Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes he fulfilled his legal obligations with his prison and probation sentencing, but BS as in now some people claim that we should simply erase his past actions from our thoughts and never speak about them or express disgust and horror at what he did ever again. Why is it that those who feel that Vick's actions are unforgivable are being told to drop it since "he paid his dues to society"? I don't have to like the guy no matter how many months he spent in prison and I will never forgive him for what he put defenseless animals through for pure profit and enjoyment. The same would hold true for a convicted rapist or child molester after being released from prison. Yes, he has the legal right to pursue whatever career he chooses now and make as much as the market will allow. It doesn't have to sit well with me however. And why Obama feels the need to throw his support behind this despicable sorry excuse of a human being, I don't know. I think this was an immensely stupid move on his part. There are plenty of other ex-cons who are more deserving than this POS. It makes me question what Obama's true motivations really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier
President Obama (the correct spelling in case you didn't know) was, IMO, right to support second chances.
Most likely the reason Vick won't do it again is that he can't afford to get caught again. When he was caught, he lied about who owned the property and said he didn't know anything about it. He lied because he knew it was an illegal operation. I'm having difficulty believing that a person who does such horrendous things, knowing it's wrong, won't do it again because he's had such a change of heart. He didn't even need the money, so what in the world could be his reason in participating in dog fighting - other than he enjoyed it. What other conclusion can one draw.
For Obama to support the "second chance" thing NOW, is too much too late.
It's not appropriate for the POTUS to comment on it, especially at this late date. IMHO.
Most likely the reason Vick won't do it again is that he can't afford to get caught again. When he was caught, he lied about who owned the property and said he didn't know anything about it. He lied because he knew it was an illegal operation. I'm having difficulty believing that a person who does such horrendous things, knowing it's wrong, won't do it again because he's had such a change of heart. He didn't even need the money, so what in the world could be his reason in participating in dog fighting - other than he enjoyed it. What other conclusion can one draw.
For Obama to support the "second chance" thing NOW, is too much too late.
It's not appropriate for the POTUS to comment on it, especially at this late date. IMHO.
Guess you can have difficulty believing whatever you want. The bottom line is that the man was caught and served a prison sentence. I don't believe I've ever seen anything in the law about whether or not you have a change of heart, ONLY that you don't break the law again. And if Vick never breaks those laws again, well, that's all the state can demand. You don't get to send people to prison simply because of what you THINK may be in their "heart."
I disagree. I think it's perfectly appropriate for the Presidet to comment on giving people a second chance at this date or any other date.
I don't know if this was the reasoning in Vick's case, but a lot of times it comes down to money. It's very costly to bring a case to trial, and sometimes it's prudent to agree to a plea bargain. That's my best guess as to why the prosecutor agreed to the plea deal.
Yes, it's costly to bring a case to trial; however, I challenge you to get a prosecutor to ADMIT that he/she gave a defendant a plea deal because it was costly to go to trial, ESPECIALLY a nasty and HIGH PROFILE case like this one. My best guess is that the prosecutor had some difficulty with the case and felt it was in HIS/HER BEST INTEREST to agree to a plea deal rather than go to trial.
They did a money settlement in this case because they had Vick by his nads. Let me turn this question around, if the case against Vick wasn't iron clad, why did he cop a plea? Why didn't he fight it?
The prosecutor has to AGREE to a plea deal. The prosecutor has to prove his/her case. FYI, there are no "settlements" in criminal cases, only in civil cases. In a criminal case the court imposes fines and/or restitution. Was a fine imposed in Vick's case? You said you had "inside' information, so you surely should know more about the $1 million.
As for why Vick took a plea deal? My guess would be that he got what he considered a GOOD DEAL, and maybe he didn't want to have to incur attorney's fees for a trial. At any rate, most defendants will take a plea deal. It's the prosecutor's choice whether or not to make an EXAMPLE of such a well-known person, a role model to children as you all have been so concerned about. If the prosecutor had had an iron clad case, it was his/her responsibility to take the case to trial and demonstrate to EVERYONE what happens to people who do such things. Guess the "example" part was not as important to the prosecutor as the $1 million to care for other animals. Which should be an indication to all those calling for Vick's "execution" for this crime that you're all being a bit extreme.
Most likely the reason Vick won't do it again is that he can't afford to get caught again. When he was caught, he lied about who owned the property and said he didn't know anything about it. He lied because he knew it was an illegal operation. I'm having difficulty believing that a person who does such horrendous things, knowing it's wrong, won't do it again because he's had such a change of heart. He didn't even need the money, so what in the world could be his reason in participating in dog fighting - other than he enjoyed it. What other conclusion can one draw.
For Obama to support the "second chance" thing NOW, is too much too late.
It's not appropriate for the POTUS to comment on it, especially at this late date. IMHO.
Vick has handlers and babysitters with him to make sure he doesn't make another multi-million dollar screw up and end up in federal prison again. Without those handlers I suspect he would be a repeat offender. The plea bargain was set up to ensure just the situation Vick has now, a lucrative NFL career with minimum time off the field. Chances are that Obama's comments were an attempt to tie his name with a "winner" in this years NFL and Pro-bowl. A little PR gaffe run amuck and befitting his VP.
Vick has handlers and babysitters with him to make sure he doesn't make another multi-million dollar screw up and end up in federal prison again. Without those handlers I suspect he would be a repeat offender. The plea bargain was set up to ensure just the situation Vick has now, a lucrative NFL career with minimum time off the field. Chances are that Obama's comments were an attempt to tie his name with a "winner" in this years NFL and Pro-bowl. A little PR gaffe run amuck and befitting his VP.
Vick has handlers and babysitters with him to make sure he doesn't make another multi-million dollar screw up and end up in federal prison again. Without those handlers I suspect he would be a repeat offender. The plea bargain was set up to ensure just the situation Vick has now, a lucrative NFL career with minimum time off the field. Chances are that Obama's comments were an attempt to tie his name with a "winner" in this years NFL and Pro-bowl. A little PR gaffe run amuck and befitting his VP.
What difference does it make if Vick did have people helping him stay on the "stright and narrow"? ALL THAT MATTERS is that he does so.
Are you suggesting that federal prosecutors would be involved in a plea deal so that a defendant could end up with a successful career situation? You guys are really stretching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it's costly to bring a case to trial; however, I challenge you to get a prosecutor to ADMIT that he/she gave a defendant a plea deal because it was costly to go to trial, ESPECIALLY a nasty and HIGH PROFILE case like this one. My best guess is that the prosecutor had some difficulty with the case and felt it was in HIS/HER BEST INTEREST to agree to a plea deal rather than go to trial.
You guys are really stretching.
