In Defense of the Guilty

TMQ's somewhat surprising defense -- no, not really a defense, more like a sympathy plea -- for Michael Vick might seem a little outdated now thanks to this latest news.   However, I find his points to be valid...except for his comparison of dogs to NFL players. 

His comparison there is flawed for obvious reasons.  Vick is a human being, and nobody forces a human being to play football against his will.  People have choices that dogs don't have.   People can choose to do something else. People can choose to run away.  Dogs can't choose.  I agree that, despite the salaries paid to players like Vick, professional sports are by and large exploitative: players are not looked after very well at the end of their careers, and players do frequently face premature ends to their health and lives as a result of playing football (Andre Waters being a prime example).  That said, players still have a choice. 

I know you never expected OP to get racial, but there is that element to the case.  Our criminal justice system isn't colorblind, and I'm willing to bet that the furor over this case would have been lessened if the culprit had been, say, Brett Favre.  I'm not saying Vick doesn't deserve to be punished -- just that there might have been less overall public outrage, zeal, and rush to presume his guilt.

The whole thing kinda makes me sad.  Through his own ignorance and arrogance, a big star and someone who should have been a role model may have been snuffed out permanently today.  I'd be willing to bet that Vick still doesn't realize why his crimes are being taken so seriously by so many people.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit