Comments on: Michael Vick, Roger Goodell And Ghetto Loyalty

By: mozartsghost68

mozartsghost68 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:54:11 +0000

In a country that euthanizes thousands of dogs every day for the simple fact that no one wants them. The audacity to compare poor decision making practices that only had the same affect as the ” humane society ” efficiently does, is erroneous! Let a grown man consume alcohol and then make a decision to drive. Why are we debating the value of human life to that of a dog?
It is clear what is more precious…….I do not think that anyone who has lost a loved on to a drunk driver would have any issue with seeing Michael Vick play in the NFL. He has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to pursue his dream……..after all many of you who judge this man have dui convictions and have already played your game of russian roulette with very little consiquence!

By: Jeremy Hanson

Jeremy Hanson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:47:38 +0000

sthall20:

You are absolutely right, DUI is terrible. I do not condone it. Most people intentional decide or constructively know that they will be driving later after they have had a few. Although drinking and driving can be intentional, DUI drivers do not intend on killing or maiming even though they should know that is the likely outcome.

I was more referring to Mr. Vick’s deliberate assault and killing of animals, (not the dog fighting crime itself), but the intentional execution of a living thing.

By: sthall20

sthall20 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:26:10 +0000

There is no way you can say that DUI is not as intentional a crime as dog fighting. People know that drinking and driving causes a huge rick, slows reaction times, etc. yet these athlete and 100’s of people out there still do it. Maybe not reinstating stallworth (Little happened when the NFL commish did nothing to anyone so that is no surprise)and then make him do public service ads would teach athletes and everyone else that its not only someone else’s life that is being ruined when you drink and drive.

By: Jeremy Hanson

Jeremy Hanson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:29:39 +0000

Please pardon my spelling. I type too fast.

By: Jeremy Hanson

Jeremy Hanson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:24:35 +0000

Yes, but Leonard Little (DUI), Stallworth (DUI), Burress (shot himself), etc. were just plain stupid, they did not intentionally mean harm to anyone or thing. (I am not condonig DUI either)

It is one thing to be negligent, careless or even reckless, but intentionaly harming others, (animal or not), is on another completely sinister level. IMO.

I pitty the franchise that takes on Michael Vick.

By: Adam Best

Adam Best — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:11:57 +0000

What can’t be argued here is that Vick has had terrible people around him growing up. What also can’t be argued is that what he did was wrong. But if you are letting people who kill or paralyze human beings back into the game after paying way less of a debt to both the league and society, you can’t ban Vick after he’s paid his dues. Not fair. Period.

By: Jeremy Hanson

Jeremy Hanson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:41:05 +0000

Michael Vick knowingly and intentionall broke the law in a most inhumane way. He should not be allowed to play in the NFL again,, unless the NFL wants to feel the wrath of many groups or activists. When is enough, enough?

Michael Vick should be made an example.

By: IISaiNtII

IISaiNtII — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:52:45 +0000

I think part of Goodell’s decision will be based on the terms of Vick’s house arrest; and I think it should be. If his terms say ne cannot leave the state under any conditions, then he can’t play football anywhere but in-state.

And for the record, I’m more broke than that guy.