What Michael Vick won't be

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No argument.

If Vick had done what did to human beings rather than to dogs, he would never have seen the light of day. If Vick had hit a dog while driving drunk, he would likely have suffered no criminal ramifications.

As for Stallworth, you'll get no argument from me. Stallworth, however, is not being recast as the victim. etc. etc.

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.



In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.



No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??

Jeez...Man, take it easy will ya?
This guy should be Freekin' MVP if her were not being victimized by the Freekin' NFL......

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

Matty and JR really nailed their answers, but my thing is the logical fallacies that are becoming normal even in rational debate. I am just asking you to look at the logic in your post. You make several points that are, at best, stretches of logic.
1:if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind.

You are comparing a single instance of murder, to multiple and repeated brutalization of animals. A reasonable comparison would have been a person brutally murdering for enjoyment multiple people. These are known as serial killers and if caught end up in solitary confinement for life (often shortened).
(I also don't think murderers, if paroled, really have a "good" rep. Doubt they walk down the street getting offered million dollar contracts at their preferred profession)

2:So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person.
This is the logic that got me. Vick was punished for brutalizing animals (and more correctly like Matty said, interstate gambling). you gave one incident that shows a man who immediately regretted his actions, humbled himself, and had other mitigating circumstances; and made a huge logic step that somehow you had proven Vick's punishment was "beyond normal limits".


With as dependent as our society is becoming on web facts and individual opinions, I think HS's ought to have serious training in Critical Thinking skills.