I couldn’t stomach more than a few seconds of it, but it struck me as a CYA apology, and nothing more.
News analysts are having a blast talking about how the judge may feel sorry for Vick because he’s losing millions of dollars due to the case, and that the judge may take that into account during the sentencing. Maybe. But I think this is the most important element to the judge’s decision:
“Tough but fair” is the description most often heard from lawyers who appear before Hudson, who owns a bichon frise dog and declined to be interviewed.
“He’s a good trial judge, but on sentencing he tends to be in the middle or upper range of the sentencing guidelines,” said attorney Murray Janus. “A lot of judges start at the low end. Not Judge Hudson.”
Sarah has been showing dachsund’s for years, and is involved in the dog world and fairly knowledgeable. Whenever she and I discuss the Vick case, she generally comes back to the judge being a dog owner. A bichon frise, she said, would be a bait dog for Vick’s pit bulls. We’re both betting the judge knows that.
My money is on a tough sentence. And it will be well-deserved. We’ll visit this again in December.
I would concentrate on the tough but fair part of the description. A judge who is not fair would throw the book at Vick because of the dog that he owns. A judge that is fair would sentence Vick not because of the money that he will lose and not because he himself owns a dog, but because of the heinous actions themselves.
I think he’ll get a slap on the wrist. America’s agricultural foundations mean that we treat animals as property rather than creatures deserving protection.
And you’re right, this is a total CYA apology, penned and coached by some high-dollar lawyer that the NFL probably picked to whitewash the situation so Sleazeball can get back on the field.
In his own mind, he merely sees himself as a victim of persecution by “the man”.
Scumbag.
Meryl my money (and hope) is on truth and justice !
I despise animal abusers. Almost as much, I despise various people I’ve seen or encountered online, claiming that animal abuse shouldn’t be a felony because “it’s valuing human life above animal life.” I don’t have the patience to try to explain matters to such jerks anymore.
Incidentally, Meryl, I saw this story about Norman Finkelstein and figured I’d pass it along.
“America’s agricultural foundations mean that we treat animals as property rather than creatures deserving protection”…as opposed to countries that *don’t* have agricultural foundations? Are there such countries?