I am still a Vick fan.

Didn't see a pit for hanging, drowning, then electrocuting either. Also didn't see how much money was involved :dunno:

 

dsimon writes;

Dawg's point is legitimate, you sound like the simpleton. Apparently there are some other cases involving animal abuse and the perps did not get the same treatment. This is a legitimate concern. If you are an animal rights activist it is a concern and if you are arguing that Vick is being made an example of in a way that is not consistant with past abuses it is an issue.

So continuing to prattle away as though you are an intellectual superior in a patronizing manner makes you sound like the idiot.

PS: Kudos to Tyler, as he feels strongly about this issue and responded to the post from dawg about the other players who apparently also had a dog ring.

 

If it turns out that Vick is a victim because of his name in comparison to others, I won't feel bad for him in the slightest because he STILL didn't get the full extent possible from the law :dunno:

 

dsimon writes:

Not necessarily. It could be that the other guys should get the Mike Vic treatment.

My own position on this issue is complicated: I think there are very separae and distinct issues at play each with their own circumstances.

1) Mike Vic's crime- should be prosecuted in a manner that is consistant with how other people are prosecuted, whatever that manner may be. I only ask for consistency not leniency.

2) The prosecution should persecute based on evidence that they found not on coercion based on desperate rats trying to leave a sinking ship.

3) The Falcons and the National Football league should have a policy that is again, consistant. As Dawg mentioned this is hardly the case. It is also ridiculous for the NFL or Falcons to pretend that Vick's statement was not a by product of a negotiation and has no actual bearing on his guilt.

4) I don't think any athlete or celebrity should ever be made an example of... just let them get the same treatment as everyone else. I hopethat the feds went after Vick because his crime is despicable and not because he is high profile. Low profile criminals who abuse animals for the same reason are equally despicable, no more no less.

That is my take.

 

dsimon writes:

that is a serious problem with a legal system that strives to be just but not fair.

 

No person will EVER be treated the same UNLESS you enforce the MAXIMUM sentence in which NONE of the above mentioned has. You are in the mercy of the judges descretion. Depending on his mood, he can do whatever he feels like, same goes with prosecuters. Before I got sentenced, I had to sit through several sentencing and I think the judge did it on purpose scheduling my time and giving everyone before me YEARS for the same type of crime. I was the LAST one sentenced that day, the prosecuter recommended 5 years JAIL, I got two years probation :clap:

If you expect justice from the Justice System, roll the dice because that's the chance you will get when it comes to consistancy.

 

dsimon writes:

The range of penalties being discretionary is a mixed bag. Mandatory sentencing generally makes for harsher sentences though. The three strikes law is a great example of that principle. Many judges would not put somoene in jail for life for stealing a video, but have to under the sentencing guidelines. Ditto for mandatory drug sentencing where judges have to go by harsh sentencing guidelines.

I would tend under the circumstances to want the judge to have some discretion. One can only hope that judges are chosen based on a policy of fairness and I dare say, leniency under certain circumstances. Leniency in victimless crimes.

 

When you give a judge an opportunity to sentence to what they feel is right, you will get a different outcome from person to person. The system is flawed, but you can't expect equal justice givin the way the law is. There has to be an exact sentence if you want more fairness, instead of something like 5-15 as in many crimes :notallthere: That's wide open. There are hard judges out there and that is what they are known for when it comes to sentencing, and there are leinant ones. Throw in mood, and you got schizophrenic sentencing from one judge to the next.

 

I have a couple of questions. 1 why did the Federal Govt decide to get involved in Vicks case and not the other case. I mean the same type of illegal gambling and transporting dogs from state to state was going with woods. I mean when do they make that determination to prosecute federally. Also where was Calligula and PETA. Why didn't they speak up about this case. Don't you think they knew an ex-NFL player was involved heavily in dog fighting and had 200 dogs taken from his residence. Also why didn't they use Woods as an informant? Just wondering. I'll Holla 5000

 

I've always liked watching Vick play....but thats just because the guy was pretty damn exciting. Things happened when he was out there. As a human being, he's failed and I'm happy the guy is out of the league for a significant amount of time.

This is a business and he's not helping anyone with his actions.

 

Because Vick bank-rolled it and did it longer :dunnoifferent prosecutor/D.A.

 

Lemme also say this. Do you guys know that Leonard Little who killed a lady by driving drunk only served 90 days in the city workhouse and had to serve 1000 hours of community service. Not to mention the NFL only suspended him for half the season. I heard an interview with the victims son who stated that Little hasn't even apologized for killing his mother. I also like to say that Little got caught drinking and driving again 5 years later. I love the society that we live in. I'll Holla 5000

 

Actually they claimed that Woods was caught 3 other times for dog fighting. So it wasn't his first time. But I would also like to assume that if he got caught with 200 dogs on his property he was bank rolling the whole thing as well. But once again why didn't the federal govt get involved and where was Calligula and PETA? I'll Holla 5000

 

Different prosecutor/D.A., state?

One more time, did they have a pit to hang, another pit to electrocute, then yet another pit to drown?

 

AND? You can only come up with stuff like this for the NFL? :nono:

I've seen WHITE boys get sentenced to years in jail for first time offenders. Depends on who/ where/ when you are getting sentenced :dunno:

 

Dunno but they were still using dogs to kill other dogs. Don't know all the details. But they prolly did the same types of activity. Still doesn't explain why the federal govt didn't step in when you had the same crossing of state lines, the same racketeering, and same type of dog killing in dog fights. Just wondering when do they pick and choose when to get involved and when does PETA/Calligula pick and choose to get involved. I'll Holla 5000

 

So you are assuming the details that you don't know. What were you asking again?

 

Don't know all the details. However I do know that the feds didn't get involved. I do know that Woods was caught 3 prior times for dog fighting. I do know that Woods got caught with 200 dogs on his property (I believe that's more than what Vick had on his property), took the dogs across state lines, participated in illegal gambling, and only got sentenced to a suspended sentence and 5 years probation. That's information that I do know. As far as the other details which wouldn't interest the federal govt about how the dogs were executed I don't know about.

But once again the question I have is why didn't the federal govt get involved in this case and why didn't PETA/Calligula protest and picket and stuff like that. I think that these are legit questions. I'll Holla 5000

 

dsimon writes:

There is not a simple answer for this problem. The Jenna thread is a good example of a bad judge, though one could argue that the Jury was neglegent, or even the prosecutor... why seek such a harsh sentence for kids in a fight?

You simply have to choose between ridiculous mandatory sentencing guidelines and corruption and immoral legal advocates. Some of it has to do with prosecutors. I mean the prosecutors that sought a rape sentence for the kid who had just turned of age and was involved with a girl one year younger, well that guy should die a painful death. The Jenna case as well. The prosecutor deciding on a charge that would put a young person in jail for half their life for a fight, is criminal and an abuse of prosecutorial authority.

I don't know of a way that more consistancy could be brought into the system in a way that would ultimately create less harsh sentences under certain conditions, namely when a less harsh sentence is called for in the name of fairness. You have to remember that in most cases a Judge's discretion means a more fair sentence. The only alternative to a judge's discretion is mandatory sentencing which is usually more punative and cannot consider special circumstances.

 

But there are certain judges that are known for strict sentencing EVERYTIME, and ones who are known for the opposite. You also have to consider the judges for the respective counties and the population in those jails. Example: If I commited the EXACT crime from Marion County and I wasn't a habitual criminal, I would more than likely (depending on the Judge asigned to my case) get probation. I do the exact same crime in Hendricks county, I would have most certainly had to have done a couple years. This is the way it is in Indiana, I am deducing it is this way in any city USA :dunno:

I hope this will shut Bigdawg up now in asking the same questions over and over "what about so and so".

 

I understand that but that still doesn't explain what criteria they meaning the federal govt to decide to try a case. I mean why wouldn't they just allow local prosecution to hear the case. I'll Holla 5000

 

dsimon writes:

to be fair to Dawg one can probably assume these guys killed dogs as well. I think your right that a different DA was a factor.

IMO Dawg is right that this is an inconsistancy, one you mention (rightly so) as a failing of our system.

Dawg's point that Vicks high profile may be a factor is a strong possability. One could conclude that more people need to be prosecuted on these charges. I agree with what I think Dawg is saying: that prosecution need not be federal. These are crimes that could be more cheaply prosecuted in a state court, with less sensatationalism and less expense to tax payers.


It bothers me tremendously that the NFL pretends to give a shit about animals and gets on their high moral horse about Vic... a real spin job as they are concerned with their image and nothing else. Dawg has given good support of that notion by showing other incidents of the same crime and the NFL's total lack of response.

 

I will play devils advocate here and say it was because Vicks high profile. They are using him as a political way to help stop this disgusting behaviour in society and bringing light to it. Sounds like some good will come out of this, I know I will immediately get "it isn't fair and he got sentenced too harshly, but that isn't true because he DIDN'T get the max, fuck him.....I am sticking with my disdain for the scumbag :clap:

 

dsimon writes:

That is a problem. Youhave to consider the total amount of people who would ultimately benefitt from an action (like more mandatory sentencing) and you have to consider if there is a way to weed out the corrupt judges. Frankly there are a lot of corrupt judges and judges who are rascist, etc.

 

I am not using race in my point, it is a non-factor in my case......let's not go there because that is :shit:

 

The thing is that on the state level you have sentencing guideline meaning they go off sanctioning grid. So no it doesn't have anything to do with how the judge feels that day asshole. You are correct it depends on your criminal record/points that you earn where you fall in the sanctioning grid. The reason the sanctioning grid has been established was to prevent those that sold crack cocaine who got sentenced to harsher crimes compared to those that sold the powder cocaine with same about of weight were sentenced to lower sentences. It prevented the good ole boy system and racism that exits within our legal system.

Don't forget bro that I'm a PO. However it still doesn't explain why the feds choose to get involved in this case rather than WOods case. I'll Holla 5000

 

dsimon writes:

I agree with you on that point. They have an axe to grind. And in addition to unfairness in deciding when they want to prosecute the cost to tax payers is tremendous for these cases.

 

That's why they have sanctioning grid that they go off of to prevent shit like this from happening because it was occurring with the crack cocaine vs the powder cocaine. I'll Holla 5000

 

dsimon writes:

:: I hear you. Nothing wrong with someone getting punished for a disdainful act. But why not punish the other guy who did the same thing? They both should be punished.

I am frankly more upset that Leanard Little (who I did not know about) and the other dogfighting guys, did not get a harsher sentence. They all could have been prosecuted in a state court and if the NFL was so morally upright they should have a statement prepared for all these perps. Or... not make a statement in any case and let the evidence convict each perp for what it is worth. In Vic's case admittadly he would not have been as severly punished, so I can see why you are sticking to yur guns.::

 

dsimon writes:

Not you, you have indeed not used race.

But in Jenna louisiana an all white local jury was used to send a black teenager (other black teenagers are to be tried as well) to jail for an excessive amount of time. There is a possability that the jury had to convict because they don't determine sentencing, only guilty or not guilty, but there is also a good possability they convicted for other reasons. I don't know but if I had been on that jury I would have abstained if I had to convict a kid in a school yard fight on a charge that would send him to jail for half his life.