I hate how so many people are basically saying Vick's guilty until proven innocent. The question is not whether or not dogfighting took place at the estate Vick owned (because even Vick has all but admitted that it did), it's whether or not he was aware of it and should therefore be held responsible.
The bottom line is that it's up to the court to decide, and to all of you pointing to the testimony from Vick's associates claiming he was heavily involved, isn't it also plausible that these associates fabricated the stories about Vick's involvement in an effort to lessen their potential jail time after they were caught running the dogfighting ring?

I mean, if you lived in a house that your superstar athlete cousin owned and rarely visited, it could most certainly be possible to get away with an endeavor like dogfighting (or growing marijuana, lets say) without him knowing; does that mean your superstar athlete cousin should be punished? To use a different situation to illustrate, suppose your parents went on vacation for a month and left you in charge of the house, and you decided to start a dogfighting ring without their knowledge, should they be held responsible?

In this country, we have courts to decide the answers to tough questions like these, so we should wait to hear what the court says about Michael Vick. More specifically, the NFL and the Falcons should wait for the court to decide on Vick before suspending or releasing him, although you can safely assume that Vick will definitely be getting paid until he gets found guilty, should it happen, because even this draconian new commissioner Goodell couldn't get away with suspending an accused player with no previous offenses before his case went to court.

Quote Originally Posted by TallCoolOne
Fuck him. and fuck you if u say its because of his race. its not, its because hes commited crimes against man and nature.
Michael Vick has not committed any crimes. Apparently, by your definition of a crime, once you are accused of a crime you are automatically guilty. Luckily your definition does not match the one set forth by this country's government. Now, as far as it being about race, the thing about racism is that while most people would agree it exists in various forms and degrees, it's just about impossible to prove. Personally, I happen to think race has a lot to do the public's crucifixion of Michael Vick (as well as that of Barry Bonds, which is a whole other discussion altogether), but I can't truly prove it. However, I will say that I find it interesting to hear all these white conservative talking heads on television and radio practically calling for Vick to be lynched while simultaneously condoning hunting. I find it hard to see much of a difference morally between dogfighting and hunting, both are reprehensible in my opinion. Could it be that these talking heads find dogfighting reprehensible and hunting acceptable because the former is associated more with African-Americans, while the latter is associated more Caucasians. I think it has something to do with it.