Convicted felons playing in the NFL (1 Viewer)

[corpcow]

With the Vick signing, there seems to be a lot of people picking up the "he should never be allowed to play again". I personally find the double-standard puzzling, especially when we put this up against the Stallworth situation.

So I have a multi-part question:

1) What are some other NFL players (currently active or otherwise) who played in the league after being convicted of a felony?

So far I have:

Leonard Little - vehicular manslaughter/DUI
Michael Irvin - felony drug possession
Ray Lewis - obstruction of justice in a murder
Plaxico - felony weapon possession (obviously, not active now but most not calling for a lifetime ban)
Pacman Jones - technically a felon since he pled guilty to obstruction of an officer case in GA2) Why are we (fans) and the league more willing to forgive DUI + vehicular manslaughter (which I think is the worst offense listed), felony drug possession, felony weapon possession, and obstruction of justice in a murder case, but not Vick?

I'll also point out that Vick pled guilty to "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture" - but denied any involvement in the actual killing of any dogs himself, so not like he even can even be said to be a "convicted dog killer" like some say - UNLIKE Little or Stallworth who are both convicted killers of HUMANS.

 

[TheWheel]

The reason there is a moral double standard is because people love their dogs. They are "man's best friend." A dog, not a human is man's best friend. Dogs are cute. Humans aren't as cute. Sounds shallow, but America has never been known for it's moral depth.

 

[JBIZZLE]

Well, he did actively take part in TORTURING a living creature. Not that taking a human life is not important, but any one of us could accidently kill someone while driving our cars. Yes, I agree if you are drinking and driving that is completely different. However, I don't know anyone who would strangle, drown, shock, and starve a dog. That is pretty sick if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I would feel absolutely horrible if I accidently killed someone while driving.

 

[timschochet]

I have a question I have long thought about, and this thread is as good as any:

Suppose OJ Simpson had killed his wife and Ron Goldman during the prime of his career in Buffalo, and suppose he had received the same "Not guilty" verdict, even though a majority of Americans believe him to be guilty. Would an NFL team sign OJ to play, and would the public accept it?

 

[Jack Burton]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:

Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

 

[JBIZZLE]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

 

[netnalp]

Leonard Little is the one I have the biggest problem with. Even after he killed someone, he is still drove drunk after that.

I would hope the NFL wouldn't allow Rae Carruth to become involved in any way with the league, as a scout or coach for instance.

 

[Twilight]

Leonard Little is the one I have the biggest problem with. Even after the killed someone, he is still drove drunk after that.

 

[TheWheel]

According to the criminal case, he never actually killed any dogs; he bankrolled his friends and his friends were his major problem. Most of the problems which have stained his career have been due to his friends. I am 100% sure that if he didn't have friends interested in dog fighting, he wouldn't have got in trouble for anything. This is the thing that is often left out. If you grew up somewhere and all your friends were hoodlums, wouldn't some of their activities be put in front of you? Did Vick need money via gambling? I don't think so. His friends wanted their own money so they used his to buy/sell drugs and gamble on dogs. I am not saying that Vick is innocent, rather he is as nearly as much of a victim as those dogs. He lied to protect his friends pretty much.

And driving drunk and killing somebody is not an accidient. It is a miscalculated risk. Stallworth should face more heat but he doesn't. The fact is that even if he didn't mean to kill somebody, he still killed somebody and he should have to be as accountable as if he shot a guy in a drunken fit. He made every choice the same way Vick chose to stick with his friends.

 

[Chairshot]

I personally don't find any judgment of Vick to be a "double standard". I think each of these cases should get judged based on it's own merits. I find very little value in comparing Vick to Stallworth to Irvin to Little. There are *far* too many variables in each of these cases to make any of them an apples to apples comparisons.

As far as why fans tend to hate Vick more then some of the others, I think love of dogs plays a part of it.

I think the bigger part is that when people judge others, they tend to put themselves in the shoes of the person who committed the act in question. Many people have driven drunk, many people have tried drugs, many people have become upset to the point of violence. Even if a person hasn't been directly in those shoes, many can imagine what it would be like in those types of situations. Most of those situations fall under the a broad category that some people consider "human imperfection". People don't always make wise decisions - and most people can forgive a stupid mistake, even if the consequences are severe.

However, very, very few people can put themselves in the shoes of a guy who deliberately funded and participated in, over a period of many years, an organized and extensive dog fighting ring.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to torture animals - animals that are widely considered to be innocent. Pretty brutal stuff.

I think if Vick had been found betting on, say, one dog fight, people would be OK with that. They would think he was a bad guy, but they would get over it. People are generally not OK with the level of blatant intent that Vick had with this situation. The stuff he did was pretty brutal, he did it purposefully over a long period of time and evidently seemed to get a ton of enjoyment out of it. People (rightly) find that to be sick.

I don't think anyone would say what Stallworth did was right (though the facts of that particular case definitely don't seem nearly as cut and dried as many people make it out to be), but they can understand a mistake with great consequences. They generally don't understand willful intent for a long period of time.

Bottom line for me, I personally think what Vick did was horrible. But I definitely believe in second chances and I hope he has learned enough to know why it was horrible and I hope he will never does it again.

Regardless of how I feel about what he did, I don't begrudge him the right to make a living if someone will hire him. Everyone should have a right to support themselves in the best way they can, especially if they are truly trying to turn their life around (which, at least to this point, seems to be the case with Vick).

 

[Chairshot]

According to the criminal case, he never actually killed any dogs; he bankrolled his friends and his friends were his major problem.

While this is true as it pertains to the case, it's pretty misleading to say that he didn't kill any animals because the facts of the case don't say that he did.The Feds weren't looking for a case based on killing dogs.It's common knowledge that Vick failed an FBI administered polygraph test in regard to his denial of personally killing dogs. It's also common knowledge that after he failed the polygraph, he backed off the denial and admitted he took part in killing dogs himself.I really don't get the idea that Vick is as much a victim as the dogs. The guy was the ringleader of the whole operation. He evidently enjoyed dog fights quite a bit and also evidently thought it was funny when bait animals were torn apart by the fighting dogs. Portraying him as a well-meaning victim of his manipulative friends seems disingenuous to me.

 

[GDogg]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Purely accidental? How do you accidentally drink to the point of having your BAC (.126) well-above the legal limit and then drive?This wasn't an "accident." Stallworth made a specific choice and it led to the death of another person.

 

[Stealthycat]

thank gawd he didn't break a bald eagle egg

 

[bostonfred]

Remember when ESPN couldn't stop talking about how evil Terrell Owens was? And yet Vick hasn't even come close to catching up to him in terms of negative press.

Oh, and by the way, could you pick a worse coach to try to handle a tough situation like this? Reid completely flubbed with Owens, set the team back, dealt with substantial personal issues, watched the team struggle, then finally got the team into some semblance of order, and now they're going to bring in another huge distraction? From a purely football perspective I think Vick's a great fit for that team, but from a locker room perspective, the Eagles just don't handle these things well.

 

[ditka311]

Truth is, it is very tough for a convicted felon to find anykind of meaningful work. Usually, its some kind labor intensive job for low wages. About 99.9% of felons can't find work in their chosen career. Except in the NFL.

There are plenty of people who say "why continue the guy's sentence after he's paid the price and did his time?" I agree that you can't or shouldn't make the person a prisoner for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, that's now how it works. Most felons have a hell of a time finding a job. Those with skills good enough to be a professional athlete rarely see this. A good portion don't find it so easy and often turn back to crime.

So yes, it is a double standard. You will have those in Philly or elsewhere saying that we shouldn't continue to penalize Vick for his crimes. Yet in the real world, this is exactly what happens. I work in Corporate America. If I was ever convicted of a felony, I would end up being a janitor, carpenter, etc. I would never be able to return to my former profession.

Spare me the, he needs to make a living - why keep punishing him argument. The guy is probably making a min of $700K, abut 20x what any other convicted felon would make.

To the guy saying "oh, it's his friends who made him do it". Really? Get ####ed. Beyond that I can't say what I want to without getting banned, if I haven't yet.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:

Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Purely accidental? How do you accidentally drink to the point of having your BAC (.126) well-above the legal limit and then drive?This wasn't an "accident." Stallworth made a specific choice and it led to the death of another person.

I saw the E60 interview of Stallworth saying he took 4 shots.. my question is with a BAC of that level would it be that high hours later... meaning, was he lying.

 

[netnalp]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Purely accidental? How do you accidentally drink to the point of having your BAC (.126) well-above the legal limit and then drive?This wasn't an "accident." Stallworth made a specific choice and it led to the death of another person.

I've read that the guy Stallworth killed, may not have been crossing the street legally. Some sources say he wasn't at a crosswalk and that it wasn't displaying the walk signal. It's possible that Stallworth got a light sentence if it was concluded that there was a high probability that the guy would have been struck even if Stallworth had been sober. If that's not the case, then he got off with too light of a sentence.

 

[Knobs]

Imo Jeramy Stevens is a bigger scumbag than Vick.

 

[Steelfan7]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Yeah I hate it when I accidentally drink so much alcohol and smoke weed to severely impair my driving enough to the point that I can't even steer my vehicle away from hitting someone.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So I have a multi-part question:

1) What are some other NFL players (currently active or otherwise) who played in the league after being convicted of a felony?

So far I have:

Leonard Little - vehicular manslaughter/DUI
Michael Irvin - felony drug possession
Ray Lewis - obstruction of justice in a murder
Plaxico - felony weapon possession (obviously, not active now but most not calling for a lifetime ban)
Pacman Jones - technically a felon since he pled guilty to obstruction of an officer case in GA

Not to nitpick, but just to be clear on the discussion I would ask if you are certain that each of these "played in the league after being convicted of a felony"? I believe Little is the only one on this list who played after being convicted of a felony, and I'm not even sure about him. I think Irvin's felony drug issue came after retirement, and I don't believe any of the other three were convicted of a felony.

 

[comfortably numb]

I think the double standard lies in the fact that Vick woke up each morning knowing what he was going to do.

Be a part of torturing and killing dogs.

Something most Americans find heinous and unforgivable.

These other guys, either A

did not directly hurt someone

or B

did not wake up that morning thinking, "Dam today is a good day to get drunk and run somebody over."

 

[greenroom]

I also wonder why wife beaters are given a free pass. Take B Marshall for instance I love him since he is on my team, but he has been in more trouble with beating his GF.

 

[PatsWillWin]

People don't care about obstruction of justice or shooting yourself in the leg.

People think Stallworth "accidentally" killed someone, and many people have probably driven over the legal limit so they're slower to condemn him.

People really love dogs.

Don't think it's a double standard, I think it's different case-to-case.

 

[Crippler]

I think Stallworth got off light in the end. 30 days for using a vehicle as a weapon and killing someone. Brutal.

But my question comes down to how many NFL games did each miss in the end due to suspension. It was hard for Vick to play a game while he was in jail. So I dont consider those missed games. So what was it. Like 6 games total. But Stallworth will get 16 games. Your right I see a big difference in the end. I think Vick should have got a 2nd chance but after he spent a year proving he was a new man. Not a few months. I was for him to be suspended this year(let him play in USL and prove he can QB anyways) and than getting shot in 2010.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Purely accidental? How do you accidentally drink to the point of having your BAC (.126) well-above the legal limit and then drive?This wasn't an "accident." Stallworth made a specific choice and it led to the death of another person.

I've read that the guy Stallworth killed, may not have been crossing the street legally. Some sources say he wasn't at a crosswalk and that it wasn't displaying the walk signal. It's possible that Stallworth got a light sentence if it was concluded that there was a high probability that the guy would have been struck even if Stallworth had been sober. If that's not the case, then he got off with too light of a sentence.

I'm pretty sure that's the case. He jumped a concrete barrier and ran across the street without looking outside a crosswalk. Doesn't excuse what Stallworth did. But it seems that even a sober person would have likely hit him and if Stallworth was sober, there wouldn't have been any charges.

 

[Pipes]

People don't care about obstruction of justice or shooting yourself in the leg.People think Stallworth "accidentally" killed someone, and many people have probably driven over the legal limit so they're slower to condemn him.People really love dogs.Don't think it's a double standard, I think it's different case-to-case.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

I don't care if he plays in the NFL, I really don't. I just don't want him on a team I root for (CHI, DEN, formally PHI).

 

[fatness]

1. People love dogs. They really do, me included. People love dogs more than they care about other people in general. That explains the extent of the outrage against Vick.

2. When expressing moral outrage people usually are short on perspective and history.

3. More than any other venue, the internet is set up for #####ing and outrage. It's perfect for that. The level of outrage in the general public about Vick is nowhere near the level of outrage expressed on message boards. If 20% of the public is angry about something, you'll see threads about it with 50% of the posts expressing outrage. People who are angry dominate the discussion, repeat themselves over and over, start topic after topic, and appear to be more numerous than they are. It has degraded the Shark Pool, that's for sure. There are too many moral outrage threads which have far less to do with NFL football and fantasy football than they do with someone venting their spleen for the 10th time on the same issue. It has even gone so far lately as to affect player evaluations. A former Pro Bowl quarterback suddenly "never was any good at QB and never will be" according to some posters who are angry at Vick. But the internet, and apparently this message board, is set up to allow the angry people to dominate discussion. Sad to see, but true.

 

[hove]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Purely accidental? How do you accidentally drink to the point of having your BAC (.126) well-above the legal limit and then drive?This wasn't an "accident." Stallworth made a specific choice and it led to the death of another person.

Right on the money with this reply.

 

[pollardsvision]

Remember when ESPN couldn't stop talking about how evil Terrell Owens was? And yet Vick hasn't even come close to catching up to him in terms of negative press. Oh, and by the way, could you pick a worse coach to try to handle a tough situation like this? Reid completely flubbed with Owens, set the team back, dealt with substantial personal issues, watched the team struggle, then finally got the team into some semblance of order, and now they're going to bring in another huge distraction? From a purely football perspective I think Vick's a great fit for that team, but from a locker room perspective, the Eagles just don't handle these things well.

I agree that Reid flubbed the Owens situation.I disagree about this being bad for the Eagles locker room though. Vick and Owens are completely different.Owens a horrible teammate that doesn't break the law. Vick, by all accounts, is at least a solid teammate that breaks the law sometimes. It will be a distraction, but that doesn't mean it will fracture the locker room. While the wives and other Philly fans that wear panties will be upset about Vick, there's nothing to suggest he'd be bad for the locker room.

 

[GoBigRed]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Yeah I hate it when I accidentally drink so much alcohol and smoke weed to severely impair my driving enough to the point that I can't even steer my vehicle away from hitting someone.

Do you think Stallworth intenionally hit that pedestrian? If you answer that honestly, then you'll have your difference between him & Vick.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

1. People love dogs. They really do, me included. People love dogs more than they care about other people in general. That explains the extent of the outrage against Vick. 2. When expressing moral outrage people usually are short on perspective and history. 3. More than any other venue, the internet is set up for #####ing and outrage. It's perfect for that. The level of outrage in the general public about Vick is nowhere near the level of outrage expressed on message boards. If 20% of the public is angry about something, you'll see threads about it with 50% of the posts expressing outrage. People who are angry dominate the discussion, repeat themselves over and over, start topic after topic, and appear to be more numerous than they are. It has degraded the Shark Pool, that's for sure. There are too many moral outrage threads which have far less to do with NFL football and fantasy football than they do with someone venting their spleen for the 10th time on the same issue. It has even gone so far lately as to affect player evaluations. A former Pro Bowl quarterback suddenly "never was any good at QB and never will be" according to some posters who are angry at Vick. But the internet, and apparently this message board, is set up to allow the angry people to dominate discussion. Sad to see, but true.

1. I could care less about dogs in particular. Don't own one, haven't since I was a kid and not planning to any time soon. Would never consider any animal's life worth more than a person's. My dislike for Vick and his position in the NFL isn't based on a love for dogs or animals. It's based on a history of a guy thinking he's above the law (and general societal rules) LONG before he got caught torturing animals for fun. This isn't a guy who just got caught up in a scene. This is the SPONSOR of that scene. This is a guy who knowingly give a woman an STD, because it didn't matter to him. A guy who flipped off a kid at a game. A guy who had a bogus charity that funneled a large portion of it's assets to members of his posse. A guy that got caught with a dope stash boarding an airplane. None of those things really compare to the scary aspect of torturing for fun, but they definitely paint the general picture of a sociopath.2. I don't express outrage so much, but a personal preference not to pay to watch Vick play in the NFL. My perspective is simply that of an NFL fan whose money essentially pays for the player's salaries and the team's profits. I don't want my money to go to Vick - I'd rather watch some other player. It's that simple.As for history, I see little history in the NFL that relates particularly closely to the Vick situation. Lots of crime of course, and lots of "bad guys", but Vick's situation is fairly unique. But for the record, I'm not a Leonard Little fan either though, and I'd rather he not be in the league. There is a pattern there too.3. Very true. It's easy to vent here. But sharing opinions (some of them strong opinions) is what we do, and the discussion, repetition, and "outrage" most certainly goes both ways. Ironic that THIS thread (and many others) were created by someone who are looking to "defend" Vick (for lack of a better term, let's not quibble about "defending" him - I know most folks don't condone his actions regardless) and his "right" to play in the NFL, and yet you paint the picture that the "morale outrage" folks are the hooligans looking to vent.As for Vick's value as an NFL QB, I feel strongly that you are the one with a lack of historical perspective. You are letting the current controversy cloud your memory. There has been a very healthy debate on Vick's overall effectiveness as a QB for a LONG, LONG time. Some people think/thought he was great, and some think/thought he was horrible, and some are in between. I haven't seen any great shift in that debate.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I think some of it is visibility. Most people on this board are aware of most incidents. But people who don't follow football or follow only their local teams are likely aware of Vick, but not some of the others. I was no Facebook this morning and every comment I saw was anti-signing ther than on the FBG page.

 

[bostonfred]

Remember when ESPN couldn't stop talking about how evil Terrell Owens was? And yet Vick hasn't even come close to catching up to him in terms of negative press. Oh, and by the way, could you pick a worse coach to try to handle a tough situation like this? Reid completely flubbed with Owens, set the team back, dealt with substantial personal issues, watched the team struggle, then finally got the team into some semblance of order, and now they're going to bring in another huge distraction? From a purely football perspective I think Vick's a great fit for that team, but from a locker room perspective, the Eagles just don't handle these things well.

I agree that Reid flubbed the Owens situation.I disagree about this being bad for the Eagles locker room though. Vick and Owens are completely different.Owens a horrible teammate that doesn't break the law. Vick, by all accounts, is at least a solid teammate that breaks the law sometimes. It will be a distraction, but that doesn't mean it will fracture the locker room. While the wives and other Philly fans that wear panties will be upset about Vick, there's nothing to suggest he'd be bad for the locker room.

Reid's got an impressive coaching resume, missing the playoffs just twice in the last ten years. Once was the year he bench/suspended Owens, the other was the year he drafted Kolb then had problems with his son. I don't think Vick is going to be bad for the locker room, I think Reid handles the kind of pressure he'll be under from the media poorly. Maybe he's accustomed to it by now. We'll see. But every time PETA protests at their games, or you see a picture of an eagle with a cute little puppy's head hanging from its mouth, or you hear the opposing team play "How come by dog don't bark when he comes around", it's going to make him second guess the decision.

 

[bostonfred]

1. I could care less about dogs in particular. Don't own one, haven't since I was a kid and not planning to any time soon. Would never consider any animal's life worth more than a person's. My dislike for Vick and his position in the NFL isn't based on a love for dogs or animals. It's based on a history of a guy thinking he's above the law (and general societal rules) LONG before he got caught torturing animals for fun. This isn't a guy who just got caught up in a scene. This is the SPONSOR of that scene. This is a guy who knowingly give a woman an STD, because it didn't matter to him. A guy who flipped off a kid at a game. A guy who had a bogus charity that funneled a large portion of it's assets to members of his posse. A guy that got caught with a dope stash boarding an airplane. None of those things really compare to the scary aspect of torturing for fun, but they definitely paint the general picture of a sociopath.

This is one of the more persuasive posts I've seen about Vick.

As for Vick's value as an NFL QB, I feel strongly that you are the one with a lack of historical perspective. You are letting the current controversy cloud your memory. There has been a very healthy debate on Vick's overall effectiveness as a QB for a LONG, LONG time. Some people think/thought he was great, and some think/thought he was horrible, and some are in between. I haven't seen any great shift in that debate.

The main shift here, and this is probably why the Eagles took him, is that he is willing to be used situationally, and the franchise QB endorses it.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

As for Vick's value as an NFL QB, I feel strongly that you are the one with a lack of historical perspective. You are letting the current controversy cloud your memory. There has been a very healthy debate on Vick's overall effectiveness as a QB for a LONG, LONG time. Some people think/thought he was great, and some think/thought he was horrible, and some are in between. I haven't seen any great shift in that debate.

The main shift here, and this is probably why the Eagles took him, is that he is willing to be used situationally, and the franchise QB endorses it.

I was really responding more to:

A former Pro Bowl quarterback suddenly "never was any good at QB and never will be" according to some posters who are angry at Vick.

There have always been proponents and detractors. I don't think the "anger" has changed that. It might skew opinions slightly, but I don't think folks' general impression of Vick as a QB has changed significantly as a result of this mess.I get that the situation has shifted, and I actually agree that it wasn't a horrible football move for the Eagles to get him. I'm in the camp that has said for a long time that Vick was not being used effectively. I don't think he's great "QB", but he's certainly a great weapon, and if the Eagles now have options that Vick was in a position to prevent before, it could help the team.But as exciting as he is, I don't want to watch him, and I don't want my money funding his salary.

 

[kentric]

I have a question I have long thought about, and this thread is as good as any:Suppose OJ Simpson had killed his wife and Ron Goldman during the prime of his career in Buffalo, and suppose he had received the same "Not guilty" verdict, even though a majority of Americans believe him to be guilty. Would an NFL team sign OJ to play, and would the public accept it?

The reason the majority of Americans believed he was guilty was because all the evidence seemed to point to him being guilty. There was a plausibility issue on the detective planting the bloody gloves. Unless you're really out there, its very difficult to believe that the gloves would have been planted. Based on this, there is no way in hell he would have been accepted back into football. I am not sure of the rules as to his being banned by the NFL, but as he wasn't convicted, it is possible that he wouldn't be banned. If a team signed him they would receive such a public relations backlash that he'd be gone by the end of the day. While Americans may generally believe in the veracity of the Judicial System, they're not blind to abundant evidence.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

 

[GoBigRed]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

Yes, accidentally. He didn't intend to kill anyone. If he did, it wouldn't be manslaugher; it would be murder.

 

[Marauder]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Yeah I hate it when I accidentally drink so much alcohol and smoke weed to severely impair my driving enough to the point that I can't even steer my vehicle away from hitting someone.

If you have never driven drunk or gotten stoned I applaud you for that but you are in a very small minority. I bet at least 80% of the people reading this have done both of those things at one time or another. I know I have and while I don't condone those actions, these are things that we do when we are young and stupid (my apologies to the members of the board who are still young and stupid). Setting up and funding a dog fighting ring for profit is not something you can blame on youth and stupidity. As for the people who are saying we are valuing dogs lives more than humans, I disagree. If someone gets drunk, gets in the car and accidentally kills a dog, I don't think most people would consider that as serious as killing a person. Likewise, if someone were to raise humans in cages for the sole purpose of fighting each other to the death, the punishment would be far worse than what Michael Vick got.It's all about premeditation in my mind.

 

[kface]

According to the criminal case, he never actually killed any dogs; he bankrolled his friends and his friends were his major problem. Most of the problems which have stained his career have been due to his friends. I am 100% sure that if he didn't have friends interested in dog fighting, he wouldn't have got in trouble for anything. This is the thing that is often left out. If you grew up somewhere and all your friends were hoodlums, wouldn't some of their activities be put in front of you? Did Vick need money via gambling? I don't think so. His friends wanted their own money so they used his to buy/sell drugs and gamble on dogs. I am not saying that Vick is innocent, rather he is as nearly as much of a victim as those dogs. He lied to protect his friends pretty much. And driving drunk and killing somebody is not an accidient. It is a miscalculated risk. Stallworth should face more heat but he doesn't. The fact is that even if he didn't mean to kill somebody, he still killed somebody and he should have to be as accountable as if he shot a guy in a drunken fit. He made every choice the same way Vick chose to stick with his friends.

I hope you feel this way about most criminals that grow up in poor families in poor neighbourhoodsIf was willing to quit being a 49ers fan if they signed him. He willfully (whether he did personally or not) tortured, maimed and killed dogs. The only other comparison is little and i suspect under the new nfl regime he would have been gone for a long time.I would bet money that stallworth doesn't play again.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

Yes, accidentally. He didn't intend to kill anyone.

You can't really call it an "accident" when you drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel. On some level Stallworth showed a disregard for human life. And that is just as bad (if not worse) than killing dogs.

 

[GoBigRed]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

Yes, accidentally. He didn't intend to kill anyone.

You can't really call it an "accident" when you drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel. On some level Stallworth showed a disregard for human life. And that is just as bad (if not worse) than killing dogs.

You are correct in that the drinking & getting behind the wheel of a car was not an accident. He made a conscious (albeit drunken) decison to do that. But that doesn't mean he INTENDED to hit Mr. Reyes. Again, that's why it's manslaughter & not murder. Tragic as it was, the death of Mr. Reyes was an accident.

 

[corpcow]

If you have never driven drunk or gotten stoned I applaud you for that but you are in a very small minority. I bet at least 80% of the people reading this have done both of those things at one time or another. I know I have and while I don't condone those actions, these are things that we do when we are young and stupid (my apologies to the members of the board who are still young and stupid). Setting up and funding a dog fighting ring for profit is not something you can blame on youth and stupidity.

As for the people who are saying we are valuing dogs lives more than humans, I disagree. If someone gets drunk, gets in the car and accidentally kills a dog, I don't think most people would consider that as serious as killing a person. Likewise, if someone were to raise humans in cages for the sole purpose of fighting each other to the death, the punishment would be far worse than what Michael Vick got.

It's all about premeditation in my mind.

THis is another thing that bothers me about this discussion. Think about how much money Vick made in football/endorsements and how much this cost him - the motive was not "profit". It's a cultural thing, and it happens especially in the black rural communities. Couldn't this actually be a blessing for PETA - someone high-profile who showed the perils of getting involved in this and is/will be speaking out against it?

 

[TommyGilmore]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

Yes, accidentally. He didn't intend to kill anyone.

You can't really call it an "accident" when you drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel. On some level Stallworth showed a disregard for human life. And that is just as bad (if not worse) than killing dogs.

You are correct in that the drinking & getting behind the wheel of a car was not an accident. He made a conscious (albeit drunken) decison to do that. But that doesn't mean he INTENDED to hit Mr. Reyes. Again, that's why it's manslaughter & not murder. Tragic as it was, the death of Mr. Reyes was an accident.

A reckless accident that kills a human is 100x worse than a deliberate act that kills an animal.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

I also wonder why wife beaters are given a free pass. Take B Marshall for instance I love him since he is on my team, but he has been in more trouble with beating his GF.

I believe you just answered your own question.

 

[suchislife]

The difference between Stallworth and Vick, for me, is that Stallworth did not get in his car and say "I think I'll go kill me some people". Whereas Vick participated in taking electrodes and saying "I'm gonna kill this dog". One is evil to the core. The other is a gross error in judgement and certainly not a premeditated killing. Stallworth also showed immediate remorse.

I would also instantly sacrifice my dog to save another person.

 

[suchislife]

A reckless accident that kills a human is 100x worse than a deliberate act that kills an animal.

I agree the *result* is 100x worse. The mentality is not.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think using Stallworth is a poor comparison. For me the difference is this:Stallworths offense was purely accidental whereas Vick killed and tortured dogs deliberately and then blatantly lied to Goodell about his actions.

Stallworth deliberately got behind the wheel when he was drunk and then blatantly killed someone.

Yes, accidentally. He didn't intend to kill anyone.

You can't really call it an "accident" when you drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel. On some level Stallworth showed a disregard for human life. And that is just as bad (if not worse) than killing dogs.

Does it matter at all that the accident occured the following morning when he woke up and was driving to the beach? I shudder to think of the number of times I've done the "responsible" thing by taking a cab home or sleeping at a friend's place, then woken up early and driven home or gone to breakfast, work, school, etc. - all the while feeling hungover but not considering whether I was still over the limit on BAC. I think this goes to his "intent" or state of mind in driving that morning.Also, there's a reason he only got 30 days on a felony that has a maximum sentence of up to 15 years. The knee-jerk reaction is to ascribe that to the fact that he's a wealthy athlete, but I would say much more important is the fact that the deceased was clearly more at fault for the collision - having darted out onto a busy street away from a cross-walk.

 

[Evilhomer3k]

Intent and past history are very important. Vick has a past history and his actions were intentional and deliberate. Stallworths actions were not. He did not deliberately run someone over nor is his past history quite as colorful as Vicks.