Oh, I have nothing against second chances when appropriate. For example, if my best friend accidentally ran over my dog, I'd be upset, but it wouldn't be the end of our friendship. Second chance? Yes. If my best friend intentionally beat my dog to a bloody pulp and electocuted him with jumper cables, it would be the end of our friendship. No second chance. Ever. Luckily, though, not a single friend or family member would ever engage in the type of repulsive, disgusting behavior that Vick displayed over a period of years, without any remorse at all...oh, yeah... until he was caught. Then it's "Boo hoo, I made a mistake. Please don't take away my multi-million-dollar job!"
I'm sorry, I guess I was under the impression that we should reward those who advance the human condition, and not just throw millions at somebody because "I run real good". And as far as second chances, I think his second chance should be tossing hashbrowns at micky d's.
Exactly. Getting caught didn't suddenly make him realize that his years of remorseless, sociopathic operation of a violent and sadistic dogfighting ring were oh-so-wrong. He knew it and he enjoyed, and had he not been caught he'd still be doing it without an ounce of pity. His apologetic crocodile tears were just a public play for sympathy, and the only people they worked on were those who liked him more as an athlete than as a person. The end result of Vick's incarceration has merely been that it was an embarrassment and an inconvenience and in the larger view, it changed nothing. I guarantee that if he knew with absolute certainty that he could run another dogfighting operation in the same manner he did before and not get caught, you can damn well bet he'd do it. /facepalm
I don't understand some of the arguments in this thread. What is with the argument about because so and so got away with fill in the blank crime, than Vick shouldn't be held accountable? This makes sense? Because someone walked all over justice than so should someone else? It is unfortunate any time someone gets away with a crime especially something as horrible as murder but we don't let out all murders because the system failed to properly punish one. I also can't believe this arguement that because we all make mistakes, Vick shouldn't be held more accountable for his actions. This man picked up dogs and beat them to death, he hung them, and (according to witnesses at his trial) used his personal favorite electrocution to kill these animals. Now I'm sorry for all my mistakes I've made in my life, but I have NEVER done anything that is like that! By the way he was not sorry as he bashed the life out of a dog. He was not sorry as he cashed the checks of other morally bankrupt people. He was not sorry UNTIL after he was caught and sentenced. I go back to what I said originially: if this guy wants a "second" chance, let it be flipping burgers and struggling to make ends meet, like most people in this country and not by making millions of dollars in a position of role model to children. By the way, since people keep arguing that animal life doesn't count. How do you think a person who totures and kills animals for "fun" and money views life including human? Please realize that serial killers almost always get their start torturing and killing animals.
Ok I'm sick of everyone complaining. Everyone is jealous because he makes so much money and is famous. This is why we have a judicial system. Granted hat he did was absolutely horrible and completely inhumane. But the judicial system detemined his punishment and he completed 100% of it without arguing. He did his time so now it is behind him. He deserves to move on. The judicial system determines if he has paid for his crime. Not a bunch of whiny forum members. Sorry to sound mean but someone had to say it.
The judge gave him his sentence, he went through it, he's free now. Superstar or not, he didn't get special treatment, he went through the system just like any other person. I don't see what's so hard to understand about taking your punishment, and moving on.
There is a world of difference between civilized hunting (inasmuch as hunting for sport can be called civilized) and gratuitously torturing and killing animals for the pleasure of watching them suffer and die. The former is, if in my view a little barbaric, at least sporting, and to a certain, somewhat questionable degree, serves a bit of an ecological purpose. The latter is indefensibly sociopathic behaviour. Two years is not long, not nearly long enough for what he did. The max was 5. The only reason he didn't get it was because he waffled and refused to give consistent answers during his allocution. He got off light because he lied his ass off and would not admit to the extent of the deaths nor the explicit methods by which the dogs were killed nor the degree of his involvement in them. He'd give one answer and then another, contradictory answer. And he did this because he knew it would spare him the maximum sentence -- his lawyer's idea, no doubt. And it worked. Yes, the "you're just jealous!" argument always works better than making actual, relevant counterpoints. /facepalm Based on half-truths and lies. It isn't like he had an argument to bring, is it? He was unquestionably guilty. His only recourse was to try and minimize his punishment as much as possible by whatever means necessary. And pick up exactly where he left off as if nothing happened and all is forgiven and forgotten? I think not.
Thanks. That's exactly what I was thinking, but it probably would have taken me ten times as many words to say it...
but who are we to decide what his second chance should be. He's not realy starting from the top again. He has to work for his palying time and even the moeny isnt guaranteed, so w/e im partial with this. If he foes well and serves as a example to others, i think it was worth giving him a second shot. If not, then, well then i think everyone will be against him and NFL wont employ him anymore, and this has been said a lot of times by the owners and the commish
Ugh I live in Philly and this is the worst decision ever. Today I was on the beach and one of those advertising planes went by, and on the banner it said "Shame on the Philly, Boycott the Eagles", And i'm with that all the way
This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with his skills as a football player. Not sure why you don't get that. Did you even bother to read the previous posts? To compare what Vick did to having a party on a boat is just plain ludicrous. Most adults would view that comparison as ill-conceived. I'm guessing (and hoping, really) that your lack of insight is because you are "prolly" one of the...uh...younger members of this forum. Glad to hear it's causing an uproar in Philly. Hope it continues. I also hope there is at least one dog-loving linebacker on an opposing team this season! C-R-U-N-C-H! Oops, my bad!
I haven't read through this thread, so sorry if anyone has asked this but, any wagers on how long it takes before the Eagles are at a visitor's stadium and they blare "Who Let The Dogs Out" over the P.A. while showing Vick on the Jumbotron? I'm guessing week 3 or 4.
