Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[Ben E Lou]

at least Dakotans don't have any pro sports to ignore/not care about.

I really don't think it's a question of ignoring or not caring; it's a question of level of care. I care deeply about the Falcons winning or losing, but I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY care about rubbing a win in the face of all these USC people I am around all the time now. Similarly, same thing with all the Auburnheads and Tech people back in the A-T-L.

Maybe it's as simple as that. Before Jax/Car/Ten came into the league in very recent years, the Falcons were the only team for the majority of the SEC folks. If the Falcons lost, you didn't have to go to work or school the next day and catch it. But if the Dawgs lost on Saturday, church was a miserable place on Sunday, and work or school was a miserable place on Monday. And if it was a loss to Auburn or Tech in particular, you had to LIVE with those mofos for an entire year. ;)

[lordscarlet]

don't get me started on South Dakota. there is no need for it to exist. we just need one big state called "Dakota". South Dakota is where hopes and dreams go to die. what even goes on in South Dakota. with any other state i can name at least one redeeming/identifiable quality, but there is nothing going on in South Dakota.

that being said, i dislike Georgians more than i dislike South Dakotans. at least Dakotans don't have any pro sports to ignore/not care about.

Um. Ever heard of Mount Rushmore?

[rkmsuf]

.9% of the population in South Dakota is black. there's not much dancing going on besides square dancing or line dancing.

[rkmsuf]

Ha, famous South Dakodians

Pat O'Brien
Bob Barker
Sparky Anderson
Terry Francona
Cheryl Ladd
Catherine Bach
Mary Hart

[Ben E Lou]

Catherine Bach

:eek:

[MikeVic]

:eek:

Who's that? I don't know who her and Cheryl Ladd are...

[Ben E Lou]

Who's that? I don't know who her and Cheryl Ladd are...

You, sir, are about to get banned.

[Anthony]

Ha, famous South Dakodians

Pat O'Brien
Bob Barker
Sparky Anderson
Terry Francona
Cheryl Ladd
Catherine Bach
Mary Hart

see, devoid of quality.

i was unaware of Mt. Rushmore being in SD. thought it was like Montana or Wyoming or one of those other mid-west places.

question - is dogfighting a primarily southern thing? if Vick had been drafted by the Chargers does he still get into this mess? is the proximity to the southern dogfighting culture what compounded this problem, or was he damned to this right from the very start? it's a shame such a great football talent has been wasted. i saw Vick vs. the Giants once, and i swear every time he took off you heard the electricity in the crowd, like this collective gasp of anticipation.

[MikeVic]

You, sir, are about to get banned.

I did a wiki search on Catherine Bach... now I know who she is.

[BrianD]

You, sir, are about to get banned.

This might be one of the more deserving bannings we will have seen. :)

[Ben E Lou]

see, devoid of quality.
Daisy Duke, devoid of quality???????????????????

You're next.

[MikeVic]

Is she still a looker? I would think she's pretty old right now.

[rkmsuf]

Is she still a looker? I would think she's pretty old right now.

jbanniation

[Travis]

I'd just like to take a moment to point out that MikeVic's comments in no way reflect that of Canada nor it's other inhabitants. We fully support any action that the authority figures on this board feel they must take in response.

[lordscarlet]

see, devoid of quality.

i was unaware of Mt. Rushmore being in SD. thought it was like Montana or Wyoming or one of those other mid-west places.


And yet SD is the one devoid of quality? :)


question - is dogfighting a primarily southern thing? if Vick had been drafted by the Chargers does he still get into this mess? is the proximity to the southern dogfighting culture what compounded this problem, or was he damned to this right from the very start? it's a shame such a great football talent has been wasted. i saw Vick vs. the Giants once, and i swear every time he took off you heard the electricity in the crowd, like this collective gasp of anticipation.

I believe it is a southern thing. However, the problems occurred in Virginia, where Vick grew up. They did not occur in Georgia, so I don't believe going to San Diego would have made a difference.

[Anthony]

Daisy Duke, devoid of quality???????????????????

You're next.


wow...i didn't know her real name. she's one of the people you really need to follow up with "aka".

compare those people, from the entire state of SD, to these people who are from Astoria alone:

Christopher Walken
Tony Bennett


in other news, NAACP is supporting Vick's reinstatement to the NFL after his sentence is over. i wonder who wins in a fight - NAACP or PETA? who has more pull with sponsors. at this point imagine if NAACP requests to protest all sponsors who abandoned Vick? what do corporate sponsors do? which demographic do they pander to? this is like an excellent gameshow.

reading the ESPN article about the above, you get the feeling (the Atlanta chapter) NAACP leader might know a thing or two about dogfighting. also, in the same article Stephon Marbury, that bastion of all that is right in the world and the beacon who illuminates our path to righteousness, supports Vick, namely because "we shoot deers for sport...dogfighting is a sport too".

[MikeVic]

A quick google image search shows that she still has her top-parts... can't see the legs though. Or the back-side. But she looks kinda chunky.

[MikeVic]

I'd just like to take a moment to point out that MikeVic's comments in no way reflect that of Canada nor it's other inhabitants. We fully support any action that the authority figures on this board feel they must take in response.

Thanks for the support buddy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

wow...i didn't know her real name. she's one of the people you really need to follow up with "aka".

compare those people, from the entire state of SD, to these people who are from Astoria alone:

Christopher Walken
Tony Bennett


in other news, NAACP is supporting Vick's reinstatement to the NFL after his sentence is over. i wonder who wins in a fight - NAACP or PETA? who has more pull with sponsors. at this point imagine if NAACP requests to protest all sponsors who abandoned Vick? what do corporate sponsors do? which demographic do they pander to? this is like an excellent gameshow.

reading the ESPN article about the above, you get the feeling (the Atlanta chapter) NAACP leader might know a thing or two about dogfighting. also, in the same article Stephon Marbury, that bastion of all that is right in the world and the beacon who illuminates our path to righteousness, supports Vick, namely because "we shoot deers for sport...dogfighting is a sport too".

In a showdown between the NAACP and PETA in the Vick/Dogfighting case, I believe PETA wins. If the best the NAACP can come up with is the same thing Starbury did, that dogfighting is no different from deer hunting, they don't have much to go on.

Simply stated, PETA has the moral highground. As we all know, he who has the highground wins. Just ask Darth Vader about that one.

[Anthony]

here is the article from ESPN today:


ATLANTA -- An NAACP leader said Michael Vick should be allowed to return to the NFL, preferably the Atlanta Falcons, after serving his sentence for his role in a dogfighting operation.

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."

White said the Falcons quarterback is a human being who has made a mistake and should be allowed to prove that he has learned from that mistake.

On Monday, Vick said through a lawyer that he will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.

Three Vick associates have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and say Vick provided nearly all the gambling and operating funds for the "Bad Newz Kennels" dogfighting enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs, raising the possibility of the animal cruelty charges.

Last month, state and local leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged the public not to rush to judgment in the Vick case. The civil rights organization said animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media were vilifying the embattled athlete, and that his team and corporate sponsors were prematurely punishing Vick.

White said the Atlanta chapter supports Vick's decision to accept a plea bargain if it's in his best interest, but he questioned the credibility of Vick's co-defendants, saying an admission of guilt might be more about cutting losses than the truth.

"At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice."

White said he regretted that the plea deal will mean all the facts of the case might never be known.

"Some have said things to save their own necks," White said. "Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being."

White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting.

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said

[Anthony]

here is Marbury's thoughts:



Marbury, Jones weigh in

On Monday, New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury was in Albany, N.Y., promoting his brand of affordable sneakers. He was asked about Michael Vick, and said, according to Newsday:

"We don't say anything about people shooting deers and shooting other animals, you know what I mean? From what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors and I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down ... I think he fell into a bad situation."

On Tuesday, Roy Jones Jr. was a guest on ESPN Radio's The Pulse, where he talked about Vick, dogfighting, cockfighting and more in a wide-ranging interview.


to me, killing an animal for sport is ok if it's

A. something that is on our food chain/is edible.
B. poses some sort of mortal risk to you.

regarding point A - dogs aren't on our food chain (excluding Chinese restaurants in NYC, that's still to be debated). deers are consumed by many outdoorsmen, i would say the pure hunting-for-sport guys at least will give out the meat to those that do eat deer meat. dogs are not considered game, they are our companions. they are parts of families. as far as B is concerned, it's risky to go hunting bears or moose. they are big animals. ditto for jungle animals. you are truly being a hunter when it's you vs. the environment and predators.

[MikeVic]

I'm not a big dog person, but I can understand why people are up in arms over this, since he didn't just make dogs fight or kill them. It sounds like they were living under horrible conditions. Being tortured, then had to fight, then killed.

In the above article:
Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being.


I think the speaker doesn't understand that people are more up in arms over all the torture. Although I do personally agree that he wouldn't have gotten as much bad press as if he killed a person... but if he tortured that person before killing them, then he'd be getting even more bad press than this.

[rkmsuf]

Always love when we get input from Starbury.

[MikeVic]

And Starbury is peddling cheap shoes too.

[rkmsuf]

So who has been indentified in the "dog fighting isn't so bad club"?

Starbury, Neon Deion, Portis?

I thought there were a few others with the "I'll be damned if I knew it was wrong" rap.

[molson]

I'm guessing that if Vick killed a human being, the press would be worse.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Nice. I was waiting for the inevitable "he just plead guilty and admitted to his crimes just to save his neck, but that doesn't mean he was actually guilty or did anything" argument.

Clearly, in White's eyes, Vick would have never been guilty. If he accepts the plea and admits he did it, he was strong-armed into doing it. If he had an actual trial and was found guilty, I am sure that White would have claimed some sort of bias or injustice ocurred.

If the guy isn't willing to see the difference between hunting and running a dogfighting operation in which you brutally killed dogs who didn't compete up to your standards, then I don't think he's really interested in anything other than his agenda.

[MikeVic]

So who has been indentified in the "dog fighting isn't so bad club"?

Starbury, Neon Deion, Portis?

I thought there were a few others with the "I'll be damned if I knew it was wrong" rap.

Didn't McNabb say this? And Tom Brady too.

[rkmsuf]

I'm guessing that if Vick killed a human being, the press would be worse.

ya think? these people crack me up crying a river for this guy.

[MikeVic]

I'm guessing that if Vick killed a human being, the press would be worse.

I don't know about that. It all depends on how. I don't remember that Rams DE getting a lot of bad press. Meanwhile Benoit (the wrestler who killed his family) got a lot of press for a while because of the whole steroid thing and how his family was killed.

[BrianD]

A couple of thoughts on the article:

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter.

I can support this position if Vick appears to learn from his time away.

"We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."

This seems an odd request. I could see asking them not to take away his ability to earn a living, but the ability to entertain people? Odd.

White said the Atlanta chapter supports Vick's decision to accept a plea bargain if it's in his best interest, but he questioned the credibility of Vick's co-defendants, saying an admission of guilt might be more about cutting losses than the truth.

"At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice."

Seems like a quick jump to the point of Vick being railroaded and forced to take a plea as a lesser evil. Shouldn't the NAACP be as concerned about the witnesses as for Vick? It just seems like they are willing to throw the unnamed guys to the wolves to protect a high profile guy.

White said he regretted that the plea deal will mean all the facts of the case might never be known.

This is very true. It would be nice to know the truth.

White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting.

As bad? Really? Not worse?

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said

Actually, it was many dogs...with brutal deaths...following brutal lives....

[larrymcg421]

Although I do personally agree that he wouldn't have gotten as much bad press as if he killed a person... but if he tortured that person before killing them, then he'd be getting even more bad press than this.

It depends on what you mean by killing a person. If you mean he was driving drunk and killed a person, then yes he would not have gotten as much bad press. However, if he had deliberately murdered a person, then I think it's crazy to assume he wouldn't have got worse press than he's been getting now.

Now, a better case for the Vick defenders to make would be about domestic abuse, which unfortunately does not carry as big a stain as it really should for athletes. I would really like the NFL to take a much more aggressive stance on that.

[Anthony]

So who has been indentified in the "dog fighting isn't so bad club"?

Starbury, Neon Deion, Portis?

I thought there were a few others with the "I'll be damned if I knew it was wrong" rap.

Emmit Smith, i believe, also.

[molson]

I'm not sure the backlash against Leonard Little isn't actually worse than it is against Vick here. Vick seems to have a lot of support. I don't reacall the Atlanta president of NAACP standing up for Little.

Edit: I realize the VOLUME of press is very different in those cases, but is Vick really being torn apart right now? Many are saying he's being railroaded, many other are saying this is all just a product of his background.

Vick is being portrayed as a backwards hillbilly who didn't know any better, rather than a criminal mastermind of a dog-fighting ring.

[Noble_Platypus]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the leader of the NAACP mentioned here has a last name of White?

[Noble_Platypus]

Emmit Smith, i believe, also.

Jonathon Vilma, LB for the Jets as well.

Also, Donovan McNabb and Joe Horn have openly supported him.

[miami_fan]

So who has been indentified in the "dog fighting isn't so bad club"?

Starbury, Neon Deion, Portis?

I thought there were a few others with the "I'll be damned if I knew it was wrong" rap.

From conversations that I have had with people in this area there are far more people in this club than many people think. They are just smart enough not to express their support publicly.

[stevew]

Hanford Dixon, formerly of the browns, seemed to think it wasn't a major deal, anyways.

[Noble_Platypus]

Neither did former RB Fred McCrary

[Passacaglia]

Hanford Dixon, formerly of the browns, seemed to think it wasn't a major deal, anyways.

I'll never play as him in Tecmo Bowl again. :p

[lordscarlet]

Jonathon Vilma, LB for the Jets as well.

Also, Donovan McNabb and Joe Horn have openly supported him.

The quote I heard from Joe Horn was that he condemned what Vick did, but he was still supporting him as a friend.

[Surtt]

don't get me started on South Dakota. there is no need for it to exist. we just need one big state called "Dakota". South Dakota is where hopes and dreams go to die. what even goes on in South Dakota. with any other state i can name at least one redeeming/identifiable quality, but there is nothing going on in South Dakota.



This is probably true, but it is like picking on a 1st grader.
Every state can't be New York.
Besides, your food needs to be grown somewhere.

[MikeVic]

North American Association for Coloured People should be changed to North American Association for African Americans.

NAAAA

[sabotai]

I'm guessing that if Vick killed a human being, the press would be worse.

I disagree. I mean, O.J. killed someone, and that hardly got any press at all.


Oh wait...

[Surtt]

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said


These people comparing it to hunting ....
It is about the intent.

Most hunters I know will let a deer get away rather the risk wounding it and letting it suffer.
Vick got his enjoyment from watching the dogs suffer while they fought for there lives.

It is the difference between swatting a fly and pulling its wings off.

[Kodos]

It is the difference between swatting a fly and keeping it under a shot glass all it's life and then pulling its wings off.


Fixed.

[rkmsuf]

I disagree. I mean, O.J. killed someone, and that hardly got any press at all.


Oh wait...

allegedly

[miked]

These people comparing it to hunting ....
It is about the intent.

Most hunters I know will let a deer get away rather the risk wounding it and letting it suffer.
Vick got his enjoyment from watching the dogs suffer while they fought for there lives.

It is the difference between swatting a fly and pulling its wings off.

Just because you hit something in the right spot doesn't mean it will die every time. I find hunting as a sport fairly reprehensible. I think dogfighting is disgusting, but I think hunting for sport is one of the silliest things. I know people will disagree, but that's life. Shooting an animal for no other reason than some personal satisfaction isn't that much different. Of course, I'm no hunter. My wife's father was a hunter when he was younger, because a 2 deer in Clarion would last them a while and was there only source of meat (they could afford and had easy access to). Nowadays, people like Cheney and others just go to enclosed areas and shoot for "sport", which I find just as bad.

[Noble_Platypus]

People seem to forget, or maybe leave out on purpose, that its not only that the dogs hurt eachother fighting, but the fucking terrible conditions in which they were living for years, being starved and other deplorable things to make them mean/better fighters, then the way they were killed if they lost.

[Brillig]

Just because you hit something in the right spot doesn't mean it will die every time. I find hunting as a sport fairly reprehensible. I think dogfighting is disgusting, but I think hunting for sport is one of the silliest things. I know people will disagree, but that's life. Shooting an animal for no other reason than some personal satisfaction isn't that much different. Of course, I'm no hunter. My wife's father was a hunter when he was younger, because a 2 deer in Clarion would last them a while and was there only source of meat (they could afford and had easy access to). Nowadays, people like Cheney and others just go to enclosed areas and shoot for "sport", which I find just as bad.

At least the people hunting with Cheney are risking their own lives, which makes it a bit of a sport...

[rkmsuf]

What is the issue here? Are people saying dogfighting should be legal like hunting or hunting should be illegal like dogfighting?

What difference does it make in this case?

[Honolulu_Blue]

People seem to forget, or maybe leave out on purpose, that its not only that the dogs hurt eachother fighting, but the fucking terrible conditions in which they were living for years, being starved and other deplorable things to make them mean/better fighters, then the way they were killed if they lost.

Not to mention the use of certain dogs as "bait dogs." As I understand it, bait dogs are usually either puppies or other passive dogs that are used to bring out the more agressive dog's "killer" instinct. A bait dog hones the other dog's agressive nature, making it so they don't pullback when their opponent shows fear/weakness.

I am no fan of hunting. At all. But I readily do see the rather large distinction between running a dogfighting operation, as has been described/admitted to, and hunting a deer.

Of course, for Vick and the rest of his associates, the only distinction that really matters is that dogfighting is illegal and hunting (assuming proper license, season, guns, etc.) is not.

[Atocep]

Did anyone catch the Roy Jones Jr. interview where he stated that we're putting a dog's life over a human beings because Vick's career is ruined now?

[oliegirl]

People seem to forget, or maybe leave out on purpose, that its not only that the dogs hurt eachother fighting, but the fucking terrible conditions in which they were living for years, being starved and other deplorable things to make them mean/better fighters, then the way they were killed if they lost.

That is where I make the distinction between hunting and dogfighting. I don't support hunting, it's not something I would ever be part of - however, as long as you eat what you kill, I don't have a problem with it. If you kill something merely to mount it on your wall as a trophy - that I have a problem with.

Dogfighting is a different story though, to me people are trying to compare apples to oranges. Here you are taking animals, as puppies, and teaching them to be cruel and hate...and this is done by being cruel to them. Running them for hours with no water, tying them to objects so they have limited room to walk/run, keeping them in small cages for hours on end, abusing them, etc...and then when they are of no more worth to you, killing them in an equally horrible manner. There is no redeeming quality to dogfighting, nothing to justify it's existence.

[vtbub]

Comparing dogfighting to hunting is a bit of a stretch. Yes, both end up with death, but for the most part it ends there.

Besides the food part of it, there is actual conservation value in weeding out herds. The majority of hunters do care about the enviroment and health of the sport.

Yes, you have some dodo brains who do it for blood, but there are bad apples in every walk of life.

While I understand why shooting Babi isn't everyone's cup of tea, I have no real understanding on what the enjoyment is of having fido pummel rover, and I really don't like dogs to begin with.

Bum fights were mentioned elsewhere, something incredibly pathetic as well. I'm delighted that people are so above others that they get off on watching homeless dudes fight, or teenage boys, or whatever back alley goodies that give u a stiffy while watching it.

At least the bums get paid, and that's the big difference.

I am just dumbfounded as to why someone would take such a stupid risk for so little payoff.

What an incredible waste.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You're not following me. The town went nuts over the Braves in '91 and '92. you couldn't get a ticket in those days. Once the novelty wore off, though, they couldn't fill the seats for playoff games. I don't know the exact year, but I *think* there were empy seats in the NLCS against the Phillies in '93. I *know* that Justice ripped the fans in '95 for their complacency.

Here's regular season average attendance by year
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/attend.shtml

Starting with the worst-to-first year of 91 when the Braves were 6th in the NL in attendance they were then 1st, 2nd,2nd,3rd, 3rd while at Atl-FulCo.
Moved to Turner Field in '97 they've been 2nd, 3rd, 2nd in attendance until '00 when they dropped to 4th, 6th, 8th, 7th, 10th, 10th in '05 when the playoff streak ended, actually drew more per game last year & moved up to 9th, back to 10th so far this season.

Capacity for the old stadium for baseball seems to be listed at 52,007 (on Wiki) or 51,500 (1965); 52,013 (1992)
(at http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/fulton.htm)

91 NLCS : 50,905 -- 51,109 -- 51,109
'91 WS: 50,878 -- 50,878 -- 50,878
'92 NLCS: 51,971 -- 51,975 -- 51,975 -- 51,975
'92 WS: 51,763 -- 51,763 -- 51,763
'93 NLCS: 52,032 -- 52,032 -- 52,032
'95 NLDS: 51,300 -- 50,027
'95 NLCS: 51,424 -- 52,067
'95 WS: 51,876 -- 51,877 -- 51,875
'96 NLDS: 52,529 --
'96 NLCS: 48,686 -- 52,067 -- 52,067
'96 WS: 51,843 -- 51,881 -- 51,881
Moved to Turner Field
'97 NLDS: 46,467 -- 49,200
'97 NLCS:

Oops ... workus interruptus. I'll try to finish this later.

[miked]

I just bought tickets to the Mets series. I can't believe tickets to the biggest rival in the middle of the playoff hunt are still available.

[Ben E Lou]

Here's regular season average attendance by year
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/attend.shtml

Starting with the worst-to-first year of 91 when the Braves were 6th in the NL in attendance they were then 1st, 2nd,2nd,3rd, 3rd while at Atl-FulCo.
Moved to Turner Field in '97 they've been 2nd, 3rd, 2nd in attendance until '00 when they dropped to 4th, 6th, 8th, 7th, 10th, 10th in '05 when the playoff streak ended, actually drew more per game last year & moved up to 9th, back to 10th so far this season.

Capacity for the old stadium for baseball seems to be listed at 52,007 (on Wiki) or 51,500 (1965); 52,013 (1992)
(at http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/fulton.htm)

91 NLCS : 50,905 -- 51,109 -- 51,109
'91 WS: 50,878 -- 50,878 -- 50,878
'92 NLCS: 51,971 -- 51,975 -- 51,975 -- 51,975
'92 WS: 51,763 -- 51,763 -- 51,763
'93 NLCS: 52,032 -- 52,032 -- 52,032
'95 NLDS: 51,300 -- 50,027
'95 NLCS: 51,424 -- 52,067
'95 WS: 51,876 -- 51,877 -- 51,875
'96 NLDS: 52,529 --
'96 NLCS: 48,686 -- 52,067 -- 52,067
'96 WS: 51,843 -- 51,881 -- 51,881
Moved to Turner Field
'97 NLDS: 46,467 -- 49,200
'97 NLCS:

Oops ... workus interruptus. I'll try to finish this later.

I forget which one is which, though. Tickets sold, or people actually present? A lot of companies bought season tickets in the early 90s, which boosted actual sales. I'm more wondering about actual butts in the seats.

[Noble_Platypus]

I just bought tickets to the Mets series. I can't believe tickets to the biggest rival in the middle of the playoff hunt are still available.

Its baseball,90% of people dont care.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't believe tickets to the biggest rival in the middle of the playoff hunt are still available.

I can't believe anybody believes the Braves are actually part of the playoff hunt with this woeful pitching staff.

[miked]

I can't believe anybody believes the Braves are actually part of the playoff hunt with this woeful pitching staff.

Have you seen the Mets and Phillies staff? I'm no Braves fan, I only go the tix because my brother is a huge Mets fan and will be here for the weekend. I just think it is representative of the fan base when you can get these kind of tickets on a whim.

[molson]

What is the issue here? Are people saying dogfighting should be legal like hunting or hunting should be illegal like dogfighting?

What difference does it make in this case?

The timing and way people are saying it sounds like they're arguing that since dogfighting isn't any worse than hunting, then we should just ignore what Vick did.

I guess. Because otherwise, it makes no sense to bring up hunting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I forget which one is which, though. Tickets sold, or people actually present? A lot of companies bought season tickets in the early 90s, which boosted actual sales. I'm more wondering about actual butts in the seats.

Not sure myself, but it's interesting to see that the unsold tickets (whether anybody showed up or not) as 1995.

I know I've mentioned being in the stadium "When Sid Slid" several times here but it's probably worth mentioning here how I came by those tickets. Very late that afternoon they were comped to my eventual wife by WGST, but she didn't want to go, and offered them to me (considering I was working for another station at the time that was kind of odd all by itself). I picked them up around 630p in an envelope taped to the station door over on Pharr Road. Basically, the station was having a hard time giving away the tickets because nobody thought there was any chance of beating the Pirates that night, which I've always felt had a lot to do with why the outcome was so incredibly emotional. It wasn't just the win, it was how unexpected it was.

[Buccaneer]

Without reading anything further than what I posted this morning, I think I was partly kidding about Brohm. I know ATL fans will feel very differently but as an outsider that always have been a world aways from Atlanta, I remember that one of the most exciting football games that I had every watched in my 40 years of following the NFL was the 1998 Atl-Minn playoff game. That seems like a lifetime ago.

[BrianD]

Did anyone catch the Roy Jones Jr. interview where he stated that we're putting a dog's life over a human beings because Vick's career is ruined now?

I thought Roy was smarter than this. I've got two responses and I'm not sure which to go with.

1) We are not talking about A dog's life, we are talking about potentially many dogs including the fighters, those who show too much hesitation to be fighters, and the bait dogs who have their mouths taped shut while they get ripped apart.

2) Does this mean Roy would support someone like Mike going up to a pet dog in a fenced in back yard and shooting it? Because even this would be more humane than what these dogfighters do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought Roy was smarter than this.

I think we've spotted your first mistake.

[miami_fan]

The more I hear comments from various athletes on this topic, the more I wonder how extensive this dogfighting subculture is/was amongst athletes.

[rowech]

This case is going to end up being split on racial lines. It's already tending to go that way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This case is going to end up being split on racial lines. It's already tending to go that way.

Huh? "tending to go that way"?
I was under the strong impression that it had been that way since day one.

[BrianD]

I think we've spotted your first mistake.

I'm still surprised. I've seen Roy on various talk shows and other places doing interviews, and he seemed like a pretty intelligent guy.

I guess there really are a number of people who believe that people can do absolutely anything they want to animals.

[King of New York]

Huh? "tending to go that way"?
I was under the strong impression that it had been that way since day one.

That's a big part of it, but it's also breaking down along class lines. The other day, I overheard a group of rural working-class whites from southeastern Virginia talking about the Vick case. They didn't strike me as being budding civil-rights organizers, but every one of them said that Vick was the victim here, and that the media was making much ado about nothing. Because the rural working-class whites have no national media spokesmen, their support of Vick will probably go unnoticed.

[Ben E Lou]

The more I hear comments from various athletes on this topic, the more I wonder how extensive this dogfighting subculture is/was amongst athletes.

Like I said earlier, I strongly suspect that a number of pro football and basketball players were sweating this one out, worried that Vick might be persuaded to drop dime. I'd be *very* surprised if Vick's dogs didn't fight against the dogs of other pro athletes at some point.

[miami_fan]

Like I said earlier, I strongly suspect that a number of pro football and basketball players were sweating this one out, worried that Vick might be persuaded to drop dime. I'd be *very* surprised if Vick's dogs didn't fight against the dogs of other pro athletes at some point.

Well I am assuming the feds have gotten evidence from this investigation that will lead them to others. It is just a matter of who they are and whether or not the feds intend to pursue them.

[BrianD]

Like I said earlier, I strongly suspect that a number of pro football and basketball players were sweating this one out, worried that Vick might be persuaded to drop dime. I'd be *very* surprised if Vick's dogs didn't fight against the dogs of other pro athletes at some point.

This isn't directed at you, but your post seemed as good as any to jump from.

What happens if a very large portion of pro athletes are shown to be part of this subculture? There are already laws in place against this sort of thing, but what do we do if there really are that many (high profile) people involved? Would there be discussion about changing the laws? Would we expect to see softer penalties given out? Would we see feds go after all of the athletes with the same fervor?

[Anthony]

This isn't directed at you, but your post seemed as good as any to jump from.

What happens if a very large portion of pro athletes are shown to be part of this subculture? There are already laws in place against this sort of thing, but what do we do if there really are that many (high profile) people involved? Would there be discussion about changing the laws? Would we expect to see softer penalties given out? Would we see feds go after all of the athletes with the same fervor?

that's what would break the back of pro sports (except hockey, they're already in a wheelchair). think about it - if you have a wife, does she really care about Bonds and his steroids? does she care about all the pro athletes in sports who've been found to have taken performance enhancing drugs? it's very likely the answer is no. but if we're talking about cruelty to dogs? i think that's where this gets blown up like Hiroshima. that's when everyone takes notice, sports fan and non-sports fan alike. we all love animals.

this dogfighting thing is big only because it kills two birds with one stone - it persecutes people who treat dogs inhumanely and it allows us to lash out at overpaid superstar athletes who undeservedly make a ton of money.

if (and i'm siding with SD here, i also think *when*) more high profile athletes are found to be in dogfighting, this will be the turning point in how pro sports are viewed in the public eye - moreso than steroids.

[st.cronin]

There have already been cases against athletes for dogfighting. The reason this case got so much publicity is because Vick is one of the 10 most famous athletes there is. Its not going to be a bigger story unless it turns out that Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter are fighting dogs.

[WVUFAN]

This isn't directed at you, but your post seemed as good as any to jump from.

What happens if a very large portion of pro athletes are shown to be part of this subculture? There are already laws in place against this sort of thing, but what do we do if there really are that many (high profile) people involved? Would there be discussion about changing the laws? Would we expect to see softer penalties given out? Would we see feds go after all of the athletes with the same fervor?

I would think they should go after them with the same type of fervor, but who knows.

Personally, the punishment for this kind of crime should be substantially stiffer than what it is. Seeing how Vick might get out of this with only a single year in prison is very frustrating.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The patriots were essentially the Lions of the NFL prior to 2000. It only HAS been a couple of winning seasons.

Go back and look at how colosally bad the patriots were prior to 2000. Its absurd.

Ok, I did go and look back at what the Pats did prior to 2000. Whoa. Are you serious? You're a little clueless there. Do you actually know what went on with the Pats prior to 2000? Let me fill you in, since you obviously don't.

1999 8-8
1998 9-7
1997 10-6
1996 11-5
1995 6-10
1994 10-6
1993 5-11
1992 2-14
1991 6-10
1990 1-15
1989 5-11
1988 9-7
1987 8-7
1986 11-5
1985 11-5
1984 9-7
1983 8-8

That's only 6 losing seasons in 17 seasons (and none in the 4 years prior to 2000). That goes along with 2 Superbowl appearances in 1985 and 1996 and 4 division championships.

My guess is the Pats' record over that stretch was better than at least half the teams in the NFL. In reality, all they had was two horrible seasons in 1990 and 1992. If that's "colossally bad" then I hate to see what humongously bad is. What is absurd is your comparison of the Pats to the Lions.

On the other hand, the Lions haven't even had a winning season since 2000, haven't made the playoffs since 1999 (at that was with an 8-8 season), haven't won 10 games since 1995, and haven't won a division title since 1993.

When making any kind of argument, it helps to get your facts right. There shall be no Patriots falsehoods allowed here. Thank you. I'm finished now.

[wade moore]

Don't worry, he'll ignore your facts just like he did LS's...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Do you actually know what went on with the Pats prior to 2000?

Y'know, it is at least possible that some of us remember football prior to 1983.

Prior to the SB season in '85, the Patriots had not won a playoff game in 22 years, dating back to the AFL in 1963 and only made the post-season 3 times in that span. And after '85, it was another decade before they won another playoff game in 1996. To put that in a little perspective, from 1970 to 1995, the Patsies made the playoffs 6 times ... only once more than the woeful Falcons and once time less than the Colts.

I can't say if that's what the original post had in mind, but it does seem at least possible.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, here we go about tickets...

New Falcons ticket buyers ready to sell

Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 08:14 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


http://www.ajc.com/shared-gen/blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/mugs/jeff_schultz.mug.jpg
Jeff Schultz

<!--
Lowering our standards (http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/30/lowering_our_st.html)
Felton's Bulldogs are worth watching (http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/29/feltons_bulldog.html)
Bush hit jackpot, Trojans take hit (http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/26/bush_hit_jackpo.html)
Thrashers realize goal's still far away (http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/25/thrashers_reali.html)
Falcons silent amid murky Vick case (http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/23/falcons_silent.html) -->
On July 6, the same day federal investigators were back in Surry County, Va., digging up Michael Vick’s little yard of horrors, ESPN erroneously reported the Falcons’ quarterback would not be indicted.


On July 7, Orlando Daniels of Acworth, facing a deadline and buoyed by the report, submitted his deposit for two club-level season tickets at $1,390.
Ten days later, Vick was indicted.


Ever feel like you just paid a premium for drilling rights, only to hit sand?


Evidence is all over the Internet. Since Vick’s tenure with the team unofficially ended with news of a plea agreement, fans have flooded eBay, Craigslist and StubHub with their season tickets. The Web suddenly looks like a surf shop in Des Moines.


“Dude, there are people selling season tickets on the lower level, 50-yard line for below face value,” said Daniels, who had been on a waiting list for tickets for three years. “That’s unheard of in any market.”


Another fan, Josh Lewis of Greensboro, N.C., also came off the waiting list and immediately purchased two pairs of upper-level tickets for $1,400 in April. He planned to make the six-hour drive for home games, reasoning, “I’m getting married in September, and I figured a couple of wedding presents would cover it. About a week later is when all the dogfighting stuff started to come back. It kinda made me sick.”


Daniels is more than sick. He’s jumping head-first into the conspiracy pool. He believes it’s too big of a coincidence that the ESPN report coincided with his deadline to purchase tickets, and charged that the Falcons and owner Arthur Blank leaked the “news” to spur ticket sales. Nothing like a ticking Hail Mary to start the year.


“At the end of the day my gut instinct tells me that Blank, with millions of dollars at risk, had something to do with the [ESPN] story … or the [timing of the] indictment,” Daniels said. “I’m as upset as anybody about Mike. But I believe a bigger fraud has happened … people bought into a press story and made a financial commitment based on false or misleading information.”


In better times, conspiracy theories would be laughed off in Flowery Branch. Um, these ain’t better times.


Falcons executive vice president Kim Shreckengost said the charge is “absolutely not true.” She added: “We don’t control the media, and we certainly don’t control the government. We learned about the indictment at the same time everyone else did, and had no inside information about whether or not he would be indicted along the way. More importantly, we would never treat our fans that way.”


Now, I’m sure there are worse jobs today than trying to market the Falcons. But I can’t imagine too many exist outside of Washington or Baghdad. No Vick. An aging running back (Warrick Dunn) coming off back surgery. Little in the way of star quality. Or playoff hopes.


With Vick, the Falcons were a tough ticket. Now they’re a tough sell, at least emotionally. Yes, the games already are sold out. But empty seats seem inevitable.


“It’s going to be like it used to be, an empty dome with more visiting fans than Falcons fans,” said David Easley, a 10-year season-ticket holder. “It almost makes me want to go because I hate when that happens. But not for this much money.”


It’s a little late. Easley owns his four tickets at $890 a pop. His ad includes the words, “Make me an offer.”


He decided 10 years ago to purchase Falcons instead of Georgia tickets because of the proximity of the stadium and the available seats. “Now I regret it,” he said. “I bought Thrashers tickets last year for the first time, and it seems like they take better care of you with benefits. I’d rather keep my Thrasher tickets and go back to Georgia games.”


He said he “feels sorry for Blank,” but only to a point. “He can sell the team tomorrow, and he’ll have a good return on his investment. He’s not losing money.”


The Falcons say they haven’t been overrun with fans demanding refunds. But logic dictates most people know better. As Daniels said, “I didn’t want to waste my energy calling. I know it’s buyer beware.”


Another buyer, Ryan McDowell, was told this year he could purchase up to six tickets. He went for the max at $520 each.


“I had a friend who sold tickets to the Steelers game last year and made money,” McDowell said. “I thought I could make a profit and still keep two. That idea’s pretty much gone.”

[Ben E Lou]

Y'know, it is at least possible that some of us remember football prior to 1983.Yes yes. When I think of the Patriots and Bucs in particular, I think, "Man, they ALWAYS used to suck." The Bucs and Seahawks are still expansion teams in my mind. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Bucs and Seahawks are still expansion teams in my mind. :D

Well, with only 5 playoff appearances each until 1999, you wouldn't really be that far off ;)

Okay, that's better than Cardinals ... but then again, who isn't?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, with only 5 playoff appearances each until 1999, you wouldn't really be that far off ;)

Okay, that's better than Cardinals ... but then again, who isn't?

Well, the Lions are the only team that really comes close to the Cardinals, but the Cardinals are really the only team I can think of in the NFL who have had it worse than the Lions over the last few decades. At least the Lions had the Barry Sanders Era.

[gstelmack]

Well, here we go about tickets...

I would love to see a suit against ESPN for irresponsible reporting for not having any evidence about the "no indictment" bit.

Of course, the real answer were the stupid people that waited until the last minute and then bought the tickets DESPITE authorities crawling all over his porperty...

[flere-imsaho]

Growing up as a Patriots fan, I think the angst there wasn't necessarily about the number of games lost, but the truly remarkable and creative ways the Pats could snatch defeat from victory.

[Buccaneer]

Before the Bucs and Hawks came, the joke teams were (in the 1970s) were the Oilers, Saints, Eagles, Giants, Bears and I think Falcons. The Bucs and Hawks did suck early on but one cannot forget the Bucs run in 1979 and by the early 1980s, the Hawks were a good team.

[Logan]

Another buyer, Ryan McDowell, was told this year he could purchase up to six tickets. He went for the max at $520 each.


“I had a friend who sold tickets to the Steelers game last year and made money,” McDowell said. “I thought I could make a profit and still keep two. That idea’s pretty much gone.”

I'm very saddened that this guy's plan to scalp tickets is no longer possible. Boo fucking hoo.

[miked]

Maybe I should buy some season tickets now. If Vick had trouble hitting the likes of Jenkins and White, I can't wait for the Harrington era.

[molson]

I've competely forgotten how the Patriots got involved in this discussion, but they're pre-super bowl history certainly isn't as bleak as some think. And I THINK more relevantly to the discussion, (though I can't remember) is that they were a big deal in the region prior to the current run .

The mid-late 70s teams of Grogam/Cunnigham/Morgan are remembered very fondly in New England - they definitely looked like a super bowl contender in 1976 before the "roughing the passer" game against the Raiders.

[rkmsuf]

I've competely forgotten how the Patriots got involved in this discussion, but they're pre-super bowl history certainly isn't as bleak as some think. And I THINK more relevantly to the discussion, (though I can't remember) is that they were a big deal in the region prior to the current run .

The mid-late 70s teams of Grogam/Cunnigham/Morgan are remembered very fondly in New England - they definitely looked like a super bowl contender in 1976 before the "roughing the passer" game against the Raiders.

I saw Steve Grogan coming out of a porta potty in the Foxboro parking lot in 1991. Striking man.

[Surtt]

Before the Bucs and Hawks came, the joke teams were (in the 1970s) were the Oilers, Saints, Eagles, Giants, Bears and I think Falcons. The Bucs and Hawks did suck early on but one cannot forget the Bucs run in 1979 and by the early 1980s, the Hawks were a good team.


Oilers?
My memory isn't the greatest but I remember Earl Campbell, Bum Philips and the great games with the Steelers.

The Green Bay Packers were pretty bad in the 70s & 80s.

[Anthony]

i'm predicting no less than 8 wins for the Falcons. Harrington is a better passer than Vick. Vick was always quick to just take off if his 1st read (ie, Crumpler) was covered. Harrington doesn't have any legs, so he'll stay in the pocket and commit to the pass much more than Vick would. and i've read good things about Bobby Petrino.

[Buccaneer]

Oilers?
My memory isn't the greatest but I remember Earl Campbell, Bum Philips and the great games with the Steelers.

The Green Bay Packers were pretty bad in the 70s & 80s.

I was just following on to Jimga on the 70s before the Bucs and Hawks.

[Noble_Platypus]

Chris Mortonsen just reported on ESPN that on Monday Vick wont admit to gambling or killing dogs. Just what the hell is the plea deal then? If he isnt admitting to that why are the feds even making a deal?

[Noble_Platypus]

From ESPN:

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick will not admit to killing dogs or gambling on dog fights, as detailed in his indictment, when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, VA, federal court Monday, a source close to the case has told ESPN. Instead, the one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting.

Vick will admit that he was present when dogs were killed, but will maintain that he did not personally kill any of the dogs

[Logan]

And the plot thickens...

[Deattribution]

It's just a ploy to stir up the notion that it's the goverment sticking it to him, forcing him to admit to things he didn't do.

[duckman]

ESPN's Lester Munson is saying the plea agreement is serious jeopardy. His opinion is that the feds will rather take the case to court than agreeing to Vick's version of the statement of facts. That will mean more charges will be filed against him since he didn't take the plea agreement.

[larrymcg421]

There's still hope for a circus trial.

Ohhhh yeah....

[stevew]

If this is indeed true, I'd say there's at least 600 more posts left in this thread, if not more.

[larrymcg421]

If this is indeed true, I'd say there's at least 600 more posts left in this thread, if not more.

If this goes to trial, this thread will destroy the board.

[st.cronin]

There's no way Vick can go to trial now, can he? As public as this negotiation has been, don't the Feds have him by the balls?

[larrymcg421]

There's no way Vick can go to trial now, can he? As public as this negotiation has been, don't the Feds have him by the balls?

None of that is admissable, but yeah anyone on the jury will know about that, so he's screwed. That doesn't mean he won't be stupid, though.

Be stupid, Mike! Come on! Do it for the TV fans!

[Axxon]

Yes yes. When I think of the Patriots and Bucs in particular, I think, "Man, they ALWAYS used to suck." The Bucs and Seahawks are still expansion teams in my mind. :D

Don't feel bad. I've been a Bucs fan since the day the franchise was awarded and I still think of us as an expansion team. :D

What's funny is that this is really a huge part of my love for the team. Existing longer than them but not by a whole lot; I had just discovering football a year before they got a team and my interest in football was directly related to all news Buccaneers and vice versa actually.

I feel more tied to the team than I would have had the team always been around ( and always sucked ) and I became a fan of them. The Bucs are kinda like a little brother. I watched them be born, I watched them fall like babies. I watched them grow up, I watched them ascend to the pinnacle and now, well, this year we'll see but I'll tell you one thing

The adventure has been great and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Except for Bo Jackson, but every great adventure needs it's villian. ;)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Y'know, it is at least possible that some of us remember football prior to 1983.

Prior to the SB season in '85, the Patriots had not won a playoff game in 22 years, dating back to the AFL in 1963 and only made the post-season 3 times in that span. And after '85, it was another decade before they won another playoff game in 1996. To put that in a little perspective, from 1970 to 1995, the Patsies made the playoffs 6 times ... only once more than the woeful Falcons and once time less than the Colts.

I can't say if that's what the original post had in mind, but it does seem at least possible.

Synovia said collossally bad prior to 2000. How far do you want me to go back - the Boston Patriots?? I went back all way until the strike season. I think I was more than generous in even doing that. And he compared them to the current day Lions. He should have said pre-1984 then under your theory, but of course that wasn't his argument. And while you say they didn't win a playoff game for awhile prior to 1985, you can't honestly say that the Pats did not have a pretty good team in the late 1970s. Anyway you slice it, even going back that far, you cannot describe them as collossally bad or comparable to the recent Detroit Lions.

[Ben E Lou]

Not exactly what you'd call a reliable source here, but at least an interesting read if you like watching train wrecks. ;)


Vick deeply into dogfighting, father says

QB's dad says he didn't abandon family



The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/24/07

Michael Vick's father said he pushed his son to quit dogfighting years ago or, at least, put property used for the fights in the name of friends to avoid being implicated some day.


Michael Boddie, in two sometimes tearful interviews with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week, said some time around 2001 his son staged dogfights in the garage of the family's home in Newport News, Va. Boddie also said Vick kept fighting dogs in the family's backyard, including injured ones — "bit up, chewed up, exhausted" — that the father nursed back to health.


Boddie, who is estranged from his son, dismissed the idea that Vick's longtime friends were the main instigators of the dogfighting operation.
"I wish people would stop sugarcoating it," Boddie said. "This is Mike's thing. And he knows it."


He "likes it, and he has the capital to have a set up like that."
Daniel Meachum, an attorney for Vick, said his client never mentioned situations described by Boddie, nor discussed Boddie in relation to dog activities. "It's a disgrace Mr. Boddie, who chose for nearly 22 years not to be part of Mike's life, would at this time seek to capitalize on his son's current situation."


Vick's mother, Brenda Vick Boddie, who hasn't lived with her husband for the past five years, did not return calls seeking comment.


Boddie said he and the Atlanta Falcons quarterback have had a volatile relationship for years and that his son has refused to speak with him directly for the last 2 1/2 half months. Boddie said he is speaking out because he's been hurt by his son and wife's failure over the years to correct what he considers inaccurate media reports that Vick grew up without his father present.


"I've been drug through the mud," Boddie said.


He said he intends to write a damaging book about more of what he knows.


Boddie, 45, lives in a Duluth apartment that his son has paid the rent on for the last three years. Vick, who has a $130 million contract with the Falcons, also gives him a couple of hundred dollars every week or two, the father said.


Boddie wanted more. Two years ago, he said, he asked Vick for $1 million, spread out over 12 years, enough to keep him comfortable for the rest of his life. Vick declined, the father said. In recent weeks, Boddie asked Vick, through an assistant, for $700,000 to live on.


Boddie said he hasn't been contacted by federal investigators pursuing dogfighting accusations against Vick. A federal grand jury indicted Vick with one count of conspiracy to cross state lines to engage in illegal gambling; to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture; and to buy, transport and receive dogs for animal fighting.


The indictment does not mention the parents' former home in Newport News, where Boddie said he cared for Vick's pit bulls and where he said three dogfighting session were held, roughly around the time that Vick was transitioning from college football to the pros.


Earlier this week, Vick agreed to plead guilty Monday in the federal dogfighting case in Richmond. He faces prison and the possible end of his football career. Three co-defendants already pleaded guilty and were expected to testify against Vick if the case went to trial. In addition, a Virginia prosecutor is considering bringing state charges against Vick.


Anger and anguish
Boddie lives in an apartment, just a few miles from where his son lives in the upscale, gated Sugarloaf neighborhood. Posters of the football star are thumb-tacked to the walls of a guest bedroom. A picture of Vick's two young children is framed on a wall near the kitchen. Hung on a wall beside the kitchen sink is a long list entitled "Quick Drink Recipes."


In language blanketed with profanity, a sometimes sitting, sometimes pacing Boddie recounted what he said was some, but not all, of what he knows about his son. At times while discussing his wife and children, Boddie appeared to alternate between anger and anguish. His cellphone rang several times. At one point he answered, paused, unleashed an expletive-laced torrent of words and marched out of the apartment with the phone to his ear. He later said the caller was an assistant of Michael Vick's who asked what he planned to disclose to a reporter and urged him to keep quiet.


"I know some things," Boddie said. "That's why they're going crazy."
He said he's not perfect. He said he hasn't worked since 2003, went through drug rehab in 2004 paid for by his son, was sometimes high or drunk around his children when they were young, has gotten in trouble for drinking and driving and had his driver's license revoked.


"There are some things I wish I could go back and change," he said.
But Boddie said he gave Vick something that most kids didn't have in the Newport News housing projects where both grew up: "I never left his side. Never left his mother's side. And where we come from, this day and time, that's a hell of a thing."


He and Vick's mother weren't married when Michael Vick was born. But they married later and Boddie said he lived with the family from the time Vick was 3 years old until after his eldest son went to Virginia Tech to play football. He said he was usually working during Vick's youth, often on jobs sandblasting and repainting ships.


He said he is frustrated about continued suggestions that Vick was raised without a father. He said his son and wife should have set the record straight.


But in a 2001 AJC article about their son, his wife was quoted as saying that Boddie's presence in Vick's childhood "means a lot to me."


"He was always there, providing, taking care of what needed to be taken care of. Through everything, we stayed together as a family. I have a lot of respect for him for that."


But in other press reports, both Michael Vick and his mother suggested that Boddie was an emotionally distant father. He "never paid that much attention to me," Vick said, according to a Sports Illustrated story in 2000.
Boddie said that, over the last year, his son has been disrespecting him, "talking to me like I'm one of his . . . dogs."


Boddie said he's tried to look out for his son. Around 2002, while at Vick's rural property near Smithfield, Va., he warned his son.


"I told him basically, 'You don't need to be doing this. You got bigger fish to fry. You got more important things that you can do.' "


Boddie recalled telling his son to transfer the property to the name of one of his friends: " 'Take this place right now, put it in one of their names because if anything goes wrong . . . it's you they coming after.' "
Boddie said he doesn't recall his son's reply.


Boddie also said dogfighting occurred at the family's Newport News home on Terrace Drive. The family was in the house for about a year or more as Vick moved from playing college football at Virginia Tech to the pros. Boddie said he cleaned out the home's garage three times in 2001 to make room for dogfighting sessions held by Vick and his friends.


"I hung around long enough to actually walk in there when an actual dogfight was going on," Boddie said, but he added that he didn't stay long.
"It wasn't my thing," he said.


He said he had already witnessed test fights of dogs — in which dogs battle to see how well a prospective fighter will perform.


"It's really something to stand there and watch. You have to have the stomach for it," he said.


Boddie said Michael Vick kept pit bulls in eight cages in the backyard of the Terrace Drive home. However, a neighbor, Willie-Mae Hansell, said she only saw one dog at the house, and never heard anything unusual there.


"I fed the dogs," Boddie said. "I've nursed them back to health, dogs that have been in fights. Raised litters of puppies."


The injured dogs could barely muster up enough strength to eat at first, he said. Boddie contends that Vick's mother was aware of the dogfighting and said he heard her tell her son to stop it. Boddie said of his son: "I think he basically told her, 'OK, Mama. OK, I'll stop.' "


Boddie said he wasn't aware of any dogfighting in the Newport News projects when Vick grew up there. The closest he recalled was kids being fascinated as dogs chased stray cats in a nearby lumber yard. He said that, despite his earlier warnings to his son, he never expected Vick would someday face the dogfighting troubles he is in now.


"I thought he would have gotten out of it by then, gotten it out of his system."

[miami_fan]

There's still hope for a circus trial.

Ohhhh yeah....

See I knew I wasn't the only one;)

[Easy Mac]

Everytime I turn on the TV, there's someone saying Vick made a mistake and should be forgiven.

What mistake did he make?

Its a mistake if I accidently run over someone's dog. It's a mistake if I fill in the wrong circle on a voting ballot.

Its not a mistake if I habitually fight and kill dogs. The only mistake he made was associating with people who weren't as good as he was at not getting caught.

[RPI-Fan]

I get the sense that the feds REALLY don't have as much as here as everone seems to believe they do. They let Vick toy with them on the timeline of the plea deal (was supposed to be on a Friday, but he just decided to wait until Monday...), and now this comes up. I mean, in the Duke case, wasn't there a good month or two before anyone started to question the prosecution's case?

I suspect that the testimony the feds will get can be pretty much wiped out by lack of credibility of the "witnesses", and that while there might be a paper trail, it doesn't relate to gambling the way that everyone assumes it does.

[RPI-Fan]

Everytime I turn on the TV, there's someone saying Vick made a mistake and should be forgiven.

What mistake did he make?

Its a mistake if I accidently run over someone's dog. It's a mistake if I fill in the wrong circle on a voting ballot.

Its not a mistake if I habitually fight and kill dogs. The only mistake he made was associating with people who weren't as good as he was at not getting caught.

His only mistake was getting caught. However, sometimes getting caught is the only thing that makes you realize how wrong you've been and allows you to truly develop and show remorse for your actions. On the other hand, sometimes it just makes you sorry you got caught.

I'm hoping Vick has the "first" option happen to him, and while I am as anti-cruelty-to-animals as anyone, I could think about forgiving him if he truly does seem remorseful for what he's done (even if it took federal charges to make him see things that way).

[Kodos]

Yes, Mikey. Take this to trial. Good idea!

[flere-imsaho]

If this goes to trial, this thread will destroy the board.

Nah, if the Katrina thread didn't destroy the board, nothing will.

[rkmsuf]

Yes, Mikey. Take this to trial. Good idea!

Mr. Vick, how would you describe yourself?

Vick: i'm da shit

[flounder]

Am I the only one who thinks he has a great shot of getting at least a hung jury at trial? Everyone thought going into the OJ trial that it was an open and shut case. If I was him, I'd take my chances, too.

[RPI-Fan]

Am I the only one who thinks he has a great shot of getting at least a hung jury at trial? Everyone thought going into the OJ trial that it was an open and shut case. If I was him, I'd take my chances, too.

Granted he'll be going up against federal prosecutors rather than the L.A.P.D. and D.A.'s office, but I am still very skeptical of the amount and quality of evidence that they may have. (not to say I don't think Vick was a de facto ringleader)

[Logan]

Doesn't the racketeering charge become easier to prove with the corroboration of all these other guys?

[albionmoonlight]

If this goes to trial, this thread will destroy the board.

Only if it somehow also manages to incorporate a discussion of Monthly Console Sales Numbers.

[John Galt]

Only if it somehow also manages to incorporate a discussion of Monthly Console Sales Numbers.

Those threads have to be the most overachieving threads I have ever seen on this board. When I saw the first one, I would have never predicted they would last a week, much less what they have become.

[st.cronin]

Granted he'll be going up against federal prosecutors rather than the L.A.P.D. and D.A.'s office, but I am still very skeptical of the amount and quality of evidence that they may have. (not to say I don't think Vick was a de facto ringleader)

I don't know how any outsider can have an informed opinion about the quality of evidence.

[st.cronin]

Those threads have to be the most overachieving threads I have ever seen on this board. When I saw the first one, I would have never predicted they would last a week, much less what they have become.

+1, the whole thing just baffles me. Every now and then I go look to see if there isn't actually something else going on in there.

[DaddyTorgo]

Am I the only one who thinks he has a great shot of getting at least a hung jury at trial? Everyone thought going into the OJ trial that it was an open and shut case. If I was him, I'd take my chances, too.

it's not a jury trail though, is it?

[Logan]

Those threads have to be the most overachieving threads I have ever seen on this board. When I saw the first one, I would have never predicted they would last a week, much less what they have become.

I've never stepped into those threads. Am I missing gold?

[RPI-Fan]

it's not a jury trail though, is it?

Except under limited circumstances, you have the right to trial-by-jury (whether at the local, state, or federal level).

[RPI-Fan]

I don't know how any outsider can have an informed opinion about the quality of evidence.

I'm not trying to purport to having a particularly "informed" opinion of this specific case. My skepticism is based on proceedings of previous high-profile cases and the actions of the various parties. The actions of the parties in this case, based on what I have seen in the psat, leads me to believe there may not be as much as evidence as general concensus seems to assume.

???

[DaddyTorgo]

Except under limited circumstances, you have the right to trial-by-jury (whether at the local, state, or federal level).

mmm. but i wonder if they charge him under RICO is it still a jury trial? would seem to make sense that RICO trials would be in those circumstances or something (not wanting mafia to retaliate against jury members). but i dunno if that's true...just saying

and i don't think he really has a shot at a hung jury. too many people just really love their dogs, or have friends who love their dogs. and no dog-lover is going to acquit if there is sufficient evidence for the feds to bring it to trial

[John Galt]

I've never stepped into those threads. Am I missing gold?

If by "gold," you mean pointless, endless, joyless bickering, then yes, you are missing tons and tons of gold.

[albionmoonlight]

mmm. but i wonder if they charge him under RICO is it still a jury trial?

If Vick were to go to trial, he would have the right to a jury.

[RPI-Fan]

mmm. but i wonder if they charge him under RICO is it still a jury trial? would seem to make sense that RICO trials would be in those circumstances or something (not wanting mafia to retaliate against jury members). but i dunno if that's true...just saying

and i don't think he really has a shot at a hung jury. too many people just really love their dogs, or have friends who love their dogs. and no dog-lover is going to acquit if there is sufficient evidence for the feds to bring it to trial

Right, that's the thing with hung juries. You could have the 11 biggest dog-lovers in the world on the jury, but if the 12th guy is Gary Sheffield, you could get your hung jury.

[rowech]

Right, that's the thing with hung juries. You could have the 11 biggest dog-lovers in the world on the jury, but if the 12th guy is Gary Sheffield, you could get your hung jury.

Or with Ron Jeremy.

[Warhammer]

I get the sense that the feds REALLY don't have as much as here as everone seems to believe they do. They let Vick toy with them on the timeline of the plea deal (was supposed to be on a Friday, but he just decided to wait until Monday...), and now this comes up. I mean, in the Duke case, wasn't there a good month or two before anyone started to question the prosecution's case?

There were quite a few asking questions about the case as it was coming out.

I really feel what is happening here is that the Feds want to get this over and done with and not take the chance of someone hanging a jury and Vick getting off.

[rowech]

There were quite a few asking questions about the case as it was coming out.

I really feel what is happening here is that the Feds want to get this over and done with and not take the chance of someone hanging a jury and Vick getting off.

My opinion as well...and the fact that Vick feels he can get a hung jury now after seeing reaction in the media.

[rkmsuf]

+1, the whole thing just baffles me. Every now and then I go look to see if there isn't actually something else going on in there.

+2

[Warhammer]

Before the Bucs and Hawks came, the joke teams were (in the 1970s) were the Oilers, Saints, Eagles, Giants, Bears and I think Falcons. The Bucs and Hawks did suck early on but one cannot forget the Bucs run in 1979 and by the early 1980s, the Hawks were a good team.

The Oilers, Eagles, Bucs and Hawks all got respectable by the late 70s or early 80s. The Oilers had a couple of 10 win seasons with Campbell in the late 70s, the Eagles made it to Super Bowl 15 and had another playoff run in there, the Bucs made the NFC Championship game in 79, and the Hawks had their runs in the early 80s behind Warner and Kreig.

[KWhit]

ESPN's Lester Munson is saying the plea agreement is serious jeopardy. His opinion is that the feds will rather take the case to court than agreeing to Vick's version of the statement of facts. That will mean more charges will be filed against him since he didn't take the plea agreement.


Good.

[Eaglesfan27]

Vick's attorneys filed the plea agreement today. From ESPN's website:

Michael Vick (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5448) filed a plea agreement in federal court Friday admitting to a dogfighting charge and agreed the enterprise included killing fighting dogs and gambling.


However, according to the statement of facts that accompanies the plea, Vick did not place side bets and did not receive proceeds from purses from the fights.


The Atlanta Falcons (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=atl) quarterback is scheduled to formally enter his plea Monday in U.S. District Court.


In the agreement, Vick agreed to plead guilty to the first count of the indictment against him -- that he was part of a conspiracy to operate a dogfighting ring across state lines. The charge carries a potential sentence of up 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and up to three years' probation.
In the plea agreement, Vick agreed to enter the plea "because the defendant is in fact guilty of the charged offense."

[bob]

And here is the plea agreement:

http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0824/vicksummary.pdf

[Eaglesfan27]

Reading the plea agreement, it sounds like he admitted to killing dogs after all.

[bob]

Yeah, I think ESPN heard a bad report or rumor and just reported it as fact.

[rowech]

If you read the whole thing though, it clearly states later on Vick did not admit to killing dogs.

[Eaglesfan27]

If you read the whole thing though, it clearly states later on Vick did not admit to killing dogs.


He didn't admit to it in the paragraph about 2001 or maybe it was 2002. In later paragraphs, he admits to killing 6 to 8 dogs due to the collective efforts of himself and 2 of his friends.

Edit: It's on page 9 where he admits to killing 6-8 dogs with his friends via methods which included hanging and drowning and that it was due to the collective efforts of his 2 friends and him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, so the behind-the-scenes stuff on the plea seems to have probably been about him not stipulating that he actually gambled himself, only that he bankrolled the operation & gambling of others. Seems that might have been what could have gotten him banned for life (or quite a few years at least) from the NFL.

If anything though, I find the fact he didn't gamble on the fights even more disturbing. This really does seem to have been simply about fun for him.

edit to add:
Meanwhile the AJC article tries to explain the difference in whether Vick admitting to killing the dogs. Looks like he's trying to leave himself a loophole that will let him claim he didn't, even though the statement is worded to imply that he did.
Steve Sadow, a prominent Atlanta defense attorney who has followed the case, said he believes Vick's attorneys agreed to the careful phrasing in the summary of facts to help them with their negotiations with the NFL and for public relations.

"It's important because of the NFL's gambling policy," Sadow said. "The fact that Michael Vick did not admit to personally killing any dogs in the plea agreement will also have, in my opinion, virtually no significance in the criminal case regarding his ultimate sentence. It's more of a public relations move."

The agreement says Vick was involved in the execution of dogs because his co-defendants have told the government that Vick participated in it, Sadow noted.

"Vick's position clearly is that he didn't kill any dogs," Sadow said. "But the government wasn't going to agree with that. So, rather than letting that be the hang up, they figured out language both sides could live with. Now, Vick can stand before his public and claim he never killed any dogs."

Vick and his co-defendants — Tony Taylor, Quanis Phillips and Purnell Peace — were involved in dog fights in Virginia and in other states, says the summary of facts accompanying the plea agreement. This began in 2001 and carried on through this past April.

In the summer of 2002, according to the agreement, Vick and his co-defendants "rolled" or "tested" Bad Newz Kennels dogs by putting them through fighting sessions to determine which ones were good fighters. "Vick was aware that Phillips, Peace and Taylor killed a number of dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions around this time," the summary says. "Vick did not kill any dogs at this time."

This past April, Vick, Peace and Phillips tested additional Bad Newz Kennel dogs during fighting sessions. "Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately six to eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions," the summary says. "Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick."

This language is different than that used in summaries accompanying the plea agreements previously reached by Phillips and Peace. Both of their summaries say that Vick participated with Phillips and Peace this past April in executing about eight dogs "by various methods, including hanging and drowning."
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/08/24/vick_0824.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here is a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Vick's plea agreement by by the profootballtalk.com guys, who've really been the bee's knees when it comes to reporting on this story. (In words of that black dude in Die Hard "... And the quarterback is toast.")

In paragraph 1, Vick pleads guilty to conspiracy to establish, maintain, etc. an interstate gambling enterprise and conspiracy to engage in interstate dog fighting.

In paragraph 2, Vick admits that the Surry County property to which he initially said he never goes was the main staging area for housing and training pit bulls for fighting.
In paragraph 3, Vick admits to being involved in dog fights at the Surry County property, and to participating in dog fights in other states.

In paragraph 4, Vick admits that the enterprise involved gambling activities in violation of Virginia law. Vick denies that he placed side bets on any fights, or that he received process from the purses. (However, he admits that he was the primary source of funds for the operation. If the winnings went only to his co-defendants, then that's less money Vick had to give them to get them to continue to tend to the operation while he was "at work" for the Atlanta Falcons.)

In paragraph 9, Vick admits that he began acquiring dogs for the operation in "2001-2002," and that the "Bad Newz Kennels" were established in 2002.

In paragraph 12, Vick admits that he knew the other defendants "killed a number of dogs" that did not perform well in testing sessions in 2002. Vick denies killing any dogs at that time.

In paragraph 32, Vick admits that in April 2007 -- the same month in which he say face-to-face with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and denied that dog fighting was occurring on his land -- he agreed with Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips to kill six-to-eight dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions. Here's the key passage:

"[A]ll of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. VICK agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK."

Case closed. He admits to gambling, and he admits to killing dogs.

[flere-imsaho]

No surprise, then. Vick wants to come out of this with the following:

1. Being able to say he didn't kill dogs personally.

2. Being able to say he wasn't involved with the gambling.

I'm sure he thinks the first will spare him/his team from the worst of the bad PR, and the second is obviously to avoid even worse sanctions from the NFL. This would appear to be a tacit admission that he was going to jail anyway, and wanted to try as much as possible to preserve a post-jail NFL career if possible.

[st.cronin]

Yeah, that's a bad deal for Vick, it seems like. I don't believe he got very good advice. He should have gone to trial, hired some real pit bull for a lawyer, and fought like hell. As it is, he's going to jail, he's almost definitely never playing football again, and he's going to run out of money very soon.

[Atocep]

Okay, so the behind-the-scenes stuff on the plea seems to have probably been about him not stipulating that he actually gambled himself, only that he bankrolled the operation & gambling of others. Seems that might have been what could have gotten him banned for life (or quite a few years at least) from the NFL.

If anything though, I find the fact he didn't gamble on the fights even more disturbing. This really does seem to have been simply about fun for him.


According to the collective bargaining agreement, the gambling charge would give Goodell leeway to suspend him anyway he sees fit. So I think its pretty obvious since he has 7 witnesses willing to testify otherwise that this is just an attempt to save his NFL career. He's probably hoping the feds are happy enough with his statement that they don't push the gambling thing.

From what I understand if they don't like what he says Monday when the plea is officially entered they can still pull it. Also, if the judge feels he's lying he can come down pretty harsh at sentencing, regardless of what the prosecution recommends.

[stevew]

I didn't realize they let you write your own plea agreement. That's hardly allocution.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I didn't realize they let you write your own plea agreement. That's hardly allocution.

Typically, as I understand it, the government drafts the statement and then the defendant can revise. They exchange drafts back and forth until both sides are "happy".

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just hoping that the state charges & subsequent trial will blow up this obvious attempt at creating some loopholes for the gullible (or worse) to jump through.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm just hoping that the state charges & subsequent trial will blow up this obvious attempt at creating some loopholes for the gullible (or worse) to jump through.

+1

[rowech]

He didn't admit to it in the paragraph about 2001 or maybe it was 2002. In later paragraphs, he admits to killing 6 to 8 dogs due to the collective efforts of himself and 2 of his friends.

Edit: It's on page 9 where he admits to killing 6-8 dogs with his friends via methods which included hanging and drowning and that it was due to the collective efforts of his 2 friends and him.

Gotcha...see it now...thanks.

[KWhit]

Yeah, that's a bad deal for Vick, it seems like. I don't believe he got very good advice. He should have gone to trial, hired some real pit bull for a lawyer, and fought like hell. As it is, he's going to jail, he's almost definitely never playing football again, and he's going to run out of money very soon.

I disagree. There was potentially quite a lot of additional charges that the feds could have brought to bear, including possible RICO statutes.

It sounds to me like he got a pretty good deal.

[GrantDawg]

The other big factor in this is that this isn't a simple plea deal. He is also agreeing to testify against others involved. The ESPN legal expert said that if he was to give helpful evidence to the Feds, that his sentence could actually be lessened to less than a year. If that happens, then he'd qualify for house arrest.

[rowech]

To me, it looks like he's been able to get this down to a year's worth of time.

[Surtt]

Yeah, that's a bad deal for Vick, it seems like. I don't believe he got very good advice. He should have gone to trial, hired some real pit bull for a lawyer, and fought like hell. As it is, he's going to jail, he's almost definitely never playing football again, and he's going to run out of money very soon.

I think the big reason to agree was to avoid additional charges.
If this went to trial (from what I read) he was going to get up to 20 years if he lost.
That is a hell of a risk. (Especially with the +90% conviction rate the Feds have.)

[miami_fan]

The other big factor in this is that this isn't a simple plea deal. He is also agreeing to testify against others involved. The ESPN legal expert said that if he was to give helpful evidence to the Feds, that his sentence could actually be lessened to less than a year. If that happens, then he'd qualify for house arrest.

Okay if I can't have the circus trial, I'll take the snitching instead.

[Surtt]

POSTED 5:24 p.m. EDT, August 24, 2007

IS DMX MIKE'S FIRST VICTIM?

With Mike Vick pleading guilty to federal conspiracy charges and agreeing to "provide all information known to [him] regarding any criminal activity as requested by the government," is it a coincidence that one day after Vick signed the papers the house of rapper DMX was raided, and 12 "distressed" pit bulls were removed?

If Vick truly was a dog fighting "heavyweight," would Vick not know about other celebrities who engage in the sport?

It's possible that it really was a coincidence. But it's also possible that any and all high-profile sports and entertainment figures will soon be getting a visit from guys with guns and badges.



And so it begins?
From PFT (so consider the source)

[Noble_Platypus]

NFL has suspended Michael Vick indefinitely

[stevew]

Carmelo Anthony says "Stop Snitchin' "

[Toddzilla]

Holy Shit.

Who would have ever thought that Marcus Vick would turn out to be the "good" Vick brother?

[Atocep]

Goodell's letter to Vick:

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070824/michaelvickletter.pdf

[Glengoyne]

Goodell's letter to Vick:

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070824/michaelvickletter.pdf

"You are now facing the consequences for the decisions you made and the conduct in which you engaged ... I hope that you will be able to learn from this difficult experience and emerge from it better prepared to act responsibly and to make the kinds of choices that are expected of a conscientious and law abiding citizen"

I think I love Roger Goodell.

[Glengoyne]

Right, that's the thing with hung juries. You could have the 11 biggest dog-lovers in the world on the jury, but if the 12th guy is Gary Sheffield, you could get your hung jury.

Every time I come to this thread, I find something to bring me back.

[stevew]

Wow, Goodell with the smacketh laid down.

[Greyroofoo]

I <3 Godell!

[SackAttack]

I think the big reason to agree was to avoid additional charges.
If this went to trial (from what I read) he was going to get up to 20 years if he lost.
That is a hell of a risk. (Especially with the +90% conviction rate the Feds have.)

The federal charges would've brought a max of five years and $250k in coin.

The state charges, which are as yet unfiled and unresolved, could bring an additional 40 years in state prison.

He wasn't ever facing 20 years in federal prison - and if Hudson had handed down something that far amiss from the federal guidelines, I'd imagine he could have gotten it reduced on appeal - but he could still spend a healthy chunk of the rest of his life in prison, even if he helps the feds with their case.

[Richard Weed]

Sincerely,
Roger Goodell

*snicker* I love that Sinerely part.

[Logan]

"You are now facing the consequences for the decisions you made and the conduct in which you engaged ... I hope that you will be able to learn from this difficult experience and emerge from it better prepared to act responsibly and to make the kinds of choices that are expected of a conscientious and law abiding citizen"

I think I love Roger Goodell.

First I only read this quote and shared the love. Then I heard a couple longer excerpts on ESPN and the love grew. Now I actually opened the PDF...just seeing him write "admitted" complete with the underlining was badass.

[sabotai]

The federal charges would've brought a max of five years and $250k in coin.

Those are just the charges that Vick is pleading guilty to.

If Vick had fought, the story was that the feds were going to add RICO charges which would put him in prison for 20 years if he was found guilty.

[DaddyTorgo]

I have a ferocious man-crush on the commish. That letter was fucking awesome.

[Rizon]

And so it begins?
From PFT (so consider the source)

Yes

Deputies Raid Home Of Rapper DMX
12 Neglected Dogs Seized; Others Found Buried

POSTED: 2:31 pm PDT August 24, 2007
UPDATED: 7:09 am PDT August 25, 2007
CAVE CREEK, Ariz. -- Sheriff's deputies acting on a tip of animal cruelty raided the Phoenix-area home of rapper-turned-actor DMX and carried out 12 pit bulls in need of immediate medical care, investigators said.

They said they also found several dogs buried in the back yard of the Cave Creek property.

# VIEW SLIDESHOW: Deputies Raid Home Of DMX

The Maricopa County sheriff's deputies said a tip came in more than a week ago about dogs being kept in inhumane conditions, said Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Detectives went to the home and then called one of the rapper's lawyers, Arapio said. Investigators told him that the conditions for the dogs needed to be improved or deputies would obtain a search warrant, Arpaio said.

Authorities armed with a warrant returned to the home Friday and discovered a dozen dogs that were not being watered or fed. Arapio said.

A source told CBS 5 News that someone had recently been hired to take care of DMX's dogs while he is in New York. Neighbors said they haven't seen DMX for several months.

Investigators also found drug paraphernalia and a cache of weapons inside the home, according Arpaio.

Arpaio said it does not appear dogfighting was involved, just abuse of dogs.

Earl Simmons, 36, also known as DMX, was not at home when the raid occurred, according to deupties.

The animals were taken to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office M.A.S.H. unit. The facility at the jail is no-kill animal shelter created to house and care for animals that have been abused or neglected by their caretakers and rescued by the Animal Cruelty Investigative Unit.

DMX has a history of law-enforcement run-ins.

In 1999, during a "Hard Knock Life" tour stop in Denver, he was arrested and later cleared in the stabbing and shooting of his mother.

In 2002, he pleaded guilty to animal cruelty for neglecting 13 pit bulls in his possession.

[Kodos]

Goodell is the best thing that's happened to the NFL in a long time. I love him!

[Eaglesfan27]

Goodell is the best thing that's happened to the NFL in a long time. I love him!

Agreed. Love the letter.

[Yossarian]

Goodell is the best thing that's happened to the NFL in a long time. I love him!
++


So far, so very good.

Also love his statements about shifting the pay balance away from rookies which, despite endless speculation is so often a crapshoot.

[Fidatelo]

This thread got me thinking that society seems kind of random sometimes...

-----

"Hey man, you going to the De La Hoya / Tyson fight?"
"Ya dude, that is going to be awesome! I hope Tyson bites his nose off or something!"
"LOL totally! Maybe he'll beat up Oscar's dad at the weigh-in or something!"
"That would be outrageous! Hey, you going to the Roofus / Max fight?"
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh, umm ya, right. Anyways, I'm going hunting this weekend, want to come?"
"Sure! I love when they are just walking around all oblivious and I peg one in the head!"
"Ya that's a great feeling!"
"Sometimes I just wound one and it struggles around on the ground like an epileptic or something, that's pretty wild too! But its ok because I love deer meat."
"Deer? I was talking about hunting some humans, you know, pick off some of the weaker members of the herd? It's ok because I love hobo meat."
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh ya, heh, just joking. So, been to the zoo lately?"
"You know it! Nothing like keeping a bunch of stuff captive! You should see the way I can rile up the chimps!"
"Heh, ya, that's awesome."
"Ya, if you taunt 'em enough you can get them to throw their own shit at you!"
"Really? I wonder if the same tricks would work down at the Ojibwa reserve?"
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh of course! So, hey, wanna go get wasted tonight?"
"You bet! I'm gonna get totally fucked up!"
"Heh, the last time I got drunk I puked on my shoes and called my wife a cunt in front of her mom!"
"Woah that's hardcore man, but hey, its just the alcohol right?"
"Ya totally! But hey, I was thinking, we should smoke some pot this time though, maybe just mellow out in front of the tube and eat some cheetos?"
"Dude that's illegal!"
"Oh ya. Ok, well lets go buy some Bud!"
"Fuckin' A!"

[Dutch]

This thread got me thinking that society seems kind of random sometimes...

-----

"Hey man, you going to the De La Hoya / Tyson fight?"
"Ya dude, that is going to be awesome! I hope Tyson bites his nose off or something!"
"LOL totally! Maybe he'll beat up Oscar's dad at the weigh-in or something!"
"That would be outrageous! Hey, you going to the Roofus / Max fight?"
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh, umm ya, right. Anyways, I'm going hunting this weekend, want to come?"
"Sure! I love when they are just walking around all oblivious and I peg one in the head!"
"Ya that's a great feeling!"
"Sometimes I just wound one and it struggles around on the ground like an epileptic or something, that's pretty wild too! But its ok because I love deer meat."
"Deer? I was talking about hunting some humans, you know, pick off some of the weaker members of the herd? It's ok because I love hobo meat."
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh ya, heh, just joking. So, been to the zoo lately?"
"You know it! Nothing like keeping a bunch of stuff captive! You should see the way I can rile up the chimps!"
"Heh, ya, that's awesome."
"Ya, if you taunt 'em enough you can get them to throw their own shit at you!"
"Really? I wonder if the same tricks would work down at the Ojibwa reserve?"
"Dude that's sick!"
"Oh of course! So, hey, wanna go get wasted tonight?"
"You bet! I'm gonna get totally fucked up!"
"Heh, the last time I got drunk I puked on my shoes and called my wife a cunt in front of her mom!"
"Woah that's hardcore man, but hey, its just the alcohol right?"
"Ya totally! But hey, I was thinking, we should smoke some pot this time though, maybe just mellow out in front of the tube and eat some cheetos?"
"Dude that's illegal!"
"Oh ya. Ok, well lets go buy some Bud!"
"Fuckin' A!"

Dear Stephon Marbury--

If you want a referendum on the legality of dog fighting and/or hunting, that's fine, but according to the rule of law, you probably shouldn't wait until after your friend breaks the law to hold said referendum. That's not being a good friend.

Sincerely,
Roger Goodell

cc: Gene Upshaw
cc: DMX

[Fidatelo]

Dear Stephon Marbury--

If you want a referendum on the legality of dog fighting and/or hunting, that's fine, but according to the rule of law, you probably shouldn't wait until after your friend breaks the law to hold said referendum. That's not being a good friend.

Sincerely,
Roger Goodell

cc: Gene Upshaw
cc: DMX

FWIW, my personal leanings would go the other way, that its sort of strange about the things that have at one time been deemed ok by society for one reason or another.

And I also understand that you could go through that little 'conversation' piece by piece and pick it apart, giving some valid reasons for why everything is as it is. I just sort of got thinking that at a high level, like if an alien were to look at us or something, these things just seem sort of random.

[KWhit]

FWIW, my personal leanings would go the other way, that its sort of strange about the things that have at one time been deemed ok by society for one reason or another.

And I also understand that you could go through that little 'conversation' piece by piece and pick it apart, giving some valid reasons for why everything is as it is. I just sort of got thinking that at a high level, like if an alien were to look at us or something, these things just seem sort of random.

I've always thought that way, especially our society's reaction toward sex and violence. You can show people getting shot, maimed, or decapitated on regular TV, but don't you DARE show a boobie.

[gstelmack]

I've always thought that way, especially our society's reaction toward sex and violence. You can show people getting shot, maimed, or decapitated on regular TV, but don't you DARE show a boobie.

FWIW, NYPD Blue (pretty sure that was the one) was showing boobies on evening TV long before the ultra-violent CSI shows started appearing...

But as I've said before, a key difference is that most shows will present the consequences for violence, while they almost NEVER show the consequences from sex (unintended pregnances, STDs, etc).

[KWhit]

FWIW, NYPD Blue (pretty sure that was the one) was showing boobies on evening TV long before the ultra-violent CSI shows started appearing...

But as I've said before, a key difference is that most shows will present the consequences for violence, while they almost NEVER show the consequences from sex (unintended pregnances, STDs, etc).

I disagree. According to wiki:

In the 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s), some primetime series (such as ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company)'s NYPD Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYPD_Blue), CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS)'s Chicago Hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Hope) and FOX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOX)'s John Doe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe_%28TV_series%29)) experimented with nudity. NYPD Blue is noteworthy for featuring nudity in the context of people engaging in sexual activity. While fully exposed female breasts were never shown, the show often depicted full back nudity of men and women, usually in darkened rooms.

I have NEVER seen a bare breast on network TV. I was amazed the other night when I was watching a MEDICAL show on cable when they blurred a ladies breasts. That's different than what is shown regarding violence - even before the CSIs.

Also, the fact that you say the consequences of sex aren't shown isn't really a valid comparison. By its very nature violence has negative consequences. Sex usually doesn't. The fact that you are looking for negative consequences to be shown equally is unfair because they aren't equal.

Violence should be viewed as a horrible thing and often times it's not. Often it's celebrated in this country.

[StarBuck]

it's about time this abuse of these dogs is coming to the light. Living in the dogfighting capital of the world (NJ) where cities of beauty such as Camden, Newark, Trenton and Jersey City call home, I've had to see firsthand the suffering caused by it.

For people who do this, the only way it's going to stop is public shame and retribution on a large scale.

It's also a balm to see a mostly male forum not condone this behavior too. It's so often linked with some sort of swaggering yet ignorant, machismo.


"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
-
"To become wholly compassionate we must force ourselves to look directly into the face of suffering. Only then will we see our reflection and know that the hurt of others is equal to our own." - Stepaniak

* bleeding heart rant over* :-p

[gstelmack]

Also, the fact that you say the consequences of sex aren't shown isn't really a valid comparison. By its very nature violence has negative consequences. Sex usually doesn't. The fact that you are looking for negative consequences to be shown equally is unfair because they aren't equal.

Violence should be viewed as a horrible thing and often times it's not. Often it's celebrated in this country.

I disagree. Usually violence on TV or movies begets more violence against the perpetrators, lands people in jail, or gets them dead. Hollywood regularly shows destroyed lives as a result of violence. Violence that is "celebrated" in movies/TVs is usually violence used to protect others or in self-defense, i.e. meeting violence with violence. We've come a long way from the 40s and 50s cartoon violence shown in westerns or war movies (compare a John Wayne flick to Saving Private Ryan, for example). The big area of American culture right now that "celebrates" violence is actually the hip-hop / gangbanger culture, as opposed to mainstream movies and TV.

Contrasted with sex, which is usually shown for fun and a completely harmless activity. No risk of STD, no risk of pregnancy, and certainly no destroyed lives as a result of this.

I'm not expecting a constant parade of this (I'm not expecting every sex act to result in a pregnancy, for example), but in no way shape or form does Hollywood show them equally. Yes, violence should always show the consequences and usually does, but Hollywood pretty much NEVER shows a negative consequence from sex, which is well below the rate at which negative consequences happen in real life.

[rowech]

I disagree. Usually violence on TV or movies begets more violence against the perpetrators, lands people in jail, or gets them dead. Hollywood regularly shows destroyed lives as a result of violence. Violence that is "celebrated" in movies/TVs is usually violence used to protect others or in self-defense, i.e. meeting violence with violence. We've come a long way from the 40s and 50s cartoon violence shown in westerns or war movies (compare a John Wayne flick to Saving Private Ryan, for example). The big area of American culture right now that "celebrates" violence is actually the hip-hop / gangbanger culture, as opposed to mainstream movies and TV.

Contrasted with sex, which is usually shown for fun and a completely harmless activity. No risk of STD, no risk of pregnancy, and certainly no destroyed lives as a result of this.

I'm not expecting a constant parade of this (I'm not expecting every sex act to result in a pregnancy, for example), but in no way shape or form does Hollywood show them equally. Yes, violence should always show the consequences and usually does, but Hollywood pretty much NEVER shows a negative consequence from sex, which is well below the rate at which negative consequences happen in real life.

I'll echo this. I walked out of the movie Knocked Up having been entertained. It was funny, I laughed, I enjoyed. However, the message that everything was going to be okay with that situation was a terrible ending. There is very little chance that situation was going to workout and it made it seem like everything would be fine. Was a TERRIBLE message. They needed to find some sort of middle ground but they didn't.

[gstelmack]

I'll also try to make my statement a bit clearer:

I would argue that most of the same groups that complain about sex on TV also complain about violence on TV. There have been plenty of attempts to curb it. The hypocrisy is in what is shown, not in the reaction of the public at large.
And before you pull the Super Bowl Halftime card as your primary example, keep in mind that the primary issue there was appropriateness (nobody expected sexual acts when they tuned in), the timeliness (CSI, my favorite high-violence example, is not on at 6:00 in the evening either), and the breast was simply the most obvious bit to fight over while people that complained objected to most of the entire halftime act, not just the breast.
I'm trying to say that Hollywood deals with violence more maturely than it deals with sex by showing that violence regularly has negative consequences you need to be prepared to deal with, while treating sex as a teenage fantasy ideal rather than the mature adult subject it really is. If they dealt with sex just as maturely, I suspect you'd see fewer objections. Although I agree that there is a segment that will complain about sex no matter what, as long as you're willing to admit there is a segment that will complain about violence no matter what.

[rowech]

I'll also try to make my statement a bit clearer:

I would argue that most of the same groups that complain about sex on TV also complain about violence on TV. There have been plenty of attempts to curb it. The hypocrisy is in what is shown, not in the reaction of the public at large.
And before you pull the Super Bowl Halftime card as your primary example, keep in mind that the primary issue there was appropriateness (nobody expected sexual acts when they tuned in), the timeliness (CSI, my favorite high-violence example, is not on at 6:00 in the evening either), and the breast was simply the most obvious bit to fight over while people that complained objected to most of the entire halftime act, not just the breast.
I'm trying to say that Hollywood deals with violence more maturely than it deals with sex by showing that violence regularly has negative consequences you need to be prepared to deal with, while treating sex as a teenage fantasy ideal rather than the mature adult subject it really is. If they dealt with sex just as maturely, I suspect you'd see fewer objections. Although I agree that there is a segment that will complain about sex no matter what, as long as you're willing to admit there is a segment that will complain about violence no matter what.

Just general comment.....time slots mean nothing anymore. Everything ends up in syndication anyway and the networks run shows whenever they want to.

[EagleFan]

Wow, why so large of a thread devoted to the most overrated player in the NFL (possibly EVER)?

San Diego sure has made some kick ass trades with their first rounders. First the Vick trade and then the Eli trade. They must have a good "sucker detector".

[KWhit]

I'll also try to make my statement a bit clearer:

I would argue that most of the same groups that complain about sex on TV also complain about violence on TV. There have been plenty of attempts to curb it. The hypocrisy is in what is shown, not in the reaction of the public at large.
And before you pull the Super Bowl Halftime card as your primary example, keep in mind that the primary issue there was appropriateness (nobody expected sexual acts when they tuned in), the timeliness (CSI, my favorite high-violence example, is not on at 6:00 in the evening either), and the breast was simply the most obvious bit to fight over while people that complained objected to most of the entire halftime act, not just the breast.
I'm trying to say that Hollywood deals with violence more maturely than it deals with sex by showing that violence regularly has negative consequences you need to be prepared to deal with, while treating sex as a teenage fantasy ideal rather than the mature adult subject it really is. If they dealt with sex just as maturely, I suspect you'd see fewer objections. Although I agree that there is a segment that will complain about sex no matter what, as long as you're willing to admit there is a segment that will complain about violence no matter what.

I totally disagree. These are a couple of examples from the TV rating system in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems


TV-PG (some material may not be suitable for younger children)
This rating signifies that the program may be unsuitable for children under the age of 10 without the guidance of a parent. The rating may be accompanied by one or more of the following subratings:

V for moderate violence
S for mild sexual situations
L for mild coarse language
D for suggestive dialogue (mature themes)
TV-14 (may be inappropriate for older under 14)
Programs issued the TV-14 rating are considered unsuitable for children under the age of 14. This rating may be accompanied by any of the following subratings:

V for intense violence
S for moderate sexual situations
L for coarse language
D for highly suggestive dialogue

What that says to me (if you look at the violence description vs. the sexual situations descriptions) is:

Moderate Violence = Mild Sexual Situations
and
Intense Violence = Moderate Sexual Situations

That says to me that violence is CLEARLY more tolerated than sex in this country which is completely ass-backwards. I'll say it again, you can see someone get decapitated on network tv but you can't see a boobie.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That says to me that violence is CLEARLY more tolerated than sex in this country which is completely ass-backwards. I'll say it again, you can see someone get decapitated on network tv but you can't see a boobie.

This is unequivocally 100% true. It's a given. Everyone knows this. I haven't been tracking this discussion, but is someone actually saying that the opposite is true?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

FWIW, NYPD Blue (pretty sure that was the one) was showing boobies on evening TV long before the ultra-violent CSI shows started appearing...

But as I've said before, a key difference is that most shows will present the consequences for violence, while they almost NEVER show the consequences from sex (unintended pregnances, STDs, etc).

Ditto to above. You assume there are always negative consequences to sex. Frankly that's a terrible attitude and the root of the whole puritan problem in America.

Second, you equate a breast (in a nonsexual situation) to sex. Again, an attitude that is at the root of the problem. I don't blame you. It is that part of the ingrained attitude that is foisted upon (and subconciously internalized) on all Americans -- i.e. sex, and even nudity, is bad.

[gstelmack]

Ditto to above. You assume there are always negative consequences to sex. Frankly that's a terrible attitude and the root of the whole puritan problem in America.

Second, you equate a breast (in a nonsexual situation) to sex. Again, an attitude that is at the root of the problem. I don't blame you. It is that part of the ingrained attitude that is foisted upon (and subconciously internalized) on all Americans -- i.e. sex, and even nudity, is bad.

As I stated in one of the posts, I'm not expecting every sex act to have someone pregnant or get an STD. However, TV and Hollywood pretty much NEVER show either one. THAT'S my concern. Sex is ALWAYS portrayed in a free love kind of way. They pretty much use sex = love in any relationship. You rarely see two people start dating WITHOUT sex coming into play fairly quickly. They perpetrate the "we're in love, we have to have sex" myth. It's assumed, it's a given, and it's consequence-free pretty much always. THAT'S the difference in my mind between how they present sex vs how they present violence, and why I think there is a difference in how they are rated.

And if you think the Super Bowl breast was in a nonsexual situation, you need to go back and review that halftime show again...

As for the "puritanical" comment: look, sex is not something that should be taken casually because there are potential consequences / side effects. You have sex with someone, you better know their background (STD), and you better be prepared to be a parent, 'cause there is no 100% foolproof birth control. I'm not expecting a "no sex" policy from Hollywood or even TV. I am simply disappointed that Hollywood pretty much ignores responsible sex and presents it in an unrealistic fantasy ideal world that everyone wishes was out there. And I have no beef with any couple that decides sex is right for them, as long as they are prepared to deal with the possible results. Of course, our foster care and adoption systems are rife with the results of people who weren't. And it ticks me off that those of us who feel sex requires some responsibility are referred to as the "puritan problem".

If anyone out there tries to argue that there are never any negative consequences to sex, I'll ask how you reacted the last time your girlfriend told you she was late. Or we can discuss how AIDs spread here in the US in the early days (don't misconstrue that, one of the great tragedies of AIDs is the number of people who have contracted it through no fault of their own such as via blood transfusions, I'm not one of those "you have AIDs, you must have sinned" yahoos). But you rarely see those discussions in a Hollywood treatment of sex, while you will nearly always see the tragedies involved in violence...

[gstelmack]

This is unequivocally 100% true. It's a given. Everyone knows this. I haven't been tracking this discussion, but is someone actually saying that the opposite is true?

Not quite, although I believe it's being spun that way. What I'm saying is Hollywood presents them differently, and that leads to the discrepancy in the ratings.

[Rizon]

I disagree. According to wiki:

I have NEVER seen a bare breast on network TV. I was amazed the other night when I was watching a MEDICAL show on cable when they blurred a ladies breasts. That's different than what is shown regarding violence - even before the CSIs.

Also, the fact that you say the consequences of sex aren't shown isn't really a valid comparison. By its very nature violence has negative consequences. Sex usually doesn't. The fact that you are looking for negative consequences to be shown equally is unfair because they aren't equal.

Violence should be viewed as a horrible thing and often times it's not. Often it's celebrated in this country.

There was a show I watched on PBS that would show a random boob, I think somewhere around the early to mid 90s. And this wasn't at 2am either. I was really surprised. The boob shot would only be no more than a second though. I forget the name of the show ... and the only thing I could find on this was a couple of blurbs on wiki:

Broadcast television and most "basic cable" outlets in the United States have been more reluctant to display nudity in most cases, the exception being PBS.

Public Broadcasting Service, which features nudity in anthropological documentaries as well as some films, was the first network to display national programming that featured frontal female nudity on television.

This show was one of those artsy ones, not a documentary on natives or anything.

[Buccaneer]

Shit, Benny Hill was showing boobs back in the early 80s. In the early 90s and even back to the 80s, PBS was showing lots of boobs and occassional female frontal of white chicks. There was the 60s SF miniseries I forgot the name of, plus there was stuff from BBC and Ireland. Just saying...

[Eaglesfan27]

Ahh yes, I remember I loved sneaking some Benny Hill when I was a teenager.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Shit, Benny Hill was showing boobs back in the early 80s.

On American TV? Really? A young H_B watched his fair share of Benny Hill back when he was a wee lad in the early 80s and, despite his hope of hopes, he never once saw a boob. The boobs on Benny Hill were like germs, they were everywhere, but you could never see them. Wasn't that the point of like 85% of the Benny Hill skits?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Shit, Benny Hill was showing boobs back in the early 80s. In the early 90s and even back to the 80s, PBS was showing lots of boobs and occassional female frontal of white chicks. There was the 60s SF miniseries I forgot the name of, plus there was stuff from BBC and Ireland. Just saying...

You have to remember a boob aint nothin' until the nipple makes an appearance. You can shall all the nippleless boobs you want and no one cares. But once you actually see nipple... All hell breaks loose. (see, e.g., Janet Jackson).

The disparity of how violence is viewed and how nudity/sex is viewed in this country is ridiculous. Always has been. Just saying...

[Fidatelo]

Didn't the show with Super Dave Osbourne have boobs all the time?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As I stated in one of the posts, I'm not expecting every sex act to have someone pregnant or get an STD. However, TV and Hollywood pretty much NEVER show either one. THAT'S my concern. Sex is ALWAYS portrayed in a free love kind of way. They pretty much use sex = love in any relationship. You rarely see two people start dating WITHOUT sex coming into play fairly quickly. They perpetrate the "we're in love, we have to have sex" myth. It's assumed, it's a given, and it's consequence-free pretty much always. THAT'S the difference in my mind between how they present sex vs how they present violence, and why I think there is a difference in how they are rated.

And if you think the Super Bowl breast was in a nonsexual situation, you need to go back and review that halftime show again...

As for the "puritanical" comment: look, sex is not something that should be taken casually because there are potential consequences / side effects. You have sex with someone, you better know their background (STD), and you better be prepared to be a parent, 'cause there is no 100% foolproof birth control. I'm not expecting a "no sex" policy from Hollywood or even TV. I am simply disappointed that Hollywood pretty much ignores responsible sex and presents it in an unrealistic fantasy ideal world that everyone wishes was out there. And I have no beef with any couple that decides sex is right for them, as long as they are prepared to deal with the possible results. Of course, our foster care and adoption systems are rife with the results of people who weren't. And it ticks me off that those of us who feel sex requires some responsibility are referred to as the "puritan problem".

If anyone out there tries to argue that there are never any negative consequences to sex, I'll ask how you reacted the last time your girlfriend told you she was late. Or we can discuss how AIDs spread here in the US in the early days (don't misconstrue that, one of the great tragedies of AIDs is the number of people who have contracted it through no fault of their own such as via blood transfusions, I'm not one of those "you have AIDs, you must have sinned" yahoos). But you rarely see those discussions in a Hollywood treatment of sex, while you will nearly always see the tragedies involved in violence...

While I appreciate your thoughtfulness in the response, it's off the mark. TV and Hollywood is fantasy. Fantasy doesn't focus on negatives except when it's integral to the story. When people are watching a movie like an action movie or drama where it's important to tell a story about a couple falling in love and what happens after that, it is completely irrelevant to the story that some guy put a condom on before they have sex. For some movies, if the storyline involves an unplanned pregnancy or STD, then it will be told in the story.

To me it sounds like you what negative aspects of sex discussed in most movies -- which is completely ridiculous when it's not important to the story.

Furthermore, your defense of violence in movies because they show negative consequences is weak when looked at in terms of the graphic nature of the violence, like blood splattering from the head against the wall or a realistic decapitation (not to mention the "good guys" in some movies that act violently through the whole movie WITHOUT any negative consequences. To me, that truly adds nothing to a story other than for voyeuristic purposes -- and it's far more damaging to the psyche of the general public than breasts and pubic hair.

Finally, your argument does not address purely nonsexual nudity (which, by the way - has no negative consequences). But I know why you didn't -- you can't separate the two, and that's the problem. You see, you turned the whole discussion to one of sex, when the issue started off with a discussion of nudity. This was the comment that sparked your comment: "You can show people getting shot, maimed, or decapitated on regular TV, but don't you DARE show a boobie."

[Pumpy Tudors]

I don't really have much to say about nudity vs. violence on television, but I clearly remember seeing the movie Smile on PBS when I was a teenager. I had just started watching it because it was funny, but then I saw a bunch of young women maybe 18-22 years old naked in a dressing room. Hellooooooo, nurse!

I watched a lot of PBS for the next couple of years after that, but I guess I had just caught lightning in a bottle that one time. :(

[Honolulu_Blue]

Didn't the show with Super Dave Osbourne have boobs all the time?

Yes, but that's because it was on Showtime. In the early years, and even now really, it seemed like HBO and Showtime would just throw a pair of breasts at least once in almost every episode of any of their programs just, because, you know, they could. It was like they had to remind people they were watching cable and not regular TV. The best example I can think of was "1st & 10" where there was always at least one gratuitous breast show per episode.

[Buccaneer]

HB (either one), it depends on the station and the time of night. I've probably seen most of the skits several times (it was all during my college years) and sometimes they show full and sometime it gets edited. The station(s) it was on completely escapes me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

HB (either one), it depends on the station and the time of night. I've probably seen most of the skits several times (it was all during my college years) and sometimes they show full and sometime it gets edited. The station(s) it was on completely escapes me.

Gah!! All those hours watching stupid Benny Hill and I got nuthin'... Nuthin'!

[Buccaneer]

Two of the more memorable ones were when Benny was outside beating a rug (literally) and there were two or three fully topless under an old country shower. Benny starts beating that rug very hard.

The other was Benny waking up sleeping next to his old wife and looked out the window to see a very pretty lady sitting on a neighboring windowsill and takes it off. Benny smirks at her and then scowls at his old nag and start kicking the shit out of her.

[gstelmack]

Finally, your argument does not address purely nonsexual nudity (which, by the way - has no negative consequences). But I know why you didn't -- you can't separate the two, and that's the problem. You see, you turned the whole discussion to one of sex, when the issue started off with a discussion of nudity. This was the comment that sparked your comment: "You can show people getting shot, maimed, or decapitated on regular TV, but don't you DARE show a boobie."

This is flat-out false. Documentaries do it all the time (see the PBS mention above just as an example). But mainstream TV, etc pretty much never show a "boobie" in a non-sexual context. They're not separated from each other because of the industry, not because of some arbitrary public reaction. I am more than willing to admit there are groups that will complain if they do, but heck you can pick a topic and find a group that will complain about it.

Much of this conversation started because of the Janet Jackson incident, which continues to be misconstrued by those trying to defend nudity on TV. People who bash those who complained love to use the violence vs nudity argument and distract everyone while talking about the nipple, when the whole show was a complete disgrace. It was not about a "boobie", although it was the clear line that allowed the FCC to act. And it was also inappropriate for the main show that was going on that it was placed.

As for the difference in public reaction, keep in mind there was plenty of protest over the showing of "Saving Private Ryan" not too long ago on violence grounds.

As to the whole fantasy point, I was just trying to make a case for why they are viewed / treated differently, and it is related to how responsibly they present them each.

The best way to test my theory is probably to have a TV show take one of their new moms and have her breast feed on the show. Then we'd find out real quick how right or wrong I am.

[gstelmack]

I guess one other point to add is that there is plenty of protest over the violence shown on TV as well, but the networks plow right over it.

[Toddzilla]

Quite the mea culpa on the part of Michael Vick going on right now....

[Cringer]

Vick sounded like a broken man. I was ok with the whole thing, except the God part. But that's just me maybe. Atleast it wasn't really a prepared speech, and he didn't try to lay blame elsewhere. He may be going out, but he his going out like a man and that deserves a little respect I guess.

[Ben E Lou]

Quite the mea culpa on the part of Michael Vick going on right now....

No prepared statement. Sounded very contrite. Given the circumstances, I think he did as well as he could have.

[flere-imsaho]

Anyone got a transcript/report? I'm at work and can't watch video streams.

[Ben E Lou]

Anyone got a transcript/report? I'm at work and can't watch video streams.Sure it'll be up soon...

[rkmsuf]

lol, Jamie Fox weighs in.

It's a cultural thing, I think," Jamie said. "Most brothers didn't know that, you know. I used to see dogs fighting in the neighborhood all the time. I didn't know that was Fed time. So, Mike probably just didn't read his handbook on what not to do as a black star. I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and don't get time," Jamie continued. "I think in this situation, he really didn't know the extent of it, so I always give him the benefit of the doubt."

[gstelmack]

CNN had his "I found Jesus" quote up. I'll be curious to see if that holds up...

[MikeVic]

lol, Jamie Fox weighs in.

I can see what he's saying though.

I have a friend that was born in southeast asia, and when I was talking to him about the Vick thing, he didn't understand how Vick could be facing a minimum of 1 year in jail, plus multiple years of suspension from the NFL. He thought Vick would just get community service and a fine. I know that Vick wasn't brought up somewhere that they eat dogs and stuff, but the culture he grew up in could blur his vision of right and wrong in this matter, in the U.S.

I'm not making excuses for Vick, since it's his responsibility to learn the laws and stuff of whatever country he's in. But I can see how Foxx's quote rings true.

[miked]

The big comparison around here is the Dany Heatley stuff. Heatley, as those of you may or may not remember was speeding in his sports car in the Atlanta area (one lane roads) and had alcohol in his system (but was not legally drunk), wrecked it and his teammate passenger died. Heatley pled guilty to vehicular homicide and a bunch of moving violations. He got 3 yrs probation and was back in the league as soon as he was healthy.

[rkmsuf]

I can see what he's saying though.

I have a friend that was born in southeast asia, and when I was talking to him about the Vick thing, he didn't understand how Vick could be facing a minimum of 1 year in jail, plus multiple years of suspension from the NFL. He thought Vick would just get community service and a fine. I know that Vick wasn't brought up somewhere that they eat dogs and stuff, but the culture he grew up in could blur his vision of right and wrong in this matter, in the U.S.

I'm not making excuses for Vick, since it's his responsibility to learn the laws and stuff of whatever country he's in. But I can see how Foxx's quote rings true.

yeah, maybe if Vick was a shut in

kind of funny they tried to keep this stuff quiet instead of trying to form a dog fighting national championship series on the vs. network.

[Ben E Lou]

Anyone got a transcript/report? I'm at work and can't watch video streams.

Here it is:

Text of Vick apology: 'I was not honest ... I need to grow up'

Associated Press
Published on: 08/27/07Text of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick's statement
Michael Vick's statement following his guilty plea in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., to a dogfighting conspiracy charge:
"For most of my life, I've been a football player, not a public speaker, so, you know, I really don't know, you know, how to say what I really want to say.
You know, I understand it's — it's important or not important, you know, as far as what you say but how you say things. So, you know, I take this opportunity just to speak from the heart.
First, I want to apologize, you know, for all the things that — that I've done and that I have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, coach Bobby Petrino, my Atlanta Falcons teammates, you know, for our — for our previous discussions that we had. And I was not honest and forthright in our discussions, and, you know, I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself to say the least.
I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts and, you know, what I did was, what I did was very immature so that means I need to grow up.
I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to bettering Michael Vick the person, not the football player.
I take full responsibility for my actions. For one second will I sit right here — not for one second will I sit right here and point the finger and try to blame anybody else for my actions or what I've done.
I'm totally responsible, and those things just didn't have to happen. I feel like we all make mistakes. It's just I made a mistake in using bad judgment and making bad decisions. And you know, those things, you know, just can't happen.
Dog fighting is a terrible thing, and I did reject it.
I'm upset with myself, and, you know, through this situation I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God. And I think that's the right thing to do as of right now.
Like I said, for this — for this entire situation I never pointed the finger at anybody else, I accepted responsibility for my actions of what I did and now I have to pay the consequences for it. But in a sense, I think it will help, you know, me as a person. I got a lot to think about in the next year or so.
I offer my deepest apologies to everybody out in there in the world who was affected by this whole situation. And if I'm more disappointed with myself than anything it's because of all the young people, young kids that I've let down, who look at Michael Vick as a role model. And to have to go through this and put myself in this situation, you know, I hope that every young kid out there in the world watching this interview right now who's been following the case will use me as an example to using better judgment and making better decisions.
Once again, I offer my deepest apologies to everyone. And I will redeem myself. I have to.
So I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I've done and how to make Michael Vick a better person.
Thank you."

[spleen1015]

Despite everything that's happened, he is taking responsibility for everything. I can respect that.

[lordscarlet]

I can see what he's saying though.

I have a friend that was born in southeast asia, and when I was talking to him about the Vick thing, he didn't understand how Vick could be facing a minimum of 1 year in jail, plus multiple years of suspension from the NFL. He thought Vick would just get community service and a fine. I know that Vick wasn't brought up somewhere that they eat dogs and stuff, but the culture he grew up in could blur his vision of right and wrong in this matter, in the U.S.

I'm not making excuses for Vick, since it's his responsibility to learn the laws and stuff of whatever country he's in. But I can see how Foxx's quote rings true.

I work with a guy that was originally from Korea (but has been in the US twice as long as he lived in Korea) and he's like, "I don't understand. It's just a dog."

[Travis]

Text of Vick Apology, "Dog fighting is a terrible thing, and I did reject it."
Say what?

[Lathum]

You now what I find interesting is all these high profile black atheletes etc... are using race and culture as an excuse, yet if say, Keith Olberman, came out and said " of course I don't understand dog fighting, it's something only black people whew grew up in poverty can understand" he would be killed for it.

Not trying to start a flame war and if anyone finds this offensive I'll delete it but I am so sick of that as an excuse.

The only thing Vick is sorry for is that he got caught.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I can see what he's saying though.

I have a friend that was born in southeast asia, and when I was talking to him about the Vick thing, he didn't understand how Vick could be facing a minimum of 1 year in jail, plus multiple years of suspension from the NFL. He thought Vick would just get community service and a fine. I know that Vick wasn't brought up somewhere that they eat dogs and stuff, but the culture he grew up in could blur his vision of right and wrong in this matter, in the U.S.

I'm not making excuses for Vick, since it's his responsibility to learn the laws and stuff of whatever country he's in. But I can see how Foxx's quote rings true.

This culture argument is absolute BS. Vick knew it was illegal. He's not that stupid. He went to great lengths to hide his operation and immediately denied any involvement when it was brought to light. If he really thought it was "ok", why didn't he just say, "Oh yeah. Those are my dogs. Those are my fighting dogs! It's cool. Wanna watch?"

Also, just because it may be part of a "culture" doesn't necessarily make it valid, any less wrong, or any more excusable. There are a ton of "cultural" activities that are reprhensible. Some cultures believe in cannabilism. Some cultures believe in female genital mutiliation. Some cultures still believe in slavery.

The flipside of the "culture" argument that I've heard from some less enlightened folks is a complaint about black people "their culture" and how dog fighting is somehow indicative of black culture. That's completely retarded.

[Ben E Lou]

I thought he said he didn't reject it. Here's a link...

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/content/multimedia/video/index.html?clip=28314&cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

[Eaglesfan27]

No prepared statement. Sounded very contrite. Given the circumstances, I think he did as well as he could have.

I was only able to listen to it on the radio, and I agree that he sounded very good. It still doesn't change my opinions of him because of what he has done, but I have to admit that for this speech, he sounded good.

[MikeVic]

This culture argument is absolute BS. Vick knew it was illegal. He's not that stupid. He went to great lengths to hide his operation and immediately denied any involvement when it was brought to light. If he really thought it was "ok", why didn't he just say, "Oh yeah. Those are my dogs. Those are my fighting dogs! It's cool. Wanna watch?"

Also, just because it may be part of a "culture" doesn't necessarily make it valid, any less wrong, or any more excusable. There are a ton of "cultural" activities that are reprhensible. Some cultures believe in cannabilism. Some cultures believe in female genital mutiliation. Some cultures still believe in slavery.

The flipside of the "culture" argument that I've heard from some less enlightened folks is a complaint about black people "their culture" and how dog fighting is somehow indicative of black culture. That's completely retarded.


I'm not saying it's an excuse, as I pointed out it's Vick responsibility to find out the laws and stuff. He probably did know it was against the law, but maybe didn't know how "badly" against the law it was. Smoking marijuana is against the law, but people do it because the penalty isn't very high (pun intended). People download music and movies, in essence stealing, even though it's against the law, and don't really think much of it. Maybe Vick found out how bad it was against the law, and then wanted to hide that he did it?

[Pumpy Tudors]

As a certified assblack, I'd just like to say that I fight dogs all the time. I actually have a match scheduled tomorrow afternoon against Vicky, a 6-year-old Pomeranian. She only weighs three pounds, but I think I can take her this time. In our previous fight, she won by split decision. I blame the Cuban judge, personally.

[Travis]

I thought he said he didn't reject it. Here's a link...

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/content/multimedia/video/index.html?clip=28314&cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Just listened/watched this link, and it sounds like he said, "did reject it" to me, but that said, his wording in a few areas came across as a bit awkward (and he even revised in speech at least once), so it's possible that he meant one thing, but didn't quite use the proper wording to convey his meaning. I'm not a huge fan of prepared speeches, but given how this felt (and I don't really like some of his wordings) it's hard to really know and it may have been better for him to at least have had a few points prepared.

[Eaglesfan27]

Watching the video, it does sound like he said I didn't reject it. When I heard it live on the radio, it sounded like he said "I did reject it" and I was wondering when that occurred. It makes much more sense that he said he didn't reject it, although even the above transcript has it wrong if that is what he said.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for the transcript, SkyDog.

[Surtt]

I'm not saying it's an excuse, as I pointed out it's Vick responsibility to find out the laws and stuff. He probably did know it was against the law, but maybe didn't know how "badly" against the law it was. Smoking marijuana is against the law, but people do it because the penalty isn't very high (pun intended). People download music and movies, in essence stealing, even though it's against the law, and don't really think much of it. Maybe Vick found out how bad it was against the law, and then wanted to hide that he did it?


I don't get the whole "against the law" thing.
Do you mean there would be nothing wrong with dog fighting if it was not a crime?

I am disgusted by the things Vick has done.
It is a moral question, not a legal one.
If they are legal or not doesn't matter.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not saying it's an excuse, as I pointed out it's Vick responsibility to find out the laws and stuff. He probably did know it was against the law, but maybe didn't know how "badly" against the law it was. Smoking marijuana is against the law, but people do it because the penalty isn't very high (pun intended). People download music and movies, in essence stealing, even though it's against the law, and don't really think much of it. Maybe Vick found out how bad it was against the law, and then wanted to hide that he did it?

That's all well and good if all he did was attend dogfights, but he MURDERED DOGS. I find it hard to believe he thought this was just a minor legal inconvenience like downloading music or smoking pot, and if he didn't then he's too fucking stupid to be allowed into free society.

[MikeVic]

I don't get the whole "against the law" thing.
Do you mean there would be nothing wrong with dog fighting if it was not a crime?

I am disgusted by the things Vick has done.
It is a moral question, not a legal one.
If they are legal or not doesn't matter.

If it wasn't against the law, maybe there'd be some organized sport of it. Where the dogs would be treated better and participate in some less brutal fights? I don't know? Maybe they'd wear some protective armour or something. Aren't police dogs trained to attack a criminal and go for key areas until they are either told to stop, or feel they don't have to bite down anymore...? You can train other dogs in a similar manner to fight each other, but not really hurt each other more than when two dogs are play fighting?

Hell, I don't know. But I'm sure if it wasn't illegal you'd hear a lot more about it, and it wouldn't be as bad for the dogs.

[rkmsuf]

If it wasn't against the law, maybe there'd be some organized sport of it. Where the dogs would be treated better and participate in some less brutal fights? I don't know? Maybe they'd wear some protective armour or something. Aren't police dogs trained to attack a criminal and go for key areas until they are either told to stop, or feel they don't have to bite down anymore...? You can train other dogs in a similar manner to fight each other, but not really hurt each other more than when two dogs are play fighting?

Hell, I don't know. But I'm sure if it wasn't illegal you'd hear a lot more about it, and it wouldn't be as bad for the dogs.

Boy, what in the hell are you talking about?

[MikeVic]

That's all well and good if all he did was attend dogfights, but he MURDERED DOGS. I find it hard to believe he thought this was just a minor legal inconvenience like downloading music or smoking pot, and if he didn't then he's too fucking stupid to be allowed into free society.

As has been said, people murder game and wildlife for sport. Whether that's morally wrong or not, it's currently done within legal confines.

[MikeVic]

Boy, what in the hell are you talking about?

I don't know. Trying to come up with dog fighting that wouldn't hurt the dog lol.

[DaddyTorgo]

The big comparison around here is the Dany Heatley stuff. Heatley, as those of you may or may not remember was speeding in his sports car in the Atlanta area (one lane roads) and had alcohol in his system (but was not legally drunk), wrecked it and his teammate passenger died. Heatley pled guilty to vehicular homicide and a bunch of moving violations. He got 3 yrs probation and was back in the league as soon as he was healthy.

then people are morons. it's not the cruelty-to-animals stuff that has him facing jailtime. look at the breakdown of the charges and the possible jailtime for them. those carry minimal jailtime/fines. it's the interstate gambling that gets him the jailtime and the ban from the nfl.

people that refuse to see that are either stupid or are trying to make it a race-thing when it's not.

[BrianD]

I'm not saying it's an excuse, as I pointed out it's Vick responsibility to find out the laws and stuff. He probably did know it was against the law, but maybe didn't know how "badly" against the law it was. Smoking marijuana is against the law, but people do it because the penalty isn't very high (pun intended). People download music and movies, in essence stealing, even though it's against the law, and don't really think much of it. Maybe Vick found out how bad it was against the law, and then wanted to hide that he did it?

I know you've already taken some heat from this statement, but I very much agree with it. I'm sure he knew what he was doing was illegal which was why he hid it. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know how much trouble he could get into. I still believe he did some truly terrible things, but if he doesn't see a difference between killing dogs and killing deer, he wouldn't think them so terrible. He is also doing things in a more brutal way, but many people don't believe that animals deserve much consideration. I still think he should have known better, but with the number of people who don't believe this should even be illegal, it is easy to understand where he might not have realized how bad it was.

[gstelmack]

The big comparison around here is the Dany Heatley stuff. Heatley, as those of you may or may not remember was speeding in his sports car in the Atlanta area (one lane roads) and had alcohol in his system (but was not legally drunk), wrecked it and his teammate passenger died. Heatley pled guilty to vehicular homicide and a bunch of moving violations. He got 3 yrs probation and was back in the league as soon as he was healthy.

He shouldn't have been let in, either. I've discussed the Canes player who wrapped his truck around a tree and killed himself after partying, but was then held up as such a great guy when we were lucky he didn't kill someone else; I thought that was pretty poorly handled as well. And of course the whole Leonard Little thing. I agree wholeheartedly that drinking and driving are not sufficiently punished in this country.

Of course the flip side is his teammate chose to get in with him and speed after drinking, while the dogs had zero choice.

[larrymcg421]

Not sure of which big game competition tortures deer for years and years before they kill them. Can someone point me to that?

I don't like hunting for sport, but it really is a completely different matter for the reason I just stated. Please stop these stupid comparisons.

[rkmsuf]

Not sure of which big game competition tortures deer for years and years before they kill them. Can someone point me to that?

I don't like hunting for sport, but it really is a completely different matter for the reason I just stated. Please stop these stupid comparisons.

Hunters could use paintballs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's all well and good if all he did was attend dogfights, but he MURDERED DOGS. I find it hard to believe he thought this was just a minor legal inconvenience like downloading music or smoking pot, and if he didn't then he's too fucking stupid to be allowed into free society.

re: the "murdered dogs" part -- Actually, I can very much believe that he figured the killing of the dogs itself was no big deal legally. The fights & the gambling, okay, you gotta be a friggin moron not to know that's at least a reasonably big crime but for the deaths of the dogs afterwards I can believe it. I honestly couldn't begin to count the number of people I know/have known who thought absolutely nothing of shooting dogs they didn't want (or didn't like), drowning cats to get rid of them, etc. And truth is, I've never known a soul to be prosecuted strictly for that if it wasn't done in some torturous manner. Hell, it's been in the past few years that I listened in horrified amazement at a breakfast conversation at a local restaurant as people starting talking about the disposal of one animal or another. The fact that the long time local sheriff was not only at the table but was a participant in the discussion kind of illustrates what I mean about how someone could easily believe there were no legal issues about the killing part. I'd bet that the same conversation could have happened in more than 100 of the 159 counties in Georgia, and that you'd hard pressed to get a conviction from a jury on any charges in that scenario, the odds of finding 12 people who all thought it was wrong strictly to kill an animal that you owned strike me as being extremely slim.

I never looked at any of those people the same way again but I don't think I said anything, one of the few times in my life where I was just left speechless by what I was hearing.

And just to be absolutely clear, I put your phrase in quotes strictly to specify it, not because I have any problem at all with the word choice.

[rkmsuf]

drowing cats

that's awesome

[DaddyTorgo]

re: the "murdered dogs" part -- Actually, I can very much believe that he figured the killing of the dogs itself was no big deal legally. The fights & the gambling, okay, you gotta be a friggin moron not to know that's at least a reasonably big crime but for the deaths of the dogs afterwards I can believe it. I honestly couldn't begin to count the number of people I know/have known who thought absolutely nothing of shooting dogs they didn't want (or didn't like), drowning cats to get rid of them, etc. And truth is, I've never known a soul to be prosecuted strictly for that if it wasn't done in some torturous manner. Hell, it's been in the past few years that I listened in horrified amazement at a breakfast conversation at a local restaurant as people starting talking about the disposal of one animal or another. The fact that the long time local sheriff was not only at the table but was a participant in the discussion kind of illustrates what I mean about how someone could easily believe there were no legal issues about the killing part. I'd bet that the same conversation could have happened in more than 100 of the 159 counties in Georgia, and that you'd hard pressed to get a conviction from a jury on any charges in that scenario, the odds of finding 12 people who all thought it was wrong strictly to kill an animal that you owned strike me as being extremely slim.

I never looked at any of those people the same way again but I don't think I said anything, one of the few times in my life where I was just left speechless by what I was hearing.

And just to be absolutely clear, I put your phrase in quotes strictly to specify it, not because I have any problem at all with the word choice.

bolded for emphasis

[SackAttack]

Despite everything that's happened, he is taking responsibility for everything. I can respect that.

Honestly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's because his counsel said "Hey, dumbass, if you *don't* show some contrition before you go before the judge for sentencing, you are going to get the book thrown at you."

Hudson has that reputation from what I understand.

[BrianD]

Not sure of which big game competition tortures deer for years and years before they kill them. Can someone point me to that?

I don't like hunting for sport, but it really is a completely different matter for the reason I just stated. Please stop these stupid comparisons.

I'll assume this was pointed at me and I'll answer. I totally agree with you that dog fighting and hunting are so far apart as to be incomparable. The point is that Vick - and apparently many others - don't think they are that different. This doesn't change the legality or morality of the situation, but it does help to explain why Vick (and others) might be surprised that the penalties are so high.

[JonInMiddleGA]

bolded for emphasis

Fair enough, but if you think it's any different in at least a dozen other states then I'd say you're kidding yourself.

[BrianD]

re: the "murdered dogs" part -- Actually, I can very much believe that he figured the killing of the dogs itself was no big deal legally. The fights & the gambling, okay, you gotta be a friggin moron not to know that's at least a reasonably big crime but for the deaths of the dogs afterwards I can believe it. I honestly couldn't begin to count the number of people I know/have known who thought absolutely nothing of shooting dogs they didn't want (or didn't like), drowning cats to get rid of them, etc. And truth is, I've never known a soul to be prosecuted strictly for that if it wasn't done in some torturous manner. Hell, it's been in the past few years that I listened in horrified amazement at a breakfast conversation at a local restaurant as people starting talking about the disposal of one animal or another. The fact that the long time local sheriff was not only at the table but was a participant in the discussion kind of illustrates what I mean about how someone could easily believe there were no legal issues about the killing part. I'd bet that the same conversation could have happened in more than 100 of the 159 counties in Georgia, and that you'd hard pressed to get a conviction from a jury on any charges in that scenario, the odds of finding 12 people who all thought it was wrong strictly to kill an animal that you owned strike me as being extremely slim.

I never looked at any of those people the same way again but I don't think I said anything, one of the few times in my life where I was just left speechless by what I was hearing.

And just to be absolutely clear, I put your phrase in quotes strictly to specify it, not because I have any problem at all with the word choice.

This is not just a Georgia thing. There was plenty of discussion recently in Milwaukee Wisconsin about whether people should be allowed to shoot feral cats that were wandering the neighborhood. This was mostly a desire to shoot nuisance animals, but it is similar. Also, there are tons of people every year who return cats and dogs to the humane society because they can't "live properly" in the home. This could mean fighting with others in the house or crapping on the carpet. A number of these animals are put down because they can't be trained to crap properly. People may not be killing the animals, but they are sure dropping them off to be killed.

This still doesn't come close to torturing dogs and killing them horribly, but it shows that there are plenty of people killing domestic animals.

[DaddyTorgo]

Fair enough, but if you think it's any different in at least a dozen other states then I'd say you're kidding yourself.

nah. i believe it is. just messing with all you georgia-boys

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'll assume this was pointed at me and I'll answer. I totally agree with you that dog fighting and hunting are so far apart as to be incomparable. The point is that Vick - and apparently many others - don't think they are that different.

Did Vick say something along those lines or just Vick supporters/defenders?

[KWhit]

Note to Michael Vick:

If you don't want to sound like an egotistical celebrity that thinks he's above the law, don't refer to yourself in the third person.

[Warhammer]

He's still an asshat, but if he does turn over a new leaf because of this, he might actually wind up turning out for the better.