Would you accept Michael Vick on the Redskins?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

To be accurate, discrimination is the wrong term. Employers are not permitted to deny opportunity for employment based on race, religion, gender, age, or nationality. So says Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, thereby qualifying as discrimination.

There are no laws against denying employment opportunity against those with criminal records. This is perfectly legal, done all the time, and something I wholeheartedly support.

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

In THIS case, I do not believe you can "rehab" mentally defective behavior. What brings a person to torture innocent animals? I think 44ever said it. He's a dark twisted soul. He may not repeat as he has no desire to go back to the slam and deal his cellmate "Ben Dover"............but THAT is not getting rehabbed. Abstenance.....possibly, but not rehabilitation. He'll probably be a good guy until he watches "Silence of the lambs" one to many times......

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

You're showing your liberal stripes again

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

I think some people can be rehabbed, but that's not the point. I support giving employers the option to decide who they want to give that second chance to. If they don't want to give that second chance, they shouldn't have to.

GMScud makes great points, there is gray area galore. I'm of the same mind that I can overlook a DWI offense for certain positions, while someone convicted of aggravated assault probably wouldn't stand a chance with me.

There are positions where you just don't want to take the chance. If I'm hiring someone to clean the bathrooms of my office building, I probably don't care if they've been convicted of drug charges in the past. If I'm a car dealership hiring a car salesmen, I absolutely want someone with a 100% clean record.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think some people can be rehabbed, but that's not the point. I support giving employers the option to decide who they want to give that second chance to. If they don't want to give that second chance, they shouldn't have to.

GMScud makes great points, there is gray area galore. I'm of the same mind that I can overlook a DWI offense for certain positions, while someone convicted of aggravated assault probably wouldn't stand a chance with me.

There are positions where you just don't want to take the chance. If I'm hiring someone to clean the bathrooms of my office building, I probably don't care if they've been convicted of drug charges in the past. If I'm a car dealership hiring a car salesmen, I absolutely want someone with a 100% clean record.

Great point. I doubt Vick will ever be a starting QB in the NFL again cause it's so much more than throwing a football and reading defenses. There is the business side and your QB has to be marketable. No one says Vick can't work a 9-5.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think some people can be rehabbed, but that's not the point. I support giving employers the option to decide who they want to give that second chance to. If they don't want to give that second chance, they shouldn't have to.

GMScud makes great points, there is gray area galore. I'm of the same mind that I can overlook a DWI offense for certain positions, while someone convicted of aggravated assault probably wouldn't stand a chance with me.

There are positions where you just don't want to take the chance. If I'm hiring someone to clean the bathrooms of my office building, I probably don't care if they've been convicted of drug charges in the past. If I'm a car dealership hiring a car salesmen, I absolutely want someone with a 100% clean record.

I wouldn't hire Michael Vick to clean the toilets in my office.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I wouldn't hire Michael Vick to clean the toilets in my office.

I'm with ya brother!

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I wouldn't hire Michael Vick to clean the toilets in my office.

Neither would I, but I would sure as hell hire him if he could average 1 TD per game over the course of the season. Thats an improvement over what we got.

Honestly, I think that he would be one hell of a Punt Returner/ offensive weapon. People can say what they want about ARE but he is not as versataille as people think.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Angry

Neither would I, but I would sure as hell hire him if he could average 1 TD per game over the course of the season. Thats an improvement over what we got.

Honestly, I think that he would be one hell of a Punt Returner/ offensive weapon. People can say what they want about ARE but he is not as versataille as people think.

I thought that what we were saving Colt Brennan for?

As for Vick no way. Wouldn't touch him with a 10ft pole.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Angry

Neither would I, but I would sure as hell hire him if he could average 1 TD per game over the course of the season. Thats an improvement over what we got.

Honestly, I think that he would be one hell of a Punt Returner/ offensive weapon. People can say what they want about ARE but he is not as versataille as people think.

As a QB? Because any non-QB who can avg 16 TDs a year is not only going to have a job, but will likely also be a pro-bowler with a phat contract. IMO Vick's future in this league (if he even has one) is not at QB.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GMScud

As a QB? Because any non-QB who can avg 16 TDs a year is not only going to have a job, but will likely also be a pro-bowler with a phat contract. IMO Vick's future in this league (if he even has one) is not at QB.

Nope, it's going to be as a 'gimmick' as I've been saying throughout the thread. He's not going to get another job in the NFL as a starting QB, but even if he's 90% of what he was athletically the last season he played, he's still an elite level 'weapon'.

If you were a defensive coordinator and had to game plan against a starting RB, a #1 WR, a decent QB AND had to account for a weapon like Vick who can throw, run, catch on any play? That's a tough match-up for any defense.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Nope, it's going to be as a 'gimmick' as I've been saying throughout the thread. He's not going to get another job in the NFL as a starting QB, but even if he's 90% of what he was athletically the last season he played, he's still an elite level 'weapon'.

If you were a defensive coordinator and had to game plan against a starting RB, a #1 WR, a decent QB AND had to account for a weapon like Vick who can throw, run, catch on any play? That's a tough match-up for any defense.

Considering the hot new trend is the "wildcat" formation, I could see a team picking him just to experiment with him in that regard. He does have a big arm and is blazing fast, so they could run him in wildcat and keep defenses honest because of the pass option when he's in the backfield.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GMScud

As a QB? Because any non-QB who can avg 16 TDs a year is not only going to have a job, but will likely also be a pro-bowler with a phat contract. IMO Vick's future in this league (if he even has one) is not at QB.

That's what I am saying. The crazy thing is I believe that he is capable of a 16 TD season outside of the QB position. Use him as a returner, a passer, a runner and a reciever.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you don't think people can be rehabbed? or change? if you don't give people a second chance, they just continue going down the wrong path, creating headaches for normal, productive members of society

ALSO, I think PC and possibly some Federal laws may mandate that as a convicted felon (having served your due) you deserve the same consideration as the next candidate for a job. In reality, in all but a small percentage of circumstances.....the AIN'T happening

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hog1

ALSO, I think PC and possibly some Federal laws may mandate that as a convicted felon (having served your due) you deserve the same consideration as the next candidate for a job. In reality, in all but a small percentage of circumstances.....the AIN'T happening

All job applications ask if you been conivicted of a crime or felony so I don't think thats the case. Some businesses won't hire people if they have bad credit or financial problems.