"Apologetic Vick gets 23-month sentence on dogfighting charges" (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549)

Your thoughts...

It seems a fair sentence. the judge has a reputation as a "Hanging judge" so Vick should be thankful he didn't get more time.
He'll be idolized in the Big House anyhoo--will prob have an entourage and fan club of like minded sorts. It'll be like doing time at the Country Club. but he's a celevbrity.

he should have gotten community service at an animal shelter too.

Bleh, I'm in the "it's not that big of a deal" crowd. What's the big difference between killing dogs and killing deer other than people like dogs more and keep them as pets?

Considering Vick's going to lose $20 million and he's getting 2 years in prison, I really hope he has an opportunity to play football again. He would have paid his debt.

I think his sentence is overly harsh as well. Granted, the severity of his sentence was aggravated by his behavior pending sentencing (lying about his role in the "kennel," testing positive for MJ usage a couple of weeks after he was told to stay clean).

Still, I think even the one year minimum sentence was somewhat ridiculously punishing the guy...he doesn't seem likely to recitivate; there's a lot of good he could do rather than rotting in a jail cell. Like Carbon, I fail to see how drastically different shooting deer is from shooting dogs. I just had one of my friends bragging to me how he shot a beautiful 9-point buck and he's now gonna have it mounted on his wall....if he were talking about a dog, his entire lifestyle would be in jeopardy. I see some distinction in that deer hunters eat their pray while Vick was killing dogs for sport and breeding pit bulls to be nastier than they already are. Even with that distinction, however, it does not justify one behavior being completely acceptable and the other being subject to a 2-year prison term.

I think if it were anybody else, the sentence would have been greater. They were mentioning that Vick's sentence would have been less had he just come out with it in the beginning. As for him playing in the NFL again; I see him doing it, but not on the same level as he was when he was with the Falcons. Maybe as a supporting or back-up role, but he's going to have to prove himself once again in order to become a starter.

I think his sentence is overly harsh as well. Granted, the severity of his sentence was aggravated by his behavior pending sentencing (lying about his role in the "kennel," testing positive for MJ usage a couple of weeks after he was told to stay clean).





Still, I think even the one year minimum sentence was somewhat ridiculously punishing the guy...he doesn't seem likely to recitivate; there's a lot of good he could do rather than rotting in a jail cell. Like Carbon, I fail to see how drastically different shooting deer is from shooting dogs. I just had one of my friends bragging to me how he shot a beautiful 9-point buck and he's now gonna have it mounted on his wall....if he were talking about a dog, his entire lifestyle would be in jeopardy. I see some distinction in that deer hunters eat their pray while Vick was killing dogs for sport and breeding pit bulls to be nastier than they already are. Even with that distinction, however, it does not justify one behavior being completely acceptable and the other being subject to a 2-year prison term.Hmmm....lets see. Deerhunters shoot the animals, trying to end their suffering immediately. Most hunters eat what they kill. I'm pretty sure if deer were domesticated there would be an uproar over torturing these animals as well. Deer will also overpopulate an area if left to themselves. Most places where deer hunting is allowed is for a reason.


Mike Vick kept dogs in cages, withholding food and water, all the while beating them to make them meaner. He then paired his dogs with other dogs and watched them fight to the death. If his dogs didnt perform well, he then proceeded to electrocute them, pick them up by their hind legs and smash their brains out against a wall, or he put them in sacks and drown them.

Yeah, i can understand how you cant see the difference. :rolleyes:

Hmmm....lets see. Deerhunters shoot the animals, trying to end their suffering immediately. Most hunters eat what they kill. I'm pretty sure if deer were domesticated there would be an uproar over torturing these animals as well. Deer will also overpopulate an area if left to themselves. Most places where deer hunting is allowed is for a reason.


Mike Vick kept dogs in cages, withholding food and water, all the while beating them to make them meaner. He then paired his dogs with other dogs and watched them fight to the death. If his dogs didnt perform well, he then proceeded to electrocute them, pick them up by their hind legs and smash their brains out against a wall, or he put them in sacks and drown them.

Yeah, i can understand how you cant see the difference. :rolleyes:

So if Vick killed the dogs quickly and ate them afterwards, you'd have no problem with it?

So if Vick killed the dogs quickly and ate them afterwards, you'd have no problem with it?I never said i didnt have a problem with hunting itself. I just showed there is a big difference between hunting and what vick did.

Hunting just for sport is almost as bad as what vick did. If you dont eat what you hunt and you're only there for the thrill killing it is wrong. However, there are good reasons for allowing hunting of deer as I said in my earlier post. There are farmers everywhere who would agree with me.

Can you name me one good purpose vick torturing animals served?


If vick needed the food, (which being a multi millionaire, i hardly believe this is true) then i would have no problem with killing the dogs quickly and eating them.

Yeah, i can understand how you cant see the difference. :rolleyes:

I think you missed the part where I said "I see some distinction..." My point was that there was some difference between the two activities, but not as much as people like to pretend. Believe me, I can describe deerhunting in a nasty way just as you couch the dog breeding/fighting. Seriously, I didn't even get into the fact that deerhunters actually gut and stuff the deer and hang it on their walls. At least Vick can say he didn't do that.

As for that "deer-are-gonna-overpopulate-without-hunters" nonsense, please spare me. One, I've never heard of a case where an deer population grew so out of control that there was some sort of "plague of deer!" (oh, the horror!) Two, what's truly eye-roll-worthy is that hunters are trying to do some sort of service for society. Are you seriously trying to claim that deerhunters are not primarily involved in their activity for "sport?" And three, I honestly don't see what's practical and altruistic about stuffing the dead deer and mounting it on your wall, or cutting off the deer horns and sticking them on the hood of your car.

Even with that said, let me repeat for your clarity, I do see a distinction because deerhunters are eating the deer and not killing the animals just for fun. However, I don't think that difference warrants a two year sentence if you do it just for fun.

Here's an even better example...

A 5-year-old shoots a black bear and is praised as some sort of hero or prodigy.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/11/katv.5yearold.kills.bear.katv

Are we at risk of bear-overpopulation? If anything, this bear might have been helping us out by killing a deer every now and then. Or perhaps he shot the bear for food? No, they just thought it was cool to shoot a bear I'm sure.

And as the story points out, these people are experienced hunters. It's quite obvious that they don't care about the animal population. They just want to kill shit.

Are the feds coming after the grandfather for teaching his grandson to kill blacks bears that aren't bothering anyone? Of course not.

he wasn't even a good quarterback



... guess his troubled brother can take over the dog business while he's in jail

I think you missed the part where I said "I see some distinction..." My point was that there was some difference between the two activities, but not as much as people like to pretend. Believe me, I can describe deerhunting in a nasty way just as you couch the dog breeding/fighting. Seriously, I didn't even get into the fact that deerhunters actually gut and stuff the deer and hang it on their walls.

There's only "some" difference between hunting deer and torturing dogs? There's a "vast" difference





[COLOR="red"]At least Vick can say he didn't do that..Yeah, but he cannot say he didnt willfully torture animals. As I said, big difference.




As for that "deer-are-gonna-overpopulate-without-hunters" nonsense, please spare me. One, I've never heard of a case where an deer population grew so out of control that there was some sort of "plague of deer!" (oh, the horror!) Two, what's truly eye-roll-worthy is that hunters are trying to do some sort of service for society. Are you seriously trying to claim that deerhunters are not primarily involved in their activity for "sport?" And three, I honestly don't see what's practical and altruistic about stuffing the dead deer and mounting it on your wall, or cutting off the deer horns and sticking them on the hood of your car.Spare you what? There are counties here in Virginia that would be over run with deer if hunting were illegal. Crops would be lost to deer.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, yes some hunters eat everything they kill. Is that "sport" hunting? Not to me.

It is a good thing that he get 23 months for being a jerk with his dogs. Hope he gets treated like a dog in prison.