I am disappointed in Zone posters

[bbgun]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

 

[theogt]

Reread your post and ask yourself a question. "Did I think before I posted that?"

If I dressed in a tennis outfit, would anyone be surprised if I was seen plaing tennis?

If I was dressed in a business suit, would anyone be surprised to see me playing tennis?

I gotta figure most people want to project an image of who they are. You are prolly assuming I am a white guy, Christian, with a middle class upbringing. You prolly suspect I am a republican. You might even think I drive a pickup.

Want to guess how many of those are correct?

If you were getting on an airplane and and stood in the boarding line behind five guys talking Farsi, repeating. "Durka, Durka, Mohammed Jihad!" would you call security? We all have prejudices. I am just not so sanctomonious to admit it.

I see what you're saying, and I certainly agree with it to an extent. Profiling (even racial profiling) is perfectly acceptable in my book, but we won't get into that here.

The problem is crossing the line between assuming something for the sake of further investigation, rather than coming to a conclusion based on an assumption. Some people seem to have concluded that Vick is guilty based on their assumptions. That's just silly.

PS, LOL @ "Durka, Durka"

 

[theogt]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

Quick, someone alert the authorities. bbgun's account has be hacked!

 

[dargonking999]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

Holy freaking crap!!!

I think someone had a chat with Jesus

 

[03EBZ06]

Personally, I think Vick should have been indicted for posing as a NFL QB.

 

[bbgun]

Quick, someone alert the authorities. bbgun's account has be hacked!

No, I've always been sweet, wonderful and reasonable. Remember, I'm Mr. Sunshine.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I think it means that people have a different interpretation of the *Conduct Policy*.

I'm still a believer that he's innocent in my mind until the evidence makes me feel like he's guilty (he could be found innocent, but I could still think he's guilty).

Personally I think he should be suspended since Pacman Jones has never been found guilty and was suspended because he violated player *conduct*. On the flip side, you have to find out whether or not Vick was actually involved somehow in dogfighting. Even if he didn't have a fighting dog but was present at the dogfights or gambled on dogs, he should be suspended.

While I applaud Goodell for his fervent attitude towards player conduct off the field, it has created a bit of a slippery slope.






YAKUZA

 

[peplaw06]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

On the frickin nosey.

Part of me thought that people were wanting to see Vick go down because they thought it would benefit the Cowboys, I just couldn't say it as well as you did. Problem is we don't play them this regular season, and I didn't think they were a threat to snag a playoff spot.

But I guess, if he's gone you have one less thing to worry about if we are in the playoffs. But I think it's a little petty.

 

[zrinkill]

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.

Personally I think its barbaric and stupid.

But I do not think I could send someone to jail and ruin their life over a dog or a cat.

Now I would have no problem for someone to beat his arse ...... punk deserves it if he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

But I dont know if I could sit on a jury and send a kid who has never gotten in any real trouble (other than being an idiot)to prison over an animal.

Sorry ahead of time if that offends anyone.

 

[03EBZ06]

On the frickin nosey.

Part of me thought that people were wanting to see Vick go down because they thought it would benefit the Cowboys, I just couldn't say it as well as you did. Problem is we don't play them this regular season, and I didn't think they were a threat to snag a playoff spot.

But I guess, if he's gone you have one less thing to worry about if we are in the playoffs. But I think it's a little petty.

Maybe small sample of them has that reason but I think majority of the people are disgusted and angry with crimes Vick is charged with.

 

[Crown Royal]

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way. The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.

I am not a lawyer, but this is one of the silliest things I have read today. My gut, and no one else's gut, is a valid reason to condemn a man, even if it is what is coming to him.

I'd rather wait for all the facts to be presented and judgment be rendered after careful evaluation of all items presented and be right 98% of the time than indict someone on my gut and be right 90% of the time.

 

[03EBZ06]

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.

Personally I think its barbaric and stupid.

But I do not think I could send someone to jail and ruin their life over a dog or a cat.

Now I would have no problem for someone to beat his arse ...... punk deserves it if he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

But I dont know if I could sit on a jury and send a kid who has never gotten in any real trouble (other than being an idiot)to prison over an animal.

Sorry ahead of time if that offends anyone.

Until the law gets changed, he is charged with felony crime, which is a serious crime and if he is found guilty, he will be imprisoned, whether or not some people think torturing and killing dogs aren't a serious crime.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I was checking out Extemeskins

The off season really sucks doesn't it.

 

[zrinkill]

Until the law gets changed, he is charged with felony crime, which is a serious crime and if he is found guilty, he will be imprisoned, whether or not some people think torturing and killing dogs aren't a serious crime.

Not arguing that ....

 

[Crown Royal]

3) Because in my mind, I think he is guilty, if when the trial is over he is ultimately found guilty, I will be able to say "I was right," just like fort, just like Jaxonsdadddd, just like thehoofbite, just like dbair. If he winds up being found not guilty, I will be wrong. But my being wrong won't cost him anything.

On the fricking nose. This is kind of why I am a Kantian. I think he likely is guilty as well, but in no way would I indict someone without KNOWING they are guilty, with that guilt being supported by EVIDENCE presented in a formal and customary fashion.

Just because I feel very strongly that he is likely guilty (I will go a step further - I will say it is likely, but I never commit to knowledge without firm evidence), doesn't give me the right to judge someone, if ONLY because I OWE it to a fellow human to allow all facts to be presented before rendering judgment.

Vick has more to lose than Goodell - Goodell would be acting ethically to keep from suspending anyone until there is solid PRESENTED evidence that wrong has been committed.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well.

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it.

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

 

[Crown Royal]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well.

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it.

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

And like I have said, I feel it would be premature. While it may not be a matter of legality, it is a matter of ethics. Ethics apply everywhere, including this case.

 

[Jaxonsdaddd]

I am amazed that people constantly look to the Duke lacross situation as a reason to not prematuerly judge Vick. The two situations couldnt be more different.

First and foremost, there was never any evidence in the Duke case. Once that story broke I took the position of, lets wait to hear what the DA has on these kids and the evidence never surfaced..

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"... ..

 

[Crown Royal]

I am amazed that people constantly look to the Duke lacross situation as a reason to not prematuerly judge Vick. The two situations couldnt be more different.

First and foremost, there was never any evidence in the Duke case. Once that story broke I took the position of, lets wait to hear what the DA has on these kids and the evidence never surfaced..

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"... ..

I'm not stating this anymore than I would with anyone else. I stated it with Duke, I stated it with Vick, I did it with Kobe.

Go look at the old Sean Taylor threads where there was evidence of wrong doing when he fired a gun. Is that a little closer. I believe I was taking that approach then when most of the board wanted to lynch him over some good evidence.

 

[peplaw06]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well.

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it.

Well when the legal system is involved, I tend to view things through a legal perspective. The system, though fallible, which I agree with, is still IMO the best way to determine guilt or innocence.

I definitely think it's better than what is basically a corporate figurehead making a decision based on the league's bottom line.

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

And at the moment he has that power, no argument. Problem is like I said above, the legal system will do something with Vick. It will be one thing (guilt and possible imprisonment) or another (no guilt and he will go about his life). And I happen to think that will be a more reliable judgment. Why make a snap decision that could end a career, when you can wait, see what facts are presented, and make a more informed decision?