Skip to main content

Throwing Michael Vick to the Dogs

It is a travesty that the media and nearly everyone else with an opinion has declared Michael Vick guilty of participating in dog-fighting. He might just be. But how can we possibly apologize to him and give him his life back if he is not?

Updated: 7/31/2007


I don't even really like the National Football League (college football is much more fun to watch). And I don't really like the Atlanta Falcons. And I don't think, from my limited knowledge of the professional game, that Michael Vick is a very good quarterback. But I am of the strong opinion that he is being treated wrongly by a pack of leeches who can't wait to get in the first lick.

Have you ever noticed that when someone is captured for this or that crime, that more often than not the person's mug shot is on the evening news that night with the implication that the individual is clearly guilty of the crime for which he has been arrested? I think such statements by the media should be illegal. In most cases, the individual does turn out to be guilty, but what about the times when he or she not? Where do they go to get their reputation back?

One of the characteristics that has always made America great is the right of a person to be presumed innocent until he is found guilty in a legal court. It's a sign of the degradation of our society that so often individuals are sentenced by the media and the public before the case has even gone to trial. Who knows how much this early sentencing affects the outcome and distorts the "reality" of the actual trial?

If Michael Vick is guilty of being

a sinister thug who used his big payday to satisfy a lust for blood, who turned dogs into killers and signed off on gruesome executions when they wouldn't fight,

then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. That, however, has not yet been proven. Several people think he couldn't have done something like that, but that doesn't stop the media from flaying him before the facts are in.

The NFL thinks Vick is guilty. Michael Vick has been banned by the NFL from appearing at the Atlanta Falcons' training camp, despite still being under contract with his team, and despite his having as of yet been convicted of nothing.

Other rats are abandoning ship as well, all due to the court of public opinion. Several memorabilia and trading card companies have stopped selling Michael Vick items, all because they don't dare wait to find out whether he's guilty.

I can't help but wonder...what if it had been a white guy? Would we all be so quick to judge? But because he's a black guy who had a hard life...it's easy to make assumptions, isn't it?

Despite Michael Vick's possible involvement in dog fighting, he is a person who has just as many rights as you and I. One of his (and our) most important rights is not to be declared guilty by an angry mob.

"He's being portrayed now sort of like a monster, but that's not him," said Johnson. "I know his heart."

"Mike did everything we asked him to do," said Dan Reeves, Vick's first pro coach. "He was never any trouble, and he had a great attitude. "

Imagine his attitude now.

Update 7/31/2007: Greg Allen raised an excellent issue this morning on The Right Balance. What if this Tony Taylor has an ax to grind? What if Michael Vick is being unjustly framed for something that he didn't do, or that he wasn't nearly as involved in as he is being painted to be? Remember the Duke University case?
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous7/29/2007 09:18:00 PM

    I think it's a fair question to wonder, "What if it had been a white guy?"

    Especially since it's a bunch of white guys who fund mutilating animals on a daily basis and feeding them to the rest of us: http://www.unboundedition.com/content/view/1676/50/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bradley Ross8/02/2007 08:38:00 AM

    You make a fair point about pre-judging the legal matter. I'm glad for the light that is being cast on the whole dog-fighting crime scene, whether or not Vick is involved.

    I didn't know Vick's race; I'm just prejudiced against all professional athletes. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank Staheli8/02/2007 08:44:00 AM

    It is good that we're learning that dog-fighting is still a big problem.

    I agree generally with your prejudice against professional athletes!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lola2/02/2008 10:37:00 AM

    Even if it was a "white guy", dog fighting is WRONG. Who knows how many other athletes are involved in this horrible crime. Its low class and primitive. Everyone involved should be in jail for life.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more