I'm not trying to devaluing what Vick did, so much as apply the correct value. The issue is definitely societal. And we've OVERvalued what Vick did to the point that we have already DEvalued what Stallworth did.
This imbalance is already present.
I'm calling for a correction of our views on things, because what they are now is completely ****ed up.
With humans, there can be justifiable reasons to kill someone. Such as while waging war. And there are also unjustifiable reasons.
With animals, there is no such distinction. Killing an animal that you own is always justifiable. There is no such thing as unjustified canicide.
Torturing an animal is the only thing that can be considered criminal. Simply killing an animal that you own should not be a crime. Ever.
What Mike Vick did that was wrong was the way he killed the animals, not the fact that he killed them. But they are his property.
If I kill someone else's animal, I should be charged with criminal damage to property and that is it. That's all I did.
The difference between domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals is that domesticated animals are property, and property rights indicate that you can do wit them as you wish.
If I own a cow, I am allowed to slaughter that animal and eat it with no risk of penalty. I should also have that right with my dog.
What I should not have a right to do is torture that animal. Again, this is where Vick went wrong. If he killed these animals in a humane fashion, such as putting them to sleep, he should have only gotten done up on th eillegal gambling ring.
But at the same time, we aren't discussing the comparison of Justifiable homicide (soldiers at war) and torturing dogs. We are comparing an UNjustifiable homicide and torturing dogs.
Only in a world that has gone completely bonkers is the torturing of animals put on the same level or above unjustifiable homicide.
But you are devaluing what Vick did, at least criminally, because you're focusing souly and completely on the issue of the killing of dogs. That's not the heart of the criminal case, but the gambling and racketeering is.
So what is it you're discussing here Tucker.
Are you talking about the reason why society views Vick's issue as a bigger thing in terms of coverage? If it is, I gave you a plethora of reasons for that you haven't touched yet.
Are you talking about the reasons why you think criminally Vicks issue isn't bigger than Stallworths? If that's the case, you need to spread your argument to something farther than just killing dogs.
I think this is just going to be something I disagree with. I've known someone who, along with his girlfriend, got drunk one night and went driving. The girl climbed halfway out the driver side window as he was speeding down the road, hit something, fell out, and ended up dieing. None of it would've happened if he hadn't chosen to get drunk, his girlfriend to get drunk, and to go speeding down the road at 1:00 AM. That said, I do not believe his action is anywhere on the level of "immorality" as someone who purposefully and willfully tortures and hurts another being through force for their own financial gain and pleasure. You can say "its a dog" all you want. To me, personally, those are extremely different things on the moral scale.
More simply.
Stallworth's singular action, driving intoxicated, was an immoral act as it was criminal and endangering to others. Him hitting someone ACCIDENTALLy is not IMMORAL, but it came about DUE to an immoral act.
Vick's was not a singular action. It was a pattern of or repeated immoral acts over years worth of times, and stacked immoral acts on top of immoral acts. From torturing dogs, to breaking gambling laws, to out and out lieing to the country.
If you ask me who the more immoral person was, I'd say Vick. If you said who did the more immoral thing, I'd say Vick. If you asked me whose action was more devestating, I'd say Stallworth. If you asked me whose act was more unlawful I'd likely say Stallworth but I honestly don't know the law well enough to tell you the difference legally between major interstate gambling charges and manslaughter. If you asked me which instance was sadder I'd say the Stallworth one, because yes, someone died.
I actually think Tiger killing someone while DUI would be absolutely huge, and bigger than the Vick thing. Vick was a gifted thug. I know some people were shocked and outraged by his dog fighting ring, but considering him and his younger brothers past, and the dog fighting culture that is pervasive in young black mens culture I wasn't terribly shocked.
Tiger is on a whole different level. Tiger going to jail on manslaughter would invariably affect the game of golf way more than Vick or Stallworth affect football. Tiger is my generations greatest "athlete" regardless of if you think of golf as requiring athleticism or not. He's one of those transcendent figures that is much more than just being a very good pro-golfer. Him getting a DUI manslaughter charge would be huge. I think bigger than the Vick thing. FWIW, Stallworth should be bigger than the Vick thing, but he's not a transcendent figure like Tiger. For my generation, nobody else is.
Which this kind of goes to my earlier post about why, societally, Vicks was a bigger issue than Stallworth's would ever be.
Lets not even go with Tiger. Lets go with something comparable to Mike Vick. Lets go with Peyton Manning.
Vick, at the time, was arguably a top 5 name (name, not skill) Quarterback in the NFL. Peyton Manning is also a top 5 name in the NFL. If Peyton Manning ended up getting drunk and killing someone, I would almost garauntee it would get more media attention and have more societal impact than Donte Stallworth or Leonard Little.
If you want something sad out of this, I'd say this would be it....
Drunk Driving deaths have became so common place in this country at this point that it simply isn't a "major" news story when someone dies from it, because its not something unusual. That is sad. Its the fact of the unusual nature of Vick's crime that helped add to the societal interest in that case.
. Your average football fan who is maybe ten years older than me could pull off a decent discussion about Monk, but very few will have a clue about Grimm (Guards aren't even on the radar when discussing famous NFL names. Also he and Jimbo Covert are the only offensive players who are on the first team 1980's all decade team that aren't in the HOF [Rice is obviously a lock]).