagine that if he stabs a man in prison they would probably not continue to request his reinstatement. I think they're just kind of assuming that he will pay his dues here.

As for the money if its under the current contract (that is in limbo, if not voided, because of this situation) I think the Falcons should go after it: he violated the personal behaviour clauses. They shouldn't have the right, and I'd be surprised if they could go after any guarantees for past performances, but if the 22 million is pro-rated as the proportion that he will not play to earn, its good business sense for the Falcons not to pay it. The end result is his past performances should have netted him some significant salary and unless he spent like a drunken sailor (which I realize is not unheard of) he should still have a significant nest egg. In the end he's still had a better shot to set himself up than a kid in a poor neighbourhood of *insert city name* that doesn't have his athletic ability. He's probably earned more in his NFL career than most of will in our careers.

As for assuming that Vick will pay his dues, call me a cynic but when it comes to peoples' behaviour, I never assume the best...

[Tyek]

Sueven,

I am not a hunter, nor do I understand the desire to hunt and kill something, but I find a big difference in the situations. For one, to hunt, it seems to me that there generally is a little luck and lots of skill involved. The hunter has to track, find, and shoot well. Since Mike and his cronies raised most of these dogs, albiet viciously, their probably was not a whole lot of difficulty in rounding them up.

Also if Michael had shot them, while heinous, it would have been quick and easy. Last time I checked most hunters don't hang their prey from a tree until they die. They tend not to drown them either. It takes a pretty fucked up person to kill a dog, but then to go to the extent he went to torture and kill them shows he is not right in the head. Most hunters I do know have some respect for nature and the animals they are hunting. Vick and his friends did not even show respect for the animals they raised. They were a means to make money for him and if they did not look like they could do so, he dispatched them in horrible horrible ways.

I agree with you, hunting is not a pretty sport but to compare the two to me is reaching pretty far.

Edit - I do agree the Leonard Little thing is terrible. If I remember he had multiple DUI's before he killed someone. He should have been put in jail for a long long time.

[Somali]

Sorry, I'm a little bit unclear on your position. To clarify:

Would you say that someone who hunts deer, solely for pleasure, without having any intention of eating the meat or otherwise using the deer, is the moral equivalent of Michael Vick? If not, why not?

I'd place them a half rung up on the ladder. they don't treat the animal cruely in order to ingrain fighting into its behavior. They don't pit 2 equally tortured animals against each other. They just shoot the other animal.

[Sueven]

I am not a hunter, nor do I understand the desire to hunt and kill something, but I find a big difference in the situations. For one, to hunt, it seems to me that there generally is a little luck and lots of skill involved. The hunter has to track, find, and shoot well. Since Mike and his cronies raised most of these dogs, albiet viciously, their probably was not a whole lot of difficulty in rounding them up.

I understand the point, although I would argue that breeding and raising high quality fighting dogs probably takes a significant amount of skill as well. Regardless, though, why does something being difficult make it ethically better? Beating Tom Brady to death would be much tougher than beating Tom Brady's newborn son to death. Is there really a significant moral difference between the two?

Also if Michael had shot them, while heinous, it would have been quick and easy. Last time I checked most hunters don't hang their prey from a tree until they die. They tend not to drown them either. It takes a pretty fucked up person to kill a dog, but then to go to the extent he went to torture and kill them shows he is not right in the head. Most hunters I do know have some respect for nature and the animals they are hunting. Vick and his friends did not even show respect for the animals they raised. They were a means to make money for him and if they did not look like they could do so, he dispatched them in horrible horrible ways.

I'll just quote myself on this:

While hunters would generally prefer to kill their prey as efficiently and quickly as possible, a quick death is not always the result, especially if you're hunting with a smaller weapon, a bow, or a knife. The least "sporting" methods of hunting (ie, shining a spotlight on a group of deer and mowing them down with high-powered weapons as they freeze) are also the most humane, while the most sporting (bows, knives, etc) are the most painful and cruel. Is being electrocuted, drowned, or slammed to the pavement repeatedly that much worse than being shot in the hindquarters, tracked for miles as you flee bleeding, and then shot to death when you run out of strength? Is it that much worse than having your throat cut with a knife?

If my options are being shot with a gun, killed by a knife, killed by a bow and arrow, drowned, beaten, electrocuted and hung, I'd probably take gun > hung > electrocuted > bow and arrow > knife > beating > drowning. Again, is this something that REALLY makes that much difference? Again, I agree that dogfighting is worse, but I'm not convinced that it's always that much worse.

I also want to say a general thanks to everybody for a pretty solid discussion. I was expecting 10 posts telling me I was a moron and little else.

[Tyek]

From a personal reaction, the fact is, I have dogs. I love my dogs and I know how blindly loyal and trusting they are. I have never been around a fighting dog, I assume they are not the same, but my point of reference is what it is. Hunting has been a way of life for mankind from the earliest days and even today we recognize the need to "cull the herd" for the good of the species, so it is not seen as such a negative thing. The dog fighting was used to facilitate illegal gambling, line his pockets with more money and to give him whatever thrill Deon seemed to think he needed.

I don't hunt, but from what little I know of it, the licenses are based on the population size. I think season length is also based on this. I know there are assholes who get around this, but they also face stiff penalties and fines when they are caught. I would hope that jail time would be included if someone purposely broke that law.

My biggest concern with this whole situation is this unbelievable need for some to say he DESERVES to be back in the NFL. As Wulfran stated, it is not his right, it is his privilege. It was his good fortune to have enough talent to be wanted. If in 3 years he still is wanted, I don't care, let him play, but do not expect me to cheer for him. If in 3 years he is not wanted then let him be an electrician, office worker, whatever. He was given the opportunity to live an amazing life, be financially independent and he decided that training and killing dogs was worth more than that.

I thought the same thing with the Dallas Cowboy who decided to run drugs, with Jamal Lewis and with Ray Lewis and Leonard Little. I think they are fortunate they did what they did, when they did it. Today I think most of them would have faced a much tougher penalty, at least career-wise

I also agree it is nice to have a decent discussion for a change, and everyone sucks!!!

[Xyun]

I also want to say a general thanks to everybody for a pretty solid discussion. I was expecting 10 posts telling me I was a moron and little else.

you are a moron.

And has undoubtedly noticed that the faces which pop up in these pictures, which are acceptable and celebrated, are nearly exclusively white, while the photos associated with dogfighting feature an awful lot of black faces. Are you totally unable to understand how such a person would read some level of racism into this-- not of Vick's prosecution per se, but of our society, it's structure, the value choices we make that lead some activities to be classified as 'acceptable' and others as 'unacceptable?'

Modern young black culture promotes criminality and violence. In addition to dog fighting, you can build your "street cred" with murder, rape, abuse, theft, hustling, pimping, lying, cheating, or simply being a fucking lazy bum. When you take an objective look at the culture, it is hard not to have some sort of animosity towards it. While I don't discount the impact of history on it, I believe that the opportunities modern American society provides at large trump the necessity for this type of barbaric behavior. The vast majority of the blame falls squarely on those who perpetuate and glorify violent criminality and thus, disdain for their culture. The racism that entails is therefore a byproduct of the behavior and not vice-versa.

Moreover, a man, regardless of his race, has not only the choice but in my opinion the obligation to uphold some semblance of moral decency and humanity. Vick has repeatedly displayed an inability to meet the lowest standards of ethical behavior that American society at large sets for its citizens. My hatred of him stems from the fact that he is a fucking thug, and not from the facts that he is black or rich or a combination.

All this is not to even mention the manner in which these dogs were being treated from birth to death.

Attempting to justify his behavior by blaming the society at large for racism is itself racism. Just like OJ, black people want a violent criminal to get away with his crime just because he is fucking black. As if being black absolves you from being human.

[Somali]

I understand the point, although I would argue that breeding and raising high quality fighting dogs probably takes a significant amount of skill as well. Regardless, though, why does something being difficult make it ethically better? Beating Tom Brady to death would be much tougher than beating Tom Brady's newborn son to death. Is there really a significant moral difference between the two?

I'd say it depends on the circumstance, but yes. Morally, I would have greater issue with someone beating Tom Brady's newborn son to death than beating Tom Brady to death. Both would criminal acts, both should have very steep fines, but at Least there could be some perceived chance to Tom Brady to fight back or escape and there is the potential for the criminal to be injured or killed himself. Killing a newborn takes no effort and the newborn has no chance. Its the same reason that you have rapists in prison that can be thugs and move on with their prison lives, but a child molester in prison gets is pretty well fucked. Pun intended.

[Somali]

While hunters would generally prefer to kill their prey as efficiently and quickly as possible, a quick death is not always the result, especially if you're hunting with a smaller weapon, a bow, or a knife. The least "sporting" methods of hunting (ie, shining a spotlight on a group of deer and mowing them down with high-powered weapons as they freeze) are also the most humane, while the most sporting (bows, knives, etc) are the most painful and cruel. Is being electrocuted, drowned, or slammed to the pavement repeatedly that much worse than being shot in the hindquarters, tracked for miles as you flee bleeding, and then shot to death when you run out of strength? Is it that much worse than having your throat cut with a knife?

Just to clarify this one. Arrow heads for hunting bows are specifically designed to make the animal bleed out as quickly as possible. This serves 2 purposes. The farther the animal runs, the farther you have to carry the heavy ass thing back to your vehicle (and the adrenaline fucks up the quality of the meat), and it also minimizes the pain for the animal by making the death quick. The intent with the bow is to aim for the heart, maximizing the kill speed.
I'd argue that the knife should be relatively large and have blood grooves in it to serve a similar purpose, but I've really never known anyone psychotic enough to hunt wild boars with a knife. For reference wild boars are quite capable of doing serious damage with their tusks and there is a legitimate possibility of them hitting an artery with the tusks and killing the hunter or seriously injuring him. Hunting deer with a knife would be similarly crazy, partially because of the antlers, but mostly because of the hooves. Getting stompted to death is likely an unpleasant experience. I think I saw a youtube video of a hunter getting beat down by a deer once. I'll look for it and post it if I can find it.

[Somali]

Ah yes.... Kick some ass deer. you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8lDBKApM0U