billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 He only got a third of a prison sentence if it had been 1 dog...he was responsible for torturing and killing hundreds of dogs..they seized 70 dogs that had been brutalized when they busted him. He got nothing more than a slap on the wrist as far as jail time. And as far as money, considering all the money he made off of his organized criminal activities, it's kinda hard to justify feeling bad for him. Now THIS is a sentence more appropriate http://www.itchmo.com/man-receives-102-yea...ed-charges-3856 So the NFL knows better than the American justice system. A 102 year sentence for fighting dogs is the other extreme. I don't know what the average for the sentences are for dog fighting but Vick had better legal representation than most would. I think if a rich non-famous guy was in the same situation he would have gotten not that much worse of a sentence than Vick. If those guys had top of the line lawyers and a relatively clean record they don't get more than 3-5 years in jail. And I don't feel sorry for the guy its just that I feel more in line to respect the right of a person who has served time in prison to seek employment if anyone wants to hire him and not having a league say sorry you can't even though it won't hurt our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 He only got a third of a prison sentence if it had been 1 dog...he was responsible for torturing and killing hundreds of dogs..they seized 70 dogs that had been brutalized when they busted him. He got nothing more than a slap on the wrist as far as jail time. And as far as money, considering all the money he made off of his organized criminal activities, it's kinda hard to justify feeling bad for him. Now THIS is a sentence more appropriate http://www.itchmo.com/man-receives-102-yea...ed-charges-3856 It's kinda ironic that the guy's name is Johnny Ray Lewis don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Its not like he served a few months in jail. He served almost two years in jail and is still under house arrest. I think that every time you get into a car drunk you are doing something you know will put your life and the life of others in danger. Its just as bad even though the intent isn't there. As for your celebrity argument I don't know how much it influenced either way. Some said that they went after Vick as a way to send a message about the prosecution of dog fighting. Others said the same thing you said so who knows which way it went. If they wanted to send a message, they could've actually prosecuted him instead of let him plea bargain his way out of serious prison time Its not the intent its the result. Little's actions ended up killing a man even though that wasn't the intent he still knew it was a very realistic possibility of his actions. On top of Vick losing his rep and the jail time he is bankrupt. I think he has gotten punished pretty hard for what he did At least thats what I think. For one thing, there were some pretty serious results on what Vick did...unless you hate animals or little kids (a lot of little kids lost their best friends to this psychotic monster), I don't see how that can be ignored. For another, when the intent is as heinous and sickening as Vick's intent was, a message has to be sent. Serial killers start out like Vick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I am not arguing the NFL's ability to suspend Vick but more so the morality of a league saying a man can't earn his lively hood even though a team wants to give him a contract simply because they can. If morality was the issue than Leonard Little and all the guys who beat their wives shouldn't be allowed in either. Its not the business side either because as I pointed out in my earlier post the NFL is a juggernaut who won't loose money no matter what happens. The only reason he will suspend Vick is because he wants to show the other players that he has the hammer. So is that really a good reason to keep a guy form making his lively hood after he has paid so much in terms of jail time and money? You keep going back to Little, and I'll keep telling you that Goodell doesn't have the retroactive right to banish someone whose crime was committed EIGHT YEARS before he became commissioner. Why don't we talk about guys who have seen his version of justice? Like Odell Thurman, who hasn't played in three years for the high crimes of two failed drug tests and a DUI arrest? Here's the Roger Goodell I saw last summer: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=67753 And Vick can earn his livelihood in any number of ways. The NFL is a privately-run business, and they can hire -- or choose not to -- by any rules they care to make, as long as they don't run afoul of EEOC laws. Guess he should have considered that before committing a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 So the NFL knows better than the American justice system. A 102 year sentence for fighting dogs is the other extreme. I don't know what the average for the sentences are for dog fighting but Vick had better legal representation than most would. I think if a rich non-famous guy was in the same situation he would have gotten not that much worse of a sentence than Vick. If those guys had top of the line lawyers and a relatively clean record they don't get more than 3-5 years in jail. And I don't feel sorry for the guy its just that I feel more in line to respect the right of a person who has served time in prison to seek employment if anyone wants to hire him and not having a league say sorry you can't even though it won't hurt our business. seeking employment is one thing...but why does that employment have to be in the NFL? He was an average QB on his best days anyway and was going downhill before he got caught. I'm sure there's something else he's qualified to do....you know, other than a life-long criminal. The league's image and bottom line would suffer if he's reinstated...protests, riots, possible death threats...and if you don't see any of that happening, it's time to broaden your scope ...I've seen a lot of people who want to see him dead and while I think death is too good for him, I can certainly understand why people wish that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 If they wanted to send a message, they could've actually prosecuted him instead of let him plea bargain his way out of serious prison time For one thing, there were some pretty serious results on what Vick did...unless you hate animals or little kids (a lot of little kids lost their best friends to this psychotic monster), I don't see how that can be ignored. For another, when the intent is as heinous and sickening as Vick's intent was, a message has to be sent. Serial killers start out like Vick Well I think the prosecution was worried that Vick might find a fall guy or weasel his way out of it through a legal technicality. So they took a deal that sent him to jail for about two years. Vick did a horrible thing but I don't know how many of those dogs were stolen from little children (it doesn't make it better he still hurt them but lets not make Vick out to be a guy who stole dogs from children). Lets also not make Vick out to be a guy who was on his way to being a serial killer. He was wrapped up in a culture that accepted it (once again that doesn't excuse his actions) so I don't think he was going to be a serial killer. Vick is a monster for what he did but not to the level you are insinuating. And I hate to defend him at all. So I don't hate little kids I just think that the NFL isn't above the justice system in terms of morality and the fact that they let Little and all those other scumbags play shows it. So why is Vick the one to pay the Piper because PETA makes a big stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 You keep going back to Little, and I'll keep telling you that Goodell doesn't have the retroactive right to banish someone whose crime was committed EIGHT YEARS before he became commissioner. Why don't we talk about guys who have seen his version of justice? Like Odell Thurman, who hasn't played in three years for the high crimes of two failed drug tests and a DUI arrest? Here's the Roger Goodell I saw last summer: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=67753 And Vick can earn his livelihood in any number of ways. The NFL is a privately-run business, and they can hire -- or choose not to -- by any rules they care to make, as long as they don't run afoul of EEOC laws. Guess he should have considered that before committing a felony. But a team does want to hire him and there are players in the league who have done things just as bad as him so morality goes out the window. And I think Vick should be allowed in because Little and all sorts of scumbags are in the league so why single him out. I don't blame Goodell for Little I just say you can't play the morality card when wife beaters and Little were given second chances with little or no punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But a team does want to hire him and there are players in the league who have done things just as bad as him so morality goes out the window. And I think Vick should be allowed in because Little and all sorts of scumbags are in the league so why single him out. I don't blame Goodell for Little I just say you can't play the morality card when wife beaters and Little were given second chances with little or no punishment. Why can't you accept the fact that this is business? These guys are out to make money. There are millions of dog fanatics out there. Bad publicity of this sort could cost money. Lots of money. Wrt this topic, imro you should forget the issue of right/wrong. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. You need look no further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But a team does want to hire him and there are players in the league who have done things just as bad as him so morality goes out the window. And I think Vick should be allowed in because Little and all sorts of scumbags are in the league so why single him out. I don't blame Goodell for Little I just say you can't play the morality card when wife beaters and Little were given second chances with little or no punishment. No team has actually said they want to hire him as of yet but going by that argument, if OJ Simpson or Rae Carruth finished their sentences and wanted to come back in the league, do you think that should be allowed, too? I truly can't understand how you seem to think that someone who intentionally and willfully tortures and slaughters the best friends of a little kid isn't worse than someone who unintentionally killed someone in a car accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 seeking employment is one thing...but why does that employment have to be in the NFL? He was an average QB on his best days anyway and was going downhill before he got caught. I'm sure there's something else he's qualified to do....you know, other than a life-long criminal. The league's image and bottom line would suffer if he's reinstated...protests, riots, possible death threats...and if you don't see any of that happening, it's time to broaden your scope ...I've seen a lot of people who want to see him dead and while I think death is too good for him, I can certainly understand why people wish that The leagues bottom line won't suffer. The petition to ban Vick has like 25000 signs and who know how many of those aren't doubles. Petitions to bring back canceled TV shows get more signs. How many football fans are going to stop watching football because of Vick? And Death would be Good for him. I understand wanting him to be in jail for life but wanting him dead. He never killed a human being or molested a child. I am not blind to the outrage but I just don't think the outrage is as widespread as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But a team does want to hire him ... Really? Has a reliable source confirmed that, or are you just going on Lombardi's speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 No team has actually said they want to hire him as of yet but going by that argument, if OJ Simpson or Rae Carruth finished their sentences and wanted to come back in the league, do you think that should be allowed, too?I truly can't understand how you seem to think that someone who intentionally and willfully tortures and slaughters the best friends of a little kid isn't worse than someone who unintentionally killed someone in a car accident Sorry if I think a man who takes part in an act that directly could kill a human being is just as bad as someone who kills animals. Because of Leonard Little a woman lost a son and a man will never get to live out his life. Because of Vick a kid lost a hypothetical dog when he could just have easily gotten another one. How many kids get pit bulls? Vick didn't break into kids houses and take their pit bulls. Little went behind the wheel of car when he knew he shouldn't have why shouldn't he drive drunk because he could easily kill someone in doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The leagues bottom line won't suffer. As I said before, I'm sure the league has more qualified people than you or I looking into this, and they'll act appropriately. There's not all that much to be gained from allowing this guy back into the league, especially since his best days are almost certainly behind him. And there certainly is a risk of losing advertising $ from sponsors scared to be associated with a league that would reinstate Vick, whether you see it or not. Nobody is saying they'll stop making money, only that it's possible they'll make less with him around, and that he's not worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 As I said before, I'm sure the league has more qualified people than you or I looking into this, and they'll act appropriately. There's not all that much to be gained from allowing this guy back into the league, especially since his best days are almost certainly behind him. And there certainly is a risk of losing advertising $ from sponsors scared to be associated with a league that would reinstate Vick, whether you see it or not. Nobody is saying they'll stop making money, only that it's possible they'll make less with him around, and that he's not worth the risk. Its a respectable argument but my thought process is one that if all the crap that has happened to NFL players hasn't slowed down the leagues popularity than the Vick situation won't hurt them either. If Vick has a partnership with the humane society than that takes a lot of steam out of the protesters from more unpopular groups like PETA. Once again who here would stop watching the Bills if Vick was allowed to play? Also if Goodell was to suspend him I would be shocked if Goodell didn't say it was for at least in part moral reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Its a respectable argument but my thought process is one that if all the crap that has happened to NFL players hasn't slowed down the leagues popularity than the Vick situation won't hurt them either. If Vick has a partnership with the humane society than that takes a lot of steam out of the protesters from more unpopular groups like PETA. Once again who here would stop watching the Bills if Vick was allowed to play? Also if Goodell was to suspend him I would be shocked if Goodell didn't say it was for at least in part moral reasons. Just to jump in here , Vick is currently under an indefinite suspension by the league. He was suspended before he was sent to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Mike Tyson was allowed to box with no public outrage what so ever after he was convicted for raping a women. No public outrage? What rock were you under when Tyson was released from prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Sorry if I think a man who takes part in an act that directly could kill a human being is just as bad as someone who kills animals. Because of Leonard Little a woman lost a son and a man will never get to live out his life. Because of Vick a kid lost a hypothetical dog when he could just have easily gotten another one. How many kids get pit bulls? Vick didn't break into kids houses and take their pit bulls. Little went behind the wheel of car when he knew he shouldn't have why shouldn't he drive drunk because he could easily kill someone in doing so. Next time, a little research. Little killed a woman named Susan Gutweiler. I've already mentioned her name once here. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Just to jump in here , Vick is currently under an indefinite suspension by the league. He was suspended before he was sent to jail. Yeah good point but if he was to make it for a lifetime he would say it was for morality reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts