23 months in federal prison. Sound reasonable or not enough time? Your opinions?
2007-12-10 07:14:11 · 31 answers · asked by ticktock 7 in Pets ➔ Dogs
I say we get to do the same thing to him that happened to his dogs. Now THAT would be fair.
2007-12-10 07:18:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
I don't think 23 months, is even close to enough time for this sadistic, heartless,barbaric, pathetic excuse for a human being! It's a slap on the wrist! He may have lost his home, money and career, but he did that, on his own, no on forced him! He created his own problems! Can you imagine the pain and agony those poor, helpless dogs went through? No animal deserves to be abused, for any reason, and he did it because he enjoyed, watching and participating in torturing these poor dogs! In my opinion, no sentence would be long enough or harsh enough for Michael Vick! Michael Vick makes my skin crawl!!!
2007-12-10 07:40:33 · answer #2 · answered by Chihuahua Addict Adores Scooby 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My opinion is shared by many, he should be treated the way he treated those dogs, but since the liberals would scream abuse (well, D'uh!)
I think the sentance handed to him was very good considering the way the courts tend to treat celebrity criminals. I'm not saying that it's fair, just kind of suprising. I wonder how much of that will actually be spent behind bars though, A week, two? Then out for good behaviour.
I think for every day he is released early he should have to volunteer at an animal shelter cleaning crap from the cages. Thats just me.
2007-12-10 07:22:27 · answer #3 · answered by anon 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
With such a high profile animal abuse case I would have liked to see him get the maximum penalty. I also think he plead down by giving information on the dog fighting ring. I wish laws against animal abuse were stronger too. Serial killers start with animals and move onto other vulnerable prey like kids. If we want to live in an non-violent society, we can't tolerate torture of animals as entertainment at all. We will be judged by how we treat our weakest and most vulnerable members. 23 months is not long enough to rehabilitate Vic, and most likely they won't try. I just hope the high profile of this case make animal abuse laws tougher as people vote for people who put animal's rights on front of their agendas. Would be a good start!
2007-12-10 07:33:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No it is not enought time. Here is a man that did not need to make a living fighting dogs, he did it becasue he enjoyed it. Anyone who inflecks pain on something that can not fight back should geto more than 23 months. I have found if a person will do it to a dog they would do it to a human. Most serial killers start with animals.
2007-12-10 08:11:28 · answer #5 · answered by raven blackwing 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, 23 months is long enough. Besides how long do you suggest he should have gotten? The woman who killed her preacher husband barely got 3 months in custody, I feel she should have got more, I'm a human lover. *Edit: ebola_patient_zero, what the heck are you talking about? By my "LOGIC" if you killed someone intentionally you should go to prison, just like the woman who killed her husband intentionally to collect insurance money. When I brought up the case of the woman, I was just showing the inconsistency of the judaical system. As far as the OJ case, it was the prosection's fault and that numnut detective trying to plant evidence that messed up their case. Get your thoughts together before you call someone out bro!*
2016-05-22 21:39:19 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not enough in my book! its just a slap on the wrist! federal prison is a spa as apposed to state prisons, trust me my father works at a state facility. he wouldn't stand a chance in state! he will get out early on good behavior and have all the notariety that he has made for himself. all he managed to do is get himself more noticed to the public. now he is in the spotlight. and with so many people believing the dogs asked for it he will get out smelling like a rose. its a shame he got such a light sentence and the poor dogs paid with there lives! its not fair.
2007-12-10 07:27:34 · answer #7 · answered by laura r 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not enough time...
I personally believe that he should be serving 5 years for every dog that was hurt.... But that is me..
Then again. I believe that all stars - whether they are Movie or Sports should be held to the same standards as everyone - some times I think they should be held to even stricter guidelines for the simple fact that kids look up to them.
2007-12-10 08:14:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its amazing what being famous and having money will get you! I am disgusted by his sentence. I personally think he should have gotten one year for every dog he mistreated, two years for every dog he killed. To me the worst crimes commited are against children and animals. Dogfighting is just dispicable and I think that harsher punishment for the owner is needed if it is going to stop....not banning breeds! It really shows the horrible nature that some people possess. I'm outraged by the lack of justice in this case!!
2007-12-10 07:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by Meegz 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He should have received the maximum penalty - 5 years in prison. It's certainly a better sentence than most of those dogs received.
2007-12-10 07:18:10 · answer #10 · answered by Mom to 4 Weims 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I have always heard that federal prisons are like country clubs, they should of put him in a state facility, it would of been tougher on him, and make him do all five years, day for day.....who really cares about him, he didn't care about those poor dogs.
2007-12-10 08:14:23 · answer #11 · answered by deb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋