Michael Vick

[crokett]

I'm surprised no one started a thread yet, so here 'tis.

For the record, I consider what he did reprehensible. That said, society has deemed his debt paid. As such, the NFL should not ban him for life, as some want to happen. For two reasons - first, the NFL can't directly tell a team what to do. So a team could hire him if they chose to, although I'm sure the team would work with the league if they did. Second, you can't prevent a person from making a living at their chosen profession for crimes unrelated to that profession. Whether that person can find employment is another matter, but you can't prevent them from trying.

[Uncle Cracker]

Not necessarily... As a convicted felon, he has lost his civil rights. They are not automatically restored after time served. There are also ethical considerations, and the NFL is having image problems out the wazoo right now. There are also many things that the NFL can in fact "tell teams to do", as they are licensed and franchised by the NFL, and cannot simply take their ball and go play elsewhere.

[cgallery]

I don't think he should be legally prevented from playing. I just don't like the idea that some NFL team is going to hire the guy. They do so for all the wrong reasons.

I reject the notion espoused by some that there are only 32 QB's great enough to start in the NFL. In a country of 250-300 million people, I'm certain another starting QB just as good or better than Vick could be found.

I'd prefer he be allowed to play, and that not a single team be willing to touch him. Or perhaps hire him for other, off-the-field work, so he can see his replacement at least two Sundays a year.

[sweensdv]

Maybe they should let him play. I'll bet that many of the defensive linemen and linebackers he'll be facing own and love their dogs.

[crokett]

Not necessarily... As a convicted felon, he has lost his civil rights. They are not automatically restored after time served.

True, but the 'right' to work isn't a civil right you lose as a felon. To be clear, you have a right to seek employment. You don't have a right to a job per se. I realize there are ethical considerations - that is what makes this such a hot issue. A team owner who owns dogs for instance wouldn't be inclined to hire him, but that doesn't mean Mike Vick can't try to get hired.

[Bruce Cohen]

David,

Onec again I really disagree with you.

Letting that ____ play is akin to allowing Pol Pot or Slobodan Miloševi to resume a well paid life.

Shame on him, and I bet you don't own a dog.

Bruce

[pelligrini]

I'm uncomfortable with flat out saying he's banned, it's mostly on the principal of the notion. Are there any other NFL players with a felony?

Along similar lines, I was at a City Council Meeting for a local city a couple weeks ago working on a PD (planned development) zoning change for a higher end apartment complex. One of the council members was asking about security and then recommended using some sort of screening service for prospective renters. I can't remember the name of the service he was talking about, but the whole thing smelled like some sort of discrimination to me.

[crokett]

David,

Onec again I really disagree with you.

Letting that ____ play is akin to allowing Pol Pot or Slobodan Miloševi to resume a well paid life.

Shame on him, and I bet you don't own a dog.

Bruce

First, I own and love two dogs. A lab and a lab/chow mix. Before them I had a Border Collie. I'm sorry but comparing a dog killer to a mass murderer is nonsensical. As much as I love my dogs they are NOT humans. You are either raising animals up to the equivalent of people or demeaning the human victims.

Second, I don't want him to play again either, but I also don't believe the NFL can tell him he can't play. That doesn't mean anybody will hire him and I hope they don't. It just means that the NFL can't prevent him from trying to get hired.

What he did is an emotional issue for a lot of people as well as a legal one. I found it very troubling that Dante' Stallworth, driving drunk killed a man and he did not receive nearly the outrage directed towards him. That said, the issue of Vick playing again is a legal one. He has served the sentence as proscribed by society so let him at least try to play again.

[LCHIEN]

i for one think he has paid his assigned debt to society and should be allowed to pursue his career. In addition to time in prison, he has basically lost all his assets except for his job skills which are also two years older.

I'm not condoning what he did. Some people would not hire him (NFL front offices) and if they did some fans would boycott the game. but after all it is business and let them do what they want for what they can get. Some teams need his skills and are willing to pay the price in fan support. (Fans can be very fickle anyway, esp. if the team wins.) It will certainly depress his salary based on his history.

He or whoever hires him probably should do a PR makeover on him. Some good visible public service and/or image building/repair.

[tommyt654]

Well give the devil his due. While I am no fan of Vic,s living here in Atl. I always thought he was arrogant and undeserving the praise layered upon him here by the media before he was convicted. He will however be playing in the NFL again as teams will undoubtedly lose QB,s this season. That being said growing up in the south primarily (N.C., Ga. Fla.) dogfighting as well as cockfighting and other barbarous forms of entertainment thrive, its a society issue more to me than the individual. Vic was high profile and the media as well as law enforcement jumped at the chance to show thier skills at prosecution. Mind you I,m not in favor I,m merely makin the point that had he been anyone else here in Ga. I know this would have never been that big of a deal and people should just get over it and move on to more important issues like steroid use and drug abuse in the NFL and other sports. I and my wife have dogs and love them like children but I can,t sit here and say it still is not going on here and elsewhere in this country today.Just my 2 cents

[gjat]

I agree with tommy, crokett, and lchein. Vick has paid a huge cost for his crime. Living here in the south, I am well aware of people who participate in dog fighting, cock fighting, etc. They get busted and you don't see them get the same punishment as Vick. Vick lost the ability to earn while in prison, like other convicts. Vick lost millions in endorsements because of the damage he did to his name. At this point, Vick should be treated as any other convicted felon who has done his time, is on probation, and is allowed to attempt to earn a living with the skills he has. It isn't as if Vick was a pimp, a rapist, or a drug dealer. As horrid as what he participated in, it isn't that much different than the scum bags who run puppy mills or participated in greyhound racing.

It's just a football job he wants. It's not like he's trying to get hired as the president of the SPCA. We don't hold Politicians to the same level of integrity that is being used to lambast Vick. Take a step back and put it in real perspective.

And yes, I'm a dog and cat lover and have adopted a number of pets from shelters. My pets are family and are loved, but not the same as my human family or friends. If I was an NFL owner, I would hire him, have him compete fairly for the job, and I would require community action to help his rep if he's good enough to play.

Personally, in my opinion, it's much worse to not pay child support then to kill a dog.

[Kristofor]

For the record, I consider what he did reprehensible. That said, society has deemed his debt paid. As such, the NFL should not ban him for life, as some want to happen. For two reasons - first, the NFL can't directly tell a team what to do.

Sure they can, they hand down suspensions and fines all the time. I don't know what the mix is between the franchise agreement and the collective bargaining agreement, but one way or another they can.

Second, you can't prevent a person from making a living at their chosen profession for crimes unrelated to that profession.

Really? What do you think checking the box "Have you ever been convicted of a felony" normally does? I would guess it eliminates a candidate from the consideration list on 80% of the jobs out there, regardless of what the conviction was for.

Personally, I do agree with you that he should be allowed to play, but I wouldn't support the team that picked him up.

[crokett]

Sure they can, they hand down suspensions and fines all the time. I don't know what the mix is between the franchise agreement and the collective bargaining agreement, but one way or another they can.


Really? What do you think checking the box "Have you ever been convicted of a felony" normally does? I would guess it eliminates a candidate from the consideration list on 80% of the jobs out there, regardless of what the conviction was for.

Personally, I do agree with you that he should be allowed to play, but I wouldn't support the team that picked him up.

The NFL can hand down suspensions and fines but to my knowledge it cannot directly tell a team who to hire and fire.

Checking the box might eliminate a candidate for consideration, but at least the candidate got the chance to apply. That is my point. The candidate doesn't have to be hired but he or she had a chance to apply. Felons can apply for jobs, it doesn't mean they will get them. Banning Vick permanently removes even the chance to apply for the job.

[billwmeyer]

Vick

The NFL cannot tell teams who to hire and fire, but they can and do levy suspensions and bans under the morality clause of the NFL Players Agreement. They do also give the teams a limit as to how much they can spend. Overall, the NFL is not your normal Corporation.

Remember, that Vick went up on Federal and State Charges. He was not only fighting his dogs, but he was also sponsoring the fights and having the fights on his property. The difference here is something like the difference in a drug user and a drug pusher. The pusher comes under a harsher standard.

Let him play? The Commissioner has issued a conditional ban of 6 games, and if signed, he can practice and play in all preseason games. The conditional ban means that he can be reinstated at any time up to the 6th game, with automatic reinstatement after the 6th game. I feel this is leniant and fair. The commissioner is getting reports at least weekly from Tony Dungy as to Vick's progress. Tony is a person who cannot and will not lie to the Commissioner, and is in contact with Vick Daily.

The only team so far that has said that they have interest in Vick is Green Bay, but I would not be surprized to see the Redskins, or perhaps the hated Raiders pick him up ( I am a Chiefs Fan ).

If not the NFL he will probably sign with the new league - I forget there name--UFL or something. They need a headliner and the publicity of someone like Vick.

Bill

[drillman88]

I do not and cannot condone what Vick has done, with that said, I think that his crime and lies do not affect me as much as Dante Stallworth, killing someone drunk driving and only serving 24 days, not paying nearly the price Vick did financially. Animals are one thing but taking a human life should be punished more harshly.
Everyone makes mistakes, I think Vick has paid for his crimes and should be allowed to work.