"That makes my day!"
Posted on 12/10/2007 9:43:43 AM PST by Gopher Broke
RICHMOND, Va. — Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison Monday for his role in a dogfighting conspiracy that involved gambling and killing pit bulls.
The suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback could have been sentenced up to five years by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson. Vick, who turned himself in Nov. 19 in anticipation of his sentence, was wearing a black-and-white striped prison suit.
After Vick apologized to the court and his family, Hudson told him: "You need to apologize to the millions of young people who looked up to you."
"Yes, sir," Vick answered.
Vick acknowledged he used "poor judgment" and added, "I'm willing to deal with the consequences and accept responsibility for my actions."
Federal rules governing time off for good behavior could reduce Vick's prison stay by about three months, resulting in a summer 2009 release.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good. But I bet he is out in less than a year.
This is federal prison. As the article says, summer of 2009 at the earliest.
I’m satisfied with this Monster’s sentence...then again I also know the state of Virginia is also going to get a piece of his time on earth before all is said and done.
Pet your dog(s) tonight, folks...and say a word of thanks they never met Michael Vick and his ‘friends’.
That's federal prison: there's no time off for "good behavior."
When they say 23 months, 23 months it is.
Just ask Martha Stewart!
He should be thankful it wasn’t two years.
Rover
Federal rules governing time off for good behavior could reduce Vick's prison stay by about three months, resulting in a summer 2009 release.
He should be thankful it wasn’t thirty years. This is one instance where Peta can take a back seat to me. I have zero sympathy for a guy that would force dogs to fight to the death for sport. Just call me Maximum Ron when it comes to these cases.
Poor judgement? How about evil, Michael? He should have gotten 23 years.
If he has his skull crushed in a game, he will not get a tear from me.
He could indeed be out short of 23 months due to “good behavior” - I believe it’s up to 54 days for each year served, which can be prorated for the last year. By my calculation, his sentence could be shortened by about 103 days.
Also, since Martha Stewart was sentenced to less than one year in prison, she was not eligible to have her sentence reduced for “good behavior.”
Also, since Martha Stewart was sentenced to less than one year in prison, she was not eligible to have her sentence reduced for “good behavior.”
Yeah, but when PETA’s people kill animals under the guise of taking them from shelters to find homes for them, they get off. I’m talking about the story of PETA folks dumping dozens of bodies of dead dogs in a business’ dumpster and getting caught. They were taking perfectly healthy and adoptable animals from shelters lying to the people and animal control (police) officers that they would find good homes for the dogs, but later would kill them in their van. One gal, one guy. From the VA chapter but they were doing this in North Carolina.
PETA ought to be strung up. They kill more adoptable animals than anyone else every year. Their placement statistics are appallingly low, under 10%.
Seems like a lot of time to take away from a human being over dogs. NOT condoning in any way at all, it just seems like a lot to me.
Rapists and murderers of actual human beings get less time frequently.
Flame away.
Sorry, but I believe you are wrong. The reason she was not eligible for a reduction in sentence for “good behavior” is that the applicable statute (18 USC 3624) only allows for such reductions if the sentence is for more than one year. And, I do not believe that someone getting a “mandatory minimum” sentence of more than one year is per se ineligible for a “good behavior” reduction in that sentence.
I wasn’t aware of that. That’s rather shocking.
I’m no fan of Peta at all. And this simply reinforces my contempt for them.
you’ll get no argument from me.
I think many “journalists” would’ve been less outraged had Vick gone the more common route and smacked his woman around.
Man, people lighten up, they were pitbulls for cryin’ out loud. He was stompin’ cockroaches for all intents and purposes.
The over/under is 9 months.
Why is Michael Vick being jailed for 23 months? Fine him, fine. Force him to do thousands hours of community service, sounds good to me. Unless the dogs belong to someone else, there’s no reason to put Vick in jail. Dogs are property, not human beings.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Multiple minds are even worse.
You have been and continue to be an idiot of the first degree.
Elvis On. “Thank you very much. Elvis off.
This is why I think he couldn't convey enough groveling for the court and ended up with a too large sentence. He said all the right things---the judge just wasn't buying it. I guess he wanted Vick to cry and beg or something.
having said that. I really didn't know the details of what they did to those dogs and from what I've heard recently I'm inclined to cut Michael a little LESS slack. But he still got too much time, imo.
Good luck against my Bucs this weekend!
sub
It seems hypocritical however, a woman can shoot her preacher husband in the back while he slept and she gets three months. These movie stars and athletes kill their wives and get off absolutely free. it just seems there could have been something more constructive than prison. I am a big animal lover, but it does seem kind of nuts.
Why did they say they did that
I love animals also, but this seems kind of crazy. There seems there should have been a more profitable way to punish Vick than simply prison.
Mel, I agree that our justice system seems nuts at times. I’m not going to fault you for thinking there should be a better penalty for this. About all I can think of is what kind of unjuries to dogs this guy must have witnessed, for sport. If he can do that, I seriously wonder what other pain he’s willing to observe, and if it would be limited to animals. Thanks for your comments.
You nailed it perfectly
I think post 38 describes my thoughts
Mel, once again I appreciate your input, this time via another person’s post.
My responsibility is to take care of the animals I am responsible for. End of story...
Other owners are responsible for their animals. Animal shelters are there because good people do go down and volunteer, or they have been privately or publicly set up to deal with the problem. The fact that many of those animals are put down, is terrible. It still doesn’t make the public at large on the same level as Vic.
To my way of thinking, it is unfortunate when peopel tie together two problems in this manner. What Vic did was inexcusable. This isn’t just kicking your mut, being too harsh or not watering or feeding them on a regular basis. This was a group of people who get their kicks from watching other living beings mutilate each other in combat.
Perhaps Vic did have poor upbringing. I won’t aruge with that. It would seem to fit. Is that a justified reason to be lenient? As an adult, are we to think he just didn’t know better? Come on bud, nobody had to tell you that this was wrong did they? I can’t remember anyone in my upbringing taking me aside and telling me that dog fighting was bad. It’s something you know.
If some people are getting off with a $50 dollar fine, that’s something I would like to see addressed. Excusing Vic’s penalty because others get a free pass is not the answer.
Those guilty of participating in dog fights should get the book thrown at them. I don’t care who they are.
Just because someone gets off or skates on a serious crime doesn’t mean we should change the sentence of someone who does something horrible but not deeemed as horrible as those who got away with it. That is not justice. That is just making another bad decision and justifying it by prior bad decisions.
Sorry, I have to completely disagree with you. That kind of logic is how we get such lenient sentences and lax enforcement of the law - legal relativism/excuses.
Love the 'these are property, not humans' idea. Let's go steal that dudes property, and see how happy he is when (really if) we get caught that our punishment is cleaning poop in the park, and not prison. Weak.
i didn’t say change it i just said it was hypocritical
It is not hypocritical. One court’s failure to punish someone sufficiently (and failing to deliver proper justice) has nothing to do with another separate court’s decision to punish someone properly and give a just sentence.
The first court in your example got it wrong. The second court in your example got it right. One court getting a sentence wrong and another court getting a sentence right is not hypocrisy. It shows the flaws in our human justice system. If it were the same court and same judge I may agree with you that that would be hypocritical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
