Vick's holding out for one year

[Crown Royal]

I would like to see the Gov't lean more towards a stiffer penalty as opposed to more leneant. To my way of thinking, he is guilty of Rackatering. He is guilty of illegal gaming and he is guilty of Dog Fighting. The penalty for these far all these far exceeds what he will probably get. Because of this, I would like to see him get a stiffer penalty. I understand that the law will set his sentance but I also understand that this door swings both ways. While Punk might be appauled at anybody wanting Vick to receive 5 years, it is certainly within the scope of what the law deems as justifiable. To my way of thinking, he deserves a stiffer penalty. I would actually like to see him get 3 years and a substantial monitary penalty. We will see what happens.

I want him to get a punishment commiserate with his crimes. It will be considered stiff or leniant by lots of people,regardless of what it is. There is not a job I would like less in the world than to be a judge.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Do you really not see the difference between me commenting on a current event, and a possible misuse of federal power that could affect anyone...

and you WISHING for Vick to not be offered a plea - instead having to waste money on lawyers and serve big time?

I know that you do. I'm nearly positive you're not that dense.



Again - I didn't resurrect this thread, Sherlock. You ducked my question and came back when you mistakenly thought you had some witty retort. Why would I be angry about something so comical?

I'm sorry you feel this way. The truth is that I didn't get back to your oh so bitting response till just today. While I'm certain you would rather invision it as you characterise it above, the simple truth is that it was not as important as many other things going on at the time.

After a time, your attempts to start a quarel are tiresome. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[superpunk]

I'm sorry you feel this way. The truth is that I didn't get back to your oh so bitting response till just today.

It was a question more than a response, and there was nothing biting about it.

While I'm certain you would rather invision it as you characterise it above, the simple truth is that it was not as important as many other things going on at the time.

Somehow it got important again today - after he already plead out.

Sure....ok. :laugh2:

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Jury by trial is a right, but it seems unnecessary if you are willing to admit guilt. I personally do not care one way or another whether a plea is taken or something goes to trial. He has now admitted guilt to something, the details of which we don't yet know.

There will be a certain percentage of people who insist that he was forced into admission because of threats by the Government. I would have rather seen him get a jury and have it proven as opposed to a plea. To me, this business of fighting dogs is important enough to spend the money on it. It is a personal thing for me because I believe it to be wrong on many different levels. It is not personal because it is Vick, per say. Had anybody else committed these offenses, then I would feel the same about that individual. It just happens to be Vick and so.......

We know that he has at least pleaded guilty to Conspiracy because that is what he was charged with. I am not a lawyer so I suppose it is possible that he would plead to something else but anything else, I believe, carries a stiffer penalty. Perhaps additional charges but in that case, he still deserves a stiffer penalty. I would have rather seen it go to trial but it matters little now. He has admitted guilt.

 

[Crown Royal]

There will be a certain percentage of people who insist that he was forced into admission because of threats by the Government. I would have rather seen him get a jury and have it proven as opposed to a plea. To me, this business of fighting dogs is important enough to spend the money on it. It is a personal thing for me because I believe it to be wrong on many different levels. It is not personal because it is Vick, per say. Had anybody else committed these offenses, then I would feel the same about that individual. It just happens to be Vick and so.......

We know that he has at least pleaded guilty to Conspiracy because that is what he was charged with. I am not a lawyer so I suppose it is possible that he would plead to something else but anything else, I believe, carries a stiffer penalty. Perhaps additional charges but in that case, he still deserves a stiffer penalty. I would have rather seen it go to trial but it matters little now. He has admitted guilt.

So...wait. You would rather he had plead not guilty rather than admit it? You would rather he be a liar (or, continue to be a liar, I suppose I should say).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It was a question more than a response, and there was nothing biting about it.



Somehow it got important again today - after he already plead out.

Sure....ok. :laugh2:

It was an answer more then a request for opinion. Nothing biting at all.

As a matter of curtesy, I responded to your question.

That is all.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So...wait. You would rather he had plead not guilty rather than admit it? You would rather he be a liar (or, continue to be a liar, I suppose I should say).

I would have rather he be judged by a jury of his peers as opposed to a plea for a lessor sentance. Nothing more then that. He is what he is. He agreed to a plea only because he had little choice. I understand the reasoning. It is simply not what I would have liked to have seen happen. I would have liked for him to be judged by a jury of his peers.

 

[peplaw06]

I would like to see the Gov't lean more towards a stiffer penalty as opposed to more leneant. To my way of thinking, he is guilty of Rackatering. He is guilty of illegal gaming and he is guilty of Dog Fighting. The penalty for these far all these far exceeds what he will probably get. Because of this, I would like to see him get a stiffer penalty. I understand that the law will set his sentance but I also understand that this door swings both ways. While Punk might be appauled at anybody wanting Vick to receive 5 years, it is certainly within the scope of what the law deems as justifiable. To my way of thinking, he deserves a stiffer penalty. I would actually like to see him get 3 years and a substantial monitary penalty. We will see what happens.

I understand what you're saying...

There are times, particularly with your more severe crimes, where some people feel that the max should be doled out. A capital murder case, or a child rape case, etc. people often want to see the death penalty or life in prison.

Sometimes guilty people plea guilty because they KNOW they did something wrong, are willing to do the time, then start their life over. Then there are some who don't believe that what they DID DO was actually wrong. They fight it, they go to trial, they lose, they get the max. I think that the guilty who admit that they did something wrong deserve to be set apart from those who truly believe they are innocent. If you give the max sentence to everyone, you take away the ability to "reward" people, for lack of a better word, for owning up to what they did.

But then again, some guilty people plea guilty because they want to get out earlier. But you can't take away the flexibility of the system. There is still a chance for rehabilitation in those who WANT it. I think they should be offered that chance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I understand what you're saying...

There are times, particularly with your more severe crimes, where some people feel that the max should be doled out. A capital murder case, or a child rape case, etc. people often want to see the death penalty or life in prison.

Sometimes guilty people plea guilty because they KNOW they did something wrong, are willing to do the time, then start their life over. Then there are some who don't believe that what they DID DO was actually wrong. They fight it, they go to trial, they lose, they get the max. I think that the guilty who admit that they did something wrong deserve to be set apart from those who truly believe they are innocent. If you give the max sentence to everyone, you take away the ability to "reward" people, for lack of a better word, for owning up to what they did.

But then again, some guilty people plea guilty because they want to get out earlier. But you can't take away the flexibility of the system. There is still a chance for rehabilitation in those who WANT it. I think they should be offered that chance.

Those are reasonable points. I don't know if Vick will ever understand that what he did was wrong or not. You hope that he does but at this point, I'd guess that he does not believe that fighting dogs was wrong. However, he had to know that gambling was wrong. Killing dogs in the way he did, you would imagine he knew was wrong but then again, he did it, according to testimony so I don't know. The thing that bothers me is that Vick has not made one public appoligy that I am aware of. He has said nothing. It is his right, of course but if he understands he did wrong, then it would seem reasonable to expect something from him. If not, then he should stand to his conviction and go to trial. This is a very idolistic view of this, I know. However, it is the way I see it.

Whatever the sentancing brings, I will stipulate because that is what the Government has agreed to do. If it is stiff, I will be happier. If it is not, I will not be happy but I will abide because that is what our laws demand.

 

[Crown Royal]

I would have rather he be judged by a jury of his peers as opposed to a plea for a lessor sentance. Nothing more then that. He is what he is. He agreed to a plea only because he had little choice. I understand the reasoning. It is simply not what I would have liked to have seen happen. I would have liked for him to be judged by a jury of his peers.

I think I understand what you are saying, however, I think that there is a difference between 'judgement' and 'sentencing." Judgement determines guilt, whereas sentencing determines punishment. It is a subtle difference, I admit.

I think you feel that he probably will have a lesser punishment by accepting a plea deal, because he is accepting less guilt this way than he potentially could have been judged for had it gone to jury (for instance, he might have plead to racketeering, animal torture, but the deal didn't include gambling), whereas had it gone to jury all three might have been given a guilty verdict, and thus his punishment would have been more severe, having been judged guilty on more counts.

I certainly understand this logic - one should receive the consequences of all their actions rather than some. That is a matter of justice. However, I think that in legalities, there is always a risk/reward type deal. I can't pretend to understand why the prosecution offered the deal they did - perhaps it will serve to bring more to justice, rather than only punishing the one. Perhaps there was a chance justice wouldn't be served to their satisfaction in their trial.

 

[Crown Royal]

I understand what you're saying...

There are times, particularly with your more severe crimes, where some people feel that the max should be doled out. A capital murder case, or a child rape case, etc. people often want to see the death penalty or life in prison.

Sometimes guilty people plea guilty because they KNOW they did something wrong, are willing to do the time, then start their life over. Then there are some who don't believe that what they DID DO was actually wrong. They fight it, they go to trial, they lose, they get the max. I think that the guilty who admit that they did something wrong deserve to be set apart from those who truly believe they are innocent. If you give the max sentence to everyone, you take away the ability to "reward" people, for lack of a better word, for owning up to what they did.

But then again, some guilty people plea guilty because they want to get out earlier. But you can't take away the flexibility of the system. There is still a chance for rehabilitation in those who WANT it. I think they should be offered that chance.

I have to consider this. Being sorry for your actions doesn't provide justice, I don't think. You should be expected to tell the truth and admit your guilt, not rewarded for it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think I understand what you are saying, however, I think that there is a difference between 'judgement' and 'sentencing." Judgement determines guilt, whereas sentencing determines punishment. It is a subtle difference, I admit.

I think you feel that he probably will have a lesser punishment by accepting a plea deal, because he is accepting less guilt this way than he potentially could have been judged for had it gone to jury (for instance, he might have plead to racketeering, animal torture, but the deal didn't include gambling), whereas had it gone to jury all three might have been given a guilty verdict, and thus his punishment would have been more severe, having been judged guilty on more counts.

I certainly understand this logic - one should receive the consequences of all their actions rather than some. That is a matter of justice. However, I think that in legalities, there is always a risk/reward type deal. I can't pretend to understand why the prosecution offered the deal they did - perhaps it will serve to bring more to justice, rather than only punishing the one. Perhaps there was a chance justice wouldn't be served to their satisfaction in their trial.

Yes. As I said earlier, I think that 3 years and a fine would be a fair sentance. Having said that, I'm sure that there are those who believe a year is fine. Some even no time served because they feel that, for whatever reason, his crimes are not serious enough. No judgement will be unilaterally embraced, as you said before. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have to consider this. Being sorry for your actions doesn't provide justice, I don't think. You should be expected to tell the truth and admit your guilt, not rewarded for it.

:laugh2:

I know what you mean. My wife made lasagna on Tuesday. This is a very popular offering in my house and it does not last long. I was unable to be home for supper and actually got home too late to eat so my wife put some aside for me to take for lunch on Wednesday. Wednesday, I went down stairs to pack my lunch and low and behold, there is my daughter sitting at the table eating my Lasgna. Now, she appoligized profusely (all the while continuing to eat my lasagna) but in the end, it was gone and I was SOL.

I'm sure she was sorry she left me without lunch but I still wanted to hang her by her toes till her head exploded. :laugh2:

 

[Crown Royal]

:laugh2:

I know what you mean. My wife made lasagna on Tuesday. This is a very popular offering in my house and it does not last long. I was unable to be home for supper and actually got home too late to eat so my wife put some aside for me to take for lunch on Wednesday. Wednesday, I went down stairs to pack my lunch and low and behold, there is my daughter sitting at the table eating my Lasgna. Now, she appoligized profusely (all the while continuing to eat my lasagna) but in the end, it was gone and I was SOL.

I'm sure she was sorry she left me without lunch but I still wanted to hang her by her toes till her head exploded. :laugh2:

I miss my mother's lasagna and her manicotti. I like vegetarian versions, but they are never quite the same. You just made me hungry.

 

[peplaw06]

Those are reasonable points. I don't know if Vick will ever understand that what he did was wrong or not. You hope that he does but at this point, I'd guess that he does not believe that fighting dogs was wrong. However, he had to know that gambling was wrong. Killing dogs in the way he did, you would imagine he knew was wrong but then again, he did it, according to testimony so I don't know. The thing that bothers me is that Vick has not made one public appoligy that I am aware of. He has said nothing. It is his right, of course but if he understands he did wrong, then it would seem reasonable to expect something from him. If not, then he should stand to his conviction and go to trial. This is a very idolistic view of this, I know. However, it is the way I see it.

Whatever the sentancing brings, I will stipulate because that is what the Government has agreed to do. If it is stiff, I will be happier. If it is not, I will not be happy but I will abide because that is what our laws demand.

This isn't over yet... as much as most people want it to be over. He may indeed offer an apology. It wouldn't behoove him to do it yet, since he has not officially pled, nor been levied a punishment on. I hope he does, and think that he probably will... especially if he wants to ever play football again.

I have to consider this. Being sorry for your actions doesn't provide justice, I don't think. You should be expected to tell the truth and admit your guilt, not rewarded for it.

Well if ABQ was being idealistic, then this would be even moreso. Admissions of guilt routinely draw lesser sentences than those who refuse to admit in our system of justice. It may not offer justice to victims, but as far as the justice system is concerned, that's just the way it is.

You're never going to get the death penalty for pleading guilty. Thems just the facts.

 

[burmafrd]

To me a murderer should be executed in exactly the same way in which he killed his victim. Now THAT would be justice.

 

[5Stars]

To me a murderer should be executed in exactly the same way in which he killed his victim. Now THAT would be justice.

But Vick is not a murderer...he's a dog killer! He needs to serve his time, get out, and go into another profession...because the NFL is not going to let him back...well, maybe, but if a team does...that team will be crucified!

 

[Ben_n_austin]

What's really bizarre is that you claim to be a vegetarian, meaning you're too morally pure to eat an animal, yet you seem to have no problem with Vick torturing them...

I'd say any hypocrisy in this argument is yours... if you truly believe that eating animals is wrong, then you MUST "logically" believe that torturing animals for fun and profit is even more wrong...

Not at all. I believe it is the same thing, which is why your whole bellyaching rant is irrelevant to me.

If you kill an animal, it's the same thing no matter what you do with it. Our society just tells us that certain things are right/wrong.

But the logic in killing a deer, or even shooting a dear and letting it get away, thus to suffer a tremendous amount.. just because you want to mount it on your wall... to say that it is really any different, regardless of the law or a hunter's self-serving "hunting etiquette", is absurd - just like your ridiculous, hypocritical puppy love tirade.

 

[silverbear]

Not at all. I believe it is the same thing, which is why your whole bellyaching rant is irrelevant to me.

If you kill an animal, it's the same thing no matter what you do with it. Our society just tells us that certain things are right/wrong.

But the logic in killing a deer, or even shooting a dear and letting it get away, thus to suffer a tremendous amount.. just because you want to mount it on your wall... to say that it is really any different, regardless of the law or a hunter's self-serving "hunting etiquette", is absurd - just like your ridiculous, hypocritical puppy love tirade.

Once again, your hypocrisy is staggering-- you're too morally pure to eat an animal, presumably because you think it's wrong to kill animals for food, yet you're defending a man who abused and killed them for fun...

And don't EVEN try to insinuate you're not defending Vick, I can show you the quotes...

So, how do you explain that amazing inconsistency, or more important, how do you rationalize it to yourself?? If as you suggest it's hypocritical for anybody who eats meat to want to see Vick punished to the fullest extent of the law for what he did, then it's vastly more hypocritical for you take the positions you have... you should be the biggest Vick critic, and you'd actually have the moral high ground over the rest of us... instead, you defend the guy...

Can't quite figure that one out...

 

[silverbear]

But the logic in killing a deer, or even shooting a dear and letting it get away, thus to suffer a tremendous amount.. just because you want to mount it on your wall... to say that it is really any different, regardless of the law or a hunter's self-serving "hunting etiquette", is absurd - just like your ridiculous, hypocritical puppy love tirade.

BTW, it's quite contemptible, the way you keep referring to "puppy love"... seems you don't even like dogs, which is probably what's really at the root of your defense of that piece of crap...

Anybody who doesn't love dogs is a useless waste of DNA, as far as I'm concerned... if you think I'll be insulted by your ragging on my love of dogs, you're utterly clueless, all you do with that BS is make yourself look silly...