NAACP Atlanta Head: Vick Would be Treated Better if He Killed a Person

Sam --

I suppose we'll agree to disagree. If we're talking reaction from general public and/or the press...I think at least part of the difference comes from the evidence. We didn't know what Ray Lewis had done. From the moment this case against Vick was brought the general public was given insight on the success rate of federal prosecutors. They were told that this was different from typical state cases....in that when the Feds bring a case, it's usually built on very solid evidence. I think many people did and still do question Lewis' involvement in that incident...I don't think many people question Vick's involvement on this one.

 

I doubt that, ray lewis basically told on his friends, so people know he was there and know he helped them escape the incident. that's not even up for debate.

 

fair point. i need to stop arguing the lewis part...i truly don't know enough about it.

 

We know exactly what Lewis did, we have his guilty plea and his sworn testimony in court...what more do you need? This kind of talk is like OJ trying to find "the real killers"

 

my understanding is he plead guilty to the obstruction issue and the prosecution dropped the accessory charges. is that right?

but even beyond that...i'm talking about how it was framed in the media from the beginning of the case. comparing the beginning of lewis' incident with vick's...not after the fact.

 

IN the beginning it was framed like a man being charged with murder, which is what it was.

You're acting like there was some doubt as to Lewis' or his friends' involvement, there wasn't at the time and there really isn't now. Yes, years later his friends were acquitted, no thanks to Lewis who testified for the prosecution and connected his friends to the murder weapon and described the murder (this is after he helped them cover up the crime). You're grasping the ex post formalistic outcome of the trial and saying it had a bearing on the reaction that occurred years earlier. That doesn't make any logical sense.

 

Man, it's difficult to discuss stuff over the internet.

No...I'm saying that from the very outset of the Vick case the general public was told: "this is different. it's the Feds. if they're bringing this, then they have the evidence to back it up. greater than 90% of these end in conviction."

i don't remember hearing the same stuff at the outset of the ray lewis case. do you?

So what are the key differences at the same points in each respective case? Vick lost endorsements. My understanding is Lewis lost some as well...though he was never near the pitch-man with the same visible image that Vick was. After Lewis won Super Bowl MVP, Disney wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. They asked Dilfer to be their, "I'm going to DisneyWorld" guy because they didn't want the association with Lewis.

I think that's why the media has been so focused on Vick. He's a QB. He was a #1 overall pick. He was a household name before he left college. He's super high-profile. Ray Lewis simply wasn't. All that and the fact that there was near certainty from the outset that Vick did the crime. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Just curious...what do you see as being the key differences in the way Vick has been treated and the way Lewis was treated?

 

Yes, I do, I rmember him in an orange jumpsuit, splashed acrooss the frontpage, charged with murder. Why? Because his boys got into an argument then kinfed two guys, and jumped into his car, they all sped off, and then they all lied ot the police. I remember hearing about it when i was in law school, and thinking "wow, he seems to have fulfilled all the elements for murder". Because he did. That's why he was charged with murder

I don't recall there being much (and there isn't much) uncertainty about Lewis conduct either. There is no ongoing search for 'the real killers' here. Lewis admitted what he did - helped his friends cover up a murder, and testified about it in open court. Why is this less ovewhelming to you?

I see Lewis being treated less harshly, both in the press and in poplar sentiment, and especially by the disparity, despite helping to kill two men. Vick mistreats/kills a bunch of dogs (the remainder of which are set to be killed by the state anyway) - and you see people logging onto the BBS sayig he should be taken outside, strung up by his balls, and tortured just like the dogs.

This treatment is disparate, why? Because America cares a lot more about 'mans best friend' -- who we are happy to let get euthanized en masse anway -- than it does about two dead black guys in the street in Atlanta, who probably had it coming anyway...right?

 

I’m sorry for butting into your conversation with Max, but it seems to me there is a common element between abusing animals and molesting children that strikes the same chord, and causes people to react out of proportion to the legal penalties. That connecting element is that they both are “innocent” and incapable of changing their situation or asserting themselves or reasoning their way out of their predicament.

It also seems to me that pets to some degree unconsciously occupy the role of surrogate children for many people, a fact which makes the connection between the reactions stronger. And being zealous in defend those that can’t do it themselves strikes me fundamentally as an admirable trait.

 

You are right, but by the same token, Vick's victims are about to be put to sleep en masse and nobody cares, so the analogy breaks down at that level.

 

Nope. Again, it has to be an equal comparaison. MV being entertained by 50+ people being deliberately tortured and killed would bring about a worse treatment.

That's not the same as euthanasia either. I have had to put pets down. It wasn't for my enjoyment.

50+

 

What is the equation for how many dead black g's in bucktown that equals? Obviously it must be more than two.

 

I agree that it is entirely illogical, but I feel much more strongly about abusing dogs than about euthanasia. Perhaps the delicate wording of phrase 'putting them to sleep' itself is a pretty good indication that this is the part of the equation where we are deceiving ourselves, and the problem isn’t that we are concerned about protecting animals from torture, but that we have created a system where we can ‘putting them to sleep’ and not have to think about the fact that we are killing them.

 

Which is worse, raping 10000 kids or killing two people?

This line of thinking is dumb.

Vick tortured and killed many animals for no other reason than the pure enjoyment of it. It is outrageous and rightfully so.

If Vick had tortured and killed one person for his entertainment the way he did the dogs, the headlines would be much bigger.

 

dogs<>people or kids

 

NAACP is a joke, i am surprised they haven't claimed the dogs goaded Vick into killing them.

 

it's not kids and people, it's dogs and people.

I'm asking you how we should equate dogs and human lives.

What is your response? Thus far it seems to be dog lives because they are more innocenter (does this mean they are born without original sin? how very christian of you, lol).

 

If Vick had killed and tortured one dog, would he even go to prison? Would anyone care?

If he murdered and tortured one person, he would go to prison for a long time and possibly get the death penalty.

I don't think we value dogs more than black people.

 

What is your response?

Should Vick not get punished for this?