Does the reporter have a point about Vick?

[wilmot825]

A reporter wrote in his column that Michael Vick would have been "Better off raping a woman" instead of the dogfighting. But thinking about it, the man has a point about his comments he made. Kobe Bryant did not receive this kind of backlash from his sponsors nor the league he played in. Nike stood behind Bryant as they are not with Vick, and Lakers owner Jerry Busse did not suspend Bryant unlike Arthur Blank of the Falcons. It may be wrong to say it but the sad part is, Vick was better off harming a human than an animal. How sick and twisted our society has become that we put animals lives ahead of human lives. I for one will not jump to conclusions no matter how bad it looks at the moment. Vick is INNOCENT until after a trial where they find him guilty of these charges. As we all saw with Duke LaCrosse, the media jumps to prove a athlete guilty of wrong doing before all facts are heard. All I'm trying to say is that A: The Reporter was not out of line for his comments B: Vick should be allowed to play football this season C: His shoe deals and jerseys should be sold and D: Give him the benefit of the doubt at the moment, he's innocent til PROVEN guilty.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

It is easier to slander a woman who is raped than a dog who is killed. That's a terrible testament to our society.

[southsideirish]

A reporter wrote in his column that Michael Vick would have been "Better off raping a woman" instead of the dogfighting. But thinking about it, the man has a point about his comments he made. Kobe Bryant did not receive this kind of backlash from his sponsors nor the league he played in. Nike stood behind Bryant as they are not with Vick, and Lakers owner Jerry Busse did not suspend Bryant unlike Arthur Blank of the Falcons. It may be wrong to say it but the sad part is, Vick was better off harming a human than an animal. How sick and twisted our society has become that we put animals lives ahead of human lives. I for one will not jump to conclusions no matter how bad it looks at the moment. Vick is INNOCENT until after a trial where they find him guilty of these charges. As we all saw with Duke LaCrosse, the media jumps to prove a athlete guilty of wrong doing before all facts are heard. All I'm trying to say is that A: The Reporter was not out of line for his comments B: Vick should be allowed to play football this season C: His shoe deals and jerseys should be sold and D: Give him the benefit of the doubt at the moment, he's innocent til PROVEN guilty.

What is worse raping or killing? If you are comparing apples to apples, wouldn't a more fair example be OJ instead of Kobe or the lacross players? Did OJ receive this kind of backlash? Wasn't he fired almost immediately? Didn't all of his sponsors run away and hide? And he was found innocent. Do you think if Vick is found innocent that he will still find a job in the NFL? Or how about Rae Carruth. He hired some people to kill his wife/gf/fiance and his unborn child in a hitman like style as he watched. He is in jail for life.

 

There seems to be a distinct difference between the examples you have given with Bryant and the lacrosse players and the Michael Vick case. First it was the local district attorneys going after both Bryant and the lacrosse players. The Feds are going after Vick. The Feds build a much stronger case against people and it is much more difficult to escape the feds. It is most highly unlikely that the Feds will indict someone without a strong enough case against someone. It could be likely, for political and other reasons, that a local DA will go after someone without enough evidence.

 

Kobe didn't kill anyone. The lacross players didn't kill anyone. Dogs don't lie. Dead dogs don't lie. Marked up dogs from fighting don't lie. He and his band of idiots electrocuted, hung, and tortured these dogs to their death. They made these dogs perform acts that they otherwise wouldn't have done. They had these dogs rape each other in order to breed them. He and his band of idiots did this to the lives of innocent animals.

 

Kobe's accuser seemed like a liar or seemed to have wanted to set him up. The case seemed to have proved that to be the case. She had something mentally wrong with her. I am not a Kobe fan at all, and to be honest with you I can't stand him, but there was something wrong with this case from the beginning.

 

The lacross accuser was mentally messed up. However, the Duke lacross players were kicked off the team and the team's season was thrown out the window. Isn't that pretty f***ed up? And they were found innocent of the entire thing.

 

Mike Tyson was found guilty of raping a woman and hasn't been the same since. Has anyone forgiven him? Wasn't he seen as guilty right from the start?

 

So far I can't find a good point about your and the reporter's argument. Is raping a woman ok? No. Is fighting and killing dogs ok? No. They are both wrong. I don't see how ranking them serves any purpose.

Edited August 3, 2007 by southsideirish

[southsideirish]

It is easier to slander a woman who is raped than a dog who is killed. That's a terrible testament to our society.

It turned out that neither Kobe's accuser or the Duke lacrosse team's accuser was raped by either party. Both were liars. Since when is killing = to rape anyway?

Edited August 3, 2007 by southsideirish

[Gregory Pratt]

You need to calm that indignation down.

 

A woman, raped or merely claiming rape, is easier to slander than a dog who was killed. A woman, whether genuinely raped or not, will be smeared as a whore and a slut and blamed for the rape and will find a less sympathetic audience with a significant portion of men who won't believe her. Killing a dog, especially for fun and to teach it not to lose a fight or not to be weak, will immediately draw ire from men women and children.

[southsideirish]

You need to calm that indignation down.

 

A woman, raped or merely claiming rape, is easier to slander than a dog who was killed. A woman, whether genuinely raped or not, will be smeared as a whore and a slut and blamed for the rape and will find a less sympathetic audience with a significant portion of men who won't believe her. Killing a dog, especially for fun and to teach it not to lose a fight or not to be weak, will immediately draw ire from men women and children.

 

Sorry if the post seems angry. I am not angry at all. I am just trying to find out how killing and rape are equal. Both are terrible crimes, but not equal. Vick and his band of idiots had these dogs rape each other and they killed them for various reasons. It is not a true apples to apples comparison.

[Gregory Pratt]

Sorry if the post seems angry. I am not angry at all. I am just trying to find out how killing and rape are equal. Both are terrible crimes, but not equal. Vick and his band of idiots had these dogs rape each other and they killed them for various reasons. It is not a true apples to apples comparison.

No, but I wasn't making the initial comparison. I am willing to say that you're more likely to win a battle in public opinion fighting off a rape charge than animal cruelty, which is cruel in itself.

[MurcieOne]

It turned out that neither Kobe's accuser or the Duke lacrosse team's accuser was raped by either party. Both were liars. Since when is killing = to rape anyway?

 

Lester Munson.... legal reporter for Sports Illustrated came to my class last year to talk to us, he covered the case daily, is a lawyer, and was pretty sure that Kobe was guilty.... and when he outlined his reasoning as to why he came to that conclusion... it was pretty convincing.

 

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kobe was innocent.

[GoodAsGould]

Lester Munson.... legal reporter for Sports Illustrated came to my class last year to talk to us, he covered the case daily, is a lawyer, and was pretty sure that Kobe was guilty.... and when he outlined his reasoning as to why he came to that conclusion... it was pretty convincing.

 

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kobe was innocent.

 

i could come up with a convincing argument we never really went to the moon and than an equally convincing argument that we really did go to the moon..... so whichever version I choose to tell you is that the one your going to believe?

[southsideirish]

Lester Munson.... legal reporter for Sports Illustrated came to my class last year to talk to us, he covered the case daily, is a lawyer, and was pretty sure that Kobe was guilty.... and when he outlined his reasoning as to why he came to that conclusion... it was pretty convincing.

 

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kobe was innocent.

I am not jumping to any conclusions. The case was dropped because she couldn't proceed and she didn't want to take the stand and have all of her sexual activities told to the court. She didn't want to say why she had another man's jizz on her panties the same night she was bopping Kobe. She didn't want her identity revealed. Then she goes ahead and files a civil lawsuit to get a monetary settlement. She still had to reveal her identity, but this way she gets what she wanted - money.

Edited August 3, 2007 by southsideirish

[southsideirish]

No, but I wasn't making the initial comparison. I am willing to say that you're more likely to win a battle in public opinion fighting off a rape charge than animal cruelty, which is cruel in itself.

I believe it depends on the situation. Everyone (ok a lot of people) thought these lacrosse kids raped this stripper. A lot of people thought they were a bunch of rich white punk college frat boys who thought they could get away with anything. They were seen as guilty in the public's eye before any other information came forward. Then it comes out that this woman is psycho. After their season is cancelled and they are thrown off the team. They will have this to carry around with them no matter what, just because they were accused of it. Isn't that cruel in intself?

 

This case here is what hurts women in all rape cases. Rape cases are usually just who you believe. Then when a woman like this claims rape and it comes out that she is a psycho liar looking for some money it hurts the woman in the public's eyes. Don't you think? That has a lot to do as to why you are more likely to win a battle of public opinion fighting off a rape charge than animal cruelty. It is really just an impossible comparison and it really shouldn't be compared.

[Dick Allen]

Vick would have been far better off if he abided by the laws of the land. He's getting what he deserves. He is an idiot.

[NorthSideSox72]

Vick would have been far better off if he abided by the laws of the land. He's getting what he deserves. He is an idiot.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Perfectly, succinctly put. Thank you DA.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Vick would have been far better off if he abided by the laws of the land. He's getting what he deserves. He is an idiot.

 

Sure, I can agree with that, but that's not any answer to the question that was asked.