Whose crime was worse: Leonard Little's or Michael Vick's?

[Zavulon]

Poll question: Whose crime was worse: Leonard Little's or Michael Vick's?

Based on a difference of opinion in another forum, I ask the following: whose crime was worse?

Choice 1 features Leonard Little, a St. Louis Rams player who was driving drunk behind the wheel of his Lincoln Navigator when he plowed into the car of a 47 year-old woman, killing her. Susan Gutweler left behind a husband and a teenage son.

Choice 2 features Michael Vick, whose well-documented involvement in a dog fighting ring led to the mauling and execution of a large number of dogs. Execution methods of dogs who had the gall to lose their fights included hanging, electrocution and drowning.

[flvegan]

1. I'm just going to watch this one.

:popcorn:

[Hanse]

2. I'd say Vick.

Little's was an accident. Criminally negligent for sure, but still an accident.

[Withywindle]

4. I agree.

It's a horrible tragedy and he needs to pay for it dearly, but it wasn't torture done in cold blood for kicks and over a long period of time.

[Maru Kitteh]

36. Yup. Vick's sadism was purposeful and repetitious. Drunk drivers never BELIEVE they're going to kill

someone. They all think when it comes to driving that they're better drunks than those "other" drunks.

OTH, M. Vick KNEW he was going to fight, torture and kill dogs on purpose, and he knew it every minute of the day. He knew it stone-cold sober while he was eating his breakfast. And he did it over and over and over and over - until he got caught.

Now he wants to be Mr. Sorry, Mr. Second chances. I don't feel sorry for him at all.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. People > dogs nt

[Withywindle]

6. Reckless accident =/= prolonged, deliberate cruelty

If Little had done to people what Vick did to dogs, of course his crime would be worse. But he didn't.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. I consider outcomes, not intent

Sorry, recklessly killing a human being is more heinous than intentionally killing a dog.

MANY dogs, as part of a conspiracy...perhaps different story.

[Withywindle]

22. But the law considers both.

The victim of an accident and the victim of a murder are equally dead, but the crimes are regarded differently by judges and juries. For that matter, the state of mind of the perpetrator is the reason why minors are tried differently from adults and for the insanity defense - someone murdered by a 14-year-old is just as dead as someone murdered by a 30-year-old, and someone murdered by a completely sane person is just as dead as someone murdered by a raving drooling schizophrenic, but defenses are handled very differently.

I do think drunk driving is a terrible thing and Little got off too easy. But consciously deliberately torturing MANY other living creatures to death, enjoying it and calling it a "sport" is a whole other level of sickness, and on a gut moral level it horrifies me much more.

[NYC_SKP]

27. People > dogs??? I disagree. Dogs rock. People have evil, dogs have none. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. I've yet to be bitten by a rabid person nt

[Withywindle]

57. You just don't go to the right bars. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

5. OMG! I really irked you. Little did not have PREMEDITATION or repeated violent acts.

How in the hell can you even compare the two?

You do have to be RIGHT, don't ya? ;)

[Zavulon]

10. On the contrary.

I only wanted to show you that I'm not the only person who feels the way I do.

This is a matter of opinion, there is no definite right or wrong, which is why I started out my first post in the other thread with the words "...I personally consider..."

You seem to think there is a definite right and wrong. I know there isn't. You respond with hyperactive posts to people who don't agree with you on this, I freely admitted from the start that I know not everyone agrees with me. I'm fine with that, you aren't.

As for "repeated violent acts," any time someone gets behind the wheel drunk he or she knows killing someone is a possibility. Little did it anyway. Six years or so after killing that woman, he was busted for DUI again.

Edited to add that the only comparison I made in the other thread between these two was the jail time that both of these guys got. Even if you disagree with me on which crime was worse, would you argue with me if I said that Little got off too light (90 days in jail, four years of probation, 1000 hours of community service)?

[ShortnFiery]

11. That's the point: You don't have to show me anything. And you won't change me.

I already know that opinions differ.

However, I would suggest that anyone who would repeatedly abuse and kill small animals, is a person who is capable of horrible acts.


But yes, you are not alone.

I ran out of gold stars so you'll have to tolerate my "bravo." :eyes:

[Zavulon]

15. There was no evidence in the other thread

that you know opinions differ. In fact, you asked - and I quote - "At least consider the remote possibility that you might be wrong ... if you have that basic capacity?"

I already knew I wasn't alone, I already knew you weren't. I thought you should know, too. Now that you finally seem to realize it, you might consider your initial and subsequent reactions in the other thread and then realize why people like you have so many people on DU hiding out in the Lounge.

Edited to add that it should be obvious to you that I was making no attempt to change you, just as I said that even a 200-3 vote favoring you wouldn't change me.

[Zavulon]

17. To everyone else,

now that the short and fiery one has let the cat out of the bag, the aformentioned "other thread" which features the aforementioned disagreement starts here, for anyone who wants to be in the loop: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3885431&mesg_id=3888537

[ShortnFiery]

21. OMG! What the hell is your game?

I'm no longer in sick and twisted competition.

Relax tiger, you definitely have a bigger d**k than me. :eyes:

[Zavulon]

24. You still think of this as a game or competition. Amazing.

I have no problem with the thought of people disagreeing with me. From what I've seen tonight, I can't say the same of you.

From our exchange I thought it would be interesting - to both of us - to see how others reacted to the two sides of our disagreement. I was certainly wrong about you finding it interesting. You instead see it as some sort of competition / game from me, even though in the first post I put up on the issue I said my opinion was - you've heard this a few times before - WHAT I PERSONALLY CONSIDER. I knew and demonstrated from the outset that I didn't expect everyone to agree with me.

Then you march in, show me a photo, condescendingly suggest I take a longer look at it when your first post didn't sway me, and then accuse me of stupid and baseless stuff like me putting on a "tough-guy act" (where the hell did that come from, anyway?) because I wanted to see Vick play. Wrong on both counts. Then you accuse ME of being competitive.

The way you react to people disagreeing with you and then not being swayed by your arguments is one of the most fascinating things I've seen on DU since joining.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Then I did hit a nerve?

:spray: :-)

[Zavulon]

29. You and your opinions aren't capable of hitting a nerve with me.

My girlfriend, her two friends and a neighbor have been watching this exchange and we've all been betting on your responses. Your oft-repeated accusation of hitting a nerve was something I bet on about ten minutes ago, and I just got eight bucks out of it because of your most recent post. We're going $2 per bet on how you respond.

Normally, when someone comes in and barks at me for not sharing his or her opinion, I click ignore, but largely because they're rude about it. You're something different - you actually amuse me. Plus, in total, your hyperactive reactions have made me $14 so far.

Your "100% analytical" won my girlfriend's best friend eight bucks. She had that one verbatim.

On behalf of all of us, thanks. I haven't laughed so much since the Big Bang Theory's Christmas episode. :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

31. Awe, how sweet. I would not have expected anything less ...

disgusting and low-life trashy from you and yours as the time progressed.

Bravo, I hope you and yours have a really nice party tonight.

After all, you're such GOOD PEOPLE. :hi:

[Zavulon]

33. Well, thanks.

Nice of you to admit it.

You should hear the laughter over here in response to someone who is hyperactive, hypersensitive and prone to senseless / baseless / uninformed accusations calling us "disgusting and low-life trashy" for betting on your hilarious predictability. :rofl:

The last bet was a push even before we read this post of yours, because we all said you'd respond by insulting us. Big surprise that we were right. :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

34. You're a real piece of work ... that I will give you.

:rofl: ;)

[Zavulon]

39. Crap.

Nobody had "piece of work" verbatim. Two of us had "lame and empty response" (I won't mention what the rest of us had because I don't want you to steer away from it), so we're currently trying to decide if we're going to split that pot or roll it over.

[ShortnFiery]

41. You're all so adorable ...

You make me love my dogs, even more. I didn't win any money off of them this evening but they think you and your friends "deserve each other."

Good night GENIUS, et. al.

[Zavulon]

43. YES!

Once again, you used something akin to "good night," "have a nice night," and so on. I knew you couldn't stay away. Thanks for not letting me down.

My girlfriend hates your guts, by the way - she's down about twenty bucks now. :rofl:

KA-CHING!

[Zavulon]

64. As of this writing, BTW,

it's 20-20 with 11 people taking the third ("equally reprehensible") option. This is exactly the sort of result I expected.

[Uzybone]

7. Littles' crime was worse

either way Vick has paid his debt to society. He should be suspended for a good chunk of this umcoming season (8 games would be right), and after that he should be allowed to play.

[IntravenousDemilo]

8. Equally reprehensible.

On the one hand, a human lost her life. But it was not intentional.

On the other hand, several dogs were mauled and executed. And it was intentional.

While humans are ultimately more valuable than dogs for reasons I shouldn't have to explain, an intentional crime is far worse than an unintentional one.

BTW: "Whose", not "Who's".

[mth44sc]

9. Not intentional

and yet he was subsequently charged with a second offence of DUI. Fortunately he didn't kill anyone the second time.

[Zavulon]

12. I know.

Typo - actually, brain fart. Corrected. Thanks.

[Obamanaut]

13. I agree with equally reprehensible. While it may be true that

the death was not intentional, driving while impaired was. One does not accidentally consume beverages and then accidentally get behind the wheel. The combination of the two is a blatant disregard for the safety and well being of others. There has been ample documentation that alcohol consumption (and many other substances as well) degrades the senses, thus it is callous of that or any other person to deliberately drive while under the influence of any mind altering substance.

[LSdemocrat]

14. The one that demonstrates intent, long-term planning, necessary financing, and torture

The other was just carelessness with horrific consequences.

[woo me with science]

16. Driving drunk is more than carelessness.

It is wanton disregard for the potential consequences of such an act.

Vick's crime was horrible, but Little's was not just an accident.

[LSdemocrat]

20. In some ways it's a paradoxical crime

DUI/DWI is a crime because your judgment and reflexes are impaired, and therefore are in no state to operate a car, yet it is a crime you commit precisely when your judgment is admittedly impaired to the point the law no longer commits you to and, in some circumstances protects you from actions you take when impaired. If you get married while drunk, the law allows you to annul the marriage. You are legally unable to give consent to sexual intercourse while drunk. These protections highlight the importance of state of mind in our legal system.

This is why people who commit DUI/DWI, even when killing people, get seemingly light sentences.

[varkam]

32. Generally speaking, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the commission of a crime.

You can't get blitzed and then decide to go shoot someone down in cold blood and get away with it - the law still applies to you. The fact that you were intoxicated might serve as a mitigator, but you are still nevertheless criminally responsible. It was, after all, your choice to get drunk.

Also, DUI is one of those crimes that doesn't really require a mens rea. It doesn't matter what was running through your head - it's strict liability. If you're behind the wheel and blow over the limit, you're guilty - period.

[LSdemocrat]

35. I'm not denying the crime, just explaining why the punishments are less

And as a result, why Vick's crime is worse.

[varkam]

38. What?

Vick got a 23-month sentence. Generally, you're looking at 3 to 15 years for vehicular manslaughter. So, tell me again how that means that Vick's crime is worse?

[LSdemocrat]

42. Leonard actually only served 90 days + 1000 hours community service

[varkam]

44. Note that Little's entire sentence is actually longer than Vick's.

Note, also, that 90 days served is incredibly unusual for a manslaughter conviction - that's why basing your evaluation of whether a certain crime is worse on the sentence (or time served) is a pretty bad yardstick; sometimes, sentences get handed down that are just crap.

You can get several years in prison for drug possession - does that mean that drug possession is worse than Vick's crime?

[LSdemocrat]

47. I agree that sentencing is ridiculously screwed up in this country

I guess what we're really arguing about is the definition of "worse". I view it from the perspective of the criminal. In that sense what Little did was no worse that what countless other people do who drive drunk, but completely get away with it, or don't happen to harm people on the way.

Vick, on the other hand, intended harm, planned harm, and enabled the harm.

Little's crime was definitely more tragic, but that doesn't make it worse.

[varkam]

48. Several years ago, in my state...

there was a fellow who drove drunk, hit a school bus that then caught fire and ended up killing more than a dozen children.

So...Vick's crime is worse than that?

And, again, is drug possession worse? I mean, it is intentional, and you can get sentences longer than Vick's for it...so?

[LSdemocrat]

51. A very tragic accident is still just an accident

Secondly, drug possession without intent to distribute shouldn't be a jailable offense, if a crime at all depending on the drug.

The drunk driver who plowed into the school bus is no worse than the drunk driver who gets home scot free without harming a soul. The one who hit the school bus just happened to hit the school bus, and therefore, that driver's actions had more devastating consequences, but only due to bad circumstances.

[varkam]

53. It's not an accident when someone gets blitzed and then get's behind the wheel.

That's recklessness - and it's a crime, as are the consequences that stem from that decision.

Secondly, drug possession without intent to distribute shouldn't be a jailable offense, if a crime at all depending on the drug.

And if your only rubric for defining the seriousness of the crime is the sentence that is passed, what is your support for that assertion?

The drunk driver who plowed into the school bus is no worse than the drunk driver who gets home scot free without harming a soul. The one who hit the school bus just happened to hit the school bus, and therefore, that driver's actions had more devastating consequences, but only due to bad circumstances.

But the question is not who is worse. The question is what crime is worse. Perhaps Vick is a general asshole who has never helped another human being, and perhaps Little is a humanitarian who made a terrible decision that had tragic consequences - but the question of whether the crime was worse and whether a person is worse than another are completely different questions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. The law clearly considered Vick's worse. Little probably had to pay more financially though.

[Iggo]

23. They are entirely different crimes.

One of them was criminally negligent.

The other bankrolled a criminal organization.

That said, I'd still save the life of a human stranger ahead of my pet.

[excess_3]

25. where would waterboarding, be ranked here? . n/t

[Iggo]

26. In this case...

...it'd have to have been done by an NFL star.

[varkam]

30. Are some people finding this a tough call to make? Little's of course.

No doubt that his crime wasn't intentional and that Vick's was - but not only was she, you know, a human being, but she also is leaving a husband and kid behind. When Vick killed those dogs, they weren't leaving behind loved ones in the same sense that Ms. Gutweler left her family behind. All of this is not to say that we do not have an ethical responsibility to animals (not the least of them involves not killing them for shits and giggles). Vick's mental state may have been more culpable than that of Mr. Little, but that doesn't make his crime worse when the effects of Mr. Little's crime are so far reaching.

[The Traveler]

37. They both suck

Really. I have to decide which one is worse? You're shitting me, right? The consequences ... ah, the DUI had worse consequences, in terms of numbers of human lives ripped apart. Sure. I can accept that argument. But Vick is disgusting. His behaviors could suggest the psyche of a potential serial killer in training. (Yeah ... cruelty to animals, torturing them and killing them, is often a warm up for a budding serial killer. Lovely minds. Just lovely.)

The drunken driver is drowning in self centered compulsion, and that is never sexy. It suggests immaturity and dysfunction at the very least, but it does not necessarily suggest malice. In that context, Little seems less objectionable than Vick. He's a jerk, but not necessarily a malicious jerk.

The animal cruelty thing inspires revulsion and contempt, but it also signals the potential for an even more serious problem. Vick's behavior is ripe with malice. Malice directed at dogs can easily be trained on a human in the right conditions ...

All of which is easily summed up in two short sentences.

Both of these assclowns suck.

Vick sucks even harder than Little.

Trav

[Zavulon]

45. You don't have to decide which is worse. And you're right, both suck.

I simply put up the poll in response to a disagreement in another thread because I was genuinely curious as to what the results would be here on DU. The results wouldn't have swayed me either way, it was just curiousity.

I put in the third option for people who couldn't decide. Personally, I think there are valid arguments for both sides (and for the third option). I also think Little sucks a bit more than Vick, but not by a landslide.

What I love about this thread is that people are, so far, evenly split (it's 16-16 as of this writing) while still being civil about it. Sure, I'm in an argument with the person who inspired the thread, but other than that what I'm seeing here bears out what I thought all along - people CAN disagree without flying off the handle or demanding that someone else take a second look at his / her post. There ARE adults on DU.

I liked your post a lot, by the way. "Both of these assclowns suck" was a brilliant summary. :)

[ShortnFiery]

46. "There ARE adults on DU."

Too bad you and your friends who were laughing at our responses here are NOT part of the population, i.e., ADULTS.

[Zavulon]

49. I may quit my job after this.

You're making me rich!

We disagree, you get hyper and make uninformed accusations, my friends and I find it amusing and start gambling on your predictability, and that means that WE aren't adults. But YOU are. :rofl:

Two of us bet that you'd say what you said. The rest said you'd go to sleep and stop making us money. Thankfully, I was in the former group. Please stick around, because I'd love to make enough money tonight to buy the Godfather trilogy. Not like I can't afford it without your help, but if I win enough money tonight to cover the cost it will be extra-extra-extra special. Just think of it: every time I watch one of those movies, you'll be thought of!

Let me guess: that makes me "disgusting and low-life trashy" because there's a simulated decapitated horse's head in the original movie, right? :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

50. You really don't understand how parasitic and immature you and your friends are behaving.

You noticed in the other thread that I lost my beloved dog of 15 years? I admitted to being a little overly compassionate recently. But you latched on, got a few friends to laugh at me, and created this to play out on this thread.

I did NOT insist that you had to agree with me, just to consider the fact that you MAY be wrong.

By creating this thread and then ANNOUNCING that covertly you and three girl friends are making fun and betting on my response.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a few PMs back and forth between the two of us been more mature than THIS BIG GET EVEN?

[Zavulon]

52. You don't understand how hyperactive and narrow-minded you were at the start.

I've already expressed compassion towards the Bad Newz Kennels dogs and symapthy for your loss, and I meant it both times.

However, just because you've got an axe to grind after you lost your pet doesn't mean that you can expect to make uninformed accusations without being responded to. After a while it actually started to get funny, so we started betting on it because it was as if at least one of us could predict what you'd post before you did it.

So far, you've accused me of some sort of "tough guy" stance based on me wanting to see Vick play football. Wrong.

You've accused me of being "100% analytical" without having empathy or compassion. Wrong.

I truly don't think I had either of those coming (throw in your "did you leave your empathy towards defenseless animals at the door," or however you phrased it), but it doesn't bother me. As a DUer who's pro-gun and pro-Obama but very much anti-Hillary, I've had a lot worse than anything I've heard from you. You clearly got upset at my words, I didn't get upset at yours (despite your repeated claims that you hit a nerve). I found your hypersensitivity annoying, but it takes a lot more to really piss me off than the crap i've gotten from you. Lately, I've found hysterical reactions to be amusing. A year ago, you really would have hit a nerve because I had no tolerance for people who were intolerant to dissenting opinions, but now I laugh at people who act that way.

So do my friends. Sometimes people make up their own drinking games, we do this. My girlfriend has an "undercover" ID at Free Republic and baits people so that we can play the same game.

You acted as if you had the only answer, and when I wasn't swayed at first you told me to look at the picture again - as if I was so stupid that I didn't get the impact the first time. I did get it, I just didn't think it was worse than what Little did. Normally I'd find that annoying, but because of the tone of your post I actually found myself somewhat amused. Shortly after that, I told the people here that I had a live one, and you walked right into a lot of our bets. It's not OUR fault that you're so predictable.

I think both Little AND Vick are scum. The person who introduced me to DU despises Vick, as do I. Look him up (again, the username is Ron Mexico, which is a shot at Vick) and try to figure out when his last post was. I'm guessing it was at least two or three years, because - as he said - "outside of the Lounge, you can't express an opinion without someone coming in and ragging on you."

Like it or not, he was right. You're just one of hundreds to prove him right. He doesn't post here anymore because of people like YOU.

So yes, we bet on your responses. Call us immature, "disgisting and low-life trashy" or whatever else, but we're turning a negative (shrieking and insulting responses) into a positive (fun, and for some of us, profit).

As for your last line, you once again take something wrong - in this case, calling this a "big get even." I don't know how, after all of this, to tell you that I really don't care what you think. I'm not competing with you, I'm not trying to get even. You and your opinions are simply not that important to me. They're amusing to us as a group, but that's something else entirely.

You know, the sort of exchange we've had is nothing new to DU. We've both seen a lot worse. If you wanted to finish our talk through PM, I wouldn't have been against it. You started the pissing contest, though, and it wasn't my responsibility to suggest PM for your convenience.

I wasn't kidding when I said I was sorry for your loss. My thinking Leonard Little's crime was worse than Vick's is simply opinion (again, "WHAT I PERSONALLY CONSIDER") and in no way lessens my sympathy towards you for your loss.

I think, however, if you bookmark both of our threads and come back to read our exchanges in a week, a month or whatever, you might (not sure here, just guessing) come to the conclusion that your loss was something you took out on me because I'm part of the 50% (as of this writing: 17 for Little, 17 for Vick, 8 voting for the "equally reprehensible" option)) which would pick Little over Vick in the poll. I think both are scum, but because I think Little was a bit worse you flew off the handle.

I didn't start this, and it wasn't my job to switch to PM to make you feel better. I'm not trying to get even. I don't even need the last word. The thing is this: when you make uninformed accusations about me - like me not having empathy towards dogs, as one of several examples - I'm going to respond.

Based on my previous experience with you, I'm guessing you're going to misinterpret something I've written here - and yes, I'm placing a bet on it, as is everyone else here. If you want to switch to PM, it's YOUR job to let ME know. All I did was post an opinion and watch you jump on me for it.

Edited to correct seriously incompetent typing.

[ShortnFiery]

54. "I wasn't kidding when I said I was sorry for your loss."

You could care less and you know it.

Come on, get real?

IMO the ONLY thing you care about is proving to others that YOU ARE RIGHT.

You are one hell of a competitor, don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Zavulon]

55. Incredible.

You can't even receive a genuine expression of sympathy without taking it the wrong way. On the bright side, I did just pick up some quick cash by predicting that you'd find something to misinterpret in my past post. For reasons that completely escape me, everyone else in the house predicted that you'd switch to PM, whereas I said you'd post a misinterpretation openly. I'm still sorry for your loss, even though you're too cynical to believe it, but I'm also a little bit richer because I knew you'd post something like this.

As for your opinion, I have done nothing to try to prove that I am "right" - in fact, I've said repeatedly that it's a strictly opinion-related manner (this might be unfamiliar to you, but I've said repeatedly that my opinion is merely WHAT I PERSONALLY CONSIDER). After all of this, only you could think I'm still trying to prove a point. I even said that in a matter like this, it was impossible to prove right or wrong because it's all opinion. Only you could have come up with an "IMO" like you did.

Strangest of all, you still view this as a competition.

At this point, the one thing that keeps coming to mind is that you should seek professional help.

[ShortnFiery]

56. You still must have the last word.

If anyone needs professional help it's YOU. However, I doubt you'd seek it as you are ... ALWAYS RIGHT.

And have to have the last word. :evilgrin:

[Zavulon]

58. You keep responding.

As such, it's obvious that the last word that you think is so important to me is VERY important to you.

Not to repeat myself, even though I have to do it a lot in my futile attempts to get through to you, but I never have to be right. I said freely that the poll might well turn out in your favor, that there is no right or wrong in a matter of opinion, and so on. The fact that you still think anyone who doesn't agree with you - even though he admits plenty of others might - must be "ALWAYS RIGHT" says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Thanks for the extra cash, BTW. The "ALWAYS RIGHT" thing was a pot I had to split, but I still got some money out of it.

I don't know how long you care to keep this up, but none of us over here have to work tomorrow - so if you want to keep up the pissing contest, I'm happy to comply. Seriously, after this exchange with you I'm feeling the need to send the IRS a 1099.

[ShortnFiery]

59. I rest my case.

:patriot:

[Zavulon]

60. Hilarious.

That's what you consider to be proof, even though you keep responding.

Go ahead and respond again, and be sure to throw in an emoticon. That Godfather Trilogy is almost mine. :rofl:

[Zavulon]

61. And the truly funny part is...

...that you finally sent me a PM and then put me on ignore (for PMs, anyway). Oh, yeah, the last word means NOTHING to you! :rofl:

Sadly, I wound up short in my Godfather Trilogy quest (I figure it's about fifty bucks), but on the bright side I can afford a case of my favorite beer just because of your predictability.

I also know that even though you put me on ignore, you'll find a way to read this, so from all of us: HI! :hi:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Wow, this thread is awesome

I wish *I* were placing bets on it now.

[Zavulon]

63. You could make some serious cash.

I'm up $42 as we speak, but it seems that I won't get the chance to expand the bank.

[regnaD kciN]

65. The Bush Administration using lies (obtained by torture) to invade a noncombatant country...

...killing up to a million civilians or more.

[cali]

66. uh, yeah, but that's not the topic of the OP or germane

to the discussion. The kinds of crimes committed by these two were not influenced by bushco.

[tomreedtoon]

67. Both football players. Both uncaring thugs.

I'd have to rank Little slightly higher, because the life he took was human. And anyone who drives drunk deliberately wants to kill someone, possibly himself.

But still, both were football players, people trained from youth to be violent thugs, and rewarded with money, power and whores for that activity. What the hell did the public expect them to be in their private lives?