Vick’s “revenge” and why Tiger Woods is irrelevant

The headline of the article is what caught my eye, so let’s start there: Mickael [sic] Vick; the Canine Killer’s Sweet Revenge.

Just what is Michael Vick getting revenge for–having to serve time for the crimes he committed? Sometimes the victim of a crime seeks revenge, but generally you don’t hear of the perpetrator doing so. The rapist’s sweet revenge? The extortionist’s sweet revenge? Bernie Madoff’s sweet revenge on the thousands of innocent people he swindled? It doesn’t make sense.

Next question: How is playing a good game of football getting “revenge”?

“Vick took a snap from center at the five yard line and sprinted off to his right, only to see an opening on his left and cut back for an easy touchdown… Vick’s touchdown pass in the fourth quarter brought no less of a reaction; fans were simply thrilled that their golden boy had returned home.”

Is he getting revenge on the critics who said he’d never play a decent game of football again? No, the article doesn’t mention that. In fact, Koons makes the case that Vick’s athletic prowess is redeeming him of his cruel acts:

“The irresponsibility of [Vick’s] actions were completely thrown aside the moment he stepped into the Georgia Dome; and I have a feeling that many of those mistakes are finally considered to be in Michael Vick’s past for good.”

If Koons wanted to argue that the handful of appearances Vick has made at area schools is part of redemption, at least that relates to the crimes committed. But what does playing a decent game of football have to do with redeeming himself as a human being?

The word “revenge” implies that one was somehow wronged. Maybe Koons thinks Vick was wronged by having to pay for (some of) the crimes he committed?

“After completing a portion of his federal sentence on house arrest Michael Vick petitioned the NFL and after showing genuine remorse eventually landed a purely incentive driven contract worth up to $1.6 million as a backup quarterback in Philadelphia. This is nowhere near enough to solve his complex financial nightmare and Vick has spent the majority of this season watching from the sidelines to further detriment his financial stability.”

Reminder: Vick lost those contracts because of his illegal, immoral conduct. He wasn’t just stripped of his wealth and his status by chance. He knowingly acted in violation of every moral and legal code. He brought the consequences on himself. He earned his prison time and lost his contracts fair and square.

“We can all learn something from Michael Vick,” writes Koons. And just what would that be? If you’re a good enough quarterback, years and years of sadistic torture and killing can be swept under the rug as a “blunder” or “mistake”?

Spelling Vick’s name wrong in your article headline is a mistake, Mr. Koons. I don’t care what adjective you toss in front of it – “horrible,” “tragic,” or even “monumental” – premeditated and prolonged torture to others is anything but a mistake. It’s the actions of a sociopath.

“Although he will always be remembered as the dummy that savagely trained dogs to fight; that is only one part of him and hopefully a side we will never see again.”

Did you actually call Vick a dummy? That’s like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a stupid-head and then going on to say his raping, killing, and cannibalizing young boys was just one facet of Dahmer’s life. I don’t care if Dahmer was a keen unicyclist or a passionate horticulturist. And I don’t care if Vick is a talented quarterback. How you treat others, Mr. Koons, is who you are.

-Leslie Smith

PS. Attention media: Enough with the Michael Vick/Tiger Woods comparisons. While Woods acted selfishly, hedonistically, and dishonestly, his intent was to bring pleasure to himself, not to bring pain to others. He tried to keep his affairs under wraps to protect his image, and probably, to keep from hurting his wife and kids. Vick’s actions, on the other hand, were intended to bring the most agonizing and intense suffering imaginable to others, and that’s the critical difference. Both are reprehensible, but only the latter is diabolical.