Michael Vick on 60 minutes
 

Of course, I have to see the actual show to see if the quotes are indeed correct, but based on this excerpt, my perception is that he's trying to portray himself as someone who didn't approve dogfighting, but chose to stand on the sideline. Absolutely BS. "I didn't step up. I wasn't leader."???? Exactly the opposite, he's the leader... of a dogfighting ring.

"Football don't even matter."?????? I guess "Money does, though" Does he really think everybody is retarded? If that's true, what the fXXXing hell is he doing trying to get a team? Shouldn't he be satisfied with his $10/hr construction job???!!!!

He will keep on lying forever. Despicable human being. I bet once his career is over and he's off the NFL hook, he'll be back to killing animals. I wish he will NEVER get another chance. Sorry I seldom got so wounded up but I love animals more than human beings, so my point must be biased.


NEW YORK -- Michael Vick says he accepts blame for not stopping an illegal dogfighting ring that he bankrolled. He spoke in an interview with "60 Minutes" set to air Sunday.

Vick tells CBS Sports anchor James Brown that he feels "some tremendous hurt behind what happened." He adds that "I should have took the initiative to stop it all ... I didn't -- I didn't step up. I wasn't leader."

Brown asks the former Falcons quarterback if he was more concerned about his playing career or the dogs he hurt, and Vick replies, "Football don't even matter."

Vick also discusses his time in prison and admits he cried at night in his cell.

Few teams have expressed any interest in signing Vick. The Buffalo Bills reiterated Thursday they are not interested in him.

This is a problem.

It doesn't exactly sound like he's taken responsibility for his crime. "I should have took the initiative to stop it all" Right.

Textbook criminal thinking. It's the mindset that allows people to do horrible things.

Seriously, I'd hate to know what he does to a creature he loves LESS than dogs.

Umm ... I think he "loves more than" was cyril's comment, not Vick's.

I think that line was by cyril, not Vick.

Not really IMO. Most animals are far more lovable.

Well. That certainly makes a lot more sense then.

I can't really think of many animals that deserve to die, I can however think of quite a few humans who have no business being alive.

I think I need to clarify the statement "I love animals more than human beings" What I mean is that animals often times "deserve" more protection from the dedicated. They are much more prone to abuse than humans are.

how many thousands of dogs, cats, and other pets are abandoned every year by human beings whom these poor, helpless animals love and trust? Surely some children and people suffer abandonment too and I am not trying to underplay their psychological suffering. But few human beings get shot, get skinned, get euthanized because of abandonment.

Anybody know what time the interview is at?

My impression is that despite his admissions, he likely had little to do with the actual dogfighting. He just admitted to it after his "boys" said he did, because that's was part of their plea, Vick admitted to all of it basically or the feds probably told him he'd never see a field again and his lawyers concurred.

I find it very hard to believe this guy was doing this in his spare time and just understanding the pathology, I'm guessing he gave them the money and space, they were doing what they were doing and then they got caught, it was on his property and instead of fessing up and throwing them to the wolves, he shut his mouth and then all hell broke loose and the thing crashed down on him.

Rightfully so, but...I'm just not thinking that all of the 'facts' of the story are really all that true. Not that it matters, but...I think it'll pepper the way he makes responses and comments based on it and it'll lead the Puppy Brigade to think that he's not remorseful enough and that he doesn't deserve to exist on earth as a result of his crimes.

It's one thing to cover your eyes and pretend he didn't do what he said he did so you can defend him. It's an entirely different thing to insult people for criticizing him based on the actions he said he committed. It's especially trollish to do that when you post bullshit like that and ignore all responses to your insults.

If Leonard Little got a second chance, there is no reason Michael Vick shouldn't.

Source: Vick 'one of the heavyweights' in dogfighting - NFL - ESPN

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/11312/VA/US/

Falcons' Vick Indicted In Dogfighting Case - washingtonpost.com

An excerpt from the last article:


Yeah, sounds like he wasn't involved at all.

Premeditated actions over a 5 year period > Stupid, terrible mistake

Not sure what the interview can tell anyone. He's a sociopath and nothing he says should ever be believed.

It seems like the defenders don't really believe that anyone could be that upset about dogs, and they're being disingenuous.

They never (or rarely) come out and say what it seems like they're thinking. I'm just going to say it. Is the theory that this is just the white man's opportunity to beat up a black man? That the Vick hate is motivated by racism? That the white man is using this to attack a part of black culture? Is that's what's believed?

I am not trying to defend Vick here at all, but I took this comment a little different. Instead of taking it like:


I took it like:

I did not stop the dog fighting, I was not acting like a leader.

It might not even matter which way he meant it. I don't remember the details of the original story and I am not going back to read them right now, but if he was the man in charge, it wasn't about him "stepping up" to stop it. It is about never starting it in the first place.

:popcorn:

I have been wondering this myself. Personally, I don't give two shits about skin color. This has everything to do with a disregard for life.

I honestly believe that it is a cultural difference. To 90% of America (including me), this is a horrible crime. To the other 10%, there is no difference between this and bull fighting, horse racing, hunting, or any other sport that involves the possible injury or death to an animal. Once again, I think it is way way way off base, but from some people I have talked to, that is the thinking.

But do those 10% think the other 90% is lying about how this impacts them emotionally? That's the tone I get.

This came up a little back in the orignal vick thread. Dog fighting is a "back thing", and thus its villified. People couldn't honestly be that upset about dogs. (goes the theory).

:banghead:

So Leonard Little only drove drunk the one time? Wait, didn't he get another DWI after he killed the woman? And those were the only times he got caught.

I'm more forgiving than most. I believe both should get second chances. And I can see why you may feel Vick shouldn't get a second chance. But I find the inconsistency disturbing by saying that Vick shouldn't get a second chance and people like Little should.

I don't think anyone is saying that Little deserves a second chance. He got one and I'd bet that a lot of people here believe he shouldn't.

Well, I think Larry implied that in his post by saying that what Vick did was worse than what Little did.

If you hold the view that neither deserve second chances, more power to you. I disagree, but can understand where you are coming from.

If you have something to say, then say it. You've indirectly insulted me and others several times on this subject. Then we respond to those insults and you either disappear or ignore those responses. If you're going to make the insults, then stand by them. If you can't do that, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.

Well in a way I can see why people could say Vick is worse. Little probably didn't go out hoping to kill someone. Vick on the other hand took joy in what he was doing and considered it a hobby.

One is someone who was careless and did something dangerous, but I doubt intended to kill someone. The other is someone who intended to kill something. It's like comparing a drunk driver to a murderer. The murderer is far more repulsive in my book.

If he's truly remorseful for what he did, I (not that I have any authority) would give him a 2nd chance. However, based on his history of lies, up to this last one - saying "football doesn't matter" then turned around a few hours later and signed for eagles, I have no reason to believe he's not lying to save his own ass.

The fact that "he paid his price to the society" does not prevent him from committing the same hideous cruelty later in life. Sure he could hire a PR firm to kiss up to PETA, humane society or even do some photo-ops licking some bull terriers' asses, but all those are just for show. If he, say, voluntarily donates 50% of his salary over the next ten years to causes against the crimes he committed, then maybe I believe he's in a sense remorseful. Until then, every act he pulls now does not cost him anything. All the "prices" that he paid so far was enforced on him, not out of personal remorse.

While none of us could conclusively tell what his true intent is, I know which side I am on. I don't give him the benefit of doubt. No reason to do that. For now.

It is. Intentional Actions > Stupid Mistakes

Little may have done it twice, but Vick did it constantly over a 5 year period.


There's a difference between someone deserving a second chance and deserving to play in the NFL. I would've been happy with a harsher punishment on Little, but that ship is sailed. It seems silly to say we can never increase punishments because in the past the commisioner was a pussy.

If you honestly believe Little may have done it only twice, you are incredibly naive.




That's where I think we'll just need to disagree. I don't feel that after somebody has paid for a crime they have committed based on the standards and punishments that society has set that he should continue to pay in his pursuit of a livelihood. What types of jobs should he be allowed to pursue?

So if you owned a business, you would have no problem hiring a guy convicted of embezzling company funds? How about hiring a convicted felon to do work around your house? Or a child molester working at the local elementary school?

I mean as long as they did their time, you're saying you would have no problem with them pursuing their livelihood?

The cleanest thing to do is just have a no-felon rule. You get convicted a felony, you're banned from the league. Then you don't to make these case-by-case judgment calls that half the people will think are unjust. There's no shortage of football players.

Little v. Vick - reasonable minds can disagree. Easier to just ban 'em both.

I agree 100%. Simple rule. Many businesses and professions do not hire felons. Not exactly a stretch to place that rule in the NFL.

I have a question. If Rae Carruth was paroled tomorrow, should he be allowed in the league? Would you have a problem with him being on your team?

Let me take these one by one:


Of those two, hiring a convicted felon to do work around the house I wouldn't have a problem with, if he/she was reliable and did a good job. The problem with a child molester at a local school is that the crime committed by the child molester is directly related to the work he'd be doing. Likewise, hiring somebody that has embezzled funds from a previous company probably wouldn't be the best idea if they are going to be handling the money. Otherwise? No big deal.

I wouldn't hire Michael Vick if I was running a pit bull rescue operation. I just don't see how Vick's crime will be detrimental to him being a football player.


That's reasonable. I don't agree with it, but it is certainly reasonable for you to come to that conclusion.


I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. My biggest problem would probably be that his skills have eroded. The problem with this scenario is that Carruth won't be paroled tomorrow. Society has determined that his crime was serious enough to warrant spending the rest of his life in jail (I think?)

Completely agree. That would eliminate douchebags like Vick, Carruth, PacMan Jones, Little, and Lawrence Phillips (he will try a comeback too eventually).


You are braver than I am. I would never even allow a convicted felon near my house, never mind hiring him to work in/on it.

Vick is a public figure by playing a sport for money. Playing a sport, while getting paid millions of dollars, is a privilege, not a right. Vick has the RIGHT to find work and provide for himself. By virtue of his actions with dogfighting, he should lose the PRIVILEGE of working/playing in the NFL.


Prison is not necessarily a rehabilitation clause. Prison is a means of removing offenders from the public in order to remove the danger they present to others. Anyone who believes Vick (or Carruth for that matter) is rehabilitated, especially after seeing him speak lately, is just being naive.

But it does directly relate to the NFL. The NFL is a form of entertainment that needs to portray positive images to maintain audiences and advertisers. Image matters to them.

[quote=RomaGoth;2095631 Lawrence Phillips (he will try a comeback too eventually). [/QUOTE]

As a criminal maybe.

But at 34 and out of the league for 6 years already, I have a tough time seeing that one getting any play beyond unintentional comedy.

Only insofar as it costs them money though. And so far today the NFL, the Falcons, and the Eagles have all made money on the signing (not to mention the media outlets covering it).

Should this cost them money? Oh hell yes. I lose some respect for anybody who'll give the f'n Eagles a dime for at the very least as long as this POS is on the roster. If society wasn't as completely fucked up as it is they ought to be playing in front of an empty stadium ... but it is that fucked up and obviously they won't be.

Will it cost them money? Marginally, depends upon the out clauses in some advertising contracts and who they're negotiating new ones with.

Phillips is a complete douche. He was talking a while ago about an NFL comeback, but who would take him now that Shanahan is out of coaching?

If image mattered to them so much, there would be a lot of people not in the league. Heck, are you trying to argue that Michael Vick shouldn't be reinstated when they already have set when he could be reinstated?

If image was so important, there would be a no felon rule.

The NFL is just another occupation that is on a larger scale than most other occupations. Any occupation there is is providing a product or service to somebody else. So by virtue of the grand scale of the NFL he should not be allowed to play? Keeping in the spirit of football, what about the UFL? Should he be banned from that too?

Who, under the current administration, has done something worse than Vick? Or more specifically, who harms the league's image worse then him? Arguably Stallworth, and he's been banned a year.

So they run United Way commercials for fun? Are anal about their uniform policies just for kicks? The NFL is all image. Everything you see on Sunday is the image they want to present and they have done a phenomenal job at it.

I'm not arguing against the punishments already set. I'm arguing against lifetime bans like some are proposing.

Not really a lifetime ban. Just stating there are requirements to play in the league. Not being a felon is one of them.

Read what Jon said, he makes the point more eloquently than I can.

Setting requirements is just a nicer way of saying lifetime ban.

NFL is a privilege, working to earn a living is a right. I suppose if someone in pro sports is willing to "hire" Michael Vick (which the Eagles obviously have done), that is their right to do so. I don't believe, however, that Vick has the right to accept the offer and work in the NFL. I guess this is where the problem lies. Obviously, labor laws and such allow for him to work wherever he wants, but this does not make it right.