The Judge Sentenced Michael Vick To WHAT?!?!
December 10th, 2007 . by Dell…….
The judge going against the prosecutors recommendation and sentencing Michael Vick to two years in jail was completely excessive.
This is coming from a man who has seen dogfighting with his own eyes in person, and hated every moment of it. This is also coming from a man who thinks Michael Vick is a world class idiot for putting himself in that situation. But when you look at Michael Vick’s punishment in its entirety, this is nothing short of a legal lynching.
The public lacks proper perspective when dealing with this situation, and have crossed the line in their quest for blood. Every penny he has is gone, along with possible future earnings of over $120 million dollars. Even his ability to earn money in the future has been taken because it’s highly unlikely he’ll make it back to the NFL.
I say people lack proper perspective because there are murderers and rapists who have been punished less than Michael Vick (not to mention Marv Albert who raped a woman and is currently calling NBA games every week). Yes, crimes committed against actual human beings…. not dogs. Let that statement sink in for a bit………….
I’m not absolving him of guilt, and I’m not aiming to paint him as the victim, but at what point is enough punishment enough?
w
Its beyond unfair…but are we really shocked? Did we really think that any mercy or compassion would be shown here? I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen the Without Sanctuary exhibit……the same faces smiling and pointing at the body swinging from the tree are the same ones laughing it up right now and slapping each other on the back at this man’s demise. Judge Henry Hudson is just like the sherriffs in those communities where those pics took place.
Really suprised you are making this into a race issue. The sentence was handed down pursuant to federal sentencing guidelines. I also think you are off base on your comparison to rapists and murderers. Are you saying someone convicted of murder or forcible rape would only get 23 months under the same sentencing guidelines? If so, where is your proof?
I will not say I know what Mr. Vick did or did not do, but he plead guilty to a federal crime. The crime he plead to carries an already set penalty range. If the judge departed from the range, I think it would be appropriate to discuss why. But, if he didn’t depart, Mr. Vick received the same treatment as anyone else in his position.
I am not a PETA demonstrator, but I will say Mr. Vick would be looking at more time in prison had he subjected people to the cruelties he subjected his dogs to.
Where did I mention race in this post?
I said “people should use perspective” because I knew someone would comment with something similar to what you said..
“well the sentencing guidelines say….”
It’s really bullshit. The fact that people CAN actually kill someone, or rape someone, and receive less punishment than Michael Vick did in ANY guideline standard is criminal.
When you use terms like “legal lynching” what am I supposed to draw from that? If you weren’t bringing race into it, I apologize. Again, please give me an example of a murderer or forcible rapist who received less time than 23 months. What guideline standard are you referring to?
Plus, I think I have plenty of perspective here. No living thing should be subjected to the treatment Vick subjected the dogs to.
You can replace “legal lynching” with “legal shakedown” “legal ass raping” or any other harsh term you want to use, because thats the gist of what transpired. I think lynching just about summed up what happened to him in the last 7 months. His life is in shambles.
I named two people in the post. Mary Winkler murdered her husband with a 12 gauge shotgun last year, and didnt serve 12 months in jail.
Marv Albert is an even better example because he’s in the sports world. Albert sodomized a woman in the late 90s and got a slap on the wrist. It kind of makes me sick that he appears on TV every week and everyone seems to forget what he did.
now **LEGALLY** .. those two people may have been sentenced “accordingly” with the law, just like Michael Vick was legally sentenced “accordingly”. But common sense should tell any person that the punishment did not fit the crime.
I value the life of a human more than I do a dog.
Also, when you take the fact into account that the Judge in this case took it upon himself to give Vick the harsh end of the stick, it illustrates how he is being made into an example.
” it illustrates how he is being made into an example”…..and therein lies the real issue for me…..example of what? for what? Who we kidding? Does anyone really believe this is about dogfighting? Are we still pretending this is about animal cruelty?? Yeah..he’s being made an example all right.
OK….let me know when we get to the real. I can’t pretend Mike Vick is in prison for conspiracy anymore.
Winkler was convicted of voluntary manslaughter – not murder- by a jury after a trial. The court did appear to give her the low range in possible sentences. Marv Albert was convicted of a misdemeanor battery charge which was ultimately dismissed. I understand your sentiments, but Vick’s plea deal seems close to what his co-defendants got. The federal systemd is alot different than the state system. I don’t think the sentence was outrageous by any stretch. It does appear, however, that the judge did upward depart him – but the news story I read blamed that primarily on the fact that he failed a drug test while on release and also “minimized” his role in the pre-sentence investigation report. If he failed a drug test while on release, that is on him – stupid thing to do.
It does appear that Mr. Vick was made an example of to some extent – but not unjustly in my opinion. I wish him luck.
Don’t forget the social stigma of being known as “Ron Mexico the dogkiller” for the rest of his life. That plus having lost everything he’s worked so hard for should be more than punishment enough.
After he gets out, he’ll be alright! He’ll be good for something, somebody will employ him! Yeah- the sentence was extreme. If the media would put as much attention on missing persons, homelessness and things of that nature- the world would be a better place!!!! The weed he smoked- I think he was just like “to hell with it, imma just smoke and turn myself in!”
Sorry, I can’t see the problem.
23 months in jail, 18 if he’s good, isn’t that bad. The money he’s losing isn’t the judge’s doing. Micheal Vick’s the one who made Micheal Vick unappealing to advertisers. Micheal Vick’s the one who’s irresponsibility has DESTROYED the Atlanta Falcons – and make no mistake, that franchise is screwed for the next three or so years. It’s also worth remembering that AFTER being let out on bail he was tested positive for marijuana, showing his actual lack of contrition, despite his PR speech following a guilty plea that he pretty much had to give. What he got was what he deserved.
You, sir, are a moron. 23 months, 18 for good behavior — in minimum security, no less — how the hell is that excessive for what he did? I think he deserves 23 years in Supermax.
And “legal lynching” smacks of a racism accusation, which immediately makes me dismiss what you had to say.
It kills me when people really act like they gave a damn about those pit bulls.
23 months and tens of millions of dollars is extremely excessive for dogs.
While I don’t like or agree with what he did to them…. I do not hold animals in the same regards as I do human beings.
Mary Winkler’s husband was an abusive piece of crap. Bet that doesn’t matter, does it?
And, quite frankly, the woman Marv Albert “assaulted” had it coming. And her evidence was not enough to press a sodomy or felony sexual assault charge. It was very much a he-said, she-said deal. Your knowledge of the Albert case is rudimentary, at best.
I’d argue both of the human beings “victimized” in those cases were worth less than the dogs Vick tortured.
Are you serious!!!!! If Mary Winklers husband was abusive, she should have LEFT HIM. You cant just go around killing *people* because you think they had it coming.
So both victims deserved it? LMAO
Get out of here…. seriously…..
Yes. Because they weren’t innocent. One was abusive, the other was a golddigger. By their actions they have made themselves worthless.
I don’t believe that human beings are automatically more valuable than animals. They have to earn it. Part of earning it is by causing no harm, lest they get it back in return.
And I understand that you’re upset because I called you out on your stunning lack of knowledge of both cases you mentioned.
Upset? … Not Quite.
If you stopped taking me serious the moment you “thought” i played the race card, then i definitely stopped taking you serious the moment you defended a woman who intentionally shot and killed her husband.
It’s all comic relief at this point,.
Shooting her abusive husband = justifiable.
Maliciously and wantonly torturing animals for mere pleasure = not justifiable.
Translation: Get your specist head out of your ass, grow a brain, and learn how to think.
Shooting someone in the back while they sleep is NOT justifiable homicide.
I’m laughing so hard right now… it really does me no good to continue entertaining this argument with you. Have a nice day man…
“Shooting her abusive husband = justifiable.”
HAHAHAHA!!! ROFL LMAO
You’re FUCKING RETARDED!!