Posted on 07/23/2007 6:42:58 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32
At this point I'm sure that I don't have to do to much to bring you up to speed on Michael Vick and his latest troubles. A federal grand jury has indicted Vick on charges related to dog fighting. That may be just the beginning. The State of Virginia has yet to be heard from, and as I understand it mere ownership of property on which dog fights are held is a felony under Virginia law. Just one felony conviction and Vick is through with professional football in this country.
Let's put this "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense to rest right here at the beginning. When you kill someone you are a killer. If you do so in violation of the law; if it is not in self defense, for instance, you are a murderer. A person who kills a girlfriend because she merely wants out of the relationship is a murderer as soon as his victim's heart stops beating .. you don't have to wait for a jury to come in with a verdict.
So, where does this "innocent until proven guilty" stuff come in? The presumption of innocence is, in my view, a limitation that is primarily place on government. Generally speaking, only government can use force – deadly force – to deprive you of your property, your liberty or your life. If the government is going to do so as punishment for the commission of a crime, then the government must afford you your constitutional rights and prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the government, then, that must consider you to be innocent until otherwise proven. After the act, the rapist is only innocent in the eyes of government. The victim views him quite differently.
O.J. Simpson is a murderer. There is not one rational-thinking American familiar with knowledge of the facts of his case who honestly believes otherwise. A renegade jury failed to convict him however, so the government cannot punish him for his butchery. If O.J. objects to my characterization of him as a murderer he has civil remedies he can pursue. I, however, am powerless to punish him for the slaughter of his wife and Ron Goldman.
Now .. back to Vick. Personally, I have no doubt that he knew of and was a willing and eager participant in this blood "sport" of dog fighting. I'm an animal lover. I particularly love dogs. I would have no problem whatsoever seeing him serve some time in jail for his crime. I believe that people can be judged by how they treat animals. If what they allege about Michael Vick is true then he is completely lacking any sense of morality and human decency. Jail might be too good for him. Better to baste him in steak sauce and throw him into a cage full of the very dogs he so loved to brutalize.
What should the Falcons do with Vick? Totally their choice. They have a contract with this thug that would allow them to fire him on the spot. I'm not Arthur Blank and I have no idea what it would feel like to invest tens of millions of dollars in someone only to have them turn out to be such a miserable person and a complete embarrassment to the entire organization off-field. How do you explain to Vick's teammates that their season is about to be negatively affected because of these indictments? What do you say when they cry "He hasn't been convicted yet!" Perhaps if Blank and the Falcons had not invested so much time, effort and money into protecting Michael Vick from his own persona over the years things might not have come to this. But Vick was a jock .. a hero .. a prized gladiator. He generated massive amounts of revenue, not only for the team, but for the league ... and was thus entitled to treatment that would insulate him from his own repugnant actions.
If someone in a position of authority had smacked him down a few years ago, the team might not be going through this today.
As I said, the Falcons can do with Vick as they please. If he's convicted of a felony we should expect the NFL to follow the rules they've set and send him packing. We'll see. But I, as a fan, have my own choices to make, and my choice will be to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Falcons as long as this thug is wearing their uniform. As long as Michael Vick is part of the organization, the organization, for me, ceases to exist. My wife is from Jacksonville, so I'm now officially a Jaguars fan.
Now ... let's address the race angle. I've been reading some of the blogs out there, and I did have a chance to listen to some sports talk radio over the weekend. What I've read and heard is entirely predictable. Everyone is out to get Michael Vick because he's black. The whole investigation is racially based.
This isn't about race. It's about culture. Black urban culture, to be more precise. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that organized dogfighting has increased by well over 300% since 1992. In many cases the dogfighting takes place in conjunction with drug dealing. The director of the Capital Area Humane Society in Ohio told the Cincinnati Inquirer ""Dogfighting is a family event, often held in a large warehouse. Children watch and there can be concession stands at one end, gambling somewhere else, and over in this corner they'll be selling cocaine and crack."
I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that dogfighting has been glorified in rap music. DMX and Snoop Dog have promoted the practice in their "music" videos.
Eileen Lou-Harrist wrote "In recent years, pit bull terriers have become a macho accessory in urban culture, where kids are attracted to the animals' reputation as inherently mean dogs. Add the hard-edged glamour of the dogfight—the gambling, drugs and weapons; the illegality; the 'fight 'til you die' credo—and dogfighting flourishes in places where cultivating a tough reputation is often paramount to survival." Now is Lou-Harrist describing any sort of a racial characteristic with those words? Hardly. She's describing a culture; urban street culture. Gangsta culture. So for all of you out there who will try to make this whole Michael Vick affair into a racial issue, put a sock in it. We're talking culture here, not race; a violent, immoral and cruel culture that promotes violence and disrespect for common decency and the law; a culture now vividly represented by Michael Vick.
I'm told that if you visit animal rescue shelters in many urban areas you'll find that over 60% of the dogs there are pit bulls or some variation. Slam a few of these people in jail for some extended sentences and let's see how quickly that changes.
I think this is what most 'law and order conservatives' really think of our system of justice.
I think a lot of "law and order conservatives" recognize the reality of the matter that it is the government -- the state -- that must presume a defendant innocent until proven guilty. That presumption extends no further than the state.
..don’ worry - we’ll beat ‘em.
If you inferred that from what Boortz wrote (I can't believe I'm on a thread defending Boortz for his comments), then you must not have been paying attention. He very clearly stated that the state must presume a person innocent until proven guilty. Thus, a district attorney cannot "hang 'em first" since the district attorney is the agent of the state.
Bring in Daunte Culpepper to the Falcons and replace Vick.
Even if Culpepper does not make the grade the race issue is put to bed. Get rid of this poisonous thug Vick.
Wrong.
A hearty portion of the NFL has absolutely no problem with what Vick did. Hell, a bunch of them probably attend dogfights on their own.
The fact of the matter is that the hiphip lifestyle has polluted the NFL and the NBA and it is 180* out of phase with the beliefs of most of the fan base.
I forget the guy’s name, but the media was interviewing some player right after this story broke, and his response was “What’s the big deal? They’re his dogs”.
The NFL has the right to suspend Vick indefinitely. The Atlanta Falcons have the right to terminate his employment immediately. Neither of these actions requires the organization in question to wait until he is convicted of a crime.
My guess is that Michael Vick is going to work out a deal with the team and the NFL to take a paid leave of absence this year. And he won't put up much of a fight about it, either -- because his paycheck from the Atlanta Falcons for the 2007 season is likely to be the last dime he earns for a very long time, and he's going to need a lot of that money to pay his legal bills for the next five years.
Yeah, it worked so well in the Duke LAX case!
Sorry Neal, but I’ve got to disagree with you here.
Mark
I haven't paid attention to the NBA since the early 90s. Got tired of all the posing and primping, and (honestly) I felt like the fix was in, in a lot of the games - usually you could tell a winner early on, I thought.
The government and the courts MUST consider a suspect charged with a crime innocent until proven guilty, but there's not a DAMN THING that says we, as individuals, must do so.
So you agree with the actions of Duke University and the group of 88 professors?
Mark
I take it you haven't been keeping up with disputes in Washinton, DC for the last 6 1/2 years. Lefties have been accusing conservatives of unproven crimes for this period, at least. They have been demanding resignations, firings, indictments, convictions, impeachments, and in a few cases, executions of conservatives. So far no one has lifted a finger against them.
Besides, here in Florida, I am judgement proof.
Dont paint with too wide a brush...there are many blacks ready to join the conservative ranks if we educate and promote conservative values in an attractive way. The trouble with conservatism today is we have NO major statesmen who know how to communicate like Reagan did.
Don’t give up on winning over African-Americans....the Dems have snookered them greatly. We must win them over to conservatism where true freedoms prevail.
Jim Mora told them that a year ago and it got him fired.
My bad. Yeah, he was speaking about a private employer and I skimed over that. Still, I’m uncomfortable with it.
Several people in the media have raised comparisons of this situation to the Duke Lacrosse case, but such comparisons are completely off base for several reasons:
1. In the Duke Lacrosse case, you had a DA running for reelection pandering to the black community with his rush to bring a well-publicized indictment. Here it is a federal grand jury where there is no political/reelection angle to pursue.
2. In the Duke Lacrosse case, there was never any evidence that a crime had even occurred, and the complainant had a history of making false accusations. Here, there is a mountain of evidence that not only did a crime occur, but it was an ongoing criminal enterprise.
3. The Duke Lacrosse case might be a good case study for a textbook on how not to conduct a criminal investigation except for the fact that with so many things done wrong every step of the way no criminal justice student would ever think the case was believable. The Vick dogfighting case appears to be a case not of questionable lineups and testimony of discredited witnesses but rather a case built on substantial documentary evidence, beginning with the fact that Vick is the owner of the property where the dogfighting and training facility was discovered.
So far their actions have cost them nothing, and because of their ads actual wording, the Duke 88 are unlikely to have any difficulty whatsoever. Naturally in my opinion, their opinions are mistaken. Duke may well lose a lawsuit because of its unjustified ACTIONS.
I think you misunderstood. He says it applies to the Govt but NOT to individuals. We can put a verdict out on him. So that being said. It was his property he knew exactly what was going on. He is a THUG and that is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.