Mike Vick press conference (1 Viewer)

[Sidewinder16]

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

 

[thehornet]

I see probation to 6 months in the case. Vick's demeanor was different walking in the courtroom today than it was in July. IMO, with all that has been taken away, contracts, etc. he has suffered enough and the judge will take this into consideration.

No way he walks away with no jail time. I am thinking 12 months.

I'm thinking closer to 24 than 12 and it's still not enough but JMHO

Agreed. Can we assume that this will be on espn.com?

The verdict will not be issued today will it?

sentencing early December. Dec 9th i think.

 

[perry147]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

Arthropods

 

[perry147]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

Arthropods

Gnat - Sorry in the heat of the moment I misspelled it.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

Arthropods

Oh...a gnatHmmm...prymetyme25/ILUVBEER99

Hit the bricks BEER! One year remember

Am I hearing right. Vick's salary will not count against the Falcons this year?

 

[Jules Winnfield]

There will never be another corporate sponsor for Mr. Vick ever again.

No one will touch this man again.

 

[prymetyme25]

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

It never fails.

 

[Mimo]

There will never be another corporate sponsor for Mr. Vick ever again.

No one will touch this man again.

We are a forgiving nation...........You really can't say this because we don't know..............SEE KOBE and I know he was not convicted. SEE Ray Lewis, SEE Jamal Lewis, SEE Leonard Little.Another thing is we have to understand the background of some of these athletes and the situations they GREW UP in and I am not endorsing the behavior either. But understand somethng, you can take athletes out the hood, or ghetto as some of us call it, but you can't take the hood/ghetto out of them. They are who they are and money will not change them in most cases.

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

 

[Sidewinder16]

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

It never fails.

I'm just trying to decide which response, yours or dgreen's, was cake and which was icing.

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

There will never be another corporate sponsor for Mr. Vick ever again.

No one will touch this man again.

We are a forgiving nation...........You really can't say this because we don't know..............SEE KOBE and I know he was not convicted. SEE Ray Lewis, SEE Jamal Lewis, SEE Leonard Little.Another thing is we have to understand the backgraound of some of these athletes and the situations they GREW UP in and I am not endorsing the behavior either. But understand somethng, you can take athletes out the hood, or ghetto as some of us call it, but you can't take the hood/ghetto out of them. They are who they are and money will not change them in most cases.

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

Nations may be forgiving but corporations aren't going to be. They are not going to go close to him again.

 

[redman]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. An apology is only worth as much as the fault the person accepts. They have to take ownership for their misdeeds. All the cliches about "letting down the kids/teammates/family", blah, blah, blah, focuses on the effects rather than the cause, which is to say that it dodges the point. Your post, ostensibly defending Vick, actually argues better for the opposite. Vick has a huge amount of vested interests that would like to do nothing more than minimize all of this so that they can "just move on". His handlers coached him to say a few catch phrases, which he dutifully repeated over and over. Frankly, that's probably about all they could expect from someone of his intellectual caliber, but that just means it was all the more transparent.

Vick's not upset because he genuinely thinks he did something wrong. He's upset because he got caught and because his asinine decision to breed and fight dogs over mere thousands of dollars has ended up costing him tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and endorsements and has resulted in public embarrassment, all while he can't play football for at least a couple of years and maybe never again.

In fairness, redemption can not be gained/attained via an apology - either written or otherwise. It is a journey that needs to begin with an admission and sometimes that admission is spurred by one's personal pain and loss. Vick has most definitely squandered away the world and as such, even with the admission of guilt, probably feels the pain more on his own behalf than the dogs he killed.This is not to defend Vick in the least. My view of him as a Falcons fan is tattered beyond repair. However, what will be the measure of his progress is weather he sees today as a beginning or an end. If it's the former and he takes steps towards that end, then at some point forgiveness should be a consideration.

Agreed. An apology is merely a starting point, albeit an important one. He didn't even get that right, was my point.

 

[switz]

9. "I would like to thank the NAACP for being there for me and defending me even those my crime has absolutely nothing to do with race."

Sure it does. I mean, isn't it only black people that fight dogs, and hispanics that fight cocks?

But it does seem that some of his defenders tried to play the "it's cultural and he shouldn't be punished" card. Whether it's cultural or not, it's wrong.

 

[redman]

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

Ryan Zimmerman? Dmitri Young? Felipe Lopez?

Holy crap!

 

[prymetyme25]

9. "I would like to thank the NAACP for being there for me and defending me even those my crime has absolutely nothing to do with race."

Sure it does. I mean, isn't it only black people that fight dogs, and hispanics that fight cocks?

But it does seem that some of his defenders tried to play the "it's cultural and he shouldn't be punished" card. Whether it's cultural or not, it's wrong.

I dont think they are saying he shouldnt be punished. he broke the law. Now should he be made out to be Hitler? debatable

 

[perry147]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

 

[suchislife]

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

So you're saying Vick set up an illegal gambling ring and killed/tortured dogs and never once thought "hey, something's not right about this"? Just a culture he was part of?? Gangs are a culture here where I live, but I'm pretty sure they know its illegal when they're killing rival members and firebombing their homes.Please, Vick knew it was illegal. He was fully aware of the NFL players code of conduct, and yet he was responsible for bankrolling an *illegal* operation.

 

[perry147]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Keep reaching for excuses.It wasn't so bad,

It was societies fault.

He did not know any better.

He is being targeted because he is black.

Do not worry about replying. Your obvious biasness is apparent.

 

[zoonation]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Actually, it is you who are misinformed. If you think drunk driving is worse, more power to you (I agree one human's life is > 100 dogs)However, you are failing to see the distinction, which is an essential one from a legal perspective...it is called mens rea. Whether one is reckless in their decision to get behind the wheel and drive after having consumed alcohol is not enough to charge them with an intention to inflict harm (no mens rea)....hence vehicular manslaughter.

Vick, on the other hand, intended the outcome of his misdeeds and therefore the mens rea component of his crime is there.

So if the argument is actually about "intention" or intentional infliction of harm, Vick's crime is a better example than drunk driving.

 

[fatness]

8. "I would like to apologize for being such a lowlife cowardly &%$ who is trying to hide behind my race for the crimes I have committed."9. "I would like to thank the NAACP for being there for me and defending me even those my crime has absolutely nothing to do with race."10. "And finally in closing I would like to thank the national media for underplaying the outrage that my crimes indeed do deserve and being afraid of attacking me because of fearing the political backlash of attacking a guilty blackman."

I have an IQ above a nat.

Some things just explain themselves.

 

[Mimo]

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

So you're saying Vick set up an illegal gambling ring and killed/tortured dogs and never once thought "hey, something's not right about this"? Just a culture he was part of?? Gangs are a culture here where I live, but I'm pretty sure they know its illegal when they're killing rival members and firebombing their homes.Please, Vick knew it was illegal. He was fully aware of the NFL players code of conduct, and yet he was responsible for bankrolling an *illegal* operation.

You are taking the context of what I am saying wrong. I, sort of, compare this to me at a family outing/gathering. At these gatherings there may be gambling going on such as dice (craps) or card playing (tunk) but it is with family gathering during the holidays, for example. So lets say the police come in because of..........the NOISE level and see money on the table, what should happen if you are multi-million dollar athlete playing in one of these games at the holiday gathering? The situation above happens all the time but on this particular day the cops come in and it turns into something else. It is illegal and wrong, I know, but it happens at family gatherings and get togethers in my culture all the time.Should I lose my career for this?

My point is some things are second nature be it wrong or indifferent because of the culture and the way you grow up sometimes it is "normal"

 

[switz]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

and you know this because........

I have an IQ above a nat.

but not high enough to know it is spelled g-n-a-t

 

[zanshin8777]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Mad Sweeny - your focus earlier on was about atonement and redemption however I suggest that you are neglecting or ignoring a crucial point here.While I agree that 1 dead mother > 100 dead dogs, consider your example.

Drunk driving - no one gets into a car drunk and has explicit intentions of injuring or killing someone. It is one of the worst examples of egregious irresponsibility imaginable.

Dog fighting - Vick and his cohorts REPEATEDLY trained dogs in a brutal fashion to become killers. They then endorsed and propagated this "sport" and gambled on their pain and suffering. Furthermore he and his friends executed under-performing dogs through various barbaric means such as drowning, hanging, electrocution, and physically slamming them to the ground.

They did this REPEATEDLY. This level of barbarism was done intentionally again and again. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't an "immature" moment. This person made a decision that these actions were alright, justifiable, and possibly enjoyable (explain otherwise the act of slamming a dog to the ground to kill it - he couldn't afford a bullet??).

There is a significant difference in the psyche of an individual who is in denial regarding the potential outcomes of their irresponsible actions VS an individual who witnesses and takes active participation in the maiming and killing of others over and over.

Personally I'm not sure anyone like that has much left inside that's possible to redeem.

 

[switz]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Punishment isn't always based on the crime, but often on the intent. Hence manslaughter versus murder, and the degrees of each.

 

[switz]

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

So you're saying Vick set up an illegal gambling ring and killed/tortured dogs and never once thought "hey, something's not right about this"? Just a culture he was part of?? Gangs are a culture here where I live, but I'm pretty sure they know its illegal when they're killing rival members and firebombing their homes.Please, Vick knew it was illegal. He was fully aware of the NFL players code of conduct, and yet he was responsible for bankrolling an *illegal* operation.

You are taking the context of what I am saying wrong. I, sort of, compare this to me at a family outing/gathering. At these gatherings there may be gambling going on such as dice (craps) or card playing (tunk) but it is with family gathering during the holidays, for example. So lets say the police come in because of..........the NOISE level and see money on the table, what should happen if you are multi-million dollar athlete playing in one of these games at the holiday gathering? The situation above happens all the time but on this particular day the cops come in and it turns into something else. It is illegal and wrong, I know, but it happens at family gatherings and get togethers in my culture all the time.Should I lose my career for this?

My point is some things are second nature be it wrong or indifferent because of the culture and the way you grow up sometimes it is "normal"

Thanks for proving my above point

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

So you're saying Vick set up an illegal gambling ring and killed/tortured dogs and never once thought "hey, something's not right about this"? Just a culture he was part of?? Gangs are a culture here where I live, but I'm pretty sure they know its illegal when they're killing rival members and firebombing their homes.Please, Vick knew it was illegal. He was fully aware of the NFL players code of conduct, and yet he was responsible for bankrolling an *illegal* operation.

You are taking the context of what I am saying wrong. I, sort of, compare this to me at a family outing/gathering. At these gatherings there may be gambling going on such as dice (craps) or card playing (tunk) but it is with family gathering during the holidays, for example. So lets say the police come in because of..........the NOISE level and see money on the table, what should happen if you are multi-million dollar athlete playing in one of these games at the holiday gathering? The situation above happens all the time but on this particular day the cops come in and it turns into something else. It is illegal and wrong, I know, but it happens at family gatherings and get togethers in my culture all the time.Should I lose my career for this?

My point is some things are second nature be it wrong or indifferent because of the culture and the way you grow up sometimes it is "normal"

This is part of Paragraph 15 of the standard NFL player contract (entitled "INTEGRITY OF GAME"), and it's posted in every NFL locker room:Among the types of conduct detrimental to the NFL and professional football that call for serious penalties are the following: [...]



4. Associating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL.

Any such conduct may result in severe penalties, up to and including a fine and/or suspension from the NFL for life.

Are you saying Michael Vick was to stupid to remember this? Maybe he couldn't read his contract?

Are you saying that he thought he was above all this? That the NFL wouldn't catch on and if they did he would get off with a slap on the wrist?

What part of the country did he grow up in that a cultural acceptance is running a gambling operation? About your cultural acceptance about gambling? Everyone here has thrown some dice, played dominoes, and had a card game or two at their house or a relatives. The authorities aren't after our small potatoes so please do not try and compare running a big time gambling ring for dogfighting to the local poker game at Aunt Judy's house during the holidays. They aren't the same thing.

Vick thought he could get away with it. He isn't some back woods jerk-off that grew up with dogfighting. Both the Vick clowns are nothing but trash.

To answer your question on "Should I lose my career for this?"

Vick won't be banned for life by the commish. He did put the NFL in a bad spotlight and brought discredit to the NFL so the commish could toss him if he saw fit.

 

[j3r3m3y]

I guarantee Vick has been dogfighting with these same friends since he was 11 or 12 years old. So it was second nature to him and it did not seem wrong or illegal. It was just the culture he was apart of. He did not think it would cost him his career because if he did he would have stopped. Dogfighting became a federal offense in VA 8 days after the raid at Vick's place. I believe if he had know he had EVRYTHING to lose from this he would have curtailed it immediately.....JMO. Again I am not condoning what he did.

So you're saying Vick set up an illegal gambling ring and killed/tortured dogs and never once thought "hey, something's not right about this"? Just a culture he was part of?? Gangs are a culture here where I live, but I'm pretty sure they know its illegal when they're killing rival members and firebombing their homes.Please, Vick knew it was illegal. He was fully aware of the NFL players code of conduct, and yet he was responsible for bankrolling an *illegal* operation.

You are taking the context of what I am saying wrong. I, sort of, compare this to me at a family outing/gathering. At these gatherings there may be gambling going on such as dice (craps) or card playing (tunk) but it is with family gathering during the holidays, for example. So lets say the police come in because of..........the NOISE level and see money on the table, what should happen if you are multi-million dollar athlete playing in one of these games at the holiday gathering? The situation above happens all the time but on this particular day the cops come in and it turns into something else. It is illegal and wrong, I know, but it happens at family gatherings and get togethers in my culture all the time.Should I lose my career for this?

My point is some things are second nature be it wrong or indifferent because of the culture and the way you grow up sometimes it is "normal"

It is a condition of employment. I once heard that if you work for Coke, and you are photographed drinking a Pepsi while wearing your Coke driving outfit you would be fired. Don't like it? Find another job. Can't give up asssociating with illegal gamblers? Don't take a job that requires that you don't associate with these people.Take the job anyway and break the contract you signed? I have no pity.

 

[Raider Nation]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

 

[Phurfur]

If he's smart he'll surrender immediately to start getting credit for time served, if he gets a "year and a day" sentence he can be out in time for next season, and with time off for good behavior that's available on year+ sentences he'd be able to make a camp.

Hell, he should be back by the playoffs

 

[CrossEyed]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Keep reaching for excuses.It wasn't so bad,

It was societies fault.

He did not know any better.

He is being targeted because he is black.

Do not worry about replying. Your obvious biasness is apparent.

I will break my silence once, because you are seriously mistaken. I have not said one positive word about Vick since this broke in April. Go back and look. Today I said was that this was a 1% increase, up from zero, in my respect for him. His first step towards redemption. I never downplayed his crimes and I hope he gets a just sentence, not some broken down house arrest. I've laid blame at his feet while he was still denying involvement. I've argued vehemently against every single one of those statements you are trying to attest to me, which does nothing but increase my feelings on your ignorance. Because all I said was that drunk driving was an intentional crime and Vick appeared to be sincere today. All your other "conclusions" about what I've said or stand for came from your own wrong interpretations You've blown the whole thing out of proportion and in true ignorant fashion managed to form the complete opposite conclusion on my biases.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This thread needs more ILUVBEER99.

 

[mad sweeney]

This thread needs more ILUVBEER99.

As of today, Vick is a convicted felon, Beer is on vacation.Go check out my discussions with ILUVBEER to find out my biases.

 

[Raider Nation]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

 

[ImTheScientist]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. An apology is only worth as much as the fault the person accepts. They have to take ownership for their misdeeds. All the cliches about "letting down the kids/teammates/family", blah, blah, blah, focuses on the effects rather than the cause, which is to say that it dodges the point. Your post, ostensibly defending Vick, actually argues better for the opposite. Vick has a huge amount of vested interests that would like to do nothing more than minimize all of this so that they can "just move on". His handlers coached him to say a few catch phrases, which he dutifully repeated over and over. Frankly, that's probably about all they could expect from someone of his intellectual caliber, but that just means it was all the more transparent.

Vick's not upset because he genuinely thinks he did something wrong. He's upset because he got caught and because his asinine decision to breed and fight dogs over mere thousands of dollars has ended up costing him tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and endorsements and has resulted in public embarrassment, all while he can't play football for at least a couple of years and maybe never again.

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. An apology is only worth as much as the fault the person accepts. They have to take ownership for their misdeeds. All the cliches about "letting down the kids/teammates/family", blah, blah, blah, focuses on the effects rather than the cause, which is to say that it dodges the point. Your post, ostensibly defending Vick, actually argues better for the opposite. Vick has a huge amount of vested interests that would like to do nothing more than minimize all of this so that they can "just move on". His handlers coached him to say a few catch phrases, which he dutifully repeated over and over. Frankly, that's probably about all they could expect from someone of his intellectual caliber, but that just means it was all the more transparent.

Vick's not upset because he genuinely thinks he did something wrong. He's upset because he got caught and because his asinine decision to breed and fight dogs over mere thousands of dollars has ended up costing him tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and endorsements and has resulted in public embarrassment, all while he can't play football for at least a couple of years and maybe never again.

Jeezus, I spend 3-4 months arguing about what a POS Vick is and I make one comment about his apology and somehow I'm put up as a Vick Defender. I was NOT DEFENDING VICK. All I said was that I thought his apology sounded more sincere than guys like TO, who are "sorry that people took offense to something I might have said or done". I even pointed out that he didn't come fully clean in his statements today but I thought that otherwise he took 1 step in a miles long journey and now I'm a Vick lover. And that's all I said.If I just lost $100 million dollars and my freedom I would feel a lot more sorry for my loss than for my crime too, and I never said anything to the opposite. Sorry is sorry. He's getting VERY punished for it and he has time to reflect on it. Whether or not he actually thinks dogfighting is a crime or that he did anything wrong, he has learned respect for the law, humility and suffering. And that is a part of redemption and becoming a part of society again. I doubt he plays again and I don't think he should and I don't want him to. He hasn't fully admitted his guilt about the gambling and that should keep him out of the league. But his apology today wasn't about the gambling, it was about the dogfighting and in that respect he more or less sounded sincerely sorry. And to me he went from 100% ####head to 99%. Clearly a I'm a Vick Defender.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

Prayer is the last refuge of the damned. When you lose everything, you have to fill up with something.

 

[redman]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

Prayer is the last refuge of the damned. When you lose everything, you have to fill up with something.

Religion is also the last refuge of the PR-dysfunctional. The validity of his relationship with God is between him and God, but when he introduces that into a public controversy for no other apparent reason than to apparently boost the credibility of his apologies, I've got to be skeptical. I'd love to believe that Vick is a changed man down to his core, but I frankly don't. Sorry.

 

[mad sweeney]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

Prayer is the last refuge of the damned. When you lose everything, you have to fill up with something.

Religion is also the last refuge of the PR-dysfunctional. The validity of his relationship with God is between him and God, but when he introduces that into a public controversy for no other apparent reason than to apparently boost the credibility of his apologies, I've got to be skeptical. I'd love to believe that Vick is a changed man down to his core, but I frankly don't. Sorry.

Nor do I , he still has further to fall before he'll even know if he can be changed. I wasn't really talking about him though. Maybe I should've used a different aphorism, "There are no atheists in a foxhole". Just a thought in general about why people in disgrace or trouble find God. I really wish people would stop making me out as being on Vick's side. He's a cruel, sadistic POS and extremely stupid to boot. He deserves everything he's getting, which hopefully will not be cheesed down to house arrest.

 

[CrossEyed]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

Prayer is the last refuge of the damned. When you lose everything, you have to fill up with something.

Religion is also the last refuge of the PR-dysfunctional. The validity of his relationship with God is between him and God, but when he introduces that into a public controversy for no other apparent reason than to apparently boost the credibility of his apologies, I've got to be skeptical. I'd love to believe that Vick is a changed man down to his core, but I frankly don't. Sorry.

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm a little skeptical. But that's between him and God. Either way he has to take the punishment for his crime.

 

[qazqaz11]

I'm waiting to see if Vick willingly writes a cheque for $22 million to Arthur Blank or if he fights tooth and nail to keep his ill gotten gains. I rather suspect I know the answer.

P.S. This Jesus guy needs to learn to hide better. Crooks and other reprobates seem to find him pretty easily once they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[cobalt_27]

This thread needs more ILUVBEER99.

I dunno. I could do without the room temperature IQ and empty promises to ban himself when he's proven wrong. He's a tired act, already.

 

[nerangers]

Just once... ONCE, can someone "find Jesus" before they commit despicable acts?

Happens all the time. You just don't see it reported in the news.

Wouldn't you say it happens more often AFTER a guy screws up rather than the other way around?Just seems very convenient, is all.

Would he have "found Jesus" if his stupid running buddy hadn't gotten caught with dope, leading the cops to the dog playground?

Prayer is the last refuge of the damned. When you lose everything, you have to fill up with something.

When you hit Rock Bottom, all you can do is look up. Vick sure has hit Rock bottom!So why do the Falcons have to pay the bonus this year if the league says Vick can't play? I know it is pro-rated over three years, but there has to be something in the contract about being unable to perform for being suspended.

 

[cobalt_27]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Keep reaching for excuses.It wasn't so bad,

It was societies fault.

He did not know any better.

He is being targeted because he is black.

Do not worry about replying. Your obvious biasness is apparent.

I will break my silence once, because you are seriously mistaken. I have not said one positive word about Vick since this broke in April. Go back and look. Today I said was that this was a 1% increase, up from zero, in my respect for him. His first step towards redemption. I never downplayed his crimes and I hope he gets a just sentence, not some broken down house arrest. I've laid blame at his feet while he was still denying involvement. I've argued vehemently against every single one of those statements you are trying to attest to me, which does nothing but increase my feelings on your ignorance. Because all I said was that drunk driving was an intentional crime and Vick appeared to be sincere today. All your other "conclusions" about what I've said or stand for came from your own wrong interpretations You've blown the whole thing out of proportion and in true ignorant fashion managed to form the complete opposite conclusion on my biases.

Clearly, if anyone's read your threads, you couldn't be confused with being a Vick supporter. I don't know really why that's coming up here. I, too, think very little of him and have very little sympathy for him and the punishment he's getting. However, there is a part of me that does feel sorry for the guy. He's lost any good reputation he might've once enjoyed; he's lost his dignity; he's lost a lot of money and probably any ability to ever make that money back again. In essence, he's flat out screwed. But, it was his choices all the way through this matter that lead up to this, and those choices reflect the decisions of a man who thought he could just skate from the whole thing. Where I would argue with you, though, is on the intent part of drinking/driving. A person does not intend to do harm when they get into the car drunk--they intend to get home (or wherever they're going). Intent implies a conscious consideration of a future consequence that will follow one's actions. A person who is drunk rarely considers the fact that the risk he/she is taking could kill someone...he/she is usually to hammered to even think about it. They are ultimately responsible for this reprehensible decision, but intent to kill or intent to take a risk is usually not what's happening.

Either way, it's awful, and I would feel infinitely worse if a friend was killed by a drunk driver than if my dog were used by Vick in his kennel. But, that doesn't dismiss a very disturbing element to what Vick did, which is that he deliberately though through these options and, in a sober, calculating way decided that it was ok to participate in the sadistic pleasure of torturing and killing these dogs over many, many years. There is something about that decision process that I find more disturbing and akin to how psychopaths think and who show no remorse or concern for their crimes. I guess I suspect something more intrinsically wrong with Mike Vick that would allow him to participate in this operation--and organize it, for chrissakes--than I think of what's wrong with a person's thinking (or lack thereof) when he/she gets behind the wheel of a car drunk. Again, the consequence is far worse with the latter...but, the mindset involved concerns me more with the former.

If that makes any sense.

 

[prymetyme25]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. An apology is only worth as much as the fault the person accepts. They have to take ownership for their misdeeds. All the cliches about "letting down the kids/teammates/family", blah, blah, blah, focuses on the effects rather than the cause, which is to say that it dodges the point. Your post, ostensibly defending Vick, actually argues better for the opposite. Vick has a huge amount of vested interests that would like to do nothing more than minimize all of this so that they can "just move on". His handlers coached him to say a few catch phrases, which he dutifully repeated over and over. Frankly, that's probably about all they could expect from someone of his intellectual caliber, but that just means it was all the more transparent.

Vick's not upset because he genuinely thinks he did something wrong. He's upset because he got caught and because his asinine decision to breed and fight dogs over mere thousands of dollars has ended up costing him tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and endorsements and has resulted in public embarrassment, all while he can't play football for at least a couple of years and maybe never again.

Jeezus, I spend 3-4 months arguing about what a POS Vick is and I make one comment about his apology and somehow I'm put up as a Vick Defender. I was NOT DEFENDING VICK. All I said was that I thought his apology sounded more sincere than guys like TO, who are "sorry that people took offense to something I might have said or done". I even pointed out that he didn't come fully clean in his statements today but I thought that otherwise he took 1 step in a miles long journey and now I'm a Vick lover. And that's all I said.If I just lost $100 million dollars and my freedom I would feel a lot more sorry for my loss than for my crime too, and I never said anything to the opposite. Sorry is sorry. He's getting VERY punished for it and he has time to reflect on it. Whether or not he actually thinks dogfighting is a crime or that he did anything wrong, he has learned respect for the law, humility and suffering. And that is a part of redemption and becoming a part of society again. I doubt he plays again and I don't think he should and I don't want him to. He hasn't fully admitted his guilt about the gambling and that should keep him out of the league. But his apology today wasn't about the gambling, it was about the dogfighting and in that respect he more or less sounded sincerely sorry. And to me he went from 100% ####head to 99%. Clearly a I'm a Vick Defender.

Mad Sweeney,I understood what you said the first time you said it, but just because you said something that might seem as though you're giving Vick an credit you get jumped on and people tell you how horrible dog fighting is and how many dogs he killed or whatever. When in fact what you said really had nothing to do with what happened in the past. It happened its over and done with and cant be taken back. Now steps have to be taking to repair the damage done. In this case it was damn either way, if he didn't apologize he would be cold blooded and unremorseful. He apologizes and now he didn't mean it. So this obviously mean you're stupid to believe him. right? surely everybody who does a terrible thing cant be truly sorry they did it right? Sometimes people are involved in terrible thing and until your caught and reflect on what you were really doing, and really think about who you are/were you just dont think about it when your doing it. i generally like to believe that people can changes. Is it a guarantee?no is it certain?no but there is proof that it can happen.

Now what happening to u is what happens most of the time. People pile on and no matter what you say or do its viewed as bad. Most wouldn't be satisfied until Vick is living under a bridge pushing a shopping cart around. Might sound extreme but just read some of the post about him.

Think back in your life to the worse thing you've ever done(not just what you got caught doing) no matter how bad it was and ask yourself would I really want to be known for that for the rest of my life?

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Keep reaching for excuses.It wasn't so bad,

It was societies fault.

He did not know any better.

He is being targeted because he is black.

Do not worry about replying. Your obvious biasness is apparent.

I will break my silence once, because you are seriously mistaken. I have not said one positive word about Vick since this broke in April. Go back and look. Today I said was that this was a 1% increase, up from zero, in my respect for him. His first step towards redemption. I never downplayed his crimes and I hope he gets a just sentence, not some broken down house arrest. I've laid blame at his feet while he was still denying involvement. I've argued vehemently against every single one of those statements you are trying to attest to me, which does nothing but increase my feelings on your ignorance. Because all I said was that drunk driving was an intentional crime and Vick appeared to be sincere today. All your other "conclusions" about what I've said or stand for came from your own wrong interpretations You've blown the whole thing out of proportion and in true ignorant fashion managed to form the complete opposite conclusion on my biases.

Clearly, if anyone's read your threads, you couldn't be confused with being a Vick supporter. I don't know really why that's coming up here. I, too, think very little of him and have very little sympathy for him and the punishment he's getting. However, there is a part of me that does feel sorry for the guy. He's lost any good reputation he might've once enjoyed; he's lost his dignity; he's lost a lot of money and probably any ability to ever make that money back again. In essence, he's flat out screwed. But, it was his choices all the way through this matter that lead up to this, and those choices reflect the decisions of a man who thought he could just skate from the whole thing. Where I would argue with you, though, is on the intent part of drinking/driving. A person does not intend to do harm when they get into the car drunk--they intend to get home (or wherever they're going). Intent implies a conscious consideration of a future consequence that will follow one's actions. A person who is drunk rarely considers the fact that the risk he/she is taking could kill someone...he/she is usually to hammered to even think about it. They are ultimately responsible for this reprehensible decision, but intent to kill or intent to take a risk is usually not what's happening.

Either way, it's awful, and I would feel infinitely worse if a friend was killed by a drunk driver than if my dog were used by Vick in his kennel. But, that doesn't dismiss a very disturbing element to what Vick did, which is that he deliberately though through these options and, in a sober, calculating way decided that it was ok to participate in the sadistic pleasure of torturing and killing these dogs over many, many years. There is something about that decision process that I find more disturbing and akin to how psychopaths think and who show no remorse or concern for their crimes. I guess I suspect something more intrinsically wrong with Mike Vick that would allow him to participate in this operation--and organize it, for chrissakes--than I think of what's wrong with a person's thinking (or lack thereof) when he/she gets behind the wheel of a car drunk. Again, the consequence is far worse with the latter...but, the mindset involved concerns me more with the former.

If that makes any sense.

I don't buy it. You know when you are going out or when you are drinking that you're going to drive, you can make arrangements before you head out or before you drive home. Just because when it's closing time you're too hammereed to think about the consequences doesn't mean you didn't have time to do so at any point during the drinking. "I was drunk" has never been a legal excuse for any actions, much less a vehicular homicide. Sure there's a difference in mindset, one is deliberately cruel and sadistic, the other is criminally irresponsible and uncaring for the safety of himself or anyone else on the road. I speak from experience and look back wondering why I was able to avoid serious consequences with all the stupidity. Even after a DUI and a few guardrail scrapes. There is always another way than to drive, being criminally irresponsible because another course of action would be inconvenient is intent to break the law in a dangerous and negligent way. Just because there's only a chance something bad will happen doesn't make it any less criminal. But if that's the way you feel, so be it. But the attitude that a wreck while drunk driving is an "accident" is a fallacy.

 

[CalBear]

Just because there's only a chance something bad will happen doesn't make it any less criminal. But if that's the way you feel, so be it. But the attitude that a wreck while drunk driving is an "accident" is a fallacy.

Take these two scenarios:1) Guy gets drunk, drives, kills a pedestrian in an accident.2) Guy is completely sober, intentionally runs over a pedestrian, backs over him just to make sure he's dead, and drives away laughing.Do you think these acts are equivalent and should be punished in the same way?

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. An apology is only worth as much as the fault the person accepts. They have to take ownership for their misdeeds. All the cliches about "letting down the kids/teammates/family", blah, blah, blah, focuses on the effects rather than the cause, which is to say that it dodges the point. Your post, ostensibly defending Vick, actually argues better for the opposite. Vick has a huge amount of vested interests that would like to do nothing more than minimize all of this so that they can "just move on". His handlers coached him to say a few catch phrases, which he dutifully repeated over and over. Frankly, that's probably about all they could expect from someone of his intellectual caliber, but that just means it was all the more transparent.

Vick's not upset because he genuinely thinks he did something wrong. He's upset because he got caught and because his asinine decision to breed and fight dogs over mere thousands of dollars has ended up costing him tens of millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and endorsements and has resulted in public embarrassment, all while he can't play football for at least a couple of years and maybe never again.

Jeezus, I spend 3-4 months arguing about what a POS Vick is and I make one comment about his apology and somehow I'm put up as a Vick Defender. I was NOT DEFENDING VICK. All I said was that I thought his apology sounded more sincere than guys like TO, who are "sorry that people took offense to something I might have said or done". I even pointed out that he didn't come fully clean in his statements today but I thought that otherwise he took 1 step in a miles long journey and now I'm a Vick lover. And that's all I said.If I just lost $100 million dollars and my freedom I would feel a lot more sorry for my loss than for my crime too, and I never said anything to the opposite. Sorry is sorry. He's getting VERY punished for it and he has time to reflect on it. Whether or not he actually thinks dogfighting is a crime or that he did anything wrong, he has learned respect for the law, humility and suffering. And that is a part of redemption and becoming a part of society again. I doubt he plays again and I don't think he should and I don't want him to. He hasn't fully admitted his guilt about the gambling and that should keep him out of the league. But his apology today wasn't about the gambling, it was about the dogfighting and in that respect he more or less sounded sincerely sorry. And to me he went from 100% ####head to 99%. Clearly a I'm a Vick Defender.

Mad Sweeney,I understood what you said the first time you said it, but just because you said something that might seem as though you're giving Vick an credit you get jumped on and people tell you how horrible dog fighting is and how many dogs he killed or whatever. When in fact what you said really had nothing to do with what happened in the past. It happened its over and done with and cant be taken back. Now steps have to be taking to repair the damage done. In this case it was damn either way, if he didn't apologize he would be cold blooded and unremorseful. He apologizes and now he didn't mean it. So this obviously mean you're stupid to believe him. right? surely everybody who does a terrible thing cant be truly sorry they did it right? Sometimes people are involved in terrible thing and until your caught and reflect on what you were really doing, and really think about who you are/were you just dont think about it when your doing it. i generally like to believe that people can changes. Is it a guarantee?no is it certain?no but there is proof that it can happen.

Now what happening to u is what happens most of the time. People pile on and no matter what you say or do its viewed as bad. Most wouldn't be satisfied until Vick is living under a bridge pushing a shopping cart around. Might sound extreme but just read some of the post about him.

Think back in your life to the worse thing you've ever done(not just what you got caught doing) no matter how bad it was and ask yourself would I really want to be known for that for the rest of my life?

I read that 3 times and really have no idea what you're saying.

 

[cobalt_27]

I thought it was a very heartfelt and proper statement. The only thing I take poorly from it was that he repeated a few times that he "never pointed the finger at anyone", which is exactly what he did until his boys rolled on him. All of his excuses at the beginning about never being there, his family taking advantage of him etc... So he's still doing some spin control, but a very sincere statement on his part. A different Mike Vick than we've seen before.

But other than that, he did all the right things, looked sincere and genuine (the exact opposite of a TO conference), he admitted to lying to his friends and teammates and bosses and I gained a little respect for him and hope he can make good on the promises he made today.

Are you really falling for this?This is a statement made by someone who has been trained to manipulate the media by his lawyers or consultants.

This has to do with one thing - MONEY.

What this is not about is a man who made an honest mistake and is sorry for it. This is not like getting in a car while drunk and killing someone. That would be unintentional. This was a deliberate act to torture and kill animals for his enjoyment.

On a scale of 1-100 prior to the press conference I had zero respect for him. Now he's at 1 or 2. That's not exactly "falling for it". He's looking at a year in jail and the loss of 100million or more. He's a scumbag for what he did, period. But I believe in redemption and right now he's taken the first steps. What he did was cruel and despicable but in all honesty, his punishment is massive if you factor in the money that he's losing. That's more than a pound a flesh. He WILL pay for his crimes.As for a drunk driver killing someone? Gimme a break. Stupidest statement ever. Any time you get in your car drunk you are making an intentional decision to take your and other people's lives at risk. Period. There's no getting around that, you drink and drive you are INTENTIONALLY risking the lives of others. You want to bring up Little? He already had a DUI and got one after he killed someone. There is zero redemtpion in that. I think Little is 10 times the scumbag for driving drunk after getting off pretty lightly, especially compared to what Vick is going to lose. Vick has a chance to redeem himself while Little has shown that he has no intention of doing so. No matter how abhorrent the facts and mindset of the animal cruelty Vick exhibited, 100 tortured and killed dogs<<<<1 dead mother. Period. Not even close.

Once again you are missing the point. If someone gets into a car after having a few drinks and gets into a car crash their intention was not to get into a car crash. The intention of Michael Vick was to fight dogs and he enjoyed watching animals destroy each other - if the dog did not perform well then he was beat it to death (these are all intentional acts). The driver of the vehicle does not dancing around after the wreck celebrating or beat the other drive to death.

How can you fail to see the difference?

I ask you the same question. Along with do you feel that 100 dead dogs is more of a loss than a mother or any other human being?I am not missing your point at all, I am telling you your point is wrong. Drunk driving is not intentionally cruel, but it is intentionally risking people's lives.

Do you think Vick intended for his dogs to lose or be judged unworthy to fight? He does something illegal, training dogs to fight (like driving drunk) and the outcome is not to his satisfaction, they lose or fail their tests (like wrecking). He intended for his dogs to win and therefore keep living, just as drunk drivers intend to get home safely.

Vick's acts were cruel and inhumane and done intentionally. Drunk driving accidents are irresponsible consequences of intentionally taking a risk that you know can end up being fatal. Are there differences? Yes of course. But both are the result of intentionally breaking the law. And since Vick's cruel and inhumane actions threaten no human lives, and every single drunk driver does, I feel the drunk driving, especially repetitive drunk driving, is worse than dog fighting.

Quite frankly, your responses show a dangerous amount of ignorance and I will no longer reply to you.

Keep reaching for excuses.It wasn't so bad,

It was societies fault.

He did not know any better.

He is being targeted because he is black.

Do not worry about replying. Your obvious biasness is apparent.

I will break my silence once, because you are seriously mistaken. I have not said one positive word about Vick since this broke in April. Go back and look. Today I said was that this was a 1% increase, up from zero, in my respect for him. His first step towards redemption. I never downplayed his crimes and I hope he gets a just sentence, not some broken down house arrest. I've laid blame at his feet while he was still denying involvement. I've argued vehemently against every single one of those statements you are trying to attest to me, which does nothing but increase my feelings on your ignorance. Because all I said was that drunk driving was an intentional crime and Vick appeared to be sincere today. All your other "conclusions" about what I've said or stand for came from your own wrong interpretations You've blown the whole thing out of proportion and in true ignorant fashion managed to form the complete opposite conclusion on my biases.

Clearly, if anyone's read your threads, you couldn't be confused with being a Vick supporter. I don't know really why that's coming up here. I, too, think very little of him and have very little sympathy for him and the punishment he's getting. However, there is a part of me that does feel sorry for the guy. He's lost any good reputation he might've once enjoyed; he's lost his dignity; he's lost a lot of money and probably any ability to ever make that money back again. In essence, he's flat out screwed. But, it was his choices all the way through this matter that lead up to this, and those choices reflect the decisions of a man who thought he could just skate from the whole thing. Where I would argue with you, though, is on the intent part of drinking/driving. A person does not intend to do harm when they get into the car drunk--they intend to get home (or wherever they're going). Intent implies a conscious consideration of a future consequence that will follow one's actions. A person who is drunk rarely considers the fact that the risk he/she is taking could kill someone...he/she is usually to hammered to even think about it. They are ultimately responsible for this reprehensible decision, but intent to kill or intent to take a risk is usually not what's happening.

Either way, it's awful, and I would feel infinitely worse if a friend was killed by a drunk driver than if my dog were used by Vick in his kennel. But, that doesn't dismiss a very disturbing element to what Vick did, which is that he deliberately though through these options and, in a sober, calculating way decided that it was ok to participate in the sadistic pleasure of torturing and killing these dogs over many, many years. There is something about that decision process that I find more disturbing and akin to how psychopaths think and who show no remorse or concern for their crimes. I guess I suspect something more intrinsically wrong with Mike Vick that would allow him to participate in this operation--and organize it, for chrissakes--than I think of what's wrong with a person's thinking (or lack thereof) when he/she gets behind the wheel of a car drunk. Again, the consequence is far worse with the latter...but, the mindset involved concerns me more with the former.

If that makes any sense.

I don't buy it. You know when you are going out or when you are drinking that you're going to drive, you can make arrangements before you head out or before you drive home. Just because when it's closing time you're too hammereed to think about the consequences doesn't mean you didn't have time to do so at any point during the drinking. "I was drunk" has never been a legal excuse for any actions, much less a vehicular homicide. Sure there's a difference in mindset, one is deliberately cruel and sadistic, the other is criminally irresponsible and uncaring for the safety of himself or anyone else on the road. I speak from experience and look back wondering why I was able to avoid serious consequences with all the stupidity. Even after a DUI and a few guardrail scrapes. There is always another way than to drive, being criminally irresponsible because another course of action would be inconvenient is intent to break the law in a dangerous and negligent way. Just because there's only a chance something bad will happen doesn't make it any less criminal. But if that's the way you feel, so be it. But the attitude that a wreck while drunk driving is an "accident" is a fallacy.

I particularly agree with your statement about the "accident" part. In no way should anyone ever get off with that as an excuse. It's like Vick saying he made a "mistake." Negligence and irresponsibility clearly put people's lives at risk when we're talking about drunk driving. No better, no worse...just different...when we're talking about calculating, sadistic acts of cruelty. You and I are capable of being colossally stupid in getting behind the wheel while drunk. But, is that act, in and of itself, inhumane? It's negligent and irresponsible, no doubt. Should carry extraordinary penalties if caught and convicted, especially if harm is caused. But, the decision to get behind the wheel drunk just seems very different than showering a dog with a hose and electrocuting it (or choking one to death with your bare hands, or drowning it).