Michael Vick Conditionally Reinstated

[Ramp]

can play in 2 preseason games, will be re-evaluated for permanent reinstatement in week 6

[Beef]

I'm curious what you guys think of all this. I keep hearing a bunch of crying out saying he shouldn't have to miss anything else because he already paid his dues and did his time so the NFL shouldn't keep him out any longer because the legal ramifications have run their course and the NFL is just unfairly piling on. I'm not even saying whether he ought to be suspended further or not, but doesn't this seem like silly reasoning to anyone else?

Is that to say if a player does something wrong but doesn't ever have to face jail time that he should not be suspended by the NFL because the law dictated that to be the case? I am positive the people making all these comments in my first paragraph on TV and radio would not agree that suspensions are unfair just because a guy doesnt go to jail, so then why is it so unfair for Vick? That doesn't seem very consistent to me. It has been bothering me.

[MiamiHomer]

I have no problem with Goodell adding a 4 game suspension. I do think it's a poor argument to say he has "suffered" enough punishment from prison and shouldn't be given a suspension.

[Bobbob1313]

I'm curious what you guys think of all this. I keep hearing a bunch of crying out saying he shouldn't have to miss anything else because he already paid his dues and did his time so the NFL shouldn't keep him out any longer because the legal ramifications have run their course and the NFL is just unfairly piling on. I'm not even saying whether he ought to be suspended further or not, but doesn't this seem like silly reasoning to anyone else?

Is that to say if a player does something wrong but doesn't ever have to face jail time that he should not be suspended by the NFL because the law dictated that to be the case? I am positive the people making all these comments in my first paragraph on TV and radio would not agree that suspensions are unfair just because a guy doesnt go to jail, so then why is it so unfair for Vick? That doesn't seem very consistent to me. It has been bothering me.

He should face some sort of suspension, absolutely. If you can be suspended for doing something illegal without getting in legal trouble (Smoking dope), killing hundreds of dogs systematically over the course of a few years should result in some kind of actions on the league's part.

[FishFanInPA]

I think the argument that he's paid his dues to society is bullshit. Does that mean we can bring back the animals he killed? Never can. I guarantee if any of you pulled that shit, you arent given your job back.

It's ridiculous. He killed animals. And he's gonna be sorry all of a sudden? Bullshit.

[Bobbob1313]

I guarantee if any of you pulled that shit, you arent given your job back.

That analogy doesn't hold up, because for the most part, if we weren't rehired for our normal jobs, it wouldn't be decided by some unquestionable authority.

[Beef]

Agreed, we likely wouldn't have an entire industry saying, "you cannot participate"

[FishFanInPA]

No you wouldnt but that little part of the application which asks you about your criminal record would probably prevent you from getting anything more then a janitorial job.

[Bobbob1313]

Depends on the state.

Don't most applications state that it won't necessarily bar you from employment.

And either way, it's not the same at all.

[FishFanInPA]

Yeah because im sure a lot of people are willing to hire a notorious dog killer who has spent 21 months in jail or whatever it was.

[Metes]

I don't think he should have gotten two fucking years anyhow, but somebody had to be made a pariah for this. Goodell has to flex his muscles on the suspension, so whatevs. The suspension is separate from his criminal stuff, it's dumb to say he 'paid his dues.'

[Madman81]

Goodell is way too harsh a dictator in my opinion. The way in which he is god of the NFL, decider of all with all appeals going to he who dished out what is being appealed does not sit right at all with me. I would like to see him get off his high horse. I think time spent not playing because of incarceration is just as good as time suspended, and I see no reason for him to be suspended. I'm not saying that I think someone who gets off scott-free in the legal system for something shouldn't be suspended, but I think that 2 years out of the league is sufficient.

And, get over the killing dogs garbage. Dogs are animals. People kill animals. That Vick got 2 years for this in the first place is complete and utter bullshit.

[Longview]

While i agree with the first part of your post that he should be allowed back in the NFL, i couldn't disagree more with your last sentence.

They didn't just kill the dogs, they brutally executed them by electrocuting them, drowning them, and repeatedly slamming them into the ground, and they would murder dogs that wouldn't/couldn't fight. Its not like they were killing them out of necessity which is the main reason "people kill animals". Anyone who could do that to an animal, is an animal themselves. It pisses me off so much just thinking about it.

But, he has paid his debt that society has placed on him, and he has the right to go out and get a job, and if some NFL team wants to hire him they should be able to, and he should be able to earn a living.

[FishFanInPA]

Clearly Madman has never had any pets or else he wouldnt think that way.

[Metes]

I have had pets. Dogs, even. It wasn't worth two years. The media outcry required him to be made an example of, which is silly. You could get less for killing a person.

[pdub858]

Lets see, Michael Vick is a first time offender. he got almost 2 years in prison. It was a terrible crime but the fact is, it was dog fighting. He did not kill a person (Stallworth) he is not a drug dealer (Lewis) he did not bring a loaded unlicenced handgun to a night club and fire it into his leg, which could have easily been some random passer by (Burress) or fill in the blank ____ (Adam Jones).

I am not saying what he did is or isn't worse than any of these, but he is by far going to serve the longest time in jail and a 6 game suspension (might as well call it that). And that isn't right. I could see 2 games at most.

[Madman81]

While i agree with the first part of your post that he should be allowed back in the NFL, i couldn't disagree more with your last sentence.

They didn't just kill the dogs, they brutally executed them by electrocuting them, drowning them, and repeatedly slamming them into the ground, and they would murder dogs that wouldn't/couldn't fight. Its not like they were killing them out of necessity which is the main reason "people kill animals". Anyone who could do that to an animal, is an animal themselves. It pisses me off so much just thinking about it.

But, he has paid his debt that society has placed on him, and he has the right to go out and get a job, and if some NFL team wants to hire him they should be able to, and he should be able to earn a living.

Clearly Madman has never had any pets or else he wouldnt think that way.

Killing dogs, however many, in whatever way, is not an action that should require as much prison time as Vick received. I'm sorry. Yes, it was brutal, terrible, ect, but at the end of the day, he caused harm only to dogs. Dogs are not people, and they are not important enough to merit all that prison time.

And Fip, I realize you are trying the "omgz you're biased because you've never had any pets" argument to try to invalidate my opinion, but the fact is, that bias works the other way as well. People who own pets are biased against the crime committed because of their passion for their pets.

And while we're at it, pets are owned. Dogs are owned by people. While the actions were brutal, I refuse to agree that all that prison time was deserved because of the way he treated his property.

[Bobbob1313]

There's a point to be made with your 'property' comment, though it would probably not go over well. Either way, that's a bullshit argument.

They are living things, and if je did what he did to people, he would
undoubtedly get life in jail.

You're telling me that consciousness is the different between life in jail with no chance of parole and less than two years? Because consciousness is really the only actual difference between humans and dogs when you take emotion out of it, and shoulnt the law remove emotion as much as possible?

[Madman81]

There's a point to be made with your 'property' comment, though it would probably not go over well. Either way, that's a bullshit argument.

They are living things, and if je did what he did to people, he would
undoubtedly get life in jail.


This is where I stopped reading. You cannot own people. A dogs basically = people argument gets nothing but laughs from me.
--------------------

consciousness is really the only actual difference between humans and dogs when you take emotion out of it

Okay, I decided to keep reading. This is epic fail. I could not possibly disagree with this more.

[FishFanInPA]

Yeah but a Dogs = Property argument is bullshit too. Sure they are yours and you can treat them as good or as bad as you want but most normal people try to treat their property well. You don't buy a new TV and try to break it for fun.

Also, it's illegal. Whether you believe the law is right or wrong, it's illegal to do.

[Longview]

So basically, people should be able to go around murdering dogs and get in very minimal trouble for it?

[Metes]

Yeah but a Dogs = Property argument is bullshit too. Sure they are yours and you can treat them as good or as bad as you want but most normal people try to treat their property well. You don't buy a new TV and try to break it for fun.

This is just... I mean it's such... could you have possibly said an anecdotal statement that is less relevant to the argument here?

[Beef]

I could argue the consciousness thing with dogs not being so different. Stick a small dog on a table 8 feet off the ground, he will hesitate and likely not jump off that table to get back on the ground. I would say that displays consciousness on the part of the dog. Conscious of its surroundings, etc.

Fip, the thing you did with the TV and dogs thing is just horrible.

EDIT: MATT WILSON, SAME TIME!

[Metes]

See Beef agrees

[Madman81]

So basically, people should be able to go around murdering dogs and get in very minimal trouble for it?

What's minimal? Two years is way, way too much.

[FishFanInPA]

Alright, so then under Madman's thing, Beef can beat his kitten and treat it like shit and everything's okay because it's his property.

Okay...Just making sure.

[Metes]

Alright, so then under Madman's thing, Beef can beat his kitten and treat it like shit and everything's okay because it's his property.

Okay...Just making sure.

No, but he can beat up his TV

[FishFanInPA]

Normal people wouldnt do that.

[Longview]

What's minimal? Two years is way, way too much.

What would you consider to be a suitable sentence?

[Madman81]

Alright, so then under Madman's thing, Beef can beat his kitten and treat it like shit and everything's okay because it's his property.

Okay...Just making sure.
Go ahead and show me where I said this.
What would you consider to be a suitable sentence?

I'm not sure, I'd have to give it some more thought.

[Beef]

Alright, so then under Madman's thing, Beef can beat his kitten and treat it like shit and everything's okay because it's his property.

Okay...Just making sure.

Under your thing, I can beat the fuck out of my kitten but I would not want to drop my tv for fun but I could drop my tv

[wanks1212]

Goodell's an asshat, but I have much less of a problem with his actions here than with some of his other actions, mainly suspending players who haven't been convicted of/pled to anything.

The dogs = property so you can do whatever you want argument is retarded, because there's still a distinction between non-living and living property, and when you kill living property (say, you own a farm and slaughter cows for meat), you still have to kill in a "humane" way or you can be prosecuted. Even if Vick could kill his dogs, (and, say, if he were broke and starving and killed his dogs for meat, and did so in a humane way, I'd have no problem with that) the manner in which he did so was undoubtedly inhumane and deserving of punishment.

That said, in America the distinction between teh way we treat dogs and the way we treat other animals, such as farm animals, is pretty absurd. If a news story about a dog being tortured comes out, eveyrone is OMGHOWCULDUILUVDOGS!!!111 and then asks for absurd punishments, whereas if a news story about cows/pigs/chickens being tortured appears on the news public perception is like "whatever, PETA, get a life and let me enjoy my bacon encrusted chicken covered steakwich." It's pretty absurd.

And Fip, I'm a dog owner and still find the double standard ridiculous.

[Beef]

Hey Fip, dogs are pets or else theyd be something else

[Bobbob1313]

This is where I stopped reading. You cannot own people. A dogs basically = people argument gets nothing but laughs from me.
--------------------


Okay, I decided to keep reading. This is epic fail. I could not possibly disagree with this more.

So killing and torturing hundreds of dogs doesn't deserve a 2 year jail sentence? That seems low to me.

I'm not equating dogs with humans, I'm just trying to compare it and make you see how ridiculous it is to say that two years is "way, way too much".

And it wasn't just killing a couple of dogs. He knowingly ran an illegal organization that trafficked drugs, endorsed and handled illegal gambling, AND killed hundreds of dogs. He didn't just get two years in jail for killing dogs.

Are you hanging your argument on the "property" thing?

Yes, beef. Is it fair to bring that up, or am I harping to much on one comment?

[Izzie]

Since when is 2 years a lot in the world of prison sentences? That's less than, let's say, repeat drug offenders get. MWilson says you can get less for killing a person - yeah, sure involuntary manslaughter or something. Not I DID THIS WITH MALICE. He probably got off on doing that shit considering he didn't just let the unfit dogs go. I'm glad they made him an example and hopefully it deterred other people who wanted to get into this business. I'm glad the message it sent out is "Damn, if a celebrity is gonna go down for this, I'm really going down for this." I'm not gonna feel sorry for him that other NFL players haven't gotten punishment for their actions and he has. In my world, he'd be locked up for life for proving what he's capable of doing.

[Beef]

chrisbob, eye dee kay

[Bobbob1313]

I won't, because it's not really going to matter.

[Beef]

ChrisRob, I think it was legal

[CrimsonCane]

I think the main question (with regard to his proposed suspension) is whether you view an NFL suspension to have run concurrently or consecutively with his prison time. If concurrent, then Vick has already faced a 2 year suspension from the NFL for what he did. If you think his penalty from the NFL should not go in to effect until AFTER his prison time, then he hasn't been punished by the NFL yet and 4 games isn't unreasonable.

I happen to think he should not face an additional suspension. Your time away from sports should not be tolled merely because outside factors would have prevented you from playing as well. If someone gets suspended 50 games for juicing, we don't pause their suspension if they happen to get injured during that time and wouldn't have been able to play anyway.

I feel the same ought to go for the legal consequences of one's actions. If you face jail time for what you did, and the jail time is sufficiently lengthy whereby the length of a reasonable suspension has passed, you should not get a suspension tacked on after prison time.

If so, imagine this outcome: Player gets a 10 game suspension before a verdict is rendered. (Not unlikely under the Goodell regime) The player's suspension is at Game 7 when he gets hit with a 1 year prison sentence. He immediately goes to jail and misses an entire season. Does he have to finish out Games 8-10 of his suspension once out of jail? I think that's unfair. We have fixed term punishments for a reason.

[Longview]

Yep, i agree CC, its like double jeopardy.

[pdub858]

My argument with this is that Vick does not deserve the 6 week suspention based on what other people who do equal or worse things get. I absolutly hate seeing anyone do harm to animals and I am a huge animal lover but you have to point where the thing you did is behind you. Vick commited a crime and was punished, he served his time that the LAW felt suitable. If some team wants to pay him and let him play for them with his image, that should be there choice.

Another way to look at the NFL, People are saying that if Joe Random did this would he be allowed to go back to his job and so on. The way you need to look at this in my opinion is:
The NFL should be looked at as another Government, It rules over everyone in the NFL. The individual teams should be looked at as the Employer.

Vick was fired from his job: Atlanta Falcons QB
The NFL as the Government is Punishing him again for a crime that he has already served his sentence for.

Just my thoughts on how you should look at this.

[Beef]

Here is my question for people who thought Vick ought not be suspended with the reason being that he already served his time (not sure who it was or if it was anyone here for sure).

What do you think of the Donte Stallworth suspension? Suspended for the season, is that fair? He already served his time in jail, no? Why should the NFL add on beyond what the law felt was his needed time away? Just curious what people think about that

[wanks1212]

Vick already missed a few years of games due to his prison sentence, whereas Stallworth hasn't missed any yet and won't due to his shorter amount of time in jail.

[Ramp]

Also, Stallworth getting 23 days of prison for hitting a man while he (DS) was drunk, is ridiculous

He paid off the family

[wanks1212]

would justice be better served if Stallworth spent more time in jail but the family didn't get money?

[Ramp]

I dunno

[PitchingWinsGames]

would justice be better served if Stallworth spent more time in jail but the family didn't get money?

Well, if the family is ok with it (I don't know if they are or aren't, haven't followed the story) that's all that matters.

[Metes]

Well, if the family is ok with it (I don't know if they are or aren't, haven't followed the story) that's all that matters.

Right, because we wouldn't want a guy who drives drunk and kills people to be rehabilitated or anything.

[PitchingWinsGames]

Right, because we wouldn't want a guy who drives drunk and kills people to be rehabilitated or anything.

I hate DUI and such more than anyone, but, the question posed was

"would justice be better served if Stallworth spent more time in jail but the family didn't get money?"

"Justice" is subjective and ultimately what we think justice is means nothing because we aren't affected by that. The family's take on whether or not there was justice, and the fact that it was upheld in a court of law, is all that matters.

I've debated with people that anyone else would have seen more jail time and such... but it doesn't matter, if the people directly affected are satisfied with the result (as much as they can be, all things considered) and Stallworth is going to go through a suspension and conditional reinstatement... then what's the difference?

Do you really think someone who drives drunk is going to be rehabilitated by jail time any more than he would be by the realization that his idiotic decision resulted in the death of man?

[CrimsonCane]

Yea, for that matter, why not just let the victim (or family) select the appropriate punishment every time?

[PitchingWinsGames]

Yea, for that matter, why not just let the victim (or family) select the appropriate punishment every time?


"Justice" is subjective and ultimately what we think justice is means nothing because we aren't affected by that. The family's take on whether or not there was justice, and the fact that it was upheld in a court of law, is all that matters.


:thumbup

[Metes]

Well the debate of the rehabilitative effectiveness of jail time is it's own issue, and I won't go into that here.

But I think the greater point is that the purpose of the judicial system is not just retribution, but the protection of society as well, by removing/rehabilitating those who pose a danger to society (such as people who drive drunk and kill people).

[PitchingWinsGames]

Well the debate of the rehabilitative effectiveness of jail time is it's own issue, and I won't go into that here.

But I think the greater point is that the purpose of the judicial system is not just retribution, but the protection of society as well, by removing/rehabilitating those who pose a danger to society (such as people who drive drunk and kill people).

Do you think that Donte Stallworth, who has already killed a person driving drunk, gone through the court process and knows that he is basically under a microscope for the next however long is more a danger to society than any of the other idiots who HAVEN'T been busted driving drunk yet?

I'd say Stallworth isn't a "danger to society" anymore. I honestly don't believe that Stallworth in jail right now protects society anymore than Stallworth out of jail.

[Metes]

That's not the point. The exception doesn't make the rule.

[CrimsonCane]

That's kind of twisted logic no? Not everything held up by a court of law is just.

Even if the family was cool with it, you can still ask whether it is just that the justice system permits someone to get what many consider to be kid gloves treatment (considering the offense) because the family got hush money.

[PitchingWinsGames]

That's not the point. The exception doesn't make the rule.

I was answering a specific question about a specific incident, though. Im perfectly aware of the ramifications of precedents and this will go down as just another "rich, famous person buying their way out".
--------------------
That's kind of twisted logic no? Not everything held up by a court of law is just.

Even if the family was cool with it, you can still ask whether it is just that the justice system permits someone to get what many consider to be kid gloves treatment (considering the offense) because the family got hush money.

I don't disagree with this, but like I've said... in this specific instance (future precedents and ramifications, therein, aside) ultimately, the only difference in result is that Donte Stallworth may or may not be playing football as soon as next year.

[wanks1212]

Well the debate of the rehabilitative effectiveness of jail time is it's own issue, and I won't go into that here.

But I think the greater point is that the purpose of the judicial system is not just retribution, but the protection of society as well, by removing/rehabilitating those who pose a danger to society (such as people who drive drunk and kill people).

He has a lifetime suspension from receiving a driver's license. So while he could conceivably drive without a license and kill someone again, hopefully that part of the plea agreement ensures he won't drive and kill someone again.

The whole idea of Stallworth "buying" his way out of this makes me feel icky, especially since his settlement money was covered by insurance. If he were a public defender client, he'd be awaiting trial with the possibility of 15 years in jail, if he hadn't pled guilty and copped some sort of agreement (which, based on the circumstances of the accident, may still have been likely, but his sentence would probably have been much harsher). The double standard sucks.

At the same time: if the family is going to have severe financial difficulty supporting themselves now that the primary breadwinner is dead, allowing them to receive money from Stallworth, as opposed to having him sit in jail and them hoping to get money from a civil trial that may or may not come based on the result of the criminal trial, then allowing the family to get money that will allow them to live/support themselves while they wouldn't be receiving income from another source isn't the worst outcome. The problem is that it seems like blood money, in a sense, and it gives the impression that celebs/rich people can buy themselves out of trouble. Which sucks, and isn't the way the world should work.

No, it's not ideal - in a perfect world, the family would receive restitution AND Stallworth would spend significant time in jail. But that likely wouldn't have happened.

[PitchingWinsGames]

At the same time: if the family is going to have severe financial difficulty supporting themselves now that the primary breadwinner is dead, allowing them to receive money from Stallworth, as opposed to having him sit in jail and them hoping to get money from a civil trial that may or may not come based on the result of the criminal trial, then allowing the family to get money that will allow them to live/support themselves while they wouldn't be receiving income from another source isn't the worst outcome. The problem is that it seems like blood money, in a sense, and it gives the impression that celebs/rich people can buy themselves out of trouble. Which sucks, and isn't the way the world should work.

No, it's not ideal - in a perfect world, the family would receive restitution AND Stallworth would spend significant time in jail. But that likely wouldn't have happened.

This is pretty much my general take on it.

[Longview]

I believe the light sentence also had to do with the surveillance tape of the accident that showed the victim pretty much running out in front of the car...The tape hasnt been released so only the people involved in the case actually know what happened but i believe that played a part.

Not defending Stallworth's actions...just sayin...