HShockeywatcher wrote:Wait here fellas. One big thing that the people of our country take pride in is the fact that we are "innocent until proven guilty." So we need to give him that privilege too. It sounds like he's guilty, but it hasn't been proven yet. And until it has, he's innocent.
If he is guilty, yes, he should be made an example of and be banned from the NFL to make an example for ALL sports out there that you aren't invincible. I just keep going back to one thing though. There was a football player who killed a person and got away scotch free. Knowing that, I'd say his odds are pretty good.
But hey, if he goes to jail, at least he'll have corn rolls to share with the other inmates
This is the exact opposite of what you just said in your last post of the Bonds thread
HShockeywatcher wrote:Just because it can't be proven that he's guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. This is an example of where being innocent until proven guilty sucks. We know he's guilty, we just can't prove it. If he's so innocent like you say gopher, why doesn't he prove it?
If comparing apples and oranges "makes you" then more power to ya.
I personally know nothing of Vick's past, nor do I care or particularly want to, but a defense like that in John Grisham's book "The Chamber" does make sense in a lot of society. As someone pointed out on ESPN, "when you get rich, no one's there to hand you a rule book." It is possible a professional athlete grow up participating in something like this. I'm not sure if addictions are technically medical conditions.
Alcoholism is a disease. That and drug use, especially if done during pregnancy, will have a lot to do with if your kids use. If they actually never touched them, that's why they never started.
These are reasons "society is responsible." Also, if I were him I'd be pretty upset with my agent at this point. How could you let your biggest client participate in something like this?
Missing my point about being about to put dogs down. If your friend Joe suddenly has his 5 dogs die, no one's the wiser. I'm not saying what he did is okay at all, just a little odd how it got looked into and no one else is getting in trouble.
Govs is correct,.....he did not directly suggest that "anyone take responsibility for Vick's action,....and I appologize.
However,......Theref, first indicated a "dislike for our society",....then tempered it with "room for improvement",......and finally the silly statement of this (Vick's actions) being "more accepted in our society as compared to others",......and Govs agreeing, and stating "society has made Michael Vick front page news",.....and "how shallow our society's values are",....and that "our society isn't right". With these negative statements of our society, why,....in a thread about some poor choices by Micheal Vick,.....other than to blame society,....or provide an excuse for him,.....or at least rationalize a reason for the poor choice,.....are they made?
With regard to the media they also are not to blame for Vick's poor choice. They have only choosen to keep it in front of us, for whatever reason,....people are not demanding it, media is putting it there. If rationalizing the media actions (as demand by the people) by ratings,....the ratings are continuing to drop (star trib for example). The media seems to be more concerned with some other adgenda, than presenting the news,.....but that is another topic.
We are all part of society,.....which is precisely why we should not accept ANY blame for Vick's actions, or anyone else's poor choices. He did it,....that's it. The overwhelming majority of society is much, much better than that.
Finally, with regard to "arguments",.....there IS no argument because there is no debate. Vick did what he did. He is responsible for his actions,......just as we are responsible for ours. Nothing to argue,....unless you are trying to argue that we are responsible for HIS actions,.....and Govs has already received an appology for that misconclusion.
packerboy wrote:Knowlzee, I agree that Vick, if guilty, is responsible for his actions and should bear whatever criminal responsibility that is associated with it.
He, and he alone is to blame.But thats only half of the equation.
But why should he be banned from playing football? If you were convicted of a crime, should you lose your job?
If he is convicted, what job should he be "allowed" to work at?
Thats the other half.
Dog pound cage cleaner. Well, it would be ironic justice wouldn't it?
I get your point packerboy. I'm purely speculating but if part of the NFL contract has a provision about conduct off the field then he could be banned. As hypocritical as it can be about it, the NFL does have a public image to protect and has a right to reject an employee whose off-field behavior would jeopardize that public image. Yeah they're not always consistent in enforcing it, but they have banned guys for gambling and drugs if for limited periods. If he were a sewer worker for example, someone not in the public eye, you'd have a stronger argument.
Before this story really blew up, I heard someone on ESPN radio saying that it's difficult to get a conviction in these cases, so there may be a chance that Vick will escape conviction.
The NFL, if they choose,....should be allowed to ban any player they want. It is their game. Just as any company should be allowed to fire (or promote) any employee, it's their company.
The NFL (just like a company) has to deal with the profits and losses and made the risk at startup. They must have control of the product. Quite frankly, they need to pay more attention to the product, or they may be headed in the way of the NBA. Possibly, if it weren't for fanatasy football, they may be in about the same position.
For those of you wondering if, when, and by whom the race card would be played...
The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning. Dr. R.L. White, Jr., accused the government of "piling on."
"There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness. Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."
Knowlzee wrote:The NFL, if they choose,....should be allowed to ban any player they want. It is their game. Just as any company should be allowed to fire (or promote) any employee, it's their company.
The NFL (just like a company) has to deal with the profits and losses and made the risk at startup. They must have control of the product. Quite frankly, they need to pay more attention to the product, or they may be headed in the way of the NBA. Possibly, if it weren't for fanatasy football, they may be in about the same position.
Packerboy is right,....baseball and hockey.
P.S. I'd be surprised if he's banned.
Your right he's worth to much to the NFL...the sensationalism will die down and he will be back in a football uniform..I don't see any jail time either.
Right or wrong if OJ can walk..this is a cake walk!
Knowlzee, if you honestly think that "The overwhelming majority of society is much, much better than that" you must live in a box.
For anyone to make a blanket statement for what situations any other persons grew up under and what is normal behavior for them is completely wrong. It's the same reason why people who were abused as children and grow up to abuse their children often don't go to jail. They get help. It's the cancer vs. alcoholism thing. Both diseases, if someone has cancer you feel bad for them, if someone has alcoholism you look down on them. Don't know what is the case here, neither do ANY of you, so don't judge until we do.
He has a job, a boss, an owner, and they can make rules for it. If your boss says if you do a certain crime, you're fired, and you do it, you're can't just say "you can't take my job because I did a crime"; it's something you signed, same with him. It happens all over society. If you've been a truck driver for 30 years and get a DWI, you will never drive a truck again. Just one example.
HShockeywatcher wrote:I'm not saying what he did is okay at all, just a little odd how it got looked into and no one else is getting in trouble.
There are four men named in the indictment, not one. I think you are confusing "trouble" with "publicity."
I disagree with those of you who think a high-paid lawyer is going to get him out of this. The fact that this is a federal case doesn't bode well .... the feds tend to indict only when they have a strong case. SI reported that there were several other grand jury witnesses (4 or 5) that directly placed Vick at fights on different days and locations (i.e. this wasn't just going on behind his back on some property that he happened to own). And then there is the one guy who plea bargained today -- he's going to throw Vick under the bus. Me thinks MV is in mucho trouble.
Its a little different though Knowlzee. An NFL ban means he cant play pro ball in this country.
If Pillsbury fires me, I can go to work for Cargil.
But they can do whatever they want. Its just curious to me why so many people feel that they should lose the right to play pro sports if they are guilty of a crime.
Its not like they are in any position of responsibility or anything.
I can't tell exactly what some of you are getting at, but if the suggestion is that he'll get a lifetime ban, there's no possible way - unless he does something equally as stupid again. He definitely could be out a season though (maybe more if he gets time in the pokey). If he gets a lifetime BAN, the NFL is going to have a big fight with the NFLPA on their hands, and one they can't possibly win - unless you're a member of PETA... they'd likely back the NFL on that one.
Yeah, 4 is the same as 1 is comparison to how many people in the NFL participate in dog fighting. It would be like 4 people getting in trouble for steroids. It's a small portion of those responsible.
If you're fired from the NFL,.....you go to the arena football league. Actually, Michael Vick is more suited for the NBA. He would probably be a welcomed addition to their league. Or, there is always the WWF. This is America, if you want to work,....there is employment.
Prediction: Vick may be banned from the NFL, about the same time.......O.J. will find his wife's (and Mr. Goldberg) killer.
Watcher, knowlzee's house is by no means extravagant,but.....not sure if it would be called a box.
Have not met anyone that has ever been to a dogfight,or......even had a curious desire to go, much less be a part of organizing it. I do not know any killers. I know of one bank robber (desperate gambling situation, I think) that is now serving his time in jail. I know a few drinkers,..... some that even smoke. Most poeple that I know, go to church. Yeah, overall,....the overwhelming majority of society (in my glass is half full world) is much, much better than that.
Maybe I need to get out of my "box" more,.....but if it is that bad out there,.....maybe I'll just stay in (and post on minnhock).
Knowlzee wrote:
Maybe I need to get out of my "box" more,.....but if it is that bad out there,.....maybe I'll just stay in (and post on minnhock).
What would you or any of us have to do, or where would we have to go, where this type of behavior is remotely considered normal? I haven't a clue. Nor do I wish one.
I willfully enter Knowlzee's "box", and pity the rest.
You're right, the views I am sharing that were views of some on ESPN shared by others on there and completely incorrect.
If you think your (seems to be) middle to upper middle to upper class life is even close to "The overwhelming majority of society" then you are also sadly mistaken. In addition, I'm not saying that a majority of people participate in dog fights (probably you purposely missing the point), I'm saying that many participate in things that aren't great and if given the means (which we won't waste our time debating that Michael has) will take it too far. Just because you have millions, doesn't make you a ethical person.
I know, private schools have no financial aids. All students at private schools pay full tuition. I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
PanthersIn2011 wrote:Do you realize how incredibly ironic it is for a St. Thomas grad to be lecturing us all on our sheltered upper middle class lives?
HShockeywatcher wrote:I love how everyone gets their undies in a bundle whenever I am accused of changing the and those same people never stay on topic.
