Posted on 08/02/2007 4:52:39 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
PITTSBURGH — A newspaper reporter who said Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick would have been "better off raping a woman" than being charged with dogfighting has apologized and will no longer appear on the local sports panel TV show where he made the remark.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Paul Zeise made the comments Sunday night on the "Sports Showdown" show on KDKA-TV, a CBS affiliate. He was disagreeing with another panelist who said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell should suspend Vick for the rest of the season because he was indicted on federal dogfighting charges July 17.
"It's really a sad day in this country when somehow ... Michael Vick would have been better off raping a woman if you look at the outcry of what happened," Zeise said. "Had he done that, he probably would have been suspended for four games and he'd be back on the field. But because this has become a political issue, all of a sudden the commissioner has lost his stomach for it."
Zeise apologized Monday.
"I regret the poor choice of analogies I used to characterize a professional athlete's legal situation," Zeise said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
No they're not. There have always been things that shouldn't be spoken in public. They are true, but none the less should not be said publically. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you ignore the rules of polite society.
Like if he used his rape stand?
He apologizes for saying the TRUTH????
Not if Michael Vick played lacrosse for Duke.
And he deserves to get time. Hard time and lots of it. And quickly. Stupid vicious remark on the part of this sports reporter, but this type of comment comes roaring out every time there is an animal cruelty case. The anti-abortion people and the feminazis whirl into the center of things and start flogging their causes, and they have very little sympathy for what is going on here: abuse of animals for money and fun. They believe their causes are somehow on a higher plane: they are not.
The victims in the Vick case were innocents. OJ’s victims were not. I am not stating here that they deserved to die and OJ should have killed them, but they were in no way innocents.
So it's impolite to point out injustice?
Legit charge or not...millions would say "She's just trying to hit the lawsuit lottery." "She's a gold-digger" "She knew what she was getting into." etc. He'd still be playing right now, and if acquitted, he'd go back to the Falcons just like nothing happened.
Now, killing puppies, that's a WHOLE 'nother story. No good way to spin that one.
...and a PC police moment, as well. We've seen a series of high-profile celebrities 'beat' rape charges & settle rape-related civil suits.
Here we're looking at a federal charge, with insider witnesses. I also believe that it will come to light that they have tape of a Vick wiretap proving his involvement beyond a shadow... though I admit it's just a guess at this point.
Second prediction: Vick has played his last down in the NFL.
Yes, you’re right. But the truth, apparently, is no protection from the PC police.
Exactly. The outrage over cruelty to animals drowns out man’s inhumanity to man.
It's because, in the hierarchy of victimhood that is our society today; animals trump people.
How were OJ’s victims not innocents?
I’m sorry but I have to say pedophilia is much worse than animal abuse.
Personally, I dont find the guy’s statement offensive at all. I understand what he was trying to do: dramatize just how much Americans love dogs. He wasn’t trying to diss women.
Of course you can’t tell that to the 24/7 grievance mongers.
I disagree they are both equally bad dog killer or rapist
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.