RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:22:56 AM)

I can empathize with how you must feel E. I can't put myself exactly where you are though. I hope it doesn't sound weird, but I hope that no one else here is going through what you are. I don't know the statistics but I imagine that a fair number of people have driven when they've had too much to drink. It scares me a little that I could have hurt or killed someone when I did it. The part I'm afraid to say is that I can't for the life of me imagine being thought of the same way or worse than a person who kills beautiful creatures in the way Vick did. Luckily I never hurt anyone. But people getting hurt and killed by drunk driver does happen far too often. It's wrong and it's tragic and I wish so bad that no one ever had to go through it. These people are not (necessarily) the scourge of the earth though. They made a mistake. And whether forgivable or not is a matter of perspective and how you live your life I suppose.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:23:11 AM)

quote:

After a drunken birthday in 1998, NFL star Leonard Little crashed into and killed another motorist, Susan Gutweiler. When tested, his blood alcohol level measured 0.19 percent. Little received 90 days in jail, four years probation and 1000 hours of community service. Six years later, Little was again arrested for drunk driving and speeding. Little was acquitted of driving while intoxicated, but was convicted of the misdemeanor speeding charge.[1] On Week 11 of the 2006 NFL season, Little signed a 3-year extension with the Rams.
Think about that
quote:

Bill Gutweiler, Susan Gutweiler's widower, said Little never made an attempt to reach out to Gutweiler's son, Mike, who was 15 at the time of the crash. "To me, it just didn't seem like he cared," Gutweiler said. "After all these years he could have sat down and written my son a letter, and never did. Getting nothing was another slap in the face."



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:26:40 AM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Easy E"]Words cannot adequately express the pure rage I feel when I hear that someone getting stone drunk, getting in a car and killing someone is less offensive and more understandable that killing 6 dogs. Or 100 million dogs. Or every single dog, spider, rat, bee and buffalo on the planet.[/quote] AGREE 100% I find it amazing that someone would consider Vick's crime less offensive than Leonard Little killing a mother and then continuing to drive drunk years later! [/quote] I accept that If you've never driven when under the influence. If you have then the only think keeping you from being worse than Vick is random luck.



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:29:44 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]
quote:

After a drunken birthday in 1998, NFL star Leonard Little crashed into and killed another motorist, Susan Gutweiler. When tested, his blood alcohol level measured 0.19 percent. Little received 90 days in jail, four years probation and 1000 hours of community service. Six years later, Little was again arrested for drunk driving and speeding. Little was acquitted of driving while intoxicated, but was convicted of the misdemeanor speeding charge.[1] On Week 11 of the 2006 NFL season, Little signed a 3-year extension with the Rams.
Think about that
quote:

Bill Gutweiler, Susan Gutweiler's widower, said Little never made an attempt to reach out to Gutweiler's son, Mike, who was 15 at the time of the crash. "To me, it just didn't seem like he cared," Gutweiler said. "After all these years he could have sat down and written my son a letter, and never did. Getting nothing was another slap in the face."
What's there to think about. He should have been given 25-life for what he did. How does that make what Vick did easier to look past?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:34:52 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Easy E"]Words cannot adequately express the pure rage I feel when I hear that someone getting stone drunk, getting in a car and killing someone is less offensive and more understandable that killing 6 dogs. Or 100 million dogs. Or every single dog, spider, rat, bee and buffalo on the planet.[/quote] AGREE 100% I find it amazing that someone would consider Vick's crime less offensive than Leonard Little killing a mother and then continuing to drive drunk years later! [/quote] I accept that If you've never driven when under the influence. If you have then the only think keeping you from being worse than Vick is random luck.[/quote] 1. You are barking up the wrong tree. Not only have I never driven while impaired I have never even walked while impaired - I don't drink and never have. 2. Even if I had, your point is inaccurate. The taking of a human life (yes, an innocent human life) seriously outweighs the 9 dogs or so Vick is said to have killed. 3. I don't buy the accident excuse for an adult. When you drink and then put your keys in the ignition it is the same as randomly firing a gun in the air and a bullet coming down and killing someone. You intended to drive drunk - an exercise that is very dangerous and frequently leads to loss of life.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:36:25 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"][quote="John Childress"]
quote:

After a drunken birthday in 1998, NFL star Leonard Little crashed into and killed another motorist, Susan Gutweiler. When tested, his blood alcohol level measured 0.19 percent. Little received 90 days in jail, four years probation and 1000 hours of community service. Six years later, Little was again arrested for drunk driving and speeding. Little was acquitted of driving while intoxicated, but was convicted of the misdemeanor speeding charge.[1] On Week 11 of the 2006 NFL season, Little signed a 3-year extension with the Rams.
Think about that
quote:

Bill Gutweiler, Susan Gutweiler's widower, said Little never made an attempt to reach out to Gutweiler's son, Mike, who was 15 at the time of the crash. "To me, it just didn't seem like he cared," Gutweiler said. "After all these years he could have sat down and written my son a letter, and never did. Getting nothing was another slap in the face."
What's there to think about. He should have been given 25-life for what he did. How does that make what Vick did easier to look past?Once again you use the classic strawman argument. No one ever said look past Vick. Everyone here said prison term with lifetime ban. However, no way in the world is what Vick did worse, or even on the same level, as Leonard Little (as was proclaimed in the post above). THAT is the issue.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:37:08 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]
quote:

After a drunken birthday in 1998, NFL star Leonard Little crashed into and killed another motorist, Susan Gutweiler. When tested, his blood alcohol level measured 0.19 percent. Little received 90 days in jail, four years probation and 1000 hours of community service. Six years later, Little was again arrested for drunk driving and speeding. Little was acquitted of driving while intoxicated, but was convicted of the misdemeanor speeding charge.[1] On Week 11 of the 2006 NFL season, Little signed a 3-year extension with the Rams.
Think about that
quote:

Bill Gutweiler, Susan Gutweiler's widower, said Little never made an attempt to reach out to Gutweiler's son, Mike, who was 15 at the time of the crash. "To me, it just didn't seem like he cared," Gutweiler said. "After all these years he could have sat down and written my son a letter, and never did. Getting nothing was another slap in the face."
This is the all too common theme, and it happens again and again. Over and over and over. over 13 THOUSAND people die every year because of this, and so many more lives are destroyed. But because people in our society like to drink and don't like to take responsibility for their actions and decision making process that lead them to have this DESPICABLE lack of respect for human lives, this disgusting and horrible crime is somehow treated as if it's no big deal and the people who do it are just having a momentary lack of judgement. So Leonard killed people, but he was drunk so that excuses it. He did it again, and again, and again, but he's not really a bad person because he didn't think about it, or because lots of people do it. That's what I mean by screwed up. The things we excuse and the things we think are "horrific" are just disgusting. Michael Vick killed (or more likely the guys who copped to it included him in the actual killings to reduce their time) 6 dogs, and society thinks he's a scourge that should be gang raped and have his life destroyed. Alchoholics kill thousands of people by their complete disregard for others, and they just made a simple, forgiveable mistake that we should have empathy for. There should be a federal investigation on how to STOP the slaughter of thousands of people every year by drunks and people who murder others with tons of metal should have sentences appropriate to the devestation their decisions cause. We care more about animals than people, and it makes me sick. This is from an animal lover, someone that has raised every kind of animal there is, and someone who donates money to the humane society.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:45:38 AM)

Todd, I guess where I am coming from is that you should realize that driving drunk is so much worse than killing dogs. I'm sorry, but it is. An animal's life is not equal to a human beings. You should realize that the damage you could do to someone and their lives is so much worse than killing dogs. I know that is why so many people excuse drunk driving, because they have done it themselves, and it's hard to face that. People hate to live with guilt, and so it's easier to think of drunk driving as just an excuse, instead of aiming a bullet into a crowded room. It's easier to pretend it wasn't a consious decision. Forgiving the death of dogs should be at least as easy as forgiving someone for killing another human. Whether or not that happens depends on a number of things. If someone is truly sorry for the wrongs they've done in life, be that killing people, animals, or driving drunk, everyone deserves forgiveness. It doesn't sound wierd at all, I hope no one goes through anything like this either. But as long as people think drunk driving is just a mistake, hundreds of thousands of people will.



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 4:57:45 AM)

Thank you for this conversation guys. I take a little bit of everything and try and grow a little each day. FWIW I hardly drink at all anymore. I haven't drank and drove since I was in my late teens. Drinking and driving is a more serious problem in society than killing dogs. I get it. Personally I don't think cars should work until sobriety is insured. I guess everyone has their own personal scale as to how things affect their consciousness, heart and soul. What you've (and sadly others) have had to go through is worse than the death of any animal. I've stated that my wires may be crossed or something because nothing hits my heart like that of animal suffering and I'm sorry that it seems to make me come across as insensitive to human suffering sometimes.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 5:30:29 AM)

Todd It is great that you have such strong beliefs and stick up for them. I have gained even more respect for you



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 5:52:03 AM)

[quote="Easy E"]Todd, I guess where I am coming from is that you should realize that driving drunk is so much worse than killing dogs. I'm sorry, but it is. An animal's life is not equal to a human beings. You should realize that the damage you could do to someone and their lives is so much worse than killing dogs. I know that is why so many people excuse drunk driving, because they have done it themselves, and it's hard to face that. People hate to live with guilt, and so it's easier to think of drunk driving as just an excuse, instead of aiming a bullet into a crowded room. It's easier to pretend it wasn't a consious decision. Forgiving the death of dogs should be at least as easy as forgiving someone for killing another human. Whether or not that happens depends on a number of things. If someone is truly sorry for the wrongs they've done in life, be that killing people, animals, or driving drunk, everyone deserves forgiveness. It doesn't sound wierd at all, I hope no one goes through anything like this either. But as long as people think drunk driving is just a mistake, hundreds of thousands of people will.[/quote] ************************************************************* What really gets me is this momentary lapse in judgment crap. How many times do you think a person actually drives drunk before they are caught? The fact that this country doesn't have a zero tolerance policy on drunk driving is shameful. A drivers license is not a right. Get caught once, you should go to jail, and lose your license forever. What's worse for society, dog killers or drunk drivers? We accept drunk drivers because so many people do it.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:33:57 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"]Thank you for this conversation guys. I take a little bit of everything and try and grow a little each day. FWIW I hardly drink at all anymore. I haven't drank and drove since I was in my late teens. Drinking and driving is a more serious problem in society than killing dogs. I get it. Personally I don't think cars should work until sobriety is insured. I guess everyone has their own personal scale as to how things affect their consciousness, heart and soul. What you've (and sadly others) have had to go through is worse than the death of any animal. I've stated that my wires may be crossed or something because nothing hits my heart like that of animal suffering and I'm sorry that it seems to make me come across as insensitive to human suffering sometimes.[/quote] Todd, if I didn't respect you as good guy, I would never have engaged in discussion with you. You don't come across as insensitive at all. I think society as a whole has it's own set of values and morals. And it's not that they aren't "right", they are just messed up sometimes. And I don't think sticking up for helpless animals is a bad thing, not at all. I love anmals too. I don't think Vick spending a year or even three in jail is wrong. I just wish that society paid as much attention to things that, IMO, are more important and gave them their due as well. That's what is screwed up, to me. I'm not asking you to suddenly decide Vick is ok and all is forgiven. Passion for animals well being is a noble cause and a sign of a good person, which I have no doubt you are. I'm just saying we need to wake up to other things all around us. That you've thought about and even tried to not eat meat is very laudable. I'm just saying that as a society, let's let cruelty for animals and how we think that should be treated be a starting point. Why would we accept people doing to others things we don't think should be done to animals? If I thought the prosecution of Vick was a sign of society "waking up" to just how out of whack we've become, and that 3 years in jail for someone who hurts and kills animals was the "lowest bar", so to speak, I would be happy. Take the money and federal time spent to build this case, and the one against the NBA ref, and quadruple that for murders, rape, etc. Sadly, I think most of this is misplaced for sensationalism. The feds figure they can't do anything about inner city crime, drunk driving, date rape, and the thousands of atrocities perpetrated every day. But right now public sentiment is with this, and they have a high profile athlete, so everyone can make their careers. (not everyone, but I think that's a lot of it).



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 8:25:59 AM)

I guess we'll have to wait until Monday to hear what the Bush appointed, law and order judge has to say.



Steven JL -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 1:35:26 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Easy E"]Words cannot adequately express the pure rage I feel when I hear that someone getting stone drunk, getting in a car and killing someone is less offensive and more understandable that killing 6 dogs. Or 100 million dogs. Or every single dog, spider, rat, bee and buffalo on the planet. AGREE 100% I find it amazing that someone would consider Vick's crime less offensive than Leonard Little killing a mother and then continuing to drive drunk years later! Some people have their priorities screwed up for sure. Agree completely as well. Who's the callous bastard who said drunk driving killers were less 'offensive' than than the circumstances of Vick's case? Oh wait nobody said that. What I observed was that people tend to find it easier to forgive people for crimes that are based on a single incident rather than ones perpetuated over years and years. Continued intentional violations of the law tend to speak to character more than one isolated violation of the law. I'm extremely 'offended' when people are killed by someone driving drunk, or by someone sailing through a "late yellow" streetlight, or by someone driving 20 miles over the speed limit, etc. My heart goes out to those victims. I personally knew a family here in Michigan that lost the mother, and two pre teen boys to a mid-day drunk driver driving 80 on a side street a couple years ago. It happened 2 miles from my home. I had attended classes with the parents, talked about life with them, met their boys. A truly ridiculous waste. The drunk bastard got 20-some years and rightly so. JC wrote:
quote:

Once again you use the classic strawman argument. No one ever said look past Vick. Everyone here said prison term with lifetime ban. However, no way in the world is what Vick did worse, or even on the same level, as Leonard Little (as was proclaimed in the post above). THAT is the issue.
Alas you are employing the classic strawman argument yourself. I never "proclaimed" what Vick did was worse or on the same level as Leonard Little. In fact there was nothing in that paragraph that equated or made value comparisons between the types of criminal acts. I said it's generally easier for people to forgive an single isolated crime than a repeated crime because it speaks to underlying character. In fact, I find Leonard's second DWI the MORE troubling crime than his first (despite the fact his "first" had a more horrific outcome. I mean how could you EVER even drink again after having that happen in your past?). In my opinion as soon as he got that SECOND DWI after already killing someone before, I was appalled that he was let back in the league. His first sentence should have included a 20-year probation to be served in its entirety if he were to ever get another DWI. Really that case goes to my point. Repeat offenders have less capacity for forgiveness in our society. That's why Vick is facing an uphill battle. It wasn't an isolated event.



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 3:39:14 PM)

One thing that needs to be pointed out. I would guess that Leonard Little and his crime have been discussed at least 30 times over the past few years on the Strib board. Outrage over the fact that he is out of prison and allowed to play in the NFL has been vented many, many times. Just about every time the subject of thugs in the NFL comes up, Leonard Little's name is mentioned. He and Ray Lewis have been the poster boys for the serious flaw in the NFL's policies. So the suggestion that people are placing Michael Vick's crime above that of Leonard Little, and essentially giving Little a pass - is ridiculous! I can't even count the number of times that his name has been brought up, and every single time it's been mentioned with disgust. Just to set the record straight.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 5:32:11 PM)

My big question now that Michael Vick admits to guilt (still unknown to exactly what), what is the reaction from all the people that made it a race issue? This ought to be interesting. The value of life is an interesting topic and different cultures places different values on the various lives. We happen to live in culture where "born" dogs are "man's best friends" and the unborn human life in a woman is a personal choice. It is a crazy world.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 5:50:54 PM)

[quote="Littig"]Todd, Well said. I feel much the same way. I'm sure he and his attorneys have tried their best and will continue to try to avoid any specific admissions of sadistic animal cruelty. Admitting to bad friends, and bad judgment, and funding a lifestyle for your friends is one thing - admitting to killing dogs with your bare hands and having full knowledge of this operation for 5 years is quite another. The Feds did their job and got a guilty plea. They aren't interested in ending his career just putting him in jail for a "just" amount of time. (And don't believe all the media proclamations about 10-12 months. Remember when the indictment came out on the house and the media were all exonerating Vick? Anyone with a brain (well OK I saw it coming but saw very few main stream media types see it) could see that an indictment on the house was simply a procedural step until the owner of the house would be indicted. All along th media have erred on the low side for what Vick will face. I think he will get at least 18 months and probably 2+ years from the judge (before good behavior credits). As far as him getting back in the NFL our hope for justice now lies with Goodell. As I stated above Goodell has a great deal of power to extract more detailed confessions from Vick. He WILL need to answer specifically (even if his federal plea sidesteps the issue) to the sworn testimony that he himself killed dogs. If that comes out as true - forget it - he will need to be a model poster boy for at least 4 years before he gets another chance with an NFL team. Finally it will come down to owners and fans. I for one would never stand for him on my Vikes. Letters to the owner, letters to the paper, cancelling season tickets held since Day 1 of Viking history would all be on the table. And I'm betting I'm not alone. Unlike many crimes for which we are willing to forgive people or players once they have "served their debt", this was NOT a momentary lapse in judgment. Driving drunk, watching your friends stab someone and then not knowing what to say, giving a phone number to a friend for a drug deal, getting drunk and attacking a cop, even killing another human being while driving drunk are all bad crimes. But they are moments in time, and who of us hasn't made a stupid snap decision at one time or another? These things can often be forgiven because we can see our own humanity in a crime of momentary stupidity (but for the grace of God there go I... kind of thing). Vick's 5 year conspiracy to plan, fund, operate, and grow a dog fighting operation which by definition treats dogs sadistically and horrifically goes deeper than a momentary decision. It speaks to a lack of character and humanity that we cannot relate to (or do not want to relate to). There is no "but for the grace of God" relief in sight for him on this issue. People won't forget, PETA (as stupid as they are) won't forget, and any owner who ever tries to bring him back better be bringing back a "born again man" with a several year track record of being squeeky clean and working his ass off for redemption. If Vick isn't willing to humble himself to an extent he hasn't ever had to even comprehend in his priveleged life, he will never gain the opportunity to play again. Read the exact post
quote:

even killing another human being while driving drunk are all bad crimes. But they are moments in time, and who of us hasn't made a stupid snap decision at one time or another? These things can often be forgiven because we can see our own humanity in a crime of momentary stupidity (but for the grace of God there go I... kind of thing).
Those are your words Killing another human being is not just a stupid snap decision



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 5:51:43 PM)

The post above "sets the record straight".



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:22:29 PM)

Good point on LL Lynn. That guy burns me up. I'm flabbergasted that he is a free man. That defies all logic I can come up with. I've been a big time critic of this Vick stuff and I've cited with Todd and Steve on the left, if you will. I want him to go down, big time. My reasoning is this: I believe 100% (and have from the get-go) that he is guilty as charged. No if/and/buts about it. He is also a high profile athlete. I'm hoping that they throw the book at him so every other petty bastard that does this kind of stuff thinks "damn, if Vick, with all his money and high priced lawyers goes down, what could happen to little ole me?". Will that happen? Probably not, but I hope. This is a prime opportunity to use his celebrity against him to try and rid this out of our culture. Is it worse then the human problems we face everyday? No, of course not. This stuff also goes on everyday though and now it's in the face of America. You don't hear about it often so when you do, especially on this grand scale, you have to be swift and harsh IMO. It's the only chance of weeding this issue out. It should only be a priority now because of how current it is and who's involved. There won't be better time (probably ever) to try and get rid of it.



Steven JL -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:27:00 PM)

That sets nothing straight. Nor does it explain your quote of
quote:

Once again you use the classic strawman argument. No one ever said look past Vick. Everyone here said prison term with lifetime ban. However, no way in the world is what Vick did worse, or even on the same level, as Leonard Little (as was proclaimed in the post above). THAT is the issue.
Show me where in that post of mine you so carefully bolded that I said what Vick did was "worse than, or even on the same level, as Leonard Little". I didn't even mention "Leonard Little" in my post. In fact, Leonard Little is the perfect example of my original point which you are so careful to avoid by putting words in my mouth. The point being that: Repeat offenders get less forgiveness from the public than offenders who commit an isolated single crime. Not a hard concept to fathom. Oh and sorry to say, people are "killed" quite often from stupid snap decisions by others - speeders, trying to get through an intersection, trying to drive "just to the next city" late at night and falling asleep, mothers who run in to answer the phone when their children are playing by a pool, the guy who incredibly "forgot" his child in the hot car, a group of kids who dare each other to swim across a lake, etc, etc. Many of those circumstances are momentary decisions, many are crimes, often people die. The guilty in those situations often find more capacity for forgiveness than someone who has been perpetuating a crime for half a decade. What's so hard about this concept?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:33:22 PM)

Drinking and driving is not a momentary decision. It is not a slip and fall. You take time to drink and then you make a conscious decision to drive and potentially kill someone. This is beyond absurd though when you ignore your own words! "Vick's 5 year conspiracy to plan, fund, operate, and grow a dog fighting operation which by definition treats dogs sadistically and horrifically goes deeper than a momentary decision" Enough said



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:42:07 PM)

[quote="Lynn Garthwaite"]One thing that needs to be pointed out. I would guess that Leonard Little and his crime have been discussed at least 30 times over the past few years on the Strib board. Outrage over the fact that he is out of prison and allowed to play in the NFL has been vented many, many times. Just about every time the subject of thugs in the NFL comes up, Leonard Little's name is mentioned. He and Ray Lewis have been the poster boys for the serious flaw in the NFL's policies. So the suggestion that people are placing Michael Vick's crime above that of Leonard Little, and essentially giving Little a pass - is ridiculous! I can't even count the number of times that his name has been brought up, and every single time it's been mentioned with disgust. Just to set the record straight.[/quote] Lynn, is Leonard Little a free man or not? The record shows that, and societies reaction to drunk driving shows that, yes, in fact, Leonard Little did essentially recieve a free pass. The man may get some outraged posters being mad at him, but as far as any real fallout goes, he spent a few months in jail and then returned to his life as if nothing had happened. There is no societal awareness that is going to blackball him from the NFL. There is no outrage that accomplishes anything. It's almost hard to blame him for continuing to drink and drive. He committed what should be the ultimate evil act in society, taking another's life, and we as a society told him "Hey, that's ok, you must feel really bad about it, just don't do it again, and after all, you were drunk and just made a bad choice". And then, he does it again, and what happens to him? Nothing. nada. Zilch. No time in jail, no ban from the NFL, no federal prosecution... not. a. single. thing. And this is the story with drunk driving, over and over again. The cases where someone gets drunk and kills someone, and spends more than a couple years in jail is rare. The FACT is that society DID place Vick's crime over Leonard Little's, and even though Leonard STILL continues to have the same disregard for human life, society does NOTHING to him. Read the papers, watch the news, follow the court cases. I love you Lynn, and I know you don't feel that way, but wake up, that's what's going on everyday. Drunk driving is just a mistake, and the people who do it only do it one time, and it's just a goof or mistake, similar to running a red light, they don't mean any harm, and if they do, they probably won't do it again, it was just an accident. The excuses go on and on and society (meaning people) let it.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:52:58 PM)

[quote="Easy E"] The FACT is that society DID place Vick's crime over Leonard Little's, and even though Leonard STILL continues to have the same disregard for human life, society does NOTHING to him. [/quote] The backboard is still shaking with this absolute slam dunk of a statement. So very sad, but so very true. That GUY is a disgrace of a human being and YET he is still in the NFL. Good job, Easy E.



Steven JL -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 6:57:52 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]Drinking and driving is not a momentary decision. It is not a slip and fall. You take time to drink and then you make a conscious decision to drive and potentially kill someone. This is beyond absurd though when you ignore your own words! "Vick's 5 year conspiracy to plan, fund, operate, and grow a dog fighting operation which by definition treats dogs sadistically and horrifically goes deeper than a momentary decision" Enough said[/quote] I don't ignore my own words - just the ones you make up and attribute to me. As far as my own words which you quoted directly above I don't ignore those. The fact that Vick was involved in this heinous crime for more than 5 years DOES go deeper to a reflection of his character than one based on a momentary decision. And while drinking and driving is a more prolonged decision process (maybe 2 minutes - "should I drive?" maybe 2 hours - "should I stop if I am going to drive?") than trying to beat a light or leaving your kid unattended for a few minutes it still pales in comparison to 5 years. And If you weren't ignoring my words we wouldn't be having this go-round. I never said drunk driving is excusable or just a regretable slip or mistake for which we shouldn't be punished. I SAID Society (and Vick's ability to get back in the league is going to depend on society) is MORE WILLING TO FORGIVE crimes that happen based on a single isolated event involving poor judgment compared to those crimes that are repeated willfully and blatently (Or at least that is what I was trying to say). Your example of Leonard Little is the proof to this theory. The reason his name is such a synonym for poor behavior is the SECOND DWI. It was bad enough that he killed someone once but obviously he was forgiven (by the courts, by the league, probably by many fans - though not those here). However, after the second DWI we were all appalled and outraged by his behavior. Had this commissioner been involved I doubt he would have returned to the league. Now go ahead and ignore the content of this post to pull out some non-sequiter quote from my post and use it to proclaim that I said all drunk drivers should get 3 or 4 warnings before they even get in trouble.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 7:02:30 PM)

[quote="Littig"]Oh and sorry to say, people are "killed" quite often from stupid snap decisions by others - speeders, trying to get through an intersection, trying to drive "just to the next city" late at night and falling asleep, mothers who run in to answer the phone when their children are playing by a pool, the guy who incredibly "forgot" his child in the hot car, a group of kids who dare each other to swim across a lake, etc, etc. Many of those circumstances are momentary decisions, many are crimes, often people die. The guilty in those situations often find more capacity for forgiveness than someone who has been perpetuating a crime for half a decade. What's so hard about this concept?[/quote] Understanding that people get hurt by accidents or bad decisions isn't hard. It's the connection of these to the act of drunk driving that I find disgusting. Everyone makes mistakes, and most people end up paying for them. But getting drunk and getting into a car is a mistake in the same way that taking a gun loading it, and firing into a shopping mall is a mistake. Unfortulately, your perception of it seems to be societies, which is why it is such a big problem and why so many people are hurt by it. If we didn't view drunk driving as a "mistake", but as a serious crime, we could control it much better than we do. In fact, the thought process that led Vick to do what he did, and the thought process that leads someone to drink and drive is actually quite similar. Vick probably isn't a psychopath that decided killing dogs was his life's calling. He probably felt the same thrill that people who go to bullfights, or UFC fights feel. He probably had some felon friends who told him they could set it up, and so they did, and thousands and thousands of people came to see them. And they all had a good time. And then, because it's convienient, easy, and because he didn't really think about the consequences, when they said "we got to put some of these guys down" he went along with it. He just blocked it out of his mind, just focused on the fun part, and let the fun keep going. The thought process that goes into someone drinking and driving? They aren't psychopaths that want to kill other humans, they just feel like having a good time getting drunk. And because it's easy and convienient, they "forget" to have someone else drive, or to get a taxi, or to stay the night. Frankly, a lot of people think driving drunk is their right. They stumble out into the night, and even though by now everyone is painfully aware of the devestation and murder that takes place when people drink and drive, they just shut it out of their minds. They just block out the damage and risk they are taking and say "the hell with it, nothing bad will happen". They block it out when they set out for a night of drinking. And I'll tell you what, what Vick did was despicable, but I bet you almost anything that he never does it again. Even if he's allowed back in the NFL, I bet he's "learned his lesson". And I'll tell you that peole who kill others driving drunk are not doing it for the first time, and those that get caught doing it, end up doing it again and again. Honetly, what Little did, taking the life of another person through his willful decision to get drunk and drive is SO MUCH MORE DESPICABLE than Vick killing dogs. What is so hard about this concept? And why does our society have such a hard time realizing it?



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode