How is Vick "overly prosecuted"?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Not to threadjack, but Don Imus got fired because he is an idiot. He got paid because people liked what he said, then he said some pretty idiotic things that people didn't like, his employer was losing ad money, and so Imus was fired. Imus has the right to his opinions, but his employer had the right to fire him because his comments hurt the company's bottom line.

Well, you're getting deep into Imus, and that's not the point, the point is:
And the NFL / Falcons don't have the right to "fire" Vick?
What Vick did was 1 million times worse (and I'm being nice) than what Imus did, and Imus lost everything for it, so why shouldn't Vick?

In any event, what exactly does Imus have to do with Vick?

It's about the persecution of an exhaulted person. Note the very first comment here with Imus and Martha Stewart.

[JWsleep]

Pretty hard to feel bad for Vick--I mean, in a movie, if you want to show that a character is really bad, then you have him kill a dog. Vick admitted to being involved with the death of six. And he has (had!) a 130 mil contract. What an idiot.

(Prediction: Imus will be back soon. Martha is doing fine. Wonder if the NFL will let Vick back in? Do the Raiders need a QB? He's wouldn't even be the Cinncy bengal with the most jail time.)

(No, I don't think the NFL should.)

(I have a bad feeling about this thread...)

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Don Imus hasn't lost everything - he has his freedom, he didn't have to give his employer back his salary, and he may get another gig. FYI - The First Amendment doesn't apply to the whole Imus incident.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Don Imus hasn't lost everything - he has his freedom, he didn't have to give his employer back his salary, and he may get another gig. FYI - The First Amendment doesn't apply to the whole Imus incident.

Well, I disagree with you here, but that would be getting off the subject. I'll get back to the subject, I will tell you that this was argued before here and was proven to be a freedom of speech issue since the FCC didn't fine him. But again, the subject is about Vick, and how about we change it to "Martha Stewart vs Vick"?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I will tell you that this was argued before here and was proven to be a freedom of speech issue since the FCC didn't fine him.

Huh? I took a dump and the FCC didn't fine me, so I guess that makes my taking a dump a First Amendment issue. End of threadjack.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Huh? I took a dump and the FCC didn't fine me, so I guess that makes my taking a dump a First Amendment issue. End of threadjack.

And you taking a dump is normally regulated by the FCC?

(now back to the thread)

[SmootSmack]

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Imus lost his job with CBS, but could likely come back. Whether it's through terrestrial radio or satellite radio, or tv, or the web, etc.

Vick lost his job (though not officially yet) with the Falcons, he's going to prison, and there's no guarantee he's coming back to the NFL.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Your argument doesn't make sense to me. Imus lost his job with CBS, but could likely come back. Whether it's through terrestrial radio or satellite radio, or tv, or the web, etc.

Well really, they don't have a lot of similarity, the point is Imus was overly prosecuted, and Vick is not. (same with Martha Stewart being over prosecuted and Vick is not) Vick is getting a light sentence and punishment.

Vick lost his job (though not officially yet) with the Falcons, he's going to prison, and there's no guarantee he's coming back to the NFL.

He'll be back. (although I'd say as a WR)

[SmootSmack]

I guess none of us (at least I don't) know what you mean still by "overly prosecuted"

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I guess none of us (at least I don't) know what you mean still by "overly prosecuted"

I don't know how to explain it any more than I already have.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well really, they don't have a lot of similarity, the point is Imus was overly prosecuted, and Vick is not. (same with Martha Stewart being over prosecuted and Vick is not) Vick is getting a light sentence and punishment.

Imus lost a job for making insanely dumb comments when his job is to make funny and insightful comments. Imus never faced criminal prosecution. Imus was paid by his employer to leave (as part of a settlement for ending his contract). It's hard to see exactly how he was overly prosecuted when he was never prosecuted.

Martha isn't exactly hurting either. She's a billionaire who spent a little time in prison for violating federal securities laws. I don't feel exactly sorry for her either.

I don't feel sorry for Vick in the slightest. Vick is getting what he had coming to him. But, to say that sending him to federal prison for a while, costing him tens of millions of dollars, and ruining his career is somehow "light punishment" for killing seven dogs (a reprehensible crime) is a little perplexing. I know everyone (including myself) likes to talk about throwing Vick into a ring with wild dogs, but we are a land with a justice system and he is going to get exactly what the federal prosecutors are asking for. I'm happy with his punishment.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Imus lost a job for making insanely dumb comments when his job is to make funny and insightful comments. Imus never faced criminal prosecution. Imus was paid by his employer to leave (as part of a settlement for ending his contract). It's hard to see exactly how he was overly prosecuted when he was never prosecuted.

Maybe where people are getting confused is that I am referring to a court of public opinion.

[SmootSmack]

So, you're saying that Vick should have received a harsher sentence? Or that the public shouldn't be as forgiving?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

So, you're saying that Vick should have received a harsher sentence? Or that the public shouldn't be as forgiving?

Well, yes to both on that, but in particular the public being as "understanding" as they have been. (and not caring as they have been...not that everyone is, but a lot are)

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well, yes to both on that, but in particular the public being as "understanding" as they have been. (and not caring as they have been...not that everyone is, but a lot are)

I think, as has been mentioned, there's been a good amount of opinions expressed publicly representing both sides; all three sides actually-too light a punishment, too harsh, and just right