RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

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



Message


Trekgeekscott -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 7:09:57 PM)

What people seem to be missing here is that Little's punishment should have no bearing on Vick's punishment. Yes there is a problem with society that doesn't punish someone for repeatedly driving drunk or punishes them very lightly. That does not, however, excuse Michael Vick from violating federal law. The court, society's arbiter, will decide his punishment. As for playing in the NFL again, I think Vick probably will. But it will be years from now and he wont have anywhere near the impact he has had previously. Just look at Mr. Suspension himself Ricky Williams...He can't even succeed in Canada... Vick's punishment will not only include jail time. He will lose MILLIONS of dollars. Should Leonard Little's punishment be more severe? Well, maybe it should, but society already assesed Little's punishment. They determined that it was sufficient. We may not agree but that isn't our perview to change. The NFL accepted him back. If he has another incident...the NFL substance abuce policy is still in effect and Roger Goodel has been quite strict in applying suspensions. Comparing one person's crime's to another makes for exciting debate sometimes, like comparing Bill Clinton's getting some head, to Bush's lying to get us into a war, but in the end the comparisons really should end there.




Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 7:19:48 PM)

[quote="Easy E"] Lynn, is Leonard Little a free man or not? Yes - and that's WHY WE'RE SO OUTRAGED! If the guy was still in prison and not playing in the NFL, we'd just feel that justice was done. It's the fact that he's out and playing again that has us so disgusted. That's the whole point - that we're disgusted by Leonard Little and the fact that he's still drinking, driving, and essentially thumbing his nose at the rest of us.
quote:

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.
How is your statement about "almost hard to blame him" any different than the statement you've been so angry about - "society finds a way to forgive the one time mistake." Double standard?
quote:

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.
We actually don't know what value society has placed on Vick's crime until the final charges are announced and his sentenced is declared. If he gets more time than Leonard Little, then your statement is correct. Until the judge declares a sentence - your claim is premature.
quote:

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.
I'd say I love you back, but you've got the advantage - I don't know who you are. :D But you're right - I have zero tolerance for drunk drivers and in fact I have taken a few off the road myself. I'm lucky to live in a town that has placed a high priority on taking dd's off the road, and I support it 100%. I also have frequently ranted about the fact that the court system lets these people off with a slap on the wrist and people have been known to rack up a dozen DWI's and are still on the street. I feel it's unconscionable. After two DWI's I think the sentence should reach double digits. If there is an injury or death to someone else - throw the book at them. And all the time that I'm livid about drunk drivers, I'm still interested in seeing Michael Vick get a long sentence and get kicked out of the NFL. I don't see a contradiction or a conflict of interest. I can be angered by both crimes.




El Duderino -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 7:20:19 PM)

Okay. A lot of words have been said comparing drinking and driving to animal abuse. Can we all agree that both are horrible? As for why the media and public have paid more attention to Michael Vick, I think it is because of two things: 1) Far more people drink and drive than run dog-fighting rings. Now, I'm not excusing it by any means - I think the legal limit to drive should be 0.00% BAC, and killing someone while DUI should be 2nd degree murder. But far more people can identify with a drunk driver than can with a dog-killer, so it is easier for people to dismiss as a mistake. 2) This is the big one. Michael Vick is (was, now, I suppose) a top-level upper echelon superstar. People who don't know squat about the NFL know who Vick is. Of course the media are going to pay more attention to it - they are biased towards sensationalism, and the face of the NFL being involved in something so unsavory is a HUGE story. Another DUI is piddly compared to that from a newsperson's standpoint. Personally, I think Vick should never suit up again. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see lifetime bans for repeat DUIs - I would. I would also love to see lifetime bans for even a single conviction of domestic abuse. One other point that I want to address: This is not about the six dogs that Vick killed (I am sure it's more than that - they probably only have evidence enough to prosecute for six). It is about the person who would do that. If someone has no compunction about killing an animal for no other reason than that it can't fight well enough, it is not that great a step to hurting a human who doesn't do what you want. This phenomenon is widely known throughout criminology circles.




Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 7:22:53 PM)

quote:

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.
This is going to come off as a flame, but frankly I don't care. This is the BULLSHIT MENTALITY THAT ALLOWS DRUNK DRIVING TO CONTINUE TO BE SUCH A PROBLEM. Driving drunk takes tons of time. It takes waking up and saying "You know what, I'm going drinking tonight, and I'm going to make sure I don't take public transportation, or a sober cab, or make plans to stay overnight. I'm an American, dammit, and driving everywhere is my right and I ain't going to let a little think like intoxication slow me down". It takes years to harden your soul to the pain and suffering everyone knows this causes. A common theme is that someone gets drunk when they're a teenager, drives home and wakes up not knowing where they are. That's pretty bad, and even that is something that should be punished. In most people, though, there is a switch inside, even if it's not completely consious, one that goes "Holy shit, that was an absolutely insane thing to do, I'm never doing that again". Some people, however ignore that, and continue to drink and drive. And more often than not, it's those people, the ones who have spent years and years driving drunk and spending years, if not decades deciding and making a concious choice to fire that 2 ton metal bullet, that cause the problem. And society says, for some reason I don't understand (guilt, shame, indifference) we should tolerate it.




Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 8:24:39 PM)

Scott - I'm not saying Vick should get off, never have, never will. But saying society decided what Leonard Little's punishment is and that's it? Well, society is going to decide Vick and that's it, too. Society also thought, at one time, that killing black people was ok, that women were lesser beings, and that being gay was a crime. I suppose people could have said "oh well, that's what society decided", but then nothing would change. Lynn, you don't have to feel bad, that wasn't my point. My point is that MORE people should think about drunk driving the same way you do. And the fact is, most people don't, or don't take the time, otherwise Leonard Little wouldn't be in the NFL right now after killing someone and then continuing to drive. And I'm not content to wait until he does it yet again and see what happens, and I wish society wasn't, either. And the point that lots of people drink and drive, and so a lot more people can understand it and forgive it, as opposed to killing dogs, which not a lot of people do and we don't understand, is very valid. It's also messed up. Not that we don't understand killing dogs, but that we do understand driving drunk. If some of the people posting here were deciding sentences, it sounds like Leonard Little would spend at least 25, and nwould ever play football again. Sounds right to me. But that isn't what happens in the real world, and that's the point. Why not?




Steven JL -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 8:34:16 PM)

A couple general observations about the last 10 posts or so without digging up the quotes to save time 1) It's a gross generalization to say that everyone who drives over .08 is an habitutal offender who's probably done it dozens of times before they get caught. Some DWIs are one off mistakes. Of course many are probably habitual offenders too. Part of the problem is that it isn't a black/white decision. If they equipped cars with breathalizers (or people carried portable ones) and people knew they were over the limit and drove anyway that's different. I think many people would be surprised at how little alcohol it takes to trip a .08 reading to put them in impaired status. This grey area between .04 and .10 is where people can make a bad "snap" decision simply because they don't know. If some moron is driving at .16 or higher they have shown careless disregard for the law and should be treated differently in the "forgiveness sweepstakes". A first offender who measures .0801 could well fall into this (prosecute but be more willing to forgive after punishment is served category). 2) Yeah we've taken it too lightly as a society. I can't believe there are people on the road with 6+ DWIs driving with suspended licenses. And yet, you occasionally hear about these types getting arrested. 3) Re: Vick. I'd like to ask those here who are on my case about bringing up the example of drunk driving and public forgiveness compared to Vick's case to answer the following question. a) If you think one single drunk driving arrest is NOT deserving of more forgiveness than Vick's 5 year foray into dog fighting and b) You think Vick should be banned from the NFL for life then... c) Would you support a policy that any player arrested for a first offense DWI should also be banned from the NFL for life? By the way as many have charitably mentioned in regards to the post that started this discusssion, this entire subject thread has nothing to do with how much punishment should be given to these crimes or which one is worse. It's about whether or not someone can be forgiven and let back into a public position once their sentence is served.




El Duderino -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 9:01:06 PM)

quote:

I think many people would be surprised at how little alcohol it takes to trip a .08 reading to put them in impaired status. This grey area between .04 and .10 is where people can make a bad "snap" decision simply because they don't know.
This is exactly why I think a limit of 0.00% is the way to go. It takes all guesswork out of the equation. "Have I had a drink? Yes? I won't be drinving, then." or "Am I going to drink tonight? Yes? I need to plan for transportation, then." Much simpler, much less grey area.




Trekgeekscott -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 9:11:09 PM)

Easy E You misunderstand. I think Little got off very light. My point is at this point I can't punish him further. You are clearly passionate about Drunk Driving... wish there were more people like you to be honest. I think the legal limit should be 0.00 BAC. I think that bars should be held more accountable for serving to people who are visibly intoxicated. I think anyone caught driving drunk should lose their license and the car they were driving- PERMANENTLY, and if they are caught driving after that either sober or otherwise the punishment should be more severe. If they killed someone while drunk driving, they should be in jail for years. The NFL has a substance abuse program that includes alcohol...reference Koren Robinson if you don't believe me...It is up to the commisioner to decide if Leonard Little gets to play football anymore...perhaps you should send him a letter and express your discontent with him still being allowed to play, despite his involvement in the death of another human being as a result of his own irresponsible behavior. I don't disagree with you about Little. All I was saying was that the only two authorities that can punish Little, the state and the NFL, have doled out what they determined to be appropriate to them...Not that I agree with it...but that it is a fact.




Steven JL -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/21/2007 9:23:50 PM)

[quote="El Duderino"]
quote:

I think many people would be surprised at how little alcohol it takes to trip a .08 reading to put them in impaired status. This grey area between .04 and .10 is where people can make a bad "snap" decision simply because they don't know.
This is exactly why I think a limit of 0.00% is the way to go. It takes all guesswork out of the equation. "Have I had a drink? Yes? I won't be drinving, then." or "Am I going to drink tonight? Yes? I need to plan for transportation, then." Much simpler, much less grey area. That'd clear up the confusion naturally and would make it much clearer as to what is "acceptable" and "criminal" but it's tough to pass a zero tolerance policy when there's little effect of a .02 on ability to drive. Cell phone, navigation systems, radio changing, smoking, hell even drinking water or coffee or eating may be more "deadly" than someone at a 0.02. While some would applaud the measure, there'd be a huge backlash from many business and individuals alike. I think a better solution is to set the limit at a level that begins to indicate impaired driving ability and then require cars to have breathalizers. Of course your civil libertarians will be all over that intrusion of cost and privacy for the consumer. Maybe if everyone were simply responsible for their actions? :bang:




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 3:24:11 AM)

[quote="Purpleporter"][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.[/quote] He is doing such a great job today I have nothing more to add sheer brilliance




Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 8:48:43 AM)

do your neighborhood a favor today.... shoot a pit bull dead.




Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 10:08:38 AM)

:lame: Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed. From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people. Dog bites— Are there dangerous breeds? Dog bites are a serious problem in the United States. Each year, 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Around 17 percent of these people require medical care. And in approximately 10-20 tragic cases per year, the bite victim is killed. The CDC has labeled dog bites in America an "epidemic." The ten breeds involved in the most lethal attacks over the past ten years are pit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, malamutes, Dobermans, chow chows, St. Bernards, Great Danes, and Akitas. ( shoot all these breeds too Dan?) In response to this growing problem, some communities have banned ownership of certain dogs that are perceived as dangerous, particularly pit bulls and rottweilers. Are some breeds really more dangerous than others? Breed characteristics It's difficult to determine just how much a dog's genetics determine his behavior, just like it's hard to know how much of a person's personality is nature and how much is nurture. It's true that some breeds were bred to perform tasks that require more aggression than others. Pit bulls, for example, were bred to fight dogs and other animals for sport. Some people theorize that pit bulls' genetics make them more prone to violence than other dogs, and pit bulls have in fact been involved in more fatal attacks than any other dog over the past 20 years. But breeds that are not bred for aggression, including golden retrievers, cocker spaniels, and Yorkshire terriers, have been involved in fatal attacks as well. (these too? :roll: ) It's also true that some breeds simply have more ability to injure people than others do. Though it's no more likely to bite than a smaller dog, if it does bite, a Great Dane can do much more damage than a Maltese, for example. (Even very small breeds can be dangerous to children, however.) A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don't show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. There were a high number of fatal bites from Doberman pinschers in the 1970s, for example, because Dobermans were very popular at that time and there were more Dobermans around, and because Dobermans'size makes their bites more dangerous. The number of fatal bites from pit bulls rose in the 1980s for the same reason, and the number of bites from rottweilers in the 1990s. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting.




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 1:52:50 PM)

Buy some history..... Mike Vick's Fishing Boat




Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 4:21:27 PM)

The Jury Selection [img]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4159/vick20juryfg5.jpg[/img]




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 5:56:42 PM)

I think Dan's on to something here but lets not shoot pit bulls. Instead, lets shoot the owners since they are the ones that treat them badly.




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 6:57:20 PM)

There should be harsh be harsh penalties for the owners of dogs that bite people.




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/22/2007 8:03:26 PM)

Absolutely. Of course I said that tongue in cheek but you are 100% correct on that one.




John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 3:12:02 AM)

Even harsher penalties for people who bite people




Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 4:28:35 PM)

Depends what she looks like :twisted:




Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 5:26:14 PM)

[quote="Steven JL"][quote="El Duderino"]
quote:

I think many people would be surprised at how little alcohol it takes to trip a .08 reading to put them in impaired status. This grey area between .04 and .10 is where people can make a bad "snap" decision simply because they don't know.
This is exactly why I think a limit of 0.00% is the way to go. It takes all guesswork out of the equation. "Have I had a drink? Yes? I won't be drinving, then." or "Am I going to drink tonight? Yes? I need to plan for transportation, then." Much simpler, much less grey area. That'd clear up the confusion naturally and would make it much clearer as to what is "acceptable" and "criminal" but it's tough to pass a zero tolerance policy when there's little effect of a .02 on ability to drive. Cell phone, navigation systems, radio changing, smoking, hell even drinking water or coffee or eating may be more "deadly" than someone at a 0.02. While some would applaud the measure, there'd be a huge backlash from many business and individuals alike. I think a better solution is to set the limit at a level that begins to indicate impaired driving ability and then require cars to have breathalizers. Of course your civil libertarians will be all over that intrusion of cost and privacy for the consumer. Maybe if everyone were simply responsible for their actions? :bang: Cell phone and drinknig water impair driving ability at about the same level as a .01 BAC, and many states are making cell phone use while driving illegal. At .02 you begin to have issues with steering, tracking, your eye movement becomes impaired, steadiness and your emergency response is impaired. All things that are probably important if you're going to drive a car, IMO> And btw - the legal limit for anyone under the age of 21 is already .02 in most states. Our society believes that adults are better able to 'handle' their liquor, which is why you're right to bring up civil "liberties". There would be a "backlash" because a lot of Americans believe that drinking and driving is their right, that not just driving, but even having drinks and then driving is a "liberty", so long as they don't hurt anyone. And then, when they inevitably do destroy lives, they want mucho compasion and forgiveness because after all they just made a silly mistake, and a lot of people agree with that sentiment. And it's sick and wrong. Maybe if society held drunk drivers responsible for their actions, they would end up with tougher sentences than people who organize dog fights. I'm hesitant to answer your loaded question that tried to weigh not only the "forgiveness" but also the understandableness and punishment aspects, but I would say that the person who attents one dogfight in their life, and never, ever does it again, is much more understandable and should get much less punishment than someone who drinks and drives one time in their life and never, ever does it again. Those people are few and far between, though. Most drunk drivers (not all) are habitual.




Jim Frenette -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 5:26:34 PM)

Some people need to stop and think before opening their mouths. http://www.startribune.com/wolves/story/1378101.html Dog fighting a sport? A superb athlete should get preferential treatment?




Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 5:40:01 PM)

From Marbury:
quote:

You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."
Hmmm. It's behind closed doors. Do you have any idea why they slink around, hide the location of fights, require a password, and use fake names to watch this "sport" Marbury? It's because it's illegal. And when you make up a fake name, use a password, slink around at night to secret locations to watch these dogfights - you KNOW it's illegal. No excuses.




osure -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 8:26:21 PM)

I really think it is really simple with vick get a felony you are out of the nfl I carry some liscenses with the state and fed government and if I was to get a felony I loose them. I think it is fair they should loose the ability to act in stupid way and not pay a big price :nodding:




Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 8:41:10 PM)

[quote="Lynn Garthwaite"]From Marbury:
quote:

You know, from what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."
Hmmm. It's behind closed doors. Do you have any idea why they slink around, hide the location of fights, require a password, and use fake names to watch this "sport" Marbury? It's because it's illegal. And when you make up a fake name, use a password, slink around at night to secret locations to watch these dogfights - you KNOW it's illegal. No excuses. I dislike Marbury. And I have hunted. However, I believe that his point is that it's behind closed doors because you can't go out and get a liscence to shoot a doog in the head, or gut and track it down while it bleeds out, then rip the heart out and eat it (no, I've never done that, the worms are too sick). I'm not saying dogfighting should be legal, just that the animals we do decide can be killed for sport is kinda arbitrary at times. I'm fine with killing deer (or even bear, elk, etc) and not dogs, but I can see where some might think the two are similar.




Troy Newell -> RE:Mike Vick case (8/23/2007 8:47:15 PM)

[quote="Easy E"] I'm not saying dogfighting should be legal, just that the animals we do decide can be killed for sport is kinda arbitrary at times. I'm fine with killing deer (or even bear, elk, etc) and not dogs, but I can see where some might think the two are similar.[/quote] I can't. Cats and Dogs are a special category of animals. Lots and lots of people treat their cats and dogs almost but not quite the same as they do their children. Once people start sharing their beds with deer, bears, and the like, maybe I could change my mind, but not until then.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode