So we should believe Vick just because he is an NFL superstar? An NFL superstar who owned the house, the property and had the means to fund the organization? So what, the guy can throw a ****ing football and run fast, so he can't be lying, right? I understand the whole character argument since his buddies have nice sized rap sheets and Vick doesn't, but cmon are you really that stupid to turn a blind eye away from all of the glaring evidence against him? I mean seriously, Vick has proven himself to be a liar right from the beginning. Honestly, I don't know who to believe and at this point don't really care. Screw giving anyone deals for lesser sentences, unless what they can offer up will seal the deal on a bigger fish. I think the judge should throw the book at all of these guys. Lock 'em all up for 5 years!
What bothers me about your line of reasoning is not that you believe what he did wasn't a significant offense, but that he should receive leniency because he is a pro athlete. Does the same go for DUI or assault or forgery or mail fraud or failure to pay child support or petty theft or anything else? Should celebrities, athletes, famous people not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us?
He bought the property. He's admitting to buying the dogs over state lines. Is it even remotely believable that he didn't gamble on dog fighting?
I think the thing he'd be most worried about is the allegation that he killed dogs himself. And, I could see him dodging prosecution on that. He might even be innocent; his friends could have just thrown him under the bus for dogs they've killed themselves. Either way, he should want to make sure the public has significant doubt that he did kill those dogs. He can play in the league again if all he did was run an illegal dogfighting ring and gamble on it. The PR is much worse if he electrocuted, hanged, and drowned dogs. Perhaps he'll deny gambling because he wants to say he funded it but was not involved in day-to-day operation?
Yea they should be leniant on him if the system has been leniant on all these drunken and high celebrities roaming the streets in their expensive cars putting other peoples lives in danger. Yes they should be leniant on him after they let a man walk away with murder. Now some of you may have me confused for me believing that they should be leniant with him killing dogs(if he did kill any at all)...no not at all, I believe they should be leniant on the fact that all this took place on his property.
"They" is the state of California. This is the US Government & state of Virginia. They aren't going to let him walk on s***. The 2 things have nothing to do with each other. It's a shame that you would think that because it's happened before to other celebrities, it should continue to happen. They should be more lenient because it happened on his property? If anything, they should be more strict because it happened on his property with his knowledge and financed by him. Stop getting your facts from the National Enquirer and Star. People magazine is not the end all be all of information. Celebrities should not be treated as special when it comes to breaking the law. You seriously have some deluded priorities in life if you think he should just walk based on celebrity. I feel sad for you.
I agree w/ MadMax, I think you've only read one headline on this case and are misinformed about the details. Besides, I think your logic is ass-backwards. Instead of being more lenient for Vick the law needs to be stricter w/ celebrities. Two wrongs don't make a right.
