Vick sentenced to 23 months

[mardigan]

.Vick gets 23-month sentence on dogfighting charges
ESPN.com news services

Updated: December 10, 2007, 10:49 AM ET


RICHMOND, Va. -- Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison Monday for his role in a dogfighting conspiracy.

Federal sentencing guidelines suggested a year to 18 months.

The suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback also received three years' probation at his sentencing before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson.

With nearly a month already served, going by Hudson's sentencing, Vick would be scheduled for release in October 2009.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549

[BacktoBasics]

Just caught this. I hope he serves all 23 months. I think its a fair ruling.

[Taco]

23 Months?!?!

That's a big BITE out of his NFL Career

[kingsfan]

Not long enough IMO but it could have been less. I had to quit listening to the radio and the dumbasses saying he should have been released.

[Extra Stout]

He'll get paroled early.

[703 Spurz]

Fucker needs to serve his jailtime in a kennel with pit bulls. See how long his bitch ass lives

[spursRgay]

Fucker needs to serve his jailtime in a kennel with pit bulls. See how long his bitch ass lives

:lol yea feed him to his own pit bulls :lol :lol

[Jimcs50]

OJ kills two people in cold blood. He does not serve any time at all.

Vick kills dogs. He gets 23 months.


Hence, we care more about dogs than we do about people.

:lol

[BacktoBasics]

OJ kills two people in cold blood. He does not serve any time at all.

Vick kills dogs. He gets 23 months.


Hence, we care more about rich black dudes not being completely responsible for their own actions than we do about real people and animals.

:lolFixed

[jcrod]

OJ kills two people in cold blood. He does not serve any time at all.

Vick kills dogs. He gets 23 months.


Hence, we care more about dogs than we do about people.

:lol


No Kidding, here's more examples.

Leonard Little (NFL),
October 1998
• Drank and drove his SUV into Susan Gutweiler's car. A wife and mother, she died the next day. The Rams put Little on paid leave. He pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and served 90 days in jail, four years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. Then NFL stated that Little could play in training camp and preseason games but was banned without pay for the first eight regular-season games. That half-season suspension cost him roughly $125,000.

Charles Smith (NBA),
March 1992
• Celtics guard was convicted of vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of a crime in the hit-and-run deaths of two Boston University students. Sentenced to 4½ years in prison, he was acquitted of the more serious charge of manslaughter. Smith returned to the NBA for the 1995-96 season and played 8 games with the Wolves.

Craig MacTavish (NHL), May 1984
• Was convicted of vehicular homicide while a member of the Bruins. While drunk, he rear-ended a car, causing it to skid into a parking lot, where it hit two more cars and overturned. The other driver died days later. Served one year in prison. MacTavish played 14 NHL seasons following his year in prison and has coached the Oilers since the beginning of the 2000-01 season.

[ratm1221]

Fuck that gangster bitch. I hope he gets shanked in prison. I didn't buy his "I'm a new man" bullshit for one second.

http://withmalice.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/vick-bye.jpg

[J.T.]

Seems about right. I mean, it's not like he broke into your house, kidnapped your dog, and then killed it....

I doubt he gets shanked in prison though, in there will all those murderers, crack dealers and what not. They probably will laugh at him.

[SAtown]

I doubt he gets shanked in prison though, in there will all those murderers, crack dealers and what not. They probably will laugh at him.

I don't know man. He'll be a high-profile inmate, so I'm sure tons of people will want a shot at him. And you never know; maybe animal-cruelty is near the bottom of the food-chain

[ratm1221]

Be nice if they threw him in with the murderers and drug dealers, but they already said he's probably going to end up in a minimum security prison. Asshole will probably have his own private gym, high def cable TV, and eat New York strip steaks for dinner every night.

[Capt Bringdown]

23 months for being mean to some damn dogs?
Racism, pure and simple.

[BeerIsGood!]

I know the Feds don't give time for good behavior, but I think he'll be parolled before 23 months are up. He wont get shanked, he'll be high profile in a minimum security tank and won't have much of a hardship other than not being able to leave and having to take a shit in that little ass can.

If he were white and famous he'd get the same treatment as Henry Hill and Paulie Cicero in Goodfellas - with the wine, lobsters, and steaks. :stirpot:

[Spawn]

Fixed

Kill yourself!!!

[peewee's lovechild]

I saw a court drawing of him on ESPN. He was wearing a black and white prison suit.

He looked like a black Hamburgler.

I couldn't stop laughing.

[ratm1221]

I know the Feds don't give time for good behavior, but I think he'll be parolled before 23 months are up.

As it stands now, the courts ruled that earliest he can get out is 18 months. So he will be in there for at least that long.


23 months for being mean to some damn dogs?
Racism, pure and simple.

Please tell me you're not serious. Two letters. O.J.. That's what ruined it for Vick. Not racism. After they let OJ off and he blatantly mocked the system by writing a book about how he did it, the courts weren't going to go easy on the next celebrity case. They made a statement. That, and he pissed the judge off. Racism? Sorry, that card don't work in this instance.

[FromWayDowntown]

Vick's sentence wasn't increased because he's a celebrity; the sentence was increased from the government's recommendation because, among other things, he affirmatively lied to a probation officer about smoking weed while out on bail. Another great choice by Mike Vick. His refusal to admit that he killed dogs also didn't help the cause.

[BeerIsGood!]

As it stands now, the courts ruled that earliest he can get out is 18 months. So he will be in there for at least that long.



Please tell me you're not serious. Two letters. O.J.. That's what ruined it for Vick. Not racism. After they let OJ off and he blatantly mocked the system by writing a book about how he did it, the courts weren't going to go easy on the next celebrity case. They made a statement. That, and he pissed the judge off. Racism? Sorry, that card don't work in this instance.

I got them crossed, the Feds don't grant parole. If the earliest he can get out is 18 months then I'd probably guess he would be getting out in 18 months unless he pulls a Vick in prison and does something stupid.

[johngateswhiteley]

23 months is insane. he fought dogs...people...dogs. while some of you may equate that to human life, and you'd be a fucking idiot, its not. dogs are around for entertainment purposes almost entirely. vick didn't kill anyone, he's not some repeat offender...its not like he couldn't have just got a fine and some community service. no way he should have gotten more than 6 months...tops.

the judge is insane, the prosecution is insane, and many on this board are insane. take a step back, and realize he didn't torture and kill your dog, your little pookie is fine...he/she is probably at home getting taken care of better than you take care of yourself.

people do worse things every day and i guarantee a lot of them don't get 23 months in prison. some sanity on this board please!

[ratm1221]

23 months is insane. he fought dogs...people...dogs. while some of you may equate that to human life, and you'd be a fucking idiot, its not. dogs are around for entertainment purposes almost entirely. vick didn't kill anyone, he's not some repeat offender...

Murder is a hard crime to convict. That's why someone that gets caught with a QP of weed goes to jail for 6 months while the person that murders someone gets probation. It's just a fact. But to say that the people that DO get convicted of murder would get less than 23 months makes no sense. If he had done to people what he did to those dogs, and was convicted, he would serve multiple life sentences and get the juice. So... how are you saying that they are equating human life to dogs life? If that was true, wouldn't he be serving life? Think about what you are saying.

[monosylab1k]

Vick got what he deserved, no doubt. But this news story right here shows how fucked up & backwards the system is.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8TESO100.html


Former day-care center owner convicted in child's death

12/10/2007

Associated Press


A former Dallas day-care center owner has been sentenced to two years in prison, hours after her conviction of charges arising from the heat-related death of a 4-year-old boy left in a van on a searing July afternoon.

A Dallas County jury returned the sentence Monday afternoon for Blynithia Washington, 42. Jurors had found her guilty Monday morning of reckless injury to a child and evidence tampering in the death of Jacob Fox in 2006.

Police say Fox died of heat stroke after he was left in a day care van, then his body was removed from the van and placed in a Balch Springs park.

fighting dogs is apparently just as bad as killing a small child & trying to dump the body.

[ratm1221]

John...

One other thing. You live in the US where a majority of people love their pets. If you don't like it, move to Vietnam and you can torture and eat fucking dogs all you want. I hope I catch you on the street kicking a dog you coward.

[samikeyp]

some sanity on this board please!

Why start now?

:)

[johngateswhiteley]

Murder is a hard crime to convict. That's why someone that gets caught with a QP of weed goes to jail for 6 months while the person that murders someone gets probation. It's just a fact. But to say that the people that DO get convicted of murder would get less than 23 months makes no sense. If he had done to people what he did to those dogs, and was convicted, he would serve multiple life sentences and get the juice. So... how are you saying that they are equating human life to dogs life? If that was true, wouldn't he be serving life? Think about what you are saying.

you must be a mavs fan. see mono's post, anyway, i said some people may equate the two and its apparent they do. most people out there don't think vick got enough time in jail, thankfully the judge wasn't a complete dumb ass. i always think about what i am saying, and thats the problem...most people don't.

i love animals, i just know their place in society...worthless in comparison to human life. i had a dog growing up and a sphynx in college, and if anything happened to them i'd be furious...but i wouldn't want anyone going to jail for it. besides, vick wasn't going into people's houses or stealing other people's dogs...he was using his own. i know there was a report that he scooped up a couple stray dogs or something, but nothing i have seen was convincing of the fact. even so, who lets their dogs wonder around anyway? and i doubt these were loved cared for animals...the ones in question.

[johngateswhiteley]

Why start now?

:)

good question...b/c i am tired of knee-jerk overreacting people who don't think before they speak, nor put things into perspective. shouldn't we all strive to use our brains?

[johngateswhiteley]

John...

One other thing. You live in the US where a majority of people love their pets. If you don't like it, move to Vietnam and you can torture and eat fucking dogs all you want. I hope I catch you on the street kicking a dog you coward.

what the fuck are you talking about? another idiotic post. i just happen to view Vick losing almost 2 years of life and millions of dollars as a little more important than whatever involvement he had in some dog fighting ring. where is the national outrage of joe schmo in the south killing dogs? where is the outrage on numerous other important things?

just admit you are the medias bitch and they own you, much like most in the states...

[tlongII]

23 months is insane. he fought dogs...people...dogs. while some of you may equate that to human life, and you'd be a fucking idiot, its not. dogs are around for entertainment purposes almost entirely. vick didn't kill anyone, he's not some repeat offender...its not like he couldn't have just got a fine and some community service. no way he should have gotten more than 6 months...tops.

the judge is insane, the prosecution is insane, and many on this board are insane. take a step back, and realize he didn't torture and kill your dog, your little pookie is fine...he/she is probably at home getting taken care of better than you take care of yourself.

people do worse things every day and i guarantee a lot of them don't get 23 months in prison. some sanity on this board please!


I agree with jgw. I think 23 months is ridiculously excessive.

[J.T.]

I have to agree with JGW because my mother used to go batshit crazy on me if I was playing with the dog and it yelped, I always thought she was full of shit for it too.

[samikeyp]

good question...b/c i am tired of knee-jerk overreacting people who don't think before they speak, nor put things into perspective. shouldn't we all strive to use our brains?


We should, but you know as well as I do that message boards live off of knee-jerk reactions. :)

Perspective can be different to different people. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just different.

[johngateswhiteley]

We should, but you know as well as I do that message boards live off of knee-jerk reactions. :)

Perspective can be different to different people. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just different.

not in this case, i'm sorry. i have to judge. anyone who thinks 23 months fits the crime has lost their mind.

[samikeyp]

not in this case, i'm sorry. i have to judge. anyone who thinks 23 months fits the crime has lost their mind.

In your opinion...doesn't make it fact.

[J.T.]

Can Vick appeal his ruling? Seems like he got extra time because the judge didn't like him.

[samikeyp]

I have a question, didn't he go in early to get that time to count against his sentence?

[johngateswhiteley]

In your opinion...doesn't make it fact.

normally, thats true, but not in this case. there is no rational or logical argument for vick getting 23 months...there just isn't.

[samikeyp]

i always think about what i am saying,

yes, Mr. "Matt Leinart is the greatest rookie QB of all time".

:lol :lol

(easy there killer, just jerking your chain.)
:)

[johngateswhiteley]

I have a question, didn't he go in early to get that time to count against his sentence?

yeah, but just 3 weeks.

[johngateswhiteley]

Can Vick appeal his ruling? Seems like he got extra time because the judge didn't like him.

nope.

[johngateswhiteley]

yes, Mr. "Matt Leinart is the greatest rookie QB of all time".

:lol :lol

(easy there killer, just jerking your chain.)
:)

lol, i think you know what i was doing there.

[samikeyp]

normally, thats true, but not in this case. there is no rational or logical argument for vick getting 23 months...there just isn't.


again, in your opinion. Obviously the judge thought there was.

I am not going to pretend I am an expert on this case but the judge just didn't throw a dart on a dartboard and have it land on "23 months". Apparently also, he was not forthcoming on things in this investigation and lied about a positive drug test.

[samikeyp]

lol, i think you know what i was doing there.

:tu

[johngateswhiteley]

again, in your opinion. Obviously the judge thought there was.

I am not going to pretend I am an expert on this case but the judge just didn't throw a dart on a dartboard and have it land on "23 months". Apparently also, he was not forthcoming on things in this investigation and lied about a positive drug test.

it doesn't matter, obviously the judge and others were molded by the ongoing media circus. i don't care if Vick lied about a positive drug test, i could care less about weed, and i could care less if Vick punched the judge in the throat. 23 months is too much...period.

[703 Spurz]

23 months for being mean to some damn dogs?
Racism, pure and simple.

Ahhh there's always 1 or 2 guys like you with the "who gives a fuck about dogs" attitude.

Well, he's going to jail b/c you aren't allowed to dogfight, gamble on dogfighting, and kill any dog for any reason.

Yet you think he needs to be jailed for 6 months?

You lose

[703 Spurz]

what the fuck are you talking about? another idiotic post. i just happen to view Vick losing almost 2 years of life and millions of dollars as a little more important than whatever involvement he had in some dog fighting ring. where is the national outrage of joe schmo in the south killing dogs? where is the outrage on numerous other important things?

just admit you are the medias bitch and they own you, much like most in the states...

You make it seem like it's someone else's fault that he's losing 2 years of his life. That fuck had everything to do with it. It's his god damn fault he'll be locked up.

And to think of the career he had up until that point. To throw it all away

[johngateswhiteley]

its apparent now more than ever, the media has taken over this country and its residents are sheep. fuck it, i'm glad i live in Montana.

[tlongII]

The judge used this as an opportunity for publicity. I believe they are elected officials, but I'm not certain about federal judges. IMO, there is no other explanation. Why was the sentencing announced on the same day as the Falcons Monday Night game? It was to get maximum public exposure.

[FromWayDowntown]

So if you disagree with JGW, you are a knee-jerk overreacting person who doesn't think before you speak and fails to put things in perspective while forgetting to use your brain?

I disagree with the notion that the punishment is too harsh for a number of reasons that don't strike me as particularly irrational. Primarily, the sentence Vick received for his crime was within the range of acceptable punishment for that crime. Call me an unthinking knee-jerker with no perspective, but I have this silly belief that the written law should actually mean something. If you don't like the law, fight to have it changed, but as long as it's the law, I can't see how it's unreasonable to expect that the law will be applied. At that, Vick is fortunate that he ONLY got 23 months, since the law that he broke permits a sentence of up to 60 months, probation for an additional 36 months and fine of up to $250,000. Based on the written law, Vick got off pretty lightly.

Moreover, its a monumental misnomer to call this a sentence for killing dogs. In fact, Vick didn't plead to killing dogs -- if you paid attention yesterday, the judge expressly castigated Vick for his refusal to admit that he killed dogs. Vick's conviction was for a crime called Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture. I'll take a look at the statute later today, but that sounds a whole lot more like a gambling crime than an animal cruelty crime -- though it undoubtedly encompasses both acts. Vick, therefore, isn't going to the slam for 2 years just because he fought dogs; he's going to the slam because he engaged in illegal activities across state lines (making his a federal, rather than a state crime) and because he acted in concert with others to commit at least two different crimes (illegal gambling and dogfighting).

Finally, Vick was eligible to see only an 18 month sentence, but saw his time increased because, among other things, he flat damned lied to a federal probation officer about his participation in still more illegal activity; however innocuous you might think smoking weed is, possession of weed remains a federal crime and Vick could not have smoked weed without possessing it.,

Yep, finding reason in Vick's sentence can ONLY be a knee-jerk overreaction from someone who lacks perspective.

[samikeyp]

it doesn't matter, obviously the judge and others were molded by the ongoing media circus. i don't care if Vick lied about a positive drug test, i could care less about weed, and i could care less if Vick punched the judge in the throat. 23 months is too much...period.


You don't know that the judge or anyone was affected by the media attention. It is certainly possibly but you cannot be 100% sure or accurate so to say so is still speculation not fact. I get you don't care but because you don't care about something doesn't mean that it won't be considered.

Considering he could have been given 5 years, 23 months is light.


What I want to know now is what those fools from PETA are going to do. I am waiting for the "he should be thrown in jail for life" trash that they usually spew. They wanted him in jail and now they got it. I have a feeling though they will still bitch.

[johngateswhiteley]

You make it seem like it's someone else's fault that he's losing 2 years of his life. That fuck had everything to do with it. It's his god damn fault he'll be locked up.

And to think of the career he had up until that point. To throw it all away

it is someone else's fault he got 2 years and lost millions...its the medias and perhaps people like you.

[samikeyp]

The judge used this as an opportunity for publicity. I believe they are elected officials, but I'm not certain about federal judges. IMO, there is no other explanation. Why was the sentencing announced on the same day as the Falcons Monday Night game? It was to get maximum public exposure.


So, if the Falcons were not playing last night, there is no possible way that the sentencing would have been announced?

[samikeyp]

it is someone else's fault he got 2 years and lost millions...its the medias and perhaps people like you.


The media and other people made him break the law?

[703 Spurz]

it is someone else's fault he got 2 years and lost millions...its the medias and perhaps people like you.

Of course it is :rolleyes

[johngateswhiteley]

So if you disagree with JGW, you are a knee-jerk overreacting person who doesn't think before you speak and fails to put things in perspective while forgetting to use your brain?

I disagree with the notion that the punishment is too harsh for a number of reasons that don't strike me as particularly irrational. Primarily, the sentence Vick received for his crime was within the range of acceptable punishment for that crime. Call me an unthinking knee-jerker with no perspective, but I have this silly belief that the written law should actually mean something. If you don't like the law, fight to have it changed, but as long as it's the law, I can't see how it's unreasonable to expect that the law will be applied. At that, Vick is fortunate that he ONLY got 23 months, since the law that he broke permits a sentence of up to 60 months, probation for an additional 36 months and fine of up to $250,000. Based on the written law, Vick got off pretty lightly.

Moreover, its a monumental misnomer to call this a sentence for killing dogs. In fact, Vick didn't plead to killing dogs -- if you paid attention yesterday, the judge expressly castigated Vick for his refusal to admit that he killed dogs. Vick's conviction was for a crime called Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture. I'll take a look at the statute later today, but that sounds a whole lot more like a gambling crime than an animal cruelty crime -- though it undoubtedly encompasses both acts. Vick, therefore, isn't going to the slam for 2 years just because he fought dogs; he's going to the slam because he engaged in illegal activities across state lines (making his a federal, rather than a state crime) and because he acted in concert with others to commit at least two different crimes (illegal gambling and dogfighting).

Finally, Vick was eligible to see only an 18 month sentence, but saw his time increased because, among other things, he flat damned lied to a federal probation officer about his participation in still more illegal activity; however innocuous you might think smoking weed is, possession of weed remains a federal crime and Vick could not have smoked weed without possessing it.,

Yep, finding reason in Vick's sentence can ONLY be a knee-jerk overreaction from someone who lacks perspective.

oh give me a fucking break, i'm aware of all this. its bullshit. of course there are guidelines for the maximum allowable penalty, and rationale should be used when delivering a sentence...it wasn't and this is a travesty. furthermore, equating my reaction to this shameful display as not having respect for the written law, if thats what you are doing, is ludicrous.

rulings are situational...

[johngateswhiteley]

The media and other people made him break the law?

whatever bro, you either missed my point or purposely chose to.

[tlongII]

So, if the Falcons were not playing last night, there is no possible way that the sentencing would have been announced?

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that I believe they used the Falcons game as a means of achieving maximum public exposure. I don't think the fact the sentencing was on the same day as the game was a mere "coincidence".

[samikeyp]

whatever bro, you either missed my point or purposely chose to.


No, I just disagree with you. I believe his actions caused him to be in the situation he is in. He would have lost millions no matter how much jail time he received.

[johngateswhiteley]

No, I just disagree with you. I believe his actions caused him to be in the situation he is in. He would have lost millions no matter how much jail time he received.

i don't think anybody thinks Vick isn't at fault here or isn't responsible for his actions. but he doesn't deserve his sentence, it was a product of sensationalism...his sentence isn't his fault.

[FromWayDowntown]

oh give me a fucking break, i'm aware of all this. its bullshit. of course there are guidelines for the maximum allowable penalty, and rationale should be used when delivering a sentence...it wasn't and this is a travesty. furthermore, equating my reaction to this shameful display as not having respect for the written law, if thats what you are doing, is ludicrous.

rulings are situational...

So the law is the law except when you think that the law should be something else, in which case the law should be disregarded?

In federal sentencing, there are guidelines for assessing a punishment in any situation, not just the maximum allowable penalty. All of the factors concerning the nature and extent of Vick's crimes factored into coming up with a sentencing range; his lack of candor with the prosecutors and with his probation officer were also part of that equation.

Most importantly -- the thing that you completely omit from any of your analysis -- is the fact that Vick entered into this plea agreement understanding that he was likely to be sentenced to at least 18 months. It's not as if the Judge just came up with this out of nowhere. Vick actually signed a document that expressly said that Vick's sentence would be imposed at a particular level (in this case, a base offense level of 15) and that the government would recommend a sentence at the lower end of that range. That's what the government did. The judge essentially accepted that recommendation but applied an upward departure for the lack of candor about killing dogs -- Vick's plea agreement also required him to cooperate with the government on that specific issue -- and for the drug violation -- again, a specific term of Vick's agreement. In short, Vick got the 18 months he knew he was likely to get when he signed that agreement and then he got an additional 5 months for not living up to his agreement.

It's curious to me that even Mike Vick can't argue that the sentence is unreasonable -- he freakin' agreed to that sentence!!

As such, this ruling is situational, as you put it -- it's situational in the sense that it enforces the terms of the deal that Mike Vick made with the government; a deal that imposed a much lighter sentence than could have otherwise been imposed.

[FromWayDowntown]

his sentence isn't his fault.

His sentence is his fault -- he freakin' agreed to it!

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/070824/vickplea.pdf

[samikeyp]

i don't think anybody thinks Vick isn't at fault here or isn't responsible for his actions. but he doesn't deserve his sentence, it was a product of sensationalism...his sentence isn't his fault.

I disagree..to a point. His sentence is his fault because he broke the law...now you are correct in regards to the length of that sentence..that is up to the judge.

Maybe he wouldn't lose as much with a shorter sentence...that can't be proven but any sentence he would have received would have cost him millions.

[johngateswhiteley]

So the law is the law except when you think that the law should be something else, in which case the law should be disregarded?

In federal sentencing, there are guidelines for assessing a punishment in any situation, not just the maximum allowable penalty. All of the factors concerning the nature and extent of Vick's crimes factored into coming up with a sentencing range; his lack of candor with the prosecutors and with his probation officer were also part of that equation.

Most importantly -- the thing that you completely omit from any of your analysis -- is the fact that Vick entered into this plea agreement understanding that he was likely to be sentenced to at least 18 months. It's not as if the Judge just came up with this out of nowhere. Vick actually signed a document that expressly said that Vick's sentence would be imposed at a particular level (in this case, a base offense level of 15) and that the government would recommend a sentence at the lower end of that range. That's what the government did. The judge essentially accepted that recommendation but applied an upward departure for the lack of candor about killing dogs -- Vick's plea agreement also required him to cooperate with the government on that specific issue -- and for the drug violation -- again, a specific term of Vick's agreement. In short, Vick got the 18 months he knew he was likely to get when he signed that agreement and then he got an additional 5 months for not living up to his agreement.

It's curious to me that even Mike Vick can't argue that the sentence is unreasonable -- he freakin' agreed to that sentence!!

As such, this ruling is situational, as you put it -- it's situational in the sense that it enforces the terms of the deal that Mike Vick made with the government; a deal that imposed a much lighter sentence than could have otherwise been imposed.

jesus. 3 big things:

1. i'm sure Vick agreed to the plea b/c he felt it was his best chance to get back on the playing field in the shortest amount of time. that doesn't mean he agrees to it or thinks its fair

2. i'm sure Vick doesn't think what he did was all that big of a deal, hence his attitude...and while i don't condone his actions, what he did was not that severe

3. sometimes certain laws are unjust and outdated. tell me the justice in an 18 year old receiving consenting fellatio from a 15 year old in high school and spending over 20 years in jail? hows that law working out for you?

...some laws are bullshit. and i am sure Vick would have loved to fight this case harder, but his counsel knew he would end up doing even more time and so he took, possibly, the fastest route back to the field. its all bullshit.

[mardigan]

Vick's defense attorney's need to give some of their money back, they fucked up in this case almost as bad as Vick did.

[703 Spurz]

jesus. 3 big things:

1. i'm sure Vick agreed to the plea b/c he felt it was his best chance to get back on the playing field in the shortest amount of time. that doesn't mean he agrees to it or thinks its fair

2. i'm sure Vick doesn't think what he did was all that big of a deal, hence his attitude...and while i don't condone his actions, what he did was not that severe

3. sometimes certain laws are unjust and outdated. tell me the justice in an 18 year old receiving consenting fellatio from a 15 year old in high school and spending over 20 years in jail? hows that law working out for you?

...some laws are bullshit. and i am sure Vick would have loved to fight this case harder, but his counsel knew he would end up doing even more time and so he took, possibly, the fastest route back to the field. its all bullshit.

So which law here involving Vick is bullshit?

The gambling? The dogfighting? Which one?

[FromWayDowntown]

jesus. 3 big things:

1. i'm sure Vick agreed to the plea b/c he felt it was his best chance to get back on the playing field in the shortest amount of time. that doesn't mean he agrees to it or thinks its fair

Vick's concerns that this deal was unfair went out the door when he signed the agreement -- are you now saying that neither the law nor Vick's agreement should have been a consideration here? If that's true, when should those sorts of things ever be considered in a criminal prosecution?

And Vick's execution of that agreement sure as hell means he agreed to it. Suppose that you and I are negotiating a contract. There is a term that I insist upon -- a penalty provision -- that you don't think is fair. Still, you need the work that I'm offering and you decide to accept my offer and sign the contract. When you do something that invokes the penalty provision, do you really think it's a defense to my breach of contract claim for you to say you thought that term was unfair? Of course not. You signed the contract and, by so doing, you agreed to that term.

A plea bargain is, for the most part, no different than any other contract. The government usually agrees to a somewhat reduced sentence from the maximum and the defendant agrees to plead guilty, subject to the conditions imposed by the agreement.

Vick made a calculated gamble. He agreed to a plea, knowing he was most likely going to jail for at least 12-18 months, because it gave him a chance (he thought) to get back on the football field. By undertaking that gamble, Vick necessarily agreed to the terms of the agreement, even if he thought them unfair. His choice, if he didn't agree to those terms, was to take his case to trial and face the possible consequences of a conviction for more severe crimes. To say that his execution of the agreement is somehow not indicative of his agreement to the terms imposed by it is, I think, disingenuous.


2. i'm sure Vick doesn't think what he did was all that big of a deal, hence his attitude...and while i don't condone his actions, what he did was not that severe

It is deemed severe enough to be punishable by 5 years in prison, a 3 year probation, and a $250,000 fine.


3. sometimes certain laws are unjust and outdated. tell me the justice in an 18 year old receiving consenting fellatio from a 15 year old in high school and spending over 20 years in jail? hows that law working out for you?

Those are arguments to change the law -- if Vick hadn't waived his appeals (he has) and could get a sponsor of the law that is now compelling his incarceration to come forward and advise an appellate court that this was not an outcome that was anticipated by the law, then your argument would have some sway. But I suspect that this is precisely the outcome that the sponsor of that law anticipated.

If you don't like the law, why don't you write to your congressman or congresswoman -- in fact, write to all of them -- and urge them to consider a revision in the law. Whining about your belief that the law is unjust in an internet forum rings a little hollow when you're not willing to turn to those who could actually do something about changing that law. In the meantime, you're arguing, in essence, that a judge did the wrong thing by applying the law to the agreed upon facts of this case


...some laws are bullshit. and i am sure Vick would have loved to fight this case harder, but his counsel knew he would end up doing even more time and so he took, possibly, the fastest route back to the field. its all bullshit.

So, wait a second -- you acknowledge that Vick "would end up doing even more time" for a conviction by a jury and yet you argue that somehow a plea should absolve him of the lesser punishment imposed by the Court? Are you even listening to yourself? This isn't about Michael Vick the football player -- it's about Michael Vick the admitted felon. If Vick was a doctor or an architect or a biochemical researcher instead of a football player, would his desire to take the fastest route back to his profession make any difference to you? I doubt it. If Vick was a ditch-digger or a fast-foot clerk or a school custodian I'm sure that his desire to get back to work as quickly as possible wouldn't have meant anything to anyone. I'm not sure what difference it makes in terms of the justness of his sentence that Vick was trying to take "the fastest route back to the field." But regardless, in taking that route, Vick flat-damned agreed that he would be punished by imprisonment and now he's gotten exactly that. I'm not sure how asking him to live up to the terms of his agreement is either unfair or unjust and I'm quite sure it's not bullshit.

[K-State Spur]

23 months is insane. he fought dogs...people...dogs. while some of you may equate that to human life, and you'd be a fucking idiot, its not. dogs are around for entertainment purposes almost entirely..

Who's equating it? If he had tortured and killed people, he could have gotten 23,000 years and most posters here would be fine with that.

We live in a society where dogs are more than entertainment. They are friends, family, servants, co-workers, security guards, and (for some handicapped people) nothing short of a lifeline.

asking that they NOT be tortured and killed in return is not too much to ask.

if this bothers you, i suggest you move to a different society that thinks of dogs differently. although, across the world, you may find that societies that see dogs as nothing more than entertainment, nuisances, or food have a high correlation with not thinking much of human rights either.

[ratm1221]

just admit you are the medias bitch and they own you, much like most in the states...

If someone tortured my dog and killed it, the media wouldn't have to convince me of anything at all. I would want them to spend 5 years in prison if I didn't manage to murder them out of rage.

[K-State Spur]

.where is the national outrage of joe schmo in the south killing dogs?.

I am outraged at that. Dogfighting has been a nasty little secret in too many areas of this country for far too long. Hopefully, this case will start to shed some lights on those dark corners.

It's true that Vick was made an example of, but it's about time that somebody was. If you let the big name get away with it, nobody will ever go down.

[K-State Spur]

So, if the Falcons were not playing last night, there is no possible way that the sentencing would have been announced?

exactly. because, you know, the country was already completely revved up for that mighty match-up between the falcons and saints.

[ratm1221]

Also for those of you that think it's just going to be 18-23 months and, "poof", he's back to playing football... Vick is going to be on a strict probation until about 2012. The requirements of his probation are going to make it very difficult to play football.

[ratm1221]

Analyzing the Vick sentence (Link) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_mccann/12/10/vick/)

Analyzing the Vick sentence
The reason behind ruling, how long he'll serve, more
Posted: Monday December 10, 2007 1:07PM; Updated: Monday December 10, 2007 2:15PM


After receiving a 23-month sentence on Monday, Michael Vick will be away from the NFL until at least October 2009.


On Monday, Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Michael Vick to 23 months in prison -- exceeding the 12-18 months that prosecutors recommended. SI.com caught up with legal expert Michael McCann to answer some important questions about the ruling.

1) Why did the judge exceed the prosecutors' recommendation?

There are several possible explanations for why Michael Vick's sentence is so long and why it eclipses the sentences of two of Vick's co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, who last month received sentences of 18 months and 21 months, respectively.

One explanation is that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson believes that Vick played a greater role in the organizing of the dog fights and the torture and killing of the dogs than his plea bargain suggested. After all, the dog fighting operation required funding, and it appears that Vick provided it. In addition, depending on how one reads the plea agreement, Vick may have personally killed and tortured dogs.

Another explanation is that Judge Hudson resented Vick's behavior following the plea deal. In September, Vick violated the stipulation in his pretrial release that he refrain from use or unlawful possession of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance.

Judge Hudson may have also been influenced by a pre-sentencing report filed by a U.S. probation officer who reviewed Vick's case. Though not binding on Judge Hudson, the report likely proved influential since it examined the totality and context of Vick's involvement in the dog fighting operation. In that respect, it may have been more influential than the amorphous phraseology contained in Vick's plea agreement, which was signed by him, his counsel, and the prosecution.

No matter the reasoning behind Judge Hudson's sentence, it's surprisingly severe for a first-time criminal, charged with crimes that some observers believe are routinely ignored by law enforcement officers, and whom prosecutors recommended not be sentenced to more than 18 months. Still, it is within Judge Hudson's discretion, as he could have sentenced Vick to up to 60 months.

2) Did going to jail early affect his sentence?

It didn't appear to help Vick. When a defendant reports early for a sentence, it is thought to signal that he has accepted responsibility for his transgressions. But Judge Hudson may have viewed it as a pandering ploy. If so, it may have had the opposite effect.

Similarly, Vick apparently didn't benefit by agreeing to pay more than $928,000 to care for dogs seized from his property

3) What message was Judge Hudson sending?

Judge Hudson's stiff sentences of Vick and his co-defendants offer several possible messages. First, illegal dog fighting operations have no place in the United States. Second, even if one's upbringing makes him more likely to engage in illegal dog fighting, we expect that person to overcome the temptation to engage in that dog fighting. Third, wealth, fame, and privilege will not insulate guilty defendants from receiving tough sentences.

4) Does Vick face more jail time with state charges?

Vick is still facing very similar state charges and is due to stand trial for them on April 2, 2008. If he is found guilty, Vick could receive additional prison time. Given the severity of Vick's federal sentence, however, state prosecutors may decline to move forward, though that is entirely within their discretion.

5) Will Vick's lawyers appeal?

I don't believe they have any grounds to appeal. They knew the inherent risk in a plea deal with the federal government: Judge Hudson could ignore the federal prosecutors' recommendation and impose a tougher sentence and warned Vick of that when he accepted the plea deal. And that is exactly what he did.

6) How much time will Vick actually serve and where?

The ultimate length of Vick's sentence remains unclear, since a conviction of state crimes could require him to spend more time behind bars. As his sentence presently stands, Vick will be required to serve at least 85 percent of his 23 month sentence, meaning a minimum of about 20 and a half months. Vick's potential for an early release depends on a host of factors, including his ability to avoid conflict while in prison.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons will determine which correctional facility incarcerates Vick. The Bureau will take into consideration the nature of Vick's crimes, the fact he is a first-time criminal, his agreement to plead guilty rather than to contest the charges, any recommendations offered by Judge Hudson, and any space or overcrowding issues at the facilities that could house Vick. It may also consider whether Vick's celebrity status might make him a target.

Based on these factors, Vick will likely serve his time in a minimum or medium security facility. After Vick is released from prison, he will be on probation for three years and will begin what's called a "supervised release." During this probationary period, Vick's life will be restricted in various ways that are designed to reintegrate him into the free world. I spoke with Thomas Hutchison, the chief of staff of the U.S. Parole Commission, to gain insight on those life restrictions. Vick will likely be required to perform community service, to avoid committing any crimes or associating with known criminals, and to report regularly to a probation officer from the U.S. Probation Office. He may also have to undergo drug tests and to adhere to travel restrictions. In many ways, Vick won't be entirely free until 2012.

Michael McCann is a professor at Mississippi College School of Law. He specializes in sports law.

[703 Spurz]

Analyzing the Vick sentence (Link) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_mccann/12/10/vick/)

Analyzing the Vick sentence
The reason behind ruling, how long he'll serve, more
Posted: Monday December 10, 2007 1:07PM; Updated: Monday December 10, 2007 2:15PM


After receiving a 23-month sentence on Monday, Michael Vick will be away from the NFL until at least October 2009.


On Monday, Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Michael Vick to 23 months in prison -- exceeding the 12-18 months that prosecutors recommended. SI.com caught up with legal expert Michael McCann to answer some important questions about the ruling.

1) Why did the judge exceed the prosecutors' recommendation?

There are several possible explanations for why Michael Vick's sentence is so long and why it eclipses the sentences of two of Vick's co-defendants, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips, who last month received sentences of 18 months and 21 months, respectively.

One explanation is that U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson believes that Vick played a greater role in the organizing of the dog fights and the torture and killing of the dogs than his plea bargain suggested. After all, the dog fighting operation required funding, and it appears that Vick provided it. In addition, depending on how one reads the plea agreement, Vick may have personally killed and tortured dogs.

Another explanation is that Judge Hudson resented Vick's behavior following the plea deal. In September, Vick violated the stipulation in his pretrial release that he refrain from use or unlawful possession of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance.

Judge Hudson may have also been influenced by a pre-sentencing report filed by a U.S. probation officer who reviewed Vick's case. Though not binding on Judge Hudson, the report likely proved influential since it examined the totality and context of Vick's involvement in the dog fighting operation. In that respect, it may have been more influential than the amorphous phraseology contained in Vick's plea agreement, which was signed by him, his counsel, and the prosecution.

No matter the reasoning behind Judge Hudson's sentence, it's surprisingly severe for a first-time criminal, charged with crimes that some observers believe are routinely ignored by law enforcement officers, and whom prosecutors recommended not be sentenced to more than 18 months. Still, it is within Judge Hudson's discretion, as he could have sentenced Vick to up to 60 months.

2) Did going to jail early affect his sentence?

It didn't appear to help Vick. When a defendant reports early for a sentence, it is thought to signal that he has accepted responsibility for his transgressions. But Judge Hudson may have viewed it as a pandering ploy. If so, it may have had the opposite effect.

Similarly, Vick apparently didn't benefit by agreeing to pay more than $928,000 to care for dogs seized from his property

3) What message was Judge Hudson sending?

Judge Hudson's stiff sentences of Vick and his co-defendants offer several possible messages. First, illegal dog fighting operations have no place in the United States. Second, even if one's upbringing makes him more likely to engage in illegal dog fighting, we expect that person to overcome the temptation to engage in that dog fighting. Third, wealth, fame, and privilege will not insulate guilty defendants from receiving tough sentences.

4) Does Vick face more jail time with state charges?

Vick is still facing very similar state charges and is due to stand trial for them on April 2, 2008. If he is found guilty, Vick could receive additional prison time. Given the severity of Vick's federal sentence, however, state prosecutors may decline to move forward, though that is entirely within their discretion.

5) Will Vick's lawyers appeal?

I don't believe they have any grounds to appeal. They knew the inherent risk in a plea deal with the federal government: Judge Hudson could ignore the federal prosecutors' recommendation and impose a tougher sentence and warned Vick of that when he accepted the plea deal. And that is exactly what he did.

6) How much time will Vick actually serve and where?

The ultimate length of Vick's sentence remains unclear, since a conviction of state crimes could require him to spend more time behind bars. As his sentence presently stands, Vick will be required to serve at least 85 percent of his 23 month sentence, meaning a minimum of about 20 and a half months. Vick's potential for an early release depends on a host of factors, including his ability to avoid conflict while in prison.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons will determine which correctional facility incarcerates Vick. The Bureau will take into consideration the nature of Vick's crimes, the fact he is a first-time criminal, his agreement to plead guilty rather than to contest the charges, any recommendations offered by Judge Hudson, and any space or overcrowding issues at the facilities that could house Vick. It may also consider whether Vick's celebrity status might make him a target.

Based on these factors, Vick will likely serve his time in a minimum or medium security facility. After Vick is released from prison, he will be on probation for three years and will begin what's called a "supervised release." During this probationary period, Vick's life will be restricted in various ways that are designed to reintegrate him into the free world. I spoke with Thomas Hutchison, the chief of staff of the U.S. Parole Commission, to gain insight on those life restrictions. Vick will likely be required to perform community service, to avoid committing any crimes or associating with known criminals, and to report regularly to a probation officer from the U.S. Probation Office. He may also have to undergo drug tests and to adhere to travel restrictions. In many ways, Vick won't be entirely free until 2012.

Michael McCann is a professor at Mississippi College School of Law. He specializes in sports law.

He deserves it all despite the efforts of some folks in this thread. In any case it matters not what any of us say. Vick is serving time in prison and that's the bottom line.

[mardigan]

He deserves it all despite the efforts of some folks in this thread.
And to others he was punished much to harshly despite the efforts of others in this thread.

[ratm1221]

And to others he was punished much to harshly despite the efforts of others in this thread.

You left out an "O" in too motherfucker.

[mardigan]

O

[703 Spurz]

And to others he was punished much to harshly despite the efforts of others in this thread.

Why do you guys even give a shit anyway? Falcons fans?

[DarkReign]

So Vick cops a plea deal (which means he has agreed to throw himself on the mercy of the court), violates his federal probation and yet, its not his fault?!

And you want to tell me about logic?

[johngateswhiteley]

If someone tortured my dog and killed it, the media wouldn't have to convince me of anything at all. I would want them to spend 5 years in prison if I didn't manage to murder them out of rage.

exactly. btw, did you hear from the people whose dogs were killed by Vick?....hmm, didn't think so.

[Spawn]

I am outraged at that. Dogfighting has been a nasty little secret in too many areas of this country for far too long. Hopefully, this case will start to shed some lights on those dark corners.

It's true that Vick was made an example of, but it's about time that somebody was. If you let the big name get away with it, nobody will ever go down.

There are many other fucked up things going on in this world to be worried about some stupid ass dogs.

[johngateswhiteley]

Vick's concerns that this deal was unfair went out the door when he signed the agreement -- are you now saying that neither the law nor Vick's agreement should have been a consideration here? If that's true, when should those sorts of things ever be considered in a criminal prosecution?

And Vick's execution of that agreement sure as hell means he agreed to it. Suppose that you and I are negotiating a contract. There is a term that I insist upon -- a penalty provision -- that you don't think is fair. Still, you need the work that I'm offering and you decide to accept my offer and sign the contract. When you do something that invokes the penalty provision, do you really think it's a defense to my breach of contract claim for you to say you thought that term was unfair? Of course not. You signed the contract and, by so doing, you agreed to that term.

A plea bargain is, for the most part, no different than any other contract. The government usually agrees to a somewhat reduced sentence from the maximum and the defendant agrees to plead guilty, subject to the conditions imposed by the agreement.

Vick made a calculated gamble. He agreed to a plea, knowing he was most likely going to jail for at least 12-18 months, because it gave him a chance (he thought) to get back on the football field. By undertaking that gamble, Vick necessarily agreed to the terms of the agreement, even if he thought them unfair. His choice, if he didn't agree to those terms, was to take his case to trial and face the possible consequences of a conviction for more severe crimes. To say that his execution of the agreement is somehow not indicative of his agreement to the terms imposed by it is, I think, disingenuous.



It is deemed severe enough to be punishable by 5 years in prison, a 3 year probation, and a $250,000 fine.



Those are arguments to change the law -- if Vick hadn't waived his appeals (he has) and could get a sponsor of the law that is now compelling his incarceration to come forward and advise an appellate court that this was not an outcome that was anticipated by the law, then your argument would have some sway. But I suspect that this is precisely the outcome that the sponsor of that law anticipated.

If you don't like the law, why don't you write to your congressman or congresswoman -- in fact, write to all of them -- and urge them to consider a revision in the law. Whining about your belief that the law is unjust in an internet forum rings a little hollow when you're not willing to turn to those who could actually do something about changing that law. In the meantime, you're arguing, in essence, that a judge did the wrong thing by applying the law to the agreed upon facts of this case



So, wait a second -- you acknowledge that Vick "would end up doing even more time" for a conviction by a jury and yet you argue that somehow a plea should absolve him of the lesser punishment imposed by the Court? Are you even listening to yourself? This isn't about Michael Vick the football player -- it's about Michael Vick the admitted felon. If Vick was a doctor or an architect or a biochemical researcher instead of a football player, would his desire to take the fastest route back to his profession make any difference to you? I doubt it. If Vick was a ditch-digger or a fast-foot clerk or a school custodian I'm sure that his desire to get back to work as quickly as possible wouldn't have meant anything to anyone. I'm not sure what difference it makes in terms of the justness of his sentence that Vick was trying to take "the fastest route back to the field." But regardless, in taking that route, Vick flat-damned agreed that he would be punished by imprisonment and now he's gotten exactly that. I'm not sure how asking him to live up to the terms of his agreement is either unfair or unjust and I'm quite sure it's not bullshit.


i think vick is a crappy QB...so me wanting him on the field via the quickest route is irrelevant. i am just stating why he did what he did (pleaded and went to jail early)...its logical.

let me put it to you this way, if i was michael vick and ran a dog fighting ring, i would have done the exact same thing as vick did...i would have gone to jail early, pleaded, and acted apologetic. b/c i know the law, media, people, and judge would all be working against me. simply b/c the law is ridiculous, people are emotional and irrational, and the judge will be molded by media attention.

i don't give a fuck if the judge thought vick was remorseful or lied or whatever, he should have looked at the evidence and gave vick a slap on the wrist or 6 months at most. what is to be learned by sending vick to jail? who benefits...and please don't tell me some poor little doggies. its outrageous.

somewhere along the way you lost my point, i don't care if you think the sentence is fair, i don't care if you agree with the law, i don't care if you think vick agreed to possible future judgment....its all irrelevant to me. i care about the wacky hypocritical public and media, and i care about laws that need to be adjusted or fixed. post dog fighting vick should have never been in this situation to begin with...something is fucked up in a world where a man uses dogs for his entertainment, doesn't hurt anyone, and goes to jail for 2 years with various other penalties. if you or others can't see that, i don't know what to tell you. pull back the wool from over your eyes.

[K-State Spur]

There are many other fucked up things going on in this world to be worried about some stupid ass dogs.

Once again, we live in a society where dogs are servants, co-workers, friends, and family.

Nobody's saying you have to own a dog. Nobody's saying that you have to be friendly to a dog. Nobody's even saying that you have to be around a dog.

You just don't get to torture them, kill them, or fight them against each other for your own sick enjoyment.

It's really a very simple thing to follow.

[johngateswhiteley]

Once again, we live in a society where dogs are servants, co-workers, friends, and family.

i...don't...care.

[Spawn]

Once again, we live in a society where dogs are servants, co-workers, friends, and family.

Nobody's saying you have to own a dog. Nobody's saying that you have to be friendly to a dog. Nobody's even saying that you have to be around a dog.

You just don't get to torture them, kill them, or fight them against each other for your own sick enjoyment.

It's really a very simple thing to follow.

What do you want, a congresional investigation on dogfighting, a federal task force against dogfighters, an all out war against dogfighting?

[K-State Spur]

i...don't...care.

who gives a shit if you care? that's our society and the law agrees with me.

it's such a simple and easy law to follow, you have to seriously question the psyche of someone who would go out of there way to violate it.

[K-State Spur]

What do you want, a congresional investigation on dogfighting, a federal task force against dogfighters, an all out war against dogfighting?

as long as it's not grandstanding, it would be a better use of their resources than many of the things that the feds do.

[Spawn]

why not?

I violated my own rules. I usually don't spend time debating with racists in denial, Bonds haters, and people who value a dogs life over human life.

Peace out!!!

[K-State Spur]

I violated my own rules. I usually don't spend time debating with racists in denial, Bonds haters, and people who value a dogs life over human life.

Peace out!!!

whoa there turbo.

where do you get that I am a racist or that I hate Bonds?

I do value the life of dogs, but not over human life. Looks at my posts early in this thread. I agree with Vick's punishment here. He got 2 years. If he had tortured and killed people, I think he would have deserved 200 years. How is that valuing dogs more than people?

My own rule is to question the sanity of anyone that could leap to those conclusions about me based on a few simple posts.

[johngateswhiteley]

that's our society and the law agrees with me.

it's such a simple and easy law to follow, you have to seriously question the psyche of someone who would go out of there way to violate it.

our society is fucked, and i don't have to question anyone who wanted to fight dogs. while i don't do it and am not offended by those who do...you won't catch me at a dog fight.

...i go out of my way to speed on the highways fwiw.

[Spawn]

whoa there turbo.

where do you get that I am a racist or that I hate Bonds?

I do value the life of dogs, but not over human life. Looks at my posts early in this thread. I agree with Vick's punishment here. He got 2 years. If he had tortured and killed people, I think he would have deserved 200 years. How is that valuing dogs more than people?

My own rule is to question the sanity of anyone that could leap to those conclusions about me based on a few simple posts.

I never said you hated Bonds or were racists I was just stating my general rules of debate. Perhaps I was unfair to say that you valued dog life over human so I apologize. But there are others who do in this thread and that is why I say peace out to this thread.

[johngateswhiteley]

Perhaps I was unfair to say that you valued dog life over human so I apologize. But there are others who do in this thread and that is why I say peace out to this thread.


lol.

[mikejones99]

most people hate vick and bonds