Well put.  I know he came from a neighborhood that this was an accepted practice.  However, he was not forced to participate.  Everyone let him down.  And, he let everyone who was willing to help him down.  Such a sad life.  No.  I do not feel sorry for him nor his teammates.  I feel sorry for the dogs.

Patti August 17th, 2009 11:30:58 AM

I saw a news segment where he said he learned his lesson about dog fighting when the jail doors closed in on him, how he spent his jail term regretting his actions. and I believe he said he cried over the dogs.

All I could think was no jail cell door is going to teach you that fighting dogs till the death is wrong.  If you do not have that moral fiber in you, it can not be placed there.  Yes, I have no doubt he was sorry - sorry he got caught.  and I wouldn't be an ounce surprised if he did it again now that he is out.  If watching those dogs die didn't wake him up to how wrong fighting was, I doubt anything ever will.  Now he just knows not to get caught.

Connie August 17th, 2009 11:42:18 AM

People keep forgetting that he did so much more than dogfighting. The sadistic torture and killing which even his dogfighting assistants did not see as necessary were all Vick.

Dogs he viewed as "not good enough" had to die, period. They could not be given away, sold, kept as pets, surrendered to a shelter, whatever. To use his words, they "got to go."

How did they "got to go" ? Not by any humane means. By being attached to car batteries and thrown into a swimming pool. By being beaten against the ground. By being drowned in a pail of water. By being hung to death. By being shot to death. And Vick, it is said, would laugh as he did it.

Remember, this went on for years.  Vick could have been charged with hundreds of counts of animal cruelty. Should have been. But he hasn't served a single day for his acts.

No, I don't think he deserves a second chance. He got off way too easy. The "culture" argument does not fly with me any more than it would fly if he was a southern redneck who had committed a hate crime. Wrong is wrong.

Susan August 17th, 2009 11:48:35 AM

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that everyone deserves a second chance. 

That said, I don't think the punishment for what he did was anywhere near sufficient.  I already disliked the Eagles, and when I heard they'd signed him, it made me sick.  I'm tempted to sit outside the stadium & protest when they come to town.

People who feel strongly about this should protest the Eagles.  You should not pay money for their merchandise.  You should not buy tickets to their games.  You should not watch them on television.  This applies to both Eagles fans and fans of the teams they play.  If they come to your town to play your favorite team, forgo the joy of the game that week. 

Send a message with your wallets - any team who signs Vick sides with his actions.  Maybe then they'll send him a message with their wallets and end his contract.

Posey August 17th, 2009 11:58:23 AM

My husband points out that he *did* "do his time," and in fact he did more time than most people ever do for animal related charges.

Which is not any kind of endorsement of Vick, but rather a sad statement about what small prices people pay when they commit animal-related crimes.

Galadriel August 17th, 2009 12:09:40 PM

Excellent post Dr. K. I would like to jump on my soap box for a moment...

I am sick of hearing "he deserves a second chance." This is not his second chance. It is more like his fifth or sixth. He has tested positive for drugs before and after his arrest. He flipped off his own fans after a game (as a sports fan this is major no-no). He had some run ins with the law multiple other times (but they were wiped away due to his celebrity). I am also sick that he lost all of his money due to this. It is true he lost millions in potential earnings. However, his own bad investments caused him tens of millions already earned. (He was probably on the fast track to bankruptcy after his playing career regardless of his crimes due to his reckless spending). I also believe from a pure football aspect, Vick will have a hard time ever being a significant play maker. He was never the most accurate passer and he relied on his quickness and speed to be a game changer. Nobody knows what kind of football shape he is in and if he lost a step (he is also two years older which naturally will cause you to lose a step or two). Here's hoping karma bites him in the butt and he quickly fades away from the spot light. What he did to those poor dogs is unforgivable. He doesn't deserve another chance to play in the NFL. Sorry for the rant.

Jason August 17th, 2009 12:10:40 PM

AMEN, Dr. Khuly!

Kara August 17th, 2009 12:12:47 PM

I wonder about the gambling.  Dog fighting isn't just for the 'joy' of watching two fit fighting dogs go at it - it is all about the betting. I cannot believe that the Eagles are willing to allow a gambler to play on their team.  Even if Vick didn't gamble himself, he provided the venue and profited from his 'take.'  Other professional athletes caught gambling have been banned from their sport.

Airedale Lover August 17th, 2009 12:14:15 PM

Kudos, Dr K. You called it as it is!

Ellie August 17th, 2009 12:32:59 PM

BRAVO!!!!!! Excellently put.

debi August 17th, 2009 12:40:14 PM

BRAVO!!!!!! Excellently put.

debi August 17th, 2009 12:41:18 PM

Terrific article!

Jan August 17th, 2009 12:49:26 PM

Just as there are no athiests in fox holes, there are no guilty prisoners in jail. You do not feel remorse for what you did to those animals, you feel remorse that you got caught!  But for dumb dad luck, you would still be engaged in the same cruel enterprise you were jailed for.

Bobbie August 17th, 2009 01:00:12 PM

What Vick did is disgusting  and sadistic, however it only differs in degree not in kind from the inhumanities we perform on animals by the millions every hour of every day in factory farms and research labs to develop a better oven cleaner. Our disgust rings hollow when we continue to look the other way and ignore these equally savage atrocities. Can we ever claim we are civilized when we raise our food and experiment on animals in such a fashion.

Robert Garnett August 17th, 2009 01:39:53 PM

Great article!!!

FYI - Michael Vick did not go to jail for torturing and killing dogs.  Michael Vick went to jail for racketeering.  Michael Vick plead NOT GUILTY to all charges of cruelty to animals.  So the notion that he has served his time for the crimes against animals is false.  Michael Vick impeded the investigation, misled the judge, lied to his coach, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons and the Commissioner of the NFL. While Michael Vick was awaiting sentencing he was caught smoking pot.  Michael Vick had agreed to help in further investigating dog fighting but lied during his lie detector test and per the judge in his case "failed to cooperate as agreed," so the judge gave him 23 months.  Michael Vick participated, funded and enjoyed his dog fighting business for six years!  The charges that were brought against him were based on a 6 month investigation.  Who knows how many other animals he tortured and killed during the previous 5 1/2 years.  Those of you who think Vick needs and deserves a second chance, you should do your research on Michael Vick.  This is not his first, second or third run in with the law.  

Jennifer August 17th, 2009 01:43:42 PM

It 's amazing that so many people believe he served time for animal cruelty.  It's amazing that many people will forgive him (and others like him) because he can play a professional sport.  We have raised these athletes to impossible heights and will turn a blind eye if one  - or many - of these idols fall.  Their standards are not ours - they can lie, cheat, abuse, main, and kill - and legions will rush to their defense.  This needs to stop.  I firmly believe that without the huge outcry from decent people about his reprehensible behavior he would have received a slap on the wrist.

I'm not a psychologist, but I don't believe someone capable of committing these heinous actions has been redeemed after less than 2 years in jail.  Yeah, felons deserve a second chance; but M. Vick has received many more second chances than anyone else.  He displayed disdain for his fans, his team, and his employer,  the Atlanta Falcons.  He ultimately needs to realize the consequences of his actions - which to me means no more NFL.  Common decency and morality should finally trump money and fame.  It's doubtful that will happen unless the NFL and the Eagles get the message where it hurts most - in their pocketbook.

Carol August 17th, 2009 02:18:42 PM

>>It 's amazing that so many people believe he served time for animal cruelty

jeez where were you people when he was sentenced? why all the outrage NOW, and not THEN? it's not his fault that he wasn't handed a longer sentence.

>>He ultimately needs to realize the consequences of his actions - which to me means no more NFL.

Why? Why should he be treated differently than any other ex-con, who has "paid his debt to society" and wants to return to his chosen profession?

Don't you people see through all your outrage that putting him back in the NFL where he's in the spotlight, and out working with the HSUS to speak out against dog fighting, is a GOOD thing? That maybe some kids who think dog fighting is cool may get the message that it's not.

Aud August 17th, 2009 02:45:17 PM

Amen. 

Kim August 17th, 2009 02:45:47 PM

I don't believe for a second that he is haunted by and regretful for the cruelty that he displayed to those dogs, and anything less is unacceptable to convince me that he truly feels remorse.

Michael Vick is humbled and shamed by the frenzy of his arrest and subsequent jail time, and I think he might even realize that he made a mistake in breaking the law, but I don't for a second believe that he feels bad that he tortured animals. 

That kind of depravity is what we watch out for in our most deviant sociopaths (Miami cat killer?), and you can't cure that.

Shasta August 17th, 2009 02:59:15 PM

The fact that he enjoyed torturing and killing his dogs suggests to me that he has a serious moral issue that cannot be removed with a prison sentence. Everything he says now is PR and not Michael Vick talking, in my opinion. If he truly didn't think football was important and if he was truly repentent, he would dedicate his entire life to making a difference for the animals who are the true victims of this terrible atrocity. Has he even asked about "his" dogs who were lucky enough to end up with a group working to rehabilitate them?

Nah, he's only sorry that he got caught and I suggest that we make sure the Eagles and their sponsors know exactly how we feel!

dottie August 17th, 2009 04:00:17 PM

Well done, Doc,

I was a teacher. If I was convicted of a felony I would lose my license to teach... Same with cops, and I would guess vets too.

What is it about profesional sports associations? Felons, drug users, and the like... glorified with outrageous salaries...

I have written a few Vick/HSUS/Pacelle blogs at blog.caninekingdom.com/

Semper Fido,

Marilyn Wilson

Marilyn Wilson August 17th, 2009 04:02:19 PM

He ultimately needs to realize the consequences of his actions - which to me means no more NFL. Why? Why should he be treated differently than any other ex-con, who has "paid his debt to society" and wants to return to his chosen profession?

 He repeatedly lied to his employer - Arthur Blank and the Falcons. Most employers don't look favorably on lying employees. Why would you want to re-hire a liar? This has nothing to do with his criminal history.

Don't you people see through all your outrage that putting him back in the NFL where he's in the spotlight, and out working with the HSUS to speak out against dog fighting, is a GOOD thing? That maybe some kids who think dog fighting is cool may get the message that it's not.

He doesn't need to be employed by the NFL to be a force for good.  His very name carries notoriety.  That's the point - kids do look up to him.  If he falls back into criminal activities, the harm he could do far outweighs any positives.

Carol August 17th, 2009 04:12:39 PM

Aaah, just be patient folks. I believe that he will  be out of the NFL and right back into the criminal justice system soon enough.  If it is not dog fighting this time it wil be something else.

On the other hand, we can still hope that even Michael Vick is redeemable and may do a complete moral makeover. I won't be betting on it though.  I wonder i there are any Vegas odds or pools betting how long it takes for him to screw up again.

Hobson August 17th, 2009 04:16:34 PM

I agree with most of the posters, this has nothing to do with gambling, but everything to do with sociopathic behavior and the feeling of exercising power over the defenseless and the enjoyment of sadistic cruelty.

He has not paid debt, nor will ever be truly remorseful. I do not believe that type of mentality and behavior can be rehabilitated. To reinstate him back into the public eye is reprehensible

Barb A./NH August 17th, 2009 04:18:07 PM

"Don't you people see through all your outrage that putting him back in the NFL where he's in the spotlight, and out working with the HSUS to speak out against dog fighting, is a GOOD thing? That maybe some kids who think dog fighting is cool may get the message that it's not."

As one of the "you people" ... no, it's NOT a "good thing" that the HSUS laundered a dirtbag who never copped to animal cruelty so he could go back to football.

It's not about the dog-fighting. It's not about "the culture" of this man's youth. It's about a grown man who chose every possible opportunity to kill warrior-dogs who let him down in as painful a way as he could -- and who enjoyed watching their suffering as they died.

That level of depravity cannot be changed.

Kids aren't stupid: They know this man doesn't regret anything except being caught. His spin-machine can coach him on everything except his body language, which screams "I can't believe I'm having to apologize for this."

Kids know he's lying about understanding that what he did was cruel. They know he's rich, and they think it's cool that he did some time. He's "authentic" to them now, and nothing will change what wannabe tough-kids see when this man talks to them.

He's a sociopath who got off easy. That's not a "good thing."

Gina Spadafori August 17th, 2009 04:31:05 PM

In response to Aud...

Really?  There was just as much outrage THEN as there is NOW.  Just because it died down while he was in jail, doesn't erase that fact.  I do think it is a crying shame that he wasn't handed a longer sentence which actually reflected the crimes he committed.

Not everyone is allowed to return to their chosen profession.  Is someone convicted of robbery going to be hired to work in a Vegas casino?  I don't think so.  Is someone convicted of Child Molestation going to find employment in a school?  I don't think so.  

The NFL has a personal conduct policy that applies to all players.  Vick has broken every single code of it (other than violence against another employee).  He should have been banned for life from the NFL, but Goodell doesn't have the guts.  There are a handful of other high profile athletes in the NFL who also should be banned for other issues, it isn't just Vick.  They league makes lots of noises about how they want to be positive influences in their communities, but by constantly rewarding and celebrating the criminals in their midsts, they are just looking money hungry and unethical.  I think it is time for the NFL to clean house.  

JessP August 17th, 2009 04:42:11 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but in a way, I feel sorry for him.  I feel sorry for him because he did something so sick and depraved that he is either terribly sick himself or if he can truly be remorseful, no one will believe him.  At the end of the day, Vick is a human being.  We can hate his actions, but he's still a living creature, just as those poor dogs were living creatures.

Instead of being allowed back into society, he needs medical attention, counseling, something to handle his depravity.  I doubt he will ever get that.  Instead he's been released to continue in a barbaric profession.

Perhaps we should find it within ourselves to offer him more compassion than he offered those dogs.  I'm not advocating that we forget what he did.  I'm advocating that we forgive his evil actions and pray that he's either truly remorseful or that he'll be locked away and given the help that someone this sick needs.

I Must Be Crazy August 17th, 2009 04:48:47 PM

"Instead of being allowed back into society, he needsmedical attention, counseling,somethingto handle his depravity."

 NO. What he needs is a swift, visciously-delivered kick to his balls, then to be put in a cellar without access to light or kindness, and some scraps of moldy bread and sips of dirty water for, let's say 1day for every dog that he killed.  Since we don't know how many that is, well, if we forgot when to let him out....

Yeah, I sound like a mean, horrible person, but I really don't care.  If it was in my power to do that to him, trust me, his big brown eyes staring at me, whether in hate or fear, wouldn't sway me any more than he was swayed by the eyes of the dogs he killed.  Does this mean I'm as bad a person as he is?  Well, the hundreds of animals and people I've helped might disagree with that.  Vick is a cancer that should be excised with extremely wide margins and plopped in a formalin jar.

KateH August 17th, 2009 05:12:50 PM

Aud has a point. As long as Vick is in the spotlight he is going to be a better ambassador against dog fighting than if he disappears. More legislation was passed against animal fighting in the time between his arrest and conviction than any other time in history. If your goal is to reduce dog fighting then, I'm afraid, you need to put your personal feelings about Vick to the side and let him play football so that he will have a better platform to speak against dog fighting and to talk to young kids about the cruelty of it. You all want to pillory the HSUS but the ASPCA's Sayres has also spoken positively about Vick's return: http://www.aspca.org/pressroom/press-releases/072709.html

virginian August 17th, 2009 05:17:06 PM

virginian: You're right. I shouldn't have let the ASPCA off the hook so easily. My problem with both organizations jumping on the Vick bandwagon so quickly after his release is not only that they provide him a moral stomping ground to maraud in, but that they effectively endorse the criminal justice system's lax treatment of an animal cruelty offender in so doing. 

I have no problem offering Vick my compassion. I couldn't look into his big brown eyes and imagine he did all those terrible things because he's just evil and cruel by design. I want to believe he can be better the same way I want to believe I can help a broken animal. That doesn't mean I should be instrumental in perpetuating the lie that our justice system is robust and correct when it comes to the cruel treatment of animals. 

That's effectively what Wayne Pacelle and his ilk are doing by citing pragmatism in the face of a freed Vick. What it really means for HSUS and ASPCA? Face time on 60 Minutes. I'd say it's worth the risk. That is, if you believe Pacelle's "pragmatism" is really more of a media-whoring kind of uber-cynicism. And yes, you can call me a cynic for saying so. 

Dr. Patty Khuly August 17th, 2009 06:00:53 PM

I am an avid fan of the New England Patriots and I would have given up 40 years of rooting for them if they had hired Vick.My american Bulldog/Pit mix is named Bruschi after one of their linebackers and I would have changed it to Brewski if I had to.I believe that once you can sink to torturing an animal then there is no hope for you.I would not lift a finger if I saw him getting tortured.He does not deserve to get millions of dollars to play a game.

Susan H August 17th, 2009 06:02:07 PM

So is the answer to animal cruelty stiffer prison sentences or is it to get to the kids and educate them? Our prisons are already overflowing with criminals. We can't afford to keep increasing jail time for crimes. Without education, imprisonment is a failure.

According to Vick, he was exposed to dog fighting as a young child. Use him to go to the kids and allow him to tell them how wrong dog fighting is. If he isn't a famous football player, he is a lot less effective spokesman and educator for these kids. Do you think the kids in downtown Newport News are going to listen to you, me, the HSUS, or the ASPCA? Not a chance. You need someone that has the same background as the kids.

We all know that media whoring is often the only way to make people listen. In this case, pragmatism is really the only thing that's going to help the fight against dog fighting.

virginian August 17th, 2009 06:42:48 PM

Virginian -

I agree with many of your statements; however, he does not need to be playing in the NFL to be a force for good.  His name speaks for itself and provides plenty of publicity. 

No one can be absolutely certain of his remorse.  If he falls back into a life of crime that could overshadow any possible good he may have done.  I would hope there are others in professional sports who could talk to kids about the evils of dogfighting.  These children look up to them as role models; let's provide a true role model that some child should actually emulate.

Carol August 17th, 2009 07:26:02 PM

Letting criminals off lightly is a bigger failure.  Throw them in a barb wired enclosed space to fight it out and stop coddling them in luxury jails with weight rooms and playgrounds!  Then punishment will mean something and might even effectuate some rehabilitation.  Or the worst will survive and we can keep them there permanently and others will try harder not to go there at all.  I'm OK with that!

Let those with a history of treating animal decently teach the children how to do it right.

PJBoosinger August 17th, 2009 07:35:46 PM

virginian: I agree with Carol. There's plenty of good he could be doing outside the NFL––for now. The key to the problem of VIck as a spokesperson is (unfortunately) to make unseemly parallels to what a child killer or Nazi war criminal would be expected to overcome before being deemed an acceptable member of society worthy of emulating. The issues of upbringing and culture don't excuse anyone. They merely help to explain.

Vick was an adult at the time of his crimes. He admits he was an adolescent at the time of his exposure to the dogfighting culture. All of this does help me understand him. But it doesn't urge me to defend him from anything...but the death penalty.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 17th, 2009 07:39:15 PM

There is no resolution to the Vick calamity; the suffering he caused cannot be remedied. But he was bound to be reinstated so HSUS et al could have stood to the side, shunning and criticizing till the public tuned them out (which I suggest would not be long), or try to extract some good from Vick's post-prison spotlight.

The interview exceeded my expectation. Brown was a solid questioner. I can't know Vick's sincerity but either he's one damn convincing actor, or he actually means much of what he says (except for the one laugh line: "Football don't matter.") Wayne's positioned this well so the onus is clearly on Vick's shoulders to get out and do serious street-level persuasion. In that regard, I hope Vick will be a raging success.

I accept the discomfiting tension of never, ever forgiving Vick, yet hoping HSUS' involvement stays the hands of others who would fight dogs. If someone has a better solution, please share it.

oh holland August 17th, 2009 09:02:26 PM

Unfortunately, the solution is punishment sufficiently harsh enough to deter a criminal act or to remove them from harming society.  It's just that simple.  We want to believe in rehabilitation, etc. but what we get is repeat offenders like this.  Bad guys do not become good guys until they're eulogies say they were (or at least a very long time has past and lots of penance has been done).  Vick is getting rewarded so I have no doubt another fall from grace is coming and I only hope there are no animals involved.

PJBoosinger August 17th, 2009 09:47:46 PM

According to Vick, he was exposed to dog fighting as a young child. Use him to go to the kids and allow him to tell them how wrong dog fighting is. If he isn'ta famousfootball player, he is a lot less effectivespokesman and educator for these kids. Do you think the kids in downtown Newport News are going to listen to you, me, the HSUS, or the ASPCA? Not a chance.You need someone thathas the same background as the kids.

Vick didn't just fight dogs; he tortured the losing dogs to death, and he did that not because it's part of the culture of dog fighting (it isn't), but because he enjoyed doing it.

And right now he is an advertisement for the fact that torturing dogs might briefly interrupt a career as a rich and adored NFL star, but it won't end it or even seriously disrupt it. Whereas if he were banned for life--which the NFL has the right to do based on the personal conduct clause in the contract--he'd be a walking advertisement for dog torture permanently ending that career.

Lis August 17th, 2009 11:14:39 PM

Vicks is just one in a long line of "professional" athlete LOSERS....the drugs, rapes, illegal acts...it's all disgusting. I do not and will not ever watch, or support in any fashion the sports industry in this country. It is obscene and degrading and a disservice to a real athlete and our children that these people are esteemed or held as roll models. a huge percentage of them a a piece of crap. CRAP. The decent ones are few and far between.

IF I were to see any of them in person, I'd spit on them as quick as say hello. They deserve nothing more. And if somewhere in the debacle of monies they are paid is a dime of mine, I want it back.

LorriM August 17th, 2009 11:44:15 PM

wow....attack of the spammers....

click here and be a sheep.....

LorriM August 18th, 2009 04:28:54 AM

LorriM: Wow. You know your post is popular when the spammers attack en masse. I've removed them but we all know they'll be back. Sorry for the interruption in what was otherwise a very civil discussion. (Beats the head-banging threads I've been reading elsewhere.)

Dr. Patty Khuly August 18th, 2009 07:48:55 AM

LorriM - you're absolutely right about criminals as professional atheletes. 

It makes me sick to hear about the Lakers because a certain player on that team did something several years ago.  More recently, when the Mavs were playing the Nuggets in the play-offs, there was all kinds of inappropriate behavior from the owner of the Mavs & one of the players on the Nuggets.  It made me embarrassed to live in Dallas.

When I was in college, the local NFL players were getting caught doing all kinds of illegal things.  Then, I moved to another state, and the local NFL players there were getting caught doing all kinds of things.  Sure, they might get suspended, but evenutally, they were back on the field.

These guys are role models whether they want to be or not.  Makes me wonder what's wrong with our society.

Posey August 18th, 2009 09:30:48 AM

I think we should boycott the Eagles and have a CD burning party. i was already mad at them for firing Don Felder, their lead guitarist.

Emily Litella

Hobson August 18th, 2009 10:26:28 AM

Sports is entertainment and the entertainment industry has done this since the big production companies were broken up.

They used to hire actors to play the parts. Now if they have a role where the guy beats his wife, they hire a guy who beats his wife. If they have a burglar role, they hire a burglar.  Same for hooker, mobster, murderer, etc.  The one role they never fill with someone qualified for the part is that of a decent pastor, priest or rabbi. But then they never have roles like that anyway.

If you have a role where the character has no personality, you hire Kevin Kostner, for an imbecile, Jim Carrey. If you have a role for a bad actor, you get William Shatner.

So if you have a role where someone slams his drug enhanced body against another with the intent of inflicting as much pain as possible, you hire a sadist. Why are we surprised?

Bob Jones August 18th, 2009 10:27:07 AM

"he paid his dues".

yeah, so what?  that just means he doesn't owe any more dues.  It doesn't mean he gets to be president of the club.

He's a liar and probably a sociopath.  You don't have to be a psychologist to read his body language of non-remorse and resentment.  The way he would prove he "doesn't even care about football" would be to conduct his "oh now I know that dogfighting is wrong" activites  FIRST.  Then after proving his sincerity through his success as a "role model", maybe he can be considered for his old job.

As it is, when do people think he will conduct his "anti dogfighting" activities?  His focus is on football, earning his $1.6 mill so he can get that additional $$$$$ next year.  Maybe he'll do a couple of 10 minute lectures to kids, followed by autograph signing?  A PSA with Wayne (who does love him some publicity)?

EmilyS August 18th, 2009 03:33:37 PM

A Sports Illustrated columnist wrote an excellent article regarding Vick's feigned remorse.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/phil_taylor/08/18/vick/index.htmlT

I agree with what some other's have stated - boycott the Eagles and teams hosting the Eagles and maybe the NFL will show some moral fortitude and drop this depraved psychopath from their roster.

DJB-CA August 18th, 2009 04:17:44 PM

DJB-CA - it seems Sports Illustrated has taken that article off-line - hmmm, what's with that?

KateH August 18th, 2009 04:46:21 PM

Odd - the article is still at that URL, but for some reason the link doesn't work.

Go to SI.com and in the search box enter Phil Taylor Vick  the link on the search page works.

DJB-CA August 18th, 2009 06:03:06 PM

sorry for the extra post.

The SI article is at

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/phil_taylor/08/18/vick/index.html

DJB-CA August 18th, 2009 06:35:06 PM

I've been enraged about Vick being let back into the NFL and also about the HSUS working with him.

For many of us, deliberate sadistic cruelty to dogs ranks right up there with deliberate, sadistic cruelty to children, the elderly, or disabled.

If Vick had forced elderly people to fight to the death, and then beaten and electrocuted the losers, would we even be having this discussion? No, because he'd never see the outside again.

Whether they realize it or not, by allowing Vick back into the NFL, and by allowing Vick to give sponsored PSAs or talks for them, the NFL and the HSUS respectively are sending a CLEAR message to the impressionable children of this country.  And that message is:

What Michael Vick did to dogs isn't all that big of a deal.  It's not all that bad.  Its certainly not anywhere NEAR committing a crime against a human.

From the NFL I'm not surprised.  If Manson was an outstanding QB that could give someone a winning season, and somehow got out, I surmise they'd actually be DEBATING whether or not to pick him up.

But HSUS?  That was a big surprise.

At their conference this year, I was the sole person booing when Wayne Pacelle brought this up in his banquet speech.  But that's because people in the room are either cowardly or simply wish not to be rude.  I know that many of them agreed with me.

Stefani August 18th, 2009 07:13:05 PM

I watched the 60 Minutes segment and all I could think throughout was, "He's lying," "He doesn't really care," and "He's only saying all of this because he has to."  Not an ounce of honesty or sincerity.  His only regret is that he was caught.

Classof65

Classof65 August 18th, 2009 07:43:26 PM

Interesting column on Sports Illustrated. Lying is beside the point when it comes to playing football, he says. I agree. You don't need to be an empath to understand that Vick was having trouble believing himself as he undertook this interview. The true point, which this columnist doesn't address, is that our society is willing to consider the crimes he committed as having been "paid in full" now that he's done some time. So sad.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 18th, 2009 08:30:51 PM

I must be crazy: I feel sorry for all humans that have a need to engage in sick, depraved behavior: I feel sorry that something is not chemically or neurologically right in their brain. I do not believe that people that commit such atrocities are remorseful, nor can be truly rehabilitated "permanently".

Stefani, You may not have been the only one who booed at the HSUS, but the applaud was *very* noticeably weak on the announcement of Vick's true remorse & "redemption".

This illustrates another example of how cruelty to animals can be so easily swept under the rug & excused.

Barb A./NH August 18th, 2009 09:25:09 PM

<<I must be crazy: I feel sorry for all humans that have a need to engage in sick, depraved behavior:>>

I have a much more basic instinct reaction to humans like that.

LorriM August 19th, 2009 01:43:36 AM

When was the last time an animal cruelty violater lost US$100 million in guaranteed income for his or her crimes? Hell, we don't even charge mass murders that much! OJ Simpson came the closest, and he was found responsible for the murderes of two people.

It's time for you to get some perspective here: He went to jail. He lost an incredible fortune. He had to repay millions of dollars that were already in his hands. He's been PUNISHED. Punished far beyond any one EVER in the history of animal cruelty cases. You cannot punish him any more than he's already been punished, and yet... You still hound him.

GIVE IT UP ALREADY. Let go. Move on. It's done.

Is he a thug in his heart? I believe he is. Is he in denial? Most certainly, IMO. Should he spend the rest of his live in sack cloth and ashes? No. It would serve no purpose. I undserstand your dislike of him - I share it. But your contiunued frothing rage merely makes *you* looks like a spoiled child denied a treat. Grow up.

Laird August 19th, 2009 10:00:26 AM

I'm a huge football fan and I feel for the dogs in this case, and anger that your American justice system is possibly as bad as ours here in Canada.  Do I think he should be allowed to play football again?  Yes, he should be able to practice his livelyhood.  But he should also not be out of jail.  There are people playing in the NFL who have done a lot worse and are still allowed to play.  Take Dante Stallworth for instance.  He was drunk (blood alcohol of .12 and ran over a man killing him, he received a sentence of 30 days in jail, plus 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest, and 8 years probation. He has also received a life-time suspension of his Florida state driver's license.  He will miss the complete 2009 season, but as far as I can tell still has his seven-year, $35 million deal with the Cleveland Browns, but he won't be paid for 2009.  Essentially he got off easier than Michael Vick.  The man has served his time.  I personally don't like him for what he has done but like Laird said we have to move on.  If you believe in an afterlife then you have to also believe that he will be punished there as well.

PS. The thing that bothered me the most about this whole ordeal is the fact that they were stealing people's pets and using them as bait dogs to train the pitts to fight.  It's only my opinion and take it for whatever it's worth but any dog that was bred to be a fighting dog shouldn't exist in this day and age.  I'm not saying pitts and the like should be destroyed but at the very least they should be altered so as to not be able to reproduce.  Banning the dogs themselves really doesn't do much it seems.

Chuck August 19th, 2009 10:48:58 AM

Laird, how dare you say that 'we' sound like spoiled children!  His 'guaranteed' income was never a guarantee - he could have lost it in many ways because of doing something illegal - as he did.  Just because you think he's paid for what he did by losing all that money, doesn't mean that you're right.  And where do you say any of his incredible fortune went to help dogs or shelters?  It didn't.  He lost it gambling and being a no-class, throw-money-around-fool. 

And I am not 'frothing' with rage.  My anger is cold and quiet.  My happiness when he either screws up or gets hurt, won't be 'frothy' either, but it will warm me to watch him fall.  I can wait.   

KateH August 19th, 2009 12:17:43 PM

Chuck, in the alternate universe of my mind, deliberately torturing, killing, beating, electrocuting dogs is every bit as bad as perpetrating a drunk driving fatality.  That's just my alternate universe, though, and clearly, as Dr. K pointed out, most people don't have those values.

I would not argue to deprive him -- or any other released felon -- the right to WORK, but NOT in a position in which he will be held up as an idol and role model. 

Kids know that he's not REALLY sorry.

Stefani August 19th, 2009 01:04:48 PM

As to Vick's loss of income: He had not *earned* that income. He had signed a contract that would have paid him that sum had he continued to offer his services. If I'm in prison I don't deserve to have my employment contracts honored--nor does Vick. It's the one true thing he said (regardless of whether I believe he means it): He deserved to lose out on his *future* earnings. The only reason he had to file for Chapter 11? Because he had spent a large percentage of his earnings already. Not because he was fined so much.

Sorry. Not my fault someone with so much can manage to live beyond his means. And it's all relative anyway. Whether you earn $100 K or $100 MM K a year, its *loss* only matters to the tune of your standard of living. The fines? They must be proportionate to his income or else they mean nothing. Yes, I agree. Let's put things in perspective here.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 19th, 2009 02:21:10 PM

violence against those innocents for whom we as a race (and that's "HUMAN" race, so please don't anyone get their racist panties in a wad) have been given responsibility is obscene, whether the innocents be human or beast. vick is no sort of innocent, so i have no compunction about the statement in the next paragraph. there can be NO excuse for his behaviour, and certainly never enough reparations made - .

i don't think anything he has "suffered" for his incredibly heinous acts (i could never bear to read all of them while the story was breaking, and have just been made ill by reading some cited in other comments) can possibly have been sufficient. the only thing that would approach justice would have been to render him conscious but without motor control and then to lock him in a room for half an hour, one after another, with each of the (surviving) dogs that he tormented into becoming fighters. oh, yes, and to have first sprayed him with the intoxicating odors of (1) females in heat and (2) roasting meat.

and while i am not qualified to judge on the disposition of his eternal soul (positing that he HAS one), i can hope. and you can guess what i'm hoping for.

@ KateH, who said:

*** "Instead of being allowed back into society, he needs medical attention, counseling,somethingto handle his depravity." NO. What he needs is a swift, visciously-delivered kick to his balls, then to be put in a cellar without access to light or kindness, and some scraps of moldy bread and sips of dirty water for, let's say 1day for every dog that he killed. Since we don't know how many that is, well, if we forgot when to let him out....

Yeah, I sound like a mean, horrible person, but I really don't care. If it was in my power to do that to him, trust me, his big brown eyes staring at me, whether in hate or fear, wouldn't sway me any more than he was swayed by the eyes of the dogs he killed. Does this mean I'm as bad a person as he is? Well, the hundreds of animals and people I've helped might disagree with that. Vick is a cancer that should be excised with extremely wide margins and plopped in a formalin jar.

KateH August

***

one day each isn't enough, dear kate, but i can certainly agree with the rest of it. may you be blessed all your life!

reba August 19th, 2009 02:28:49 PM

When I posted about this to Facebook, saying I did not think he shoudl have been allowed back into the NFL, a friend asked me whether or not I believed in second chances, or in forgiveness.

What came to my mind later on the topic of Vick (although it is applicable to so many others) is this quote from the play Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams, in which the character of Blanche Dubois says:

"Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable .  . ."

Stefani August 19th, 2009 03:46:41 PM

For more on the concept of forgiveness in Vick's case, read my USA Today column on Friday. I'll offer the link here when it becomes available online.

Dr. Patty Khuly August 19th, 2009 03:52:56 PM

Chuck, as a Clevelander (who doesn't care much about football in general, and who thinks Cleveland sports teams in particular are a waste of time), I am not defending Dante Stallworth, except to point out that he didn't intend to kill that man.  Yes, driving drunk is stupid and potentially heinous, but not an automatic murdering act.  Also, he did stop, he did call 911, and he did show remorse - all things Vick did not and never would have done.  One was a horrible, preventable (and therefore not easily forgivable) accident - the other was a horrible, preventable (and therefore not easily forgivable) intentionally culpable act.  There is a difference.

KateH August 19th, 2009 04:02:53 PM

Dante Stallworth stopped and called the police after he struck the pedestrian.  He did not practice willful, destructive criminal behavior over and over and over again.  As many of the posters here have said, we are tired of having the NFL excuse the behavior of ALL these felons, not just Vick.  As far as loss of income, Mr. Vick had already earned more money than most people would see in several lifetimes before he went to prison.  He should still be a wealthy man if he had exercised any financial restraint at all.  His loss of income is no punishment; it is the logical outcome for someone who considered himself invincible.

We are not trying to prevent him from earning a living; we just don't believe he needs to be back in the NFL.  He should not be rewarded for his heinous behavior.  It's finally time for the NFL to show that this behavior actually has permanent consequences.

Carol August 19th, 2009 04:14:33 PM

In order to be a "succcessful" professional football player -- or boxer -- one must devote their life to violent cruel painful agression upon other people.  Although I am deeply saddened and revolted by Vick's history of animal cruelty, I am not shocked or scandalized by it. Much of our society glorifies violent sports such as football, boxing, rodeo; and in some countries, bull fighting.  Many admire women who shoot wolves from helicopters and  laugh at "funny videos" of people suffering injuries (baseball to the groin etc.) or prisoners being humiliated (Cops, Jail etc.).  I think it is short-sighted and inexpedient to concentrate on the behavior of one person, with so little attention to the the pervasive brutal tendency in all our lives.

Dr. Steve Dubin August 19th, 2009 06:44:13 PM

Dr. Dubin, so many people admired the woman who shoots wolves from helicopters that she destroyed the presidential campaign of a previously respected war veteran and politician. (Look at the numbers and when they tanked.) Bullfighting is not a sport that's admired "in our society" (at least, Mexico and Spain are not my societies; I don't know about you.) Football and boxing presume more or less equally matched parties, with protective equipment and officials to enforce rules, with a significant part of their purpose being to minimize injuries. Fatal or permanently crippling injuries are considered shocking and scandalous. (Granted that there is insufficient attention to the post-career effects of these activities; the fact remains that, contrary to your theory, people are not watching to see that damage for entertainment.) I'm not thrilled about rodeos, but major injury or death for the animals is NOT the intended outcome.

I don't doubt your claim that you know people who watch Cops or Jail, and find them humorous, but I can honestly say I don't know anyone who views them that way.

But even if we concede your general point, which I do not, excusing these things on the grounds that "everybody does it" is a great way to ensure that it continues. If you want to change anything, you have to take a stand somewhere.

Lis August 19th, 2009 08:24:25 PM

Now that he no longer has dogs to torture, torment and murder I wonder how long it will be before he takes his rage and violence out on a human being? All that pent-up anger and hatred need an outlet.

Irene August 20th, 2009 04:44:25 PM

If you are going to be angry at someone or something, be angry at the judicial system in the United States.  You can't blame a person for getting the minimum sentence because all of us do the very same thing.  To say he isn't remorseful is guessing; you can't read his mind or his heart. What is different between what he did and a woman aborting a child?  Do you mean to tell me that it is okay to kill a child and save the whales? Give me a break! Yea, Yea! I know, "It's a woman's right."  Right or not, it is still killing and that darling child didn't do anything to deserve it; just like those pit bulls.  If you want to outlaw something, outlaw pit bulls. That's it.

Jefe August 20th, 2009 09:18:33 PM

And should we outlaw children, to prevent abortions? Do you even think you're making sense?

We aren't limited to caring about just one thing. We can care about child abuse, AND care about animal abuse.

We don't "all do the same thing"; most of us don't abuse animals. Even most dogfighters don't torture the losing dogs to death. And yes, we do indeed have the right to be angry at the individual who did it, and not at a conveniently faceless judiciary.

He's making his lack of remorse clear; he has never expressed any regret whatsoever for what he did to the dogs or for what they suffered. He doesn't even refer to them as dogs, merely as "animals." He's the criminal. We don't have to objectively prove he has no remorse' it's up to him to demonstrate that he does have remorse.

And no, no one is interested in taking your bait and going wildly off-topic on an unrelated hot-botton political issue.

Lis August 20th, 2009 10:09:46 PM

For all those who keep parroting the ignorant talking point that now Mike Vick is destined to abuse children next and then women.....do you think workers in slaughterhouses are sadistically pleasuring themselves by slaughtering cows and pigs everyday or is it just their job?? Seriously, are you under the impression that the hundreds of people that work for Jimmy Dean and Oscar Meyer are kissing these animals on their heads and then laying them peacefully on egyptian cotton sheets, singing a lullaby right before they're given a nice shot to send their spirits to animal heaven while their bodies get grinded up for Walmart? I guess you do. I suppose you believe all these men and women are slitting the throats of pigs and hitting cows upside the head with that big steel hammer and they're all sick and twisted, meanwhile you get to  breeze through the aisles of Winn Dixie, Publix and Kroger without a care to the world as to how that meat got there. Frankly, I appreciate those people who have to work in those places making $10 an hour so that I can drive my car and park it and get out and walk into a grocery store, pick up breakfast, lunch and dinner and no I dont worry if my ham or ground beef was produced at the hands of the next Ted Bundy....because I know that's not the case. These drama queens that keep parroting that ridiculous notion that Mike Vick is a sociopath can kick rocks.

Miranda August 20th, 2009 10:11:18 PM

Vick wasn't torturing dogs because it was his job; he was having fun.

Slaughterhouse workers are not doing it for fun; they are doing it because it's their job, and in fact slaughterhouses are set up (some better than others, but it's the intention with all of them) to minimize the stress on the animals--not necessarily out of humanitarian concern, but simply because panicked cattle are difficult and dangerous to handle.

There's no connection that I'm aware of between working in a slaughterhouse because it's your job, and abusing other human beings. There is a well-documented connection between sadistic abuse of animals, and abuse of human beings.

People working in slaughterhouses may or may not be sociopaths, but if they are, it's generally a coincidence. People who steal other people's pets to use as bait dogs, to see them get ripped to shreds so that the fighting dogs can learn how to fight, are sociopaths. People who take a losing dog and beat it to death, or drown it, or electrocute it--rather than, say, euthanizing it, or putting a single bullet directly into its brain--and laugh while they're doing it, are sociopaths. And that's not a coincidence.

Lis August 20th, 2009 11:05:02 PM

Here's my column for USA Today. Up only since midnight (eight wee hours) and already has 65 comments!

Dr. Patty Khuly August 21st, 2009 08:18:03 AM

Wow, get a load of some of those comments! Brutal. We are with out a doubt, more civilized on this site!

Barb A./NH August 21st, 2009 11:12:22 PM

As some have mentioned above, we fighting the fight(s) for good sometimes fail to step back and take good inventory of our tools - the law.

Sadistic sociopaths are entitled to the same "zealous defense" as everybody else. This is a feature of the law that protects us. I would not want to live in a country where "really bad people" don't get this. Because who decides who the "really bad people" are. You and I pick animal torturers; the next guy may decide that his definition of "really bad people" is "homosexuals."

Vick did no time for animal cruelty. He slipped through the legal system. It is not appropriate for the Philadelphia Eagles or the NFL to take the position that THEY will "make him pay" to compensate for a legal system that did not. That doesn't mean they could not and should not take a MORAL stand, but I do keep hearing statements along the lines of "he didn't pay his debt to society; therefore, he should not get the money, fame, position, etc. ..." I think that thread is very dangerous as a way of thinking about "unishing" people.

I think the punishment for animal cruelty needs to be much, much greater - that's a matter of legislation and enforcement, which gets imposed by serious advocacy.

Though I eat meat, the vegan point of view by a couple of commenters is well taken. It's interesting how many other ideas and beliefs slip into this discussion on both sides of the issue (here and elsewhere.) People who think sports/football is itself "violent." People who see pro sports as "exploitative." People who play "the race card." People who believe that people who are celebrities should be "role models." People who comment that "people should be more concerned about people than animals." Even abortion creeps into the discussion. Just to name a few!

I think the mechanism to be activated is within law - increasing punishment for animal abuse. Not in calls for the NFL to use money and contracts as a "punishment" mechanism. WHEN animal cruelty is perceived differently, the NFL will follow.

Barbara August 23rd, 2009 01:44:28 PM

Sadistic sociopaths are entitled to the same "zealous defense" as everybody else. This is a feature of the law that protects us. I would not want to live in a country where "really bad people" don't get this. Because who decides who the"really bad people" are. You and I pick animal torturers; the next guy may decide that his definition of "really bad people" is "homosexuals."

Did anybody say he shouldn't have had a good defense? I must have missed that.

Vick did no time for animal cruelty. He slipped through the legal system. It is not appropriate for the Philadelphia Eagles or the NFL to take the position that THEY will "make him pay" to compensate for a legal system that did not. That doesn't mean they could not and should not take a MORAL stand, but I do keep hearing statements along the lines of "he didn't pay his debt to society; therefore, he should not get the money, fame, position, etc. ..." I think that thread is very dangerous as a way of thinking about "unishing" people.

BZZZZT!

Nice try, but that's a dishonest bit of sophistry. The NFL, like MLB and the NHL and the NBA, has a morals clause in its contracts. Pete Rose was banned from baseball for life because of placing some bets. Michael Vick tortured animals to death, and he's got a multi-million dollar NFL contract. Do you see the disconnect here? Vick has a right to seek employment; he has no more right to get employment than anyone else does. And for sure his rights aren't being violated if the NFL, or any and all of its member teams, look at his behavior and find it to be incompatible with that morals clause.

Though I eat meat, the vegan point of view by a couple of commenters is well taken. It's interesting how many other ideas and beliefsslip into this discussion on both sides of the issue (here and elsewhere.) People who think sports/football is itself "violent." People who see pro sports as "exploitative." People who play "the race card." People who believe that people who are celebrities should be "role models." People who comment that "people should be more concerned about people than animals."Even abortion creeps into the discussion. Just to name a few!

The people playing the race card in this discussion are Vick's supporters.

People have a right to think sports are inherently violent; certainly there's some degree of truth there with regard to football. People have a right to see sports as "exploitive." As much as you find it inconvenient right now, sports "heroes" are regarded as role models, and just saying they shouldn't be or it's not fair doesn't change the fact that impressionable young people will admire them and want to copy them in a lot of ways. The NFL and the teams make a lot of money off of that fact of human nature, and the same is true in the other leagues. That's why those morals clauses exist--and that's why the whiplash-fast "rehabilitation" of Michael Vick is disgusting.

And yes, people have a right to disagree about abortion, too, and to say so. What they don't have a right to do is to kill doctors. And likewise, Michael Vick has every right not to be an animal lover, as do you. What he doesn't have a right to do is torture dogs to death, and then be welcomed back into one of the most privileged and adulated positions society has to offer, without a word of remorse from him, and without a word of protest or criticism from anyone else.

The NFL is selling Eagles dog jerseys with Vick's name on them. Does that give you any clue how much awareness and concern they have about "just a bunch of dogs" ?

They have a right to do what they choose. and the rest of us have a right to protest, criticise, and tell their sponssors that if they continue to be sponsors, we won't be their customers anymore. And none of that is violating any "rights" the dog torturer has.

Lis August 23rd, 2009 03:36:46 PM

Bravo Lis, I'm glad that post didn't go unrebutted!

Barb A./NH August 23rd, 2009 05:29:37 PM

Despite Justice Sotomayor's withdrawal of her comment on gender/race making a difference, I can't but help thinking it still does.  At least Chris Brown was sentenced to some "hard labor" in his own community for what many would consider a minor incidence of violence and, while Vick was sentenced to some prison time, it wasn't much given what he did.  We need to keep the pressure on judges to fill our jails and prisons with people who have committed violent acts, followed by those who would harm others in less violent ways; rather than those who mostly or exclusively harm themselves.  Prison and jail are for punishment, not behavior modification.  And it's nice to see a judge insist on WORK for probation instead of permitting puffy media glitz to be called probation service.

PJBoosinger August 25th, 2009 07:30:17 PM

Lis, you always say things I wish I could say better than I could say it.  If you have a blog, I'd love to subscribe!

Stefani August 26th, 2009 01:26:22 PM

I wish there were a way to continue to make this ass pay! I wish there were a way to organize football fans to not have anything to do with any team he is on.  He wil remain scum because he never pled guilty to the charge of cruelty to animals.

Kush August 26th, 2009 04:58:50 PM

OK, here is the thing for me with Vick:

All these statements he has made NEVER show that he has truly taken responsibility for what HE DID, and do not demonstrate any kind of true empathy and remorse for what the dogs experienced.  The language that he uses underscores the fact that he still does not have remorse.

He said that he didn't "step up."  He said that he wasn't "a leader."  These characterizations make him sound like a mere bystander whose crime was failure to intervene.  I don't need to recount his ACTIVE deeds again, we know what they were.  He was not a bystander who failed to "step up" or "lead."  In fact, he DID lead -- he helped lead this dog fighting ring, and led the way in torturing, electrocuting killing dogs any many occasions.

The language he used shows that he has yet to take responsibility.

He also said that he was sorry about "what happened" or what he "let happen."  Again, as though they were merely events he passively witnessed and did not stop.  Untrue. 

NEVER ONCE did I hear him describe the pain the dogs must have felt.  Never once did I hear him say anything about their innocence, and his brutality.  Never once did I hear him say anything that truly convinces me he searched his soul and had a moral awakening of some kind.  There is no discussion of the suffering and torment.  Just oblique references to "what happened" and general statements about dogs but no real acknowledgement of what HE did and what it DID TO those animals.  The torment they endured.

Oh, but gee -- to have such a soul searching, to have such a revelation, would actually require a conscience.  And if he had one, he probably would never have done these things in the first place.  This is why he should not be in the NFL. 

Stefani August 26th, 2009 07:34:27 PM

I did something today which won't make much difference in the larger picture but sure made me feel better.  I cancelled my subscription to "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" because of their coverage of Michael Vick.  Unbiased journalism has almost ceased to exist, and their sportswriters are behaving like shills for the NFL.  Many others had also asked for them just to stop with the incessant positive coverage of that fool.  I made sure the AJC's employees knew exactly why I no longer wanted their paper - verbally and in writing.  Maybe - just maybe - if enough individual voices are heard in whatever way they can make their opinions known - there may be a positive effect.

Carol August 26th, 2009 07:46:04 PM

Carol, papers are actually so desperate for subscribers these days, that if you could organize people locally to cancel subscriptions and cite this reason, I bet it WOULD make a difference.  They really can't afford to lose circulation right now.

Stefani August 27th, 2009 09:28:14 AM

This individual's psych testing said it all, I am suprised no one has posted anything on that matter, since it is why the Boy's and Girl's Club dropped him like a hot potato.  He was a mediocre football player at best with no leadership skills.  Vick landed with the Eagle's for one simple reason, the team needs to do something to win and keep the gate money coming in.  I expect nothing less - read up on the Philadelphia police reports sometime.  Vick will ultimately go back to jail, my view, for drugs, which goes hand in hand with the depravity of dog fighting.  Let's be honest drugs were the ONLY reason the authorities even looked into the matter in the first place.  He will NEVER understand, in his mind he did nothing wrong.  No excuses on his poor upbringing many are poor but few do what this sick excuse for a human being has done. 

Nothin' but a Hound Dog September 12th, 2009 12:54:42 PM

While I do NOT in any way excuse at all what he did, whether you like it or not, his name can be used to raise money for many pets whom otherwise would get none.  Case in point.  This week, 150,000.00 dollars, yes, one hundred fifty THOUSAND dollars was dontated in 50K increments to 3 philadelphia are shelters

once again, this does NOT make up for what he did, however, given the struggling financial nature of most humane groups, would they EVER have gotten this money otherwise?  How many animals does this now help?

are you telling me that you would rather see animals starve or get euthanized because you are too rightous to take the money?  SAVING pets is the point. 

do you think YOU would have more influence on the kids he talks to?  a "regular" person, vs a celebrity?  Like it or not, he has more star power than you or I.   

lets move on people.  forgiveness is christian.  2nd chances are what America is about.  just as you have a right to write what you wish, criminals, which IS what he is, have the right to rehabilitate and make amends.  Time will tell of course,  but unless you are ready to give 150K, cut the man a LITTLE slack!

As the good book says, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone

mark October 15th, 2009 01:39:30 PM

Well, Mark - not that you're probably looking back at this - the rest of us stopped commenting a while ago, but I'll reply anyway.

HE didn't give the $150,000.  If he had, that would have meant that HE did some good.  Other people gave that money.  The people who gave didn't give because they like Vick - they gave because they know that the type of horrors he perpetrated are still happening, and the Philly shelters need money to help dogs caught up in abuse, as well as other problems.  You could say he was a catalyst - not a solution.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 2nd, 2009 04:35:26 PM

<A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/">watches replica</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/">replica watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/">replica watch</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/">cheap replica watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/patek-philippe-c-54.html">replica Patek Philippe</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/swiss-valjoux-7750-c-203.html">replica swiss valjoux 7750 watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/burberry-c-186.html">replica Burberry watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/oris-c-200.html">replica Oris watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/patek-philippe-c-54.html">replica Patek Philippe watches</A><BR><A href="http://www.dearwatches.com/patek-philippe-c-54.html">Patek Philippe replica</A><BR>

replica watch March 12th, 2010 09:40:05 AM