|
Post by gk on Feb 17, 2009 14:04:45 GMT -6
Or at least, one I happen to agree with. www.modernspectator.com/Articles/1345/in-defense-of-michael-vickHere's the money quote: "Did his punishment really fit his crime? When Vick gets out next summer, he will have served nearly two years in Leavenworth, lost all of his wealth, and more likely than not, his last best chance at doing what he was born to do, play football. Look, I recognize that defending a man who has admitted to hanging and drowning dogs is an uphill battle, at best, but someone has to do it. Seriously. This story has generated some of the wildest hysteria this side of the Barbaro message boards. The federal sentencing guidelines for Vick’s crime recommend 12 to 18 months. He got 23—and a bracing dose of financial ruin. There’s no question that public opinion had an influence on this outcome. Vick’s crimes were sickening and cruel, but the man has paid an Argentina-in-1989 inflationary price for them. It’s time to leave him alone." He then goes on about Leonard Little, who killed a woman, a mother, while driving drunk, and had six sacks for the Rams last year, while in the middle of a $19.5 million dollar contract.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Feb 17, 2009 15:22:32 GMT -6
I've been harping on the Leonard Little thing for year.
I'm not sorry that Vick lost everything, but I am sorry that so many people were influenced by PETA and other pieces of crap like them. The hysteria was borderline cultist.
|
|
|
Post by finkle on Feb 18, 2009 13:21:12 GMT -6
i completely agree that this was a high-profile PETA case (sorta the anti-OJ effect) and that the hysteria around vick is disproportionate....
that said, though, the financial ruin argument is weak, though. if this were to happen to someone in non-athletic profession you wouldn't hear a peep about it
|
|
|
Post by gk on Feb 18, 2009 13:57:42 GMT -6
Yeah, but if it were a non-athletic person, he probably wouldn't have gotten 23 months.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have "sea-kittens" for lunch.
|
|