Mike Vick Survey

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I'm not going to get into a huge thing over this but anyone with even a half-way developed sense of what constitutes morality or ethics can figure out why Little's crime does not provoke the same outrage as Vick.

People who are drunk do not normally engage in cruelty in the process of committing an act that MAY lead to an accident that kills someone. There's nothing ostensibly wrong with being inebriated or driving. It's only because we've somehow transmogrified drinking (my guess is due to puritanical biases) and driving into a mortal sin that someone would even BEGIN to make that argument. If someone was really tired and driving and killed someone (or a dog) is anyone going to expect them to be the target of outrage of the public like Vick? Of course not. Heck, even if someone killed someone while being on the phone, or eating a Big mac, would any but the most obtuse individuals make the argument that these acts are on par with the level of sadism and cruelty that necessarily constitute the crimes of which Vick was convicted?

INTENTION matters, this is known to just about every philosopher, even if some regard it as lacking comprehension of all matters moral or ethical. And not just intention but you cannot even categorize being tired and driving as possessing a moral charge similar to that involve in even SETTING UP a dog fighting ring, let alone the actual 'official' matches themselves. Among those acts include brutalizing dogs that would otherwise have been gentle or loving creatures and companions, abusing trust of innocent lives, encouraging viciousness and possibly kidnapping and killing people's pets as "target practice" for dogs that themselves are victims of the whole enterprise.

You're right. It's just like talking on the phone, being drunk, tired or distracted and causing an accident.

hey friend, you dont have to justify your drunk driving to any of us.

If you are driving a car in an irresponsible manner you pose a very serious life risk to everyone on the road. Those on the road have no idea that another driver is driving under the influence (be that a cell phone or having the double the allowed amount of alcohol in your blood). Thats why there are laws on the books to deter that. If you are driving under the influence, your car is a weapon, which is why the laws are there to punish those who drive drunk, let alone kill someone. Leonard Little drove drunk and killed someone. He proceeded to get arrested driving drunk a few years later. I dont think Leonard Little is a bad person, but what he did was absolutely terrible and for me was way worse than Mike Vick paying for dogs to fight. I may be crazy, but I value human life over animals. Now I understand that Leonard Little was not a superstar QB like Vick was, but Little got nary a blip when he committed his horrendous crime.

This isnt to defend Vick but I really think the anger got well and truly over the top to downright scary. Its been about 5 years now since he did that and he has moved on with his life and seems to be a better person himself and to society since that. For me, he is the model of what we want from an ex-offender who served time in prison. He hasnt committed a single crime since then and is actually helping his community.

Again, you can see Vick in the way you want and thats fine, but I forgive Vick for what he did.

[Ghost of]

hey friend, you dont have to justify your drunk driving to any of us.

Again, you can see Vick in the way you want and thats fine, but I forgive Vick for what he did.

Funny, but I was more defending, say, Stallworth and clarifying for people who have screwy sense of morals or moral arguments.

I think I know why you forgive Vick (or at least seem to have come to it a bit more easily. However, I'm not arguing at all about whether you have the right to forgive Vick or if Vick has changed/redeemed himself, etc. Nothing in my argument is concerned with that. Your response is a poor one, and perhaps verging on ad hominem by questioning my motives, because it is calling into question my current views on Vick and not the moral argument being advanced by many who want to compare Little to Vick (or Stallworth or someone who is dead tired on the road or whatever)

Let me spin it a different way for you. Do you recall the outrage over the Penn State/Sandusky scandal? Now, no one was killed in that, right? But it wasn't accidental at any stage. Were people valuing humans less in that case, or do people sometimes (not always) have a sense that something is particularly heinous because it is highly intentional and engaged in for a long period of time as opposed to one terrible mistake born of carelessness?

I'm trying to figure out why you brought up human lives vs. dog lives comparisons since that was already addressed and is, ultimately, not really part of the moral calculus for those who were upset by the case or who feel a great deal of distaste for the man. That kind of moral argument would be like saying a human being who does NOTHING but sadistically torture for fun anything BUT a human being (including chimps, gorillas, etc) is less reprehensible or less deserving of moral condemnation than the man who in a fit of rage throws an object and ends up killing someone accidentally or someone who does the same while unsafely handling a firearm. I can't think of a stupider moral argument than that.

[bedlamVR]

and Vick is an excellent QB. If RG3 can have a career as good as Vick's (outside of the prison stint obvs) then I think Redskins fans would be happy with that. I think he has turned his life around for the positive and is now using his image for good now. I obviously do not know for sure since I am not around him, but I believe his feelings were genuine. IM sorry he couldnt rot in prison for the rest of his life or gotten a lethal injection, but US criminal justice system, the Humane Society, the NFL, the Philadelphia Eagles, and Nike feel he has changed for the better now. Good for him. I dont support what he did with the dogfighting, but since he has decided to speak out against what he did and has been a positive person to his community, why cant I forgive him and move forward? But its whatever friend, if you need his head on a platter, then so be it.

If RG3 has a career that mirrors Vick I would be disappointed to be honest . He has improved since joining the Eagles but prior to that in Atlanta he was a RB playing QB . He never had a QB rating above 82 and his completion rate was below 57% and never threw for over 3,000 yards or more than 20 TDs . For a number one pick he sucked . If wasn't for his ability in the running game he would not be in the NFL right now . but that run first mentality got him on a lot of highlight reals which made sponsors like him -

The humane society will say anything for an easily life and sufficient good cause donations, but that GQ article spoke volumes - how can Vick show remorse if he doesn't understand what he did wrong .

And the slap on the wrist - considering what he actually did and was convicted on he got a slap on the wrist - if he wasn't Mike Vick he would be still in prison or would have faced at least more than a $5000 fine .

You know what i don't actually wish any harm on Vick i could care less about him as a person ---- but what irks me is he still gets to play in the NFL, he carried on his life as if nothing happened he still makes millions of $$ playing a game - kids are taught to look up to him as a hero ... what he did was sick - it is not about forgiving him because who gives a **** if i forgive him or not - it about right and wrong . And Vick playing in the NFL is the epittomy of wrong , regardless of the team he plays on .

[pointyfootball]

I'm an Eagles fan, so biased. However, I would consider what Gregg Williams/Saints (and most likely other teams he coached with), just as bad, or worse than Mike Vick's actions. Intentionally trying to injure someone so as to get them out of a game is equivalently disgusting and immoral, IMO. I believe Vick grew up in, or at least was drawn in to, that world and it became a part of him. Whether or not he actually feels it was wrong is anybody's guess, but by best measurements, he has left it behind.

[brdawk20]

I'm not going to get into a huge thing over this but anyone with even a half-way developed sense of what constitutes morality or ethics can figure out why Little's crime does not provoke the same outrage as Vick.

People who are drunk do not normally engage in cruelty in the process of committing an act that MAY lead to an accident that kills someone. There's nothing ostensibly wrong with being inebriated or driving. It's only because we've somehow transmogrified drinking (my guess is due to puritanical biases) and driving into a mortal sin that someone would even BEGIN to make that argument. If someone was really tired and driving and killed someone (or a dog) is anyone going to expect them to be the target of outrage of the public like Vick? Of course not. Heck, even if someone killed someone while being on the phone, or eating a Big mac, would any but the most obtuse individuals make the argument that these acts are on par with the level of sadism and cruelty that necessarily constitute the crimes of which Vick was convicted?

INTENTION matters, this is known to just about every philosopher, even if some regard it as lacking comprehension of all matters moral or ethical. And not just intention but you cannot even categorize being tired and driving as possessing a moral charge similar to that involve in even SETTING UP a dog fighting ring, let alone the actual 'official' matches themselves. Among those acts include brutalizing dogs that would otherwise have been gentle or loving creatures and companions, abusing trust of innocent lives, encouraging viciousness and possibly kidnapping and killing people's pets as "target practice" for dogs that themselves are victims of the whole enterprise.

You're right. It's just like talking on the phone, being drunk, tired or distracted and causing an accident.

Are you f****** kidding??????? I teach law in high school and college and defend people in court on a monthly basis. I can't tell you how many people's lives have been ruined by drinking and driving! The families of those who have been victimized by drunk drivers don't give two cents about intent. People in society know what can happen when they get behind the wheel of a car and drive drunk. I have a student right now who has one eye and lost the use of his left leg forever due to being hit by a drunk driver. The $1.5 million settlement he received still won't let him walk or see normally again, while the person who struck him is still driving on the road. I don't even want to go into the families I've seen in tears because of a loved one lost.

A federal court convicted Vick and sent him to prison. He lost everything he had. He served more time than some rapists and drug dealers---and killers. He did his time as prescribed by law.

The dogs Vick killed will never come back. But at least you can buy another dog. You can't buy a father, mother, daughter, or son. There is no comparison to killing dogs and killing humans. I love my dog Bruno like a family member. I would be angered if someone killed him. But the grief I would experince cannot compare to that of a six-year old child that has to be told that he no longer has a mother. More people are killed by drunk drivers than guns in this country. Vick never killed anyone. Little did. Stallworth did. And idiots like Brandon Marshall still go out in public and drive drunk. I guess being in the car with Stallworth as he killed someone didn't leave much of a mark.

[RiggosMohawk]

Done.

As for the length of his sentence, I think a very important point tends to get overlooked. The dogfighting didn't get him 18 mos with the Feds per se - he was operating an interstate gambling ring. Doesn't that rhyme with "organized crime" on a very very small scale? He's very lucky to serve that little time.

Now, of course, in the eyes of the law any crime against a person carries more punishment than a crime against an animal. We just value a human's life and rights more than any other species.

This crime brings so much emotion out because it involved intent, malice and premeditation. These acts were no tragic accident. It's not that people are valuing the animal's lives over the loss of a human. It's that there is no doubt that Vick intended to commit these terrible crimes given the details known now.

I'm gonna stop with this question - who would you rather have live next to you, Leonard Little or Michael Vick?

[HOF44]

Do you think Vick should still be allowed in the NFL?? I put of course, we have scum like Mara, so why not Vick???

[Clutch03]

Done.

I'm gonna stop with this question - who would you rather have live next to you, Leonard Little or Michael Vick?

You probably should have stopped before that question because you have really good points to your argument. But my answer to the last question is that I'd much rather live next to Mike Vick than Leonard Little.

[HailGreen28]

You probably should have stopped before that question because you have really good points to your argument. But my answer to the last question is that I'd much rather live next to Mike Vick than Leonard Little.

It would depend, to me. How much does Vick still have "friends" coming over to party? I'd take whichever is quieter and easier to get along with as neighbor.

[Clutch03]

It would depend, to me. How much does Vick still have "friends" coming over to party? I'd take whichever is quieter and easier to get along with as neighbor.

I'd probably take the one less likely to kill me or my family driving home drunk. Plus I think it would be a lot cooler to say I lived next to Mike Vick than Leonard Little. I'm sure if I told someone I lived next to Leonard Little they would be like "Who?"

[Hiro]

A federal court convicted Vick and sent him to prison. He lost everything he had. He served more time than some rapists and drug dealers---and killers. He did his time as prescribed by law.

The dogs Vick killed will never come back. But at least you can buy another dog. You can't buy a father, mother, daughter, or son. There is no comparison to killing dogs and killing humans.

I respect your position, but I think you're missing the point. Vick didn't just "kill dogs," but he ran and funded a CRIME RING that so happened to involve the torture and killing of living beings. He did this intentionally, and reportedly was gleeful about how he would electrocute and murder those same living beings. That shows an almost sociopathic tendency. I agree that people don't equate the lives of dogs to people, but the fact is that Vick was profiting off of a criminal enterprise that involved that death of animals.

Plus, I think what people are angry (at least I am) is the aftermath. Before his GQ interview, I was still disgusted by the things he did, but my personal opinion was that he appeared to be genuinely remorseful, deserved the benefit of the doubt and had truly grown as a person. He was rehabilitated, and I was happy to see that at the time. After his comments about how Atlanta never treated him fairly, all the stuff he did in 2010 were things he could have always done, and gave off the impression that he was a victim .. I say **** him. He's not sorry, he's just sorry he got caught doing it.

Intent does matter, IMO. Drunk driving is a stupid, senseless crime that often results in tragedy. But no drunk driver gets into that car with the intent of killing another person. There's a reason why they don't classify those cases as being "murder." What Vick did was murder. Maybe of a lesser being in your eyes, but I'm of the belief that a living being is a living being, no matter if it stands on four legs, is furry and can't talk.

[HailGreen28]

I'd probably take the one less likely to kill me or my family driving home drunk. Plus I think it would be a lot cooler to say I lived next to Mike Vick than Leonard Little. I'm sure if I told someone I lived next to Leonard Little they would be like "Who?"

True, but I don't know what kind of "pack" Vick runs with now. I don't want to end up dead because someone breaks into my house thinking there's valuables inside, like, you know. And I value peace and quiet. I'll take the lack of media people coming by, and relative anonymity.

[brdawk20]

I respect your position, but I think you're missing the point. Vick didn't just "kill dogs," but he ran and funded a CRIME RING that so happened to involve the torture and killing of living beings. He did this intentionally, and reportedly was gleeful about how he would electrocute and murder those same living beings. That shows an almost sociopathic tendency. I agree that people don't equate the lives of dogs to people, but the fact is that Vick was profiting off of a criminal enterprise that involved that death of animals.

Plus, I think what people are angry (at least I am) is the aftermath. Before his GQ interview, I was still disgusted by the things he did, but my personal opinion was that he appeared to be genuinely remorseful, deserved the benefit of the doubt and had truly grown as a person. He was rehabilitated, and I was happy to see that at the time. After his comments about how Atlanta never treated him fairly, all the stuff he did in 2010 were things he could have always done, and gave off the impression that he was a victim .. I say **** him. He's not sorry, he's just sorry he got caught doing it.

Intent does matter, IMO. Drunk driving is a stupid, senseless crime that often results in tragedy. But no drunk driver gets into that car with the intent of killing another person. There's a reason why they don't classify those cases as being "murder." What Vick did was murder. Maybe of a lesser being in your eyes, but I'm of the belief that a living being is a living being, no matter if it stands on four legs, is furry and can't talk.

I understand your position on this. Why the Feds did not convict Vick on conspiracy charges is something we don't know. I wasn't in the courtroom nor was I a jury member. Neither was anyone else posting here.

As far as intent and what defines murder, there is a degree of responsibility that all of us owe to our fellow man. That is one of the cornerstones of civil law, and is a driving factor in many criminal cases. Committing homicide through reckless behavior (playing with guns, drugs, alcohol) has the same outcome as someone intentionally taking another life. No, it's not as serious in the eyes of the law, for intent does matter. But the end factor here is the victim. The dogs that Vick killed had no say in the matter, and no defense to what happened to them. But it is equally true that the person killed by a drunk driver also has no defense to what happened to them. You can't plan for such an event. When Little and Stallworth got behind the wheel of their car, that car became as dangerous as any gun. They breached their responsibility to others by engaging in a reckless act that took human lives. In my opinion, Stallworth should kiss his attorney for brokering the deal he got. There are people who have done the same crime and got 5-7 years in prison.

All I can add is this: I hope you never have to look at a 7-year old girl and her mother and try to tell them why the man that killed their father and husband was only sentenced to six months in jail. Vick didn't ruin any families. When a drunk driver kills, the effect on the family is sometimes felt forever. I an very angry at the easy sentences drunk drivers get in this country. Last year, over 3,000 children under the age of 13 lost a parent because of drunk driving. Think about that.

[Ghost of]

I can't tell you how many people's lives have been ruined by drinking and driving!

Little did. Stallworth did.

I respect your feelings brdawk but little of what you said actually addresses my points. You are making a moral argument unrelated to what I was saying and doing so with personal anecdote. I never said dog's lives were equivalent to a human's. We're talking intent here. And speaking of remorse, look at the hit that Stallworth took, even refusing to go down the road to an acquittal, as the accident likely had nothing to do with his physical condition but a guy running across a road. He stayed at the scene, tried to help, and seems to have taken responsibility maybe above what was due.

You also are grouping one category of drunk drivers with others. The fact is being on a cell phone has been shown to be equivalent to being at .08. .08 is not what gets people killed, it's the really, really inebriated people who cause the fatal/serious accidents. but the fact is we would never draw an equivalence between a person's cell phone use causing a fatal accident and, say, torturing someone or sexually assaulting them. Because it involves malice, an objectification, cruelty, sustained evil, etc.

If people are so hot after comparing DDs (but not the majority of accidents which involve recklessness or fatigue or distraction) to sadists because of the loss of human life, then why is Sandusky getting more attention than, say, Little did? Or does intent matter here? Truth be told, wasn't Haynesworth's reckless driving far worse than someone DDing because he was fully aware of how fast he was going and didn't care that he could (and did) disable or kill someone?

---------- Post added April-9th-2012 at 03:02 PM ----------

All I can add is this: I hope you never have to look at a 7-year old girl and her mother and try to tell them why the man that killed their father and husband was only sentenced to six months in jail. Vick didn't ruin any families. When a drunk driver kills, the effect on the family is sometimes felt forever. I an very angry at the easy sentences drunk drivers get in this country. Last year, over 3,000 children under the age of 13 lost a parent because of drunk driving. Think about that.

You're a lawyer but you're arguing like a female telling personal anecdotes again. Nothing you said addresses intention or the CHARACTER of the person involved in a crime/moral transgression.

As I said before, the person who goes around being a sadist his entire life but avoids killing humans must be on a higher plane than Stallworth, simply because he has not taken a life. This is nonsense and is actually immoral. The content of your actions as a sum should not be discounted because of an accident, especially like Stallworth's where the victim may have been as much to blame as Stallworth. Early morning hours, highway or country road setup, someone running across the street.

I wager you do not care so much about all the people whose parents died because of other forms of conduct. As far as I know, most accidents now, fatal and otherwise, are caused by fatigue, somewhat reckless or stupid driving and distractions. Alcohol is only ranked so high anymore because they COUNT even passenger alcohol levels and pedestrian alcohol readings as part of the stats.

So again, the person who is tired and gets behind the wheel is as evil as the DD. I knew someone who had to go to rehabilitation because of back injuries she sustained in a crash when someone was on their cell phone on the highway and didn't notice a stoppage in traffic until it was too late. I am going to assume the person on their cell phone should get 5-7 years too (if someone dies.) If not, I will just assume you think drinking (at any level) carries a different moral charge than being tired or distracted or speeding more than a few mph over the limit.

[brdawk20]

I respect your feelings brdawk but little of what you said actually addresses my points. You are making a moral argument unrelated to what I was saying and doing so with personal anecdote. I never said dog's lives were equivalent to a human's. We're talking intent here. And speaking of remorse, look at the hit that Stallworth took, even refusing to go down the road to an acquittal, as the accident likely had nothing to do with his physical condition but a guy running across a road. He stayed at the scene, tried to help, and seems to have taken responsibility maybe above what was due.

You also are grouping one category of drunk drivers with others. The fact is being on a cell phone has been shown to be equivalent to being at .08. .08 is not what gets people killed, it's the really, really inebriated people who cause the fatal/serious accidents. but the fact is we would never draw an equivalence between a person's cell phone use causing a fatal accident and, say, torturing someone or sexually assaulting them. Because it involves malice, an objectification, cruelty, sustained evil, etc.

If people are so hot after comparing DDs (but not the majority of accidents which involve recklessness or fatigue or distraction) to sadists because of the loss of human life, then why is Sandusky getting more attention than, say, Little did? Or does intent matter here? Truth be told, wasn't Haynesworth's reckless driving far worse than someone DDing because he was fully aware of how fast he was going and didn't care that he could (and did) disable or kill someone?

---------- Post added April-9th-2012 at 03:02 PM ----------

You're a lawyer but you're arguing like a female telling personal anecdotes again. Nothing you said addresses intention or the CHARACTER of the person involved in a crime/moral transgression.

As I said before, the person who goes around being a sadist his entire life but avoids killing humans must be on a higher plane than Stallworth, simply because he has not taken a life. This is nonsense and is actually immoral. The content of your actions as a sum should not be discounted because of an accident, especially like Stallworth's where the victim may have been as much to blame as Stallworth. Early morning hours, highway or country road setup, someone running across the street.

I wager you do not care so much about all the people whose parents died because of other forms of conduct. As far as I know, most accidents now, fatal and otherwise, are caused by fatigue, somewhat reckless or stupid driving and distractions. Alcohol is only ranked so high anymore because they COUNT even passenger alcohol levels and pedestrian alcohol readings as part of the stats.

So again, the person who is tired and gets behind the wheel is as evil as the DD. I knew someone who had to go to rehabilitation because of back injuries she sustained in a crash when someone was on their cell phone on the highway and didn't notice a stoppage in traffic until it was too late. I am going to assume the person on their cell phone should get 5-7 years too (if someone dies.) If not, I will just assume you think drinking (at any level) carries a different moral charge than being tired or distracted or speeding more than a few mph over the limit.

I didn't want to sound like a lawyer, nor get caught up in legalese. I wanted to keep it at a simple, common sense level. (Hey, you guys might start calling me a stupid, unfeeling Eagle fan trying to defend a dog killer, hehe).

Sadly, everyone taking a stance in this thread has valid points. Moral denegration, death by alcohol, intentional or not, and why some people forgive while others cannot are part of the human equation. There is no way that that moral and legal issues can be equivalent, because there is no single moral standard to be agreed upon. Even the legal standards are different. We have 51 court systems: one federal system and 50 state systems. It's the nature of the beast we live with. If someone doesn't want to move past what Vick did, then who am I to say that they are wrong? It is right for them. Conversely, for those who want to move on, or wish to note that other acts are in some ways more heinous, the same standard applies. There is flexibility in the law made by people, moreso than in the moral stance of the average person. There is no reason to discuss why this is. We just accept it and move on.

I do want to add one thing. Your "wager" on whether or not I "care so much about all the people whose parents died because of other forms of conduct" is out of line. I don't know what led you to that conclusion. Frankly, it's a cheap shot.

[bedlamVR]

A federal court convicted Vick and sent him to prison. He lost everything he had. He served more time than some rapists and drug dealers---and killers. He did his time as prescribed by law.

The dogs Vick killed will never come back. But at least you can buy another dog. You can't buy a father, mother, daughter, or son.<snip> Vick never killed anyone. Little did. Stallworth did. And idiots like Brandon Marshall still go out in public and drive drunk. I guess being in the car with Stallworth as he killed someone didn't leave much of a mark.

Vick supporters and they wear green tend to want to equate Stallworth with Vick as he did something terrible . Dante did something terrible but you cannot make every driver who gets drunk and hurts or kills someone responsible for all the evil every drunk driver has done .

Before you judge Stallworth I think you should take a second to find out what actually happened with him . The thing is it makes no difference if you want to forgive Stallworth becasue I dont think he will ever forgive himself... Read his story here http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=lc-stallworthsecondchance081210

What Dante Stallworth did was not even a moment of madness . He went out drinking the night before and got a cab home, woke up and went about his business running errands, but given how much had drunk the night before he was still over the legally over drink drive limit (think how many times you might have done that) . But he never shied away or ran away from the scene or denied any responsibility, he immediately gave himself up and pleaded guilty - even though his lawyers told him to fight it as he had an excellent chance of being found innocent - he pleaded guilty to the felony (2nd Degree Manslaughter) because Reyes' death was enough of his fault he took the blame, and wanted to stop Reyes' family have to go through everything again . People thought he had gotten away with things because it never went to trial but it probably should never have gone to court .

He served his time and was out in July, he was available to play in the NFL in 2009 season but he was suspended the entire season, he lost his income (as Vick did - while he was in prison) but never courted publicity but any time any reporter has looked into the story they find him remorseful, and normally does not speak to the media about it but people around him do .

Compare that for second with Micheal Vick .. he did not have a moment of madness .. he set up a kennel with his friends to specifically train and breed dogs for dog fighting, he travelled over the US and went to dog shelters to pick up what could have been someones loved pet who went missing to bring into these kennels, not for a better life but to be tortured.... for his pleasure and profit...to death ..and he did that for at least five years..... Now you think that is okay, maybe you should go and kick a puppy for fun ... you have to be sick to enjoy this "sport" but even sicker to organize and train animals for it .

Now I am a scientist who has worked alongside animal testing laboratories and I am a meat eater I know animals suffer in those environments. In scientific research the work that is done on animals is minimal and the animals in the UK at least are well looked after but they are for a purpose . Meat is murder, but those animals would not exist, entire species of animals would not exist if we as humans had no purpose for them .

Vick just wanted a fun evening and thought that breading and torturing dogs was a good time . Like renting a video or going out to a club ....

Ah yes but an animal is not worth the life of a child or a person .... Someone who tortures dogs for fun is not a nice or normal person, a guy who with his friend grabs an animal by its legs and slams it into the ground until it is dead is not a normal person - we see how little regard he has for other actual people - remember Ron Mexico ? Vick was a guy who knew he had at least one sti and still ****ed around unprotected and without telling his partner .... who knows what else he might have had ... that also is not a real crime but is it someone you want your kid to be emulating ?

If he wasn't playing for your team would you be okay with him coming into your school and spewing his BS about how he has learned his lesson, even though in some of his more recent statements he has no idea what he did wrong, and how can you be remorseful for something you don't think is wrong . It is all PR BS, for the humane society to say he should be given a puppy as part of his rehab they have to be out of their tiny minds - would you give a sex addict a hotline to hookers R Us to rehab or make a pedophile the leader of a scout group ...it is ****ed up and those who defend him are beyond words ...

[brdawk20]

Vick supporters and they wear green tend to want to equate Stallworth with Vick as he did something terrible . Dante did something terrible but you cannot make every driver who gets drunk and hurts or kills someone responsible for all the evil every drunk driver has done .

Before you judge Stallworth I think you should take a second to find out what actually happened with him . The thing is it makes no difference if you want to forgive Stallworth becasue I dont think he will ever forgive himself... Read his story here http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=lc-stallworthsecondchance081210

What Dante Stallworth did was not even a moment of madness . He went out drinking the night before and got a cab home, woke up and went about his business running errands, but given how much had drunk the night before he was still over the legally over drink drive limit (think how many times you might have done that) . But he never shied away or ran away from the scene or denied any responsibility, he immediately gave himself up and pleaded guilty - even though his lawyers told him to fight it as he had an excellent chance of being found innocent - he pleaded guilty to the felony (2nd Degree Manslaughter) because Reyes' death was enough of his fault he took the blame, and wanted to stop Reyes' family have to go through everything again . People thought he had gotten away with things because it never went to trial but it probably should never have gone to court .

He served his time and was out in July, he was available to play in the NFL in 2009 season but he was suspended the entire season, he lost his income (as Vick did - while he was in prison) but never courted publicity but any time any reporter has looked into the story they find him remorseful, and normally does not speak to the media about it but people around him do .

Compare that for second with Micheal Vick .. he did not have a moment of madness .. he set up a kennel with his friends to specifically train and breed dogs for dog fighting, he travelled over the US and went to dog shelters to pick up what could have been someones loved pet who went missing to bring into these kennels, not for a better life but to be tortured.... for his pleasure and profit...to death ..and he did that for at least five years..... Now you think that is okay, maybe you should go and kick a puppy for fun ... you have to be sick to enjoy this "sport" but even sicker to organize and train animals for it .

Now I am a scientist who has worked alongside animal testing laboratories and I am a meat eater I know animals suffer in those environments. In scientific research the work that is done on animals is minimal and the animals in the UK at least are well looked after but they are for a purpose . Meat is murder, but those animals would not exist, entire species of animals would not exist if we as humans had no purpose for them .

Vick just wanted a fun evening and thought that breading and torturing dogs was a good time . Like renting a video or going out to a club ....

Ah yes but an animal is not worth the life of a child or a person .... Someone who tortures dogs for fun is not a nice or normal person, a guy who with his friend grabs an animal by its legs and slams it into the ground until it is dead is not a normal person - we see how little regard he has for other actual people - remember Ron Mexico ? Vick was a guy who knew he had at least one sti and still ****ed around unprotected and without telling his partner .... who knows what else he might have had ... that also is not a real crime but is it someone you want your kid to be emulating ?

If he wasn't playing for your team would you be okay with him coming into your school and spewing his BS about how he has learned his lesson, even though in some of his more recent statements he has no idea what he did wrong, and how can you be remorseful for something you don't think is wrong . It is all PR BS, for the humane society to say he should be given a puppy as part of his rehab they have to be out of their tiny minds - would you give a sex addict a hotline to hookers R Us to rehab or make a pedophile the leader of a scout group ...it is ****ed up and those who defend him are beyond words ...

Dude, anyone who has seen me post here knows that I do not defend what Vick did.

[bedlamVR]

Dude, anyone who has seen me post here knows that I do not defend what Vick did.

The reason I quoted you was because you brought up Stallworth to say what he did was horrible . It was horrible in a way but it was essentially an accident . Reyes' death was cause more by Stallworths excessive speed in a restricted zone it was caused by Reyes' trying to get home and not actually go and wait at the crossing at the end of his shift, possibly just as much as Stallworth having a 0.12 BAC the morning after a night out .

Drink driving is a terrible thing . It does ruin lives . It should never be defended, and Dante Stallworth has never tried to defend his actions, and neither am I . - he knows he took another mans life and he tried to make reparations for his actions - accident or not...

To bring that case up is at best a distraction and has nothing to do with weather Ron Mexico should ever play in the NFL again ....

[mzkp54]

Thanks everyone (well, most of you) for the thoughtful responses. The response has been overwhelming (over 200 responses in 24 hours) from a variety of fan bases. Although a few of you did only take the survey to insult my fiancé and myself, which I find pretty strange, the majority have been incredibly helpful, to the point that she is expanding her paper. She should be finishing up her research and sifting through the results over the next week or so, and I will definitely update this with the results, as several of you have requested.

Again, thank you so much. I assured her that ES would represent, and you all definitely proved me right.

Hail

[Hitman21ST]

Done and done. Glad I could help

[Dirt]

Ok, so people misunderstanding the length of sentencing. Just because a crime carries a maximum sentence of 5 years, doesn't mean you get 5. In fact, you RARELY get the maximum.

Hell, when I was younger, getting underage drinking tickets and busted with little amounts of pot, I was confused the first couple times because the judge would say something like "one year suspended, pay your fine". That means I was basically sentenced to one year in jail but it was suspended. Had I told to judge to **** off or something, they would have been like "ok, it's not suspended, enjoy your one year in jail." It's just the way it works. As for Vick, getting a little under 2 years on a max 5 year sentence seems about normal.

As i said in the survey, I think it's all a formality, I think, although he has to, all that 'i'm so sorry, we need to stop dogfighting" is bull**** and he knows it. He doesn't care. The only way to move on however was a couple years in prison. I think everything went about the way it should.

[mzkp54]

Survey is now closed. We ended up with well over 400 responses, so thank you to everyone who participated. As soon as the results are put together, I'll post an update.

Thanks again.