How many chances should you get?

[22/7]

I was listening to NPR today on the way to work and I heard that Upper Deck (trading card company) is pulling all of Michael Vick's trading cards this year, as well as a number of pieces of memorabilia. In a similar move Nike is dropping his endorsement contract and Reebok is no longer selling his jerseys. So here's the question. If he's acquitted, and he is therefore innocent (as per the US judicial system), should he get all that stuff back? If he isn't acquitted, should he be allowed to return to the NFL after he gets done doing his jail time/community service/etc.?

In case anyone needs a quick refresher on what happened, he owns a property where illegal dogfights were held in which the losing dogs were "drown, hanged, electrocuted or shot" to death. Washington Post says this.

[SecondTalon]

My opinion is.. Resume his life pretty much unmolested by his fellow citizens, yes. Return to the NFL, no. Given that he is a professional sportsman, and as such he should maintain professionalism and so forth. Part of that is knowing what goes on in buildings and such on your property, so that were there to be any sort of illegal activity, you could put a stop to it, alert the authorities, etc.

Purchased in 2001, but rarely visited... Rarely is subjective, so I'm going to assume once a year. So I'm assuming he left the property in the care of his friends.. which doesn't mean that he shouldn't inspect the property every time he visits it and makes sure that nothing needs repairs, fences mended, foundations built up again, sheds fixed, termite damage removed, and any number of home and land owning responsibilities that have a tendency to crop up when you're not around.

One would assume that on such an inspection, one would notice.. I don't know.. dozens of dogs in various states of health that have obviously been fighting.. and that questions would be raised.

At absolute best, he's an irresponsible landowner that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen when some punk kid hurts tthemself on his land.

So, no, I don't believe he should be allowed to play in the NFL.

[Vaniver]

It's not really a question of how many chances you get; it's a question of when one's threshold at which innocent becomes guilty is. For too many people the threshold is "when they're accused."

However, given that that is a fact of public opinion, I see no problem with those companies pulling merchandise that they expect to sell based off of his reputation when his reputation goes into the toilet. If he is acquitted, then one can hope his reputation returns to its former position; if it does not, then, again, his reputation is not worth much to these businesses.

[DeadCatX2]

Even if he is acquitted, he's already been majorly, majorly screwed over by all this. Everyone's going to know Michael Vick as the guy who promoted illegal dog fighting, regardless of the truth.

If he is acquitted, every effort should be made to undo the damage that was done to him. Contracts re-instated, etc.

I heard that Upper Deck (trading card company) is pulling all of Michael Vick's trading cards this year, as well as a number of pieces of memorabilia.

I bet those cards/memorabilia will be worth quite a lot of money now...

Given that he is a professional sportsman, and as such he should maintain professionalism and so forth.

Why is it because he is a professional sportsman? Should not all people be held to the same standard, regardless of profession?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Part of that is knowing what goes on in buildings and such on your property, so that were there to be any sort of illegal activity, you could put a stop to it, alert the authorities, etc.

Even if you're rich and you own property in many different geographically-diverse locations?

At absolute best, he's an irresponsible landowner that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen when some punk kid hurts tthemself[sic] on his land.

Why should he be responsible for a punk kid who trespasses and is stupid enough to hurt himself? The use of the words "punk kid" definitely shows your distaste for such an individual...and yet you still think the landowner is more liable for said kid's stupidity. Is the power company liable when some punk kid crawls over the fence of a major transformer and dies by electrocution?

In my opinion, if he was paying people to take care of his property, then those are the people who are at fault for what happened. If a crime is committed in an apartment, do you go after the landlord or the tenant?

I think, in general, you should go after the people who were actually breaking the law. I think it tends to be the case, though, that you go after the easy target (i.e. the person stuff is registered to) because finding the real target is more difficult and costly, and/or you go after the rich guy cos he has more money to take.

[solarchem]

If Vick is acquitted he should (and I expect he will) be allowed to return to the NFL. If he's declared innocent the NFL should not be allowed to deny him work.

Now, the Falcon's have every right to release him provided they pay whatever is required under the contract. Seeing as the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts this probably isn't much except for whatever the prorated signing bonus was.

Similarly Nike has every right to drop Vick. Even if there isn't enough evidence to convict that doesn't mean he wasn't involved at all. Nike or an individual team should be able to dictate the type of person they want representing them.

[SecondTalon]

Given that he is a professional sportsman, and as such he should maintain professionalism and so forth.

Why is it because he is a professional sportsman? Should not all people be held to the same standard, regardless of profession?

They should. But all people do not get paid several hundred thousand dollars, if not millions, to have their names associated with businesses. As a result, he has an obligation to keep his image as untarnished as possible to avoid causing potential harm to those signing his paychecks. Which is why I do my best to avoid company names of where I work when posting online, as I do not want my online behavior to be a reflection of my company. Granted, I seriously doubt anything would ever come of someone reading a comment I made, seeing that their company does business with mine and severing ties, but it's a matter of respect from me to my company.

And it is my opinion that as someone in the public eye with several corporations giving money to you, you have an ethical obligation to not engage in activities that might reflect badly on your associates: namely, your corporate sponsors. If you wish to engage in unseemly behavior, take the money you have, invest it so you can live off of it, and quit your job. Or be prepared when no one wants to do business with you anymore.

Part of that is knowing what goes on in buildings and such on your property, so that were there to be any sort of illegal activity, you could put a stop to it, alert the authorities, etc.

Even if you're rich and you own property in many different geographically-diverse locations?

At absolute best, he's an irresponsible landowner that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen when some punk kid hurts tthemself[sic] on his land.

Why should he be responsible for a punk kid who trespasses and is stupid enough to hurt himself? The use of the words "punk kid" definitely shows your distaste for such an individual...and yet you still think the landowner is more liable for said kid's stupidity. Is the power company liable when some punk kid crawls over the fence of a major transformer and dies by electrocution?

You are right in that any caretakers would be the ones responsible for upkeep, but it's been a while since I've checked in to US law. Most of my knowledge comes from US/Kentucky law as well, so this might be different in Virginia. Here, last I checked, if someone comes on to your property, climbs into a structure you have on your land and injures themselves, you can be held liable if it is provable that you have not been maintaining the structure... that is, if you allow a barn to rot where it sits, and some dumbass pulls it down on their head, you're liable because the structure should have been sound. Now, assuming it was sound and they did something else to injure themselves, it's not your responsiblity.

But things like rotting structures, sinkholes, broken barbed-wire fences hiding in tall grasses, broken fences in general, nails, and other manmade items that you, the landowner, have left around that injure someone when there was little to no way a person could have known they would have been injured... you're liable for damages. Part of being a propertyowner is upkeep of the property itself. Even for tresspassers.

The reason the power company isn't liable is that it is a properly maintained structure with a ton of warning signs. If the abanonded structure was clearly labled on all sides with something akin to "Hey, Dumbass! This thing is going to fall any second! Stay out!" then I believe you are no longer liable, as you made a best-effort to warn of the danger.

[solarchem]

Well, let's keep in mind that this is clearly beyond just being an irresponsible landlord. The DA would not have sought an indictment just for that.

When the news first broke both Nike and the Falcons gave Vick the benefit of the doubt. More and more evidence has surfaced that link Vick to the fighting and gambling on said fighting, thus the change in stance.

[22/7]

Why should he be responsible for a punk kid who trespasses and is stupid enough to hurt himself? The use of the words "punk kid" definitely shows your distaste for such an individual...and yet you still think the landowner is more liable for said kid's stupidity. Is the power company liable when some punk kid crawls over the fence of a major transformer and dies by electrocution?

In my opinion, if he was paying people to take care of his property, then those are the people who are at fault for what happened. If a crime is committed in an apartment, do you go after the landlord or the tenant?

I think, in general, you should go after the people who were actually breaking the law. I think it tends to be the case, though, that you go after the easy target (i.e. the person stuff is registered to) because finding the real target is more difficult and costly, and/or you go after the rich guy cos he has more money to take.

I assume you're not an American? This is actually pretty standard stuff for the US, and outrageous as it is/may be, it's what usually wins out. The story about the burglar falling through a skylight and then suing the owner because he hurt himself (and winning, no less) is actually a true story, as sad as that is.

[SecondTalon]

Agreed. All that being said, the best that can be proven at this point is that dog fighting took place on Vick's property and had been going on for a number of years. So I'm arguing with only that in mind as best as I can.

The story about the burglar falling through a skylight and then suing the owner because he hurt himself (and winning, no less) is actually a true story, as sad as that is.

I need to look that up as, if I'm not mistaken, there's quite a bit more to the story than just "Thief on roof falls in, sues owner, ???, profit."

[Phenriz]

depends on what "it" is and the circumstances around it.

dogfighting is one thing, but subsequently drowning the dogs in a pool because it lost a dog fight........

well i have no sympathy for the guy, to say the least.

[ehiunno]

I never have...

he went to my high school

so did his brother...

they were trash while they were there, they are still trash

[22/7]

I need to look that up as, if I'm not mistaken, there's quite a bit more to the story than just "Thief on roof falls in, sues owner, ???, profit."

Yeah, I remember there being something more to it too, but not enough to make the case imo, of course I'm no judge/jury.

I guess the more important question I meant to set forth to the xkcd community is, "if he's convicted, should the NFL let him come ack and play after he's served his time?"

The contracts and all that were really a secondary thing.

[Kles]

Two. Three if it has been a really long time.

[Aluminum Falcom]

In business, I am not sure how many chances Vick would get. If I endorsed him or produced his products, he'd be dropped, instantly. Cards, games, shoes, gone. I don't care if he's guilty or not legally, I don't want dog fighting and dog torture associated with my business. I'll find another Football Player to endorse my Cheetos.

In the law, he has the right to a fair trial if charges are brought against him. Let the law sort it out.

Personally, I am disgusted and I have no pity for Michael Vick. I would not support him having any public job, including as an advertising icon or an athlete.

There's been alot of press about Lohann, Spears, Hilton, Vick... and about how they are given a "harder time" for stuff that non-famous people "do all the time". And I agree with that. If you are in the public eye and you do something as disgusting as Vick, or are driving around drunk with drugs like Lohann or Hilton, yeah, you deserve a stronger reprimand.

It's the judges decision. If I am caught hitting my kid in the face in my own home, Social Services and the police will have something to say to me. If I am caught hitting my kid in the face on national TV seen by millions, then absolutely the punishment should be stiffer.

[Aluminum Falcom]

"if he's convicted, should the NFL let him come ack and play after he's served his time?"

That is their choice, a GREAT MANY nfl players are ex criminals.

But, on a business level, I wouldn't want my team associated with dogfighting and dog torture on such a world-wide scale. Who will ever forget that Vick is the dog killer (public perception, whether he was or not).

It's bad business. I wouldn't hire any nationally publicized convicted criminal for a public spotlight role.

[Belial]

There's an aspect of responsibility, too, when you're talking about an industry which is so public.

What does it say if dude gets convicted of torturing and killing dogs, and they welcome him back? That that's okay?

Not a message people should be interested in sending.

[Briareos]

There's been alot of press about Lohann, Spears, Hilton, Vick... and about how they are given a "harder time" for stuff that non-famous people "do all the time". And I agree with that. If you are in the public eye and you do something as disgusting as Vick, or are driving around drunk with drugs like Lohann or Hilton, yeah, you deserve a stronger reprimand.

Thank you, AF. I totally agree. I'm still trying to pinpoint exactly when the idea of role models took a backseat to our rampant culture of individuality, but that is a topic for another thread.

In my opinion, the NFL and Vick's corporate sponsors ought not to take him back, regardless of the outcome of whatever trial there is. When one is such a public figure, the bar has to be set very high. One must avoid not only impropriety, but even the appearance of such. Even if you have done nothing wrong, if you can't put in the effort to distance yourself so that you don't get accidentally entangled in a scandal, you ought to face a stiff penalty.

[zenten]

If he's proven innocent, and not just not proven guilty (yes, I know the law makes no distinction), then I think he should get a lot of his contracts back. Still, it's up to the individual companies to make the decisions.

[DeadCatX2]

If you wish to engage in unseemly behavior, take the money you have, invest it so you can live off of it, and quit your job.

Your statement seems to say that some things should be illegal only if you're in the public eye. I'm just saying that the same laws should apply to everyone, regardless of public visibility. However, I agree with Aluminum Falcom in that it does make sense for punishment to be proportional to visibility; however, legality should have zero correlation with visibility.

That is why I believe that if he's proven innocent and acquitted, then all of the damage that was done to him ought to be un-done (though it won't be).

If convicted, however...everyone has a right to think of him as a lowly convicted criminal, and they can deny him contracts etc. as they see fit.

[22/7]

I guess I personally have no issue with no one giving him contracts again, even if he is proven to be innocent, as it's a strategic business move for them to pull the contracts. He is certainly not "owed" anything from those companies and, while unfortunate for him, their decision is, imo, the right one at this point. Even if he is acquitted, I can't see them taking him back to make good sense.

[Azrael]

If he's proven innocent, and not just not proven guilty (yes, I know the law makes no distinction), then I think he should get a lot of his contracts back. Still, it's up to the individual companies to make the decisions.

These companies are paying him to be a spokesman. His value is wholly dependent on his ability to reflect the company and influence a consumer. If the company decides he no longer reflects their corporate vision or that he can no longer positively influence the consumer, they are perfectly justified in dropping him. Permanently.

Provided, of course, they follow their legal recourse that would have been part of the original endorsement contracts. I would imagine that the contracts are quite lengthly and have termination clauses in place for either party and for a myriad of reasons. Simply being arrested might very well be reason enough. What hasn't been mentioned (and likely won
't be) is just how much Nike may have to pay to terminate his services.

As for the NFL, the contracts are not guaranteed. The Falcons can decide whether his athletic worth outweighs his negative image and release him if they so choose. They're a business, after all, with more to keep in mind than one single individual's athletic prowess. Another team is more than welcome to pick him up if he's released. Probably for a lot less money, which would re-balance the athletic vs. image equation.

In both cases, it comes down to image. As a public figure, your image is frequently VERY much tied to your overall worth -- a brilliant politician with a bad image is just as much of a risk as a great athlete with a bad image, see Randy Moss or even Kate Moss. If his image is significantly tarnished, his package worth is reduced. Regardless of criminal innocence or guilt.

As for the precedence, I'd look at the idea of civil vs. criminal courts. You can be found innocent of a crime, but still sued for wrongful death etc. The ability to judge an individual on criminal charges separately from civil transactions has existed and been accepted for a long time.

[SecondTalon]

If you wish to engage in unseemly behavior, take the money you have, invest it so you can live off of it, and quit your job.

Your statement seems to say that some things should be illegal only if you're in the public eye.

Well, that wasn't my intention, but I sometimes .. okay, often.. phrase things poorly. I was intending that if you do something illegal and are caught, you shouldn't be suprised when your professional connections immediately sever all ties and refuse to do business with you. Depending on the nature of the business, it's entirely possible that the business might persue some sort of legal action for misrepresentation. Let's say Vicks was a spokesman for PETA: I wouldn't begrudge them for persuing some kind of action against him on the grounds of misrepresentation of character.

But even that mess could be worded better. I'm just going to chalk it up to wanting to stab him in the face with a rusty spoon for a couple of hours.

[iknoritesrsly]

I think he'd make a mighty strong ditch digger.

[zenten]

Now that I think about it, this would be the same as if he was permanently injured. He's not going to have the contracts if he could never play football again either.

[22/7]

Now that I think about it, this would be the same as if he was permanently injured. He's not going to have the contracts if he could never play football again either.

Ehh, kind of. Were he injured, he couldn't physically play, so it all becomes a moot point. However, were he to be incarcerated for a short period of time and the let go, people have to start making decisions.