I am disappointed in Zone posters

[fortdick]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

Means 70% are from Virginia and they probably feel shamed about the whole thing. He is a local.

[theogt]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

[peplaw06]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.Option 4: We're smarter :D

[dbair1967]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

normally true...but not in this case

sad but true...ES showing more sense than the majority of people here

David

[fortdick]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

Knew the lawyer would come to his defense. Musta traded in your soul when you signed up for law school.

:laugh2:

Has anyone checked out Bang to see if he has the cartoon yet?

[tomson75]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

Option 4: We're smarter :D

Well duh.

Also, the poll on this forum gave the option to wait for a decision based upon the courts rulings...until further information is available to us laypeople. If found guilty, I'm sure those numbers would more than likely change.

[zeromaster]

Option 5: Who thinks ES opinion counts for anything?

[theogt]

normally true...but not in this case

sad but true...ES showing more sense than the majority of people here

DavidSo we know, with certainty, all of the evidence?

[dargonking999]

Umm, last time i checked

ES fails

so guess what? all their polls fail
all their opinions fail
all their thoughts fail
all of anything fails

in essence, fail

[dargonking999]

So we know, with certainty, all of the evidence?


Of course we do

the Feds said Vick did it, so Vick did it

duh!

[burmafrd]

The evidence is mounting that Vick was involved one way or another- knowingly.

[joseephuss]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I have seen very few posters defend Vick. Some are just talking about patience. Let the process work itself out. It will give a suspension more teeth.

[fortdick]

So we know, with certainty, all of the evidence?

I have it figured out! Theogt and Peplaw are representing Ookie and they are using us as a sample jury pool.

Okay counselor, I can be objective. I haven;t heard anything about the case, much less read the indictment. There is no reason I can't fairly act as a finder of fact in the matter.

OOO ooo!
Pick me!
Pick me!

[5Stars]

normally true...but not in this case

sad but true...ES showing more sense than the majority of people here

David


Go make a poll over there at that dump about which team will win the SuperBowl?

I guarantee they will say the RedStinks...that's just who and how they are!

That and they probably have orders from Art to scew the poll to make Portis look not so stupid!!

:laugh2:

[peplaw06]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the appeal is for the rush to judgment? I'm racking my brain, and for the life of me, I can't understand why people are so invested as to say he should be suspended immediately...

Economically I can understand why the companies that he endorses are distancing themselves from him. I will even understand it if the Falcons ask him to leave, or suspend him themselves. But the reasons they are doing this is $$$.

And they are facing the economic pressure from people who want him gone now. But I still don't understand why people want him gone yesterday.

Edit... I'll even give fort a pass, because he's a cop, and cops always think other cops are right.

[Teague31]

I'm disappointed in anyone who goes to ES.

[InmanRoshi]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

Maybe some of us are just sitting back waiting for the trial by jury, and not actually investing our lives into something that really has no effect on our day to day.

I'd rather we spent a fraction of this energy focused on keeping our politicians in line.

[5Stars]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the appeal is for the rush to judgment? I'm racking my brain, and for the life of me, I can't understand why people are so invested as to say he should be suspended immediately...

Economically I can understand why the companies that he endorses are distancing themselves from him. I will even understand it if the Falcons ask him to leave, or suspend him themselves. But the reasons they are doing this is $$$.

And they are facing the economic pressure from people who want him gone now. But I still don't understand why people want him gone yesterday.


Of course you would wonder that, peplaw. That is part of your brainwashing that you got in law school...

See, the longer it takes, the more money that can be made by your collegues...the longer a lawyer can drag this out the more money he makes!

Get with the program, man!!

:o:
j/k of course!

[peplaw06]

Knew the lawyer would come to his defense. Musta traded in your soul when you signed up for law school.See I know you said this at least halfway in jest, but I'm sure you think there's some truth in what you're saying. And it leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. I can't be more clear. Support for the system and wanting to let due process play out does not equal defense of Vick. Just to clear that up.

[fortdick]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the appeal is for the rush to judgment? I'm racking my brain, and for the life of me, I can't understand why people are so invested as to say he should be suspended immediately...

Economically I can understand why the companies that he endorses are distancing themselves from him. I will even understand it if the Falcons ask him to leave, or suspend him themselves. But the reasons they are doing this is $$$.

And they are facing the economic pressure from people who want him gone now. But I still don't understand why people want him gone yesterday.

Edit... I'll even give fort a pass, because he's a cop, and cops always think other cops are right.

Mainly because it is what we expected from him. The fact that it is dogs that he is abusing for his entertainment just makes it easier to condemn him.

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way. The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.

I thought something was wrong with the Duke case, but I have little or no doubt that this one is solid. Marcus Vick is just glad that he isn;t the black sheep of the family anymore.

The entire Vick gangsta image is the thing that convinces me it is real. HE portrays himself as that type of person, everyone around him is in trouble with the law, and he is completely indifferent to anything but his own self interest.

He was supposed to be the icon of the 21st century QB. He is a loser. HE has limited skills and lives of his popularity with the Hip Hop generation. Now he has is caught up in the gangsta lifestyle. I, for one, expected no less of him.

Does that answer your question, counselor?

[fortdick]

See I know you said this at least halfway in jest, but I'm sure you think there's some truth in what you're saying. And it leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. I can't be more clear. Support for the system and wanting to let due process play out does not equal defense of Vick. Just to clear that up.

I can;t tell you how many times I have sat in court and heard lawyers spin up lies and misrepresentations in defense of their scumbag clients. Our legal system is a battle of lawyers, very little of it actually has to do with the truth. You try to present a case and some high priced lawyer gets your evidence thrown out becasue it is prejudical. Yeah, the guy is on trial for trafficking drugs. But the fact that he has two priors should not be admitted becaue the jury might feel ill of him.

Peps, I respect you becasue I know what you are doing, and why. You may be able to convince some of these other people that it is really about fairness, but there is a reason some lawyers get $500 an hour and some work as public defenders for $75 an hour.

I bet you can tell me your win/loss record, can't ya? Why would that be important if it was about fairness and the law?

[dbair1967]

So we know, with certainty, all of the evidence?

pretty much, yeah

if anything, much much mroe is gonna get piled on

David

[theogt]

Mainly because it is what we expected from him.Why? What had he done before to expect this from him?

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way. The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.I don't do criminal defense work. I'm not involved in defense work at all. It is not a part of my living in any way, shape, or form.

I thought something was wrong with the Duke case, but I have little or no doubt that this one is solid. Marcus Vick is just glad that he isn;t the black sheep of the family anymore.

The entire Vick gangsta image is the thing that convinces me it is real. HE portrays himself as that type of person, everyone around him is in trouble with the law, and he is completely indifferent to anything but his own self interest.So if a gangster is accused of doing something wrong, you're convinced, but if a well-educated, young lacross player is accused you have doubt? I'm confused (not really) as to why that is.

[theogt]

pretty much, yeah

if anything, much much mroe is gonna get piled on

DavidSo what facts do you know, with certainty, that lead you to be certain that he is guilty? And what is he guilty of? What are the charges?

[peplaw06]

Mainly because it is what we expected from him. The fact that it is dogs that he is abusing for his entertainment just makes it easier to condemn him.

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way. The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.

I thought something was wrong with the Duke case, but I have little or no doubt that this one is solid. Marcus Vick is just glad that he isn;t the black sheep of the family anymore.

The entire Vick gangsta image is the thing that convinces me it is real. HE portrays himself as that type of person, everyone around him is in trouble with the law, and he is completely indifferent to anything but his own self interest.

He was supposed to be the icon of the 21st century QB. He is a loser. HE has limited skills and lives of his popularity with the Hip Hop generation. Now he has is caught up in the gangsta lifestyle. I, for one, expected no less of him.

Does that answer your question, counselor?Translation: I want to be right??? :confused:

Does it matter whether you're right at this point, or right 9 months from now when the trial is over? What if you go around proclaiming you're right at the moment, but end up being wrong? What is the obsession with being the first to be right?

I can;t tell you how many times I have sat in court and heard lawyers spin up lies and misrepresentations in defense of their scumbag clients. Our legal system is a battle of lawyers, very little of it actually has to do with the truth. You try to present a case and some high priced lawyer gets your evidence thrown out becasue it is prejudical. Yeah, the guy is on trial for trafficking drugs. But the fact that he has two priors should not be admitted becaue the jury might feel ill of him.

Peps, I respect you becasue I know what you are doing, and why. You may be able to convince some of these other people that it is really about fairness, but there is a reason some lawyers get $500 an hour and some work as public defenders for $75 an hour.

I bet you can tell me your win/loss record, can't ya? Why would that be important if it was about fairness and the law?
Wait a second... my point was that defense of the system does not equal defense of Vick. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. It has nothing to do with lawyers, their tactics, or how much money they make. I simply think a defendant deserves to go through the process before their liberties are taken away.

PS. yes I can tell you MY win loss record.... By myself, I've had exactly ONE contested hearing. Today as a matter of fact. And I won. I'm batting 1.000, 1-0. You can applaud now ;)... My boss, who's been doing this for 25+ years, I guarantee you she can't tell you her total win-loss record. No way. We're much to busy to know.

[fortdick]

Why? What had he done before to expect this from him?

I don't do criminal defense work. I'm not involved in defense work at all. It is not a part of my living in any way, shape, or form.

So if a gangster is accused of doing something wrong, you're convinced, but if a well-educated, young lacross player is accused you have doubt? I'm confused (not really) as to why that is.

Reread your post and ask yourself a question. "Did I think before I posted that?"

If I dressed in a tennis outfit, would anyone be surprised if I was seen plaing tennis?

If I was dressed in a business suit, would anyone be surprised to see me playing tennis?

I gotta figure most people want to project an image of who they are. You are prolly assuming I am a white guy, Christian, with a middle class upbringing. You prolly suspect I am a republican. You might even think I drive a pickup.

Want to guess how many of those are correct?

If you were getting on an airplane and and stood in the boarding line behind five guys talking Farsi, repeating. "Durka, Durka, Mohammed Jihad!" would you call security? We all have prejudices. I am just not so sanctomonious to admit it.

[RW Hitman]

Well duh.

Also, the poll on this forum gave the option to wait for a decision based upon the courts rulings...until further information is available to us laypeople. If found guilty, I'm sure those numbers would more than likely change.

This is exactly why, and yes it does mean we are smarter. You cannot come down on him legally before he is found guilty, but atleast for us we will wait to have more facts straight before we go judging every tom, dick, & harry before for putting their tie on wrong.

Why suspend him right now, what if he did nothing , just a little, or whole lot wrong? The NFL can afford to wait and see...

[fortdick]

Translation: I want to be right??? :confused:

Does it matter whether you're right at this point, or right 9 months from now when the trial is over? What if you go around proclaiming you're right at the moment, but end up being wrong? What is the obsession with being the first to be right?


Wait a second... my point was that defense of the system does not equal defense of Vick. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. It has nothing to do with lawyers, their tactics, or how much money they make. I simply think a defendant deserves to go through the process before their liberties are taken away.

PS. yes I can tell you MY win loss record.... By myself, I've had exactly ONE contested hearing. Today as a matter of fact. And I won. I'm batting 1.000, 1-0. You can applaud now ;)... My boss, who's been doing this for 25+ years, I guarantee you she can't tell you her total win-loss record. No way. We're much to busy to know.

You asked why everyone was running to judgement. I told you. My point is that you have an interest in not prejudging.

Sure I support the system. I have to. It is all we have. But I don;t agree with the principle that he is innocent until proven guilty. If that principle always applied, there would be no need to remand to custody without bail.

And youand your boss both care about winning. Not so much about the right and wrong of it, as with the winning. You get paid more if you win.

Have you, or your boss, ever accepted a retainer and then told the client they are guilty as hell and should go to jail?

[Hoofbite]

are there really people who still think that Vick had absolutely no knowledge of what was happening?


amazing.....

[peplaw06]

are there really people who still think that Vick had absolutely no knowledge of what was happening?


amazing.....WHO SAID THAT?!?!?!:bang2::bang2::bang2::bang2:

amazing...

[fortdick]

WHO SAID THAT?!?!?!:bang2::bang2::bang2::bang2:

amazing...

I will stick up for ya. You didn;t say that. You are just saying let the system do its job before judging him.

Sorry, I have already judged him. . . . unless called for the jury pool! :D

[peplaw06]

You asked why everyone was running to judgement. I told you. My point is that you have an interest in not prejudging.Pray tell, what is your interest in prejudging? Being right??? If that's it, just say it... But proclaiming yourself right at this moment is a tad premature don't you think. Why proclaim yourself right, when you could still be wrong?

Sure I support the system. I have to. It is all we have. But I don;t agree with the principle that he is innocent until proven guilty. If that principle always applied, there would be no need to remand to custody without bail. Methinks your tune would change if it were you being indicted.

And youand your boss both care about winning. Not so much about the right and wrong of it, as with the winning. You get paid more if you win. Not really, we get paid up front. Win or lose, we get paid. That's how it has to be. You can't get more money for winning. Ethics 101. you shouldn't need extra incentive to win. It would lead to less than acceptable representation when you don't get paid or don't think you can win.

Have you, or your boss, ever accepted a retainer and then told the client they are guilty as hell and should go to jail? :confused:

Not sure where you're going with this, but I've told clients that they are looking at jail time on pleas before. I don't say, "you're guilty." I say this is the best deal we can get, you can take it (i.e. go to jail if that's the case), or we can go to trial.

[Green28]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

That's because the Texas poll had an option (C)...45% voted for the death penalty :D

[Hoofbite]

WHO SAID THAT?!?!?!:bang2::bang2::bang2::bang2:

amazing...


never said you did.....just wondering if there are those who still hold to that thought.


but, just for the fart of it.......do you think he was unaware?

[lspain1]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

OK, I'm going to explain my answer to the poll. It's quite simple. The NFL has a conduct policy that permits Goodell to act for the good of the NFL....FOR REPEATED VIOLATIONS....or CONVICTIONS. Therefore Pac Man and Tank fall under the policy for the NFL to act. Vick is not a repeat offender...and he has not been convicted....therefore the NFL can not act. The NFL must let the justice system proceed to its conclusion.

I consider it a virtual certainty that the Atlanta Falcons (a different entity from the NFL) will not permit Vick to participate in team activities (practice or play football) until this matter is resolved and perhaps not even then. That action has NO bearing on the NFL (even though I am sure it will be coordinated with the League office).

In short, Roger Goodell has no choice in this matter for right now. Those of you who want the NFL to suspend Vick are are not thinking it through. It is no surprise to me that the Extremeskins folks are voting like they are....if they had a thought it would be their first one today. Were the NFL to act now would destroy the confidence of the players and a signifcant fraction of the public as well as opening up the league to lawsuits.

[Jaxonsdaddd]

I cant believe there are people out there saying that, "we dont know yet, lets let it play out".

I will go on record right now and say if I get a search warrant on my house next week and find 60 dogs and 30 burried carcasas then you all can call me a dog fighter...

[fortdick]

Pray tell, what is your interest in prejudging? Being right??? If that's it, just say it... But proclaiming yourself right at this moment is a tad premature don't you think. Why proclaim yourself right, when you could still be wrong?

I could care less about being right or wrong. I was wrong on the O.J. trial. But I was glad on that because of the threats of riots if he was convicted.



Methinks your tune would change if it were you being indicted.


That is the beauty of it. I will never be indicted. I don;t do anything wrong. I don't even speed in my car. I don't drink, so no drunk driving in my future. I both respect and fear the law. Vick does neither.



Not really, we get paid up front. Win or lose, we get paid. That's how it has to be. You can't get more money for winning. Ethics 101. you shouldn't need extra incentive to win. It would lead to less than acceptable representation when you don't get paid or don't think you can win.

Oh bullocks! You know the more you win the more you can charge. If you win cases, you get to charge more money. If you were working in some nonprofit thing, then I would applaud your altruism, but the fact is, lawyers don;t practice law for the good feeling it gives them.

Does James Sokolove get paid up front, or does he takes cases on a contingency? Just wondering what you say to all that?



Not sure where you're going with this, but I've told clients that they are looking at jail time on pleas before. I don't say, "you're guilty." I say this is the best deal we can get, you can take it (i.e. go to jail if that's the case), or we can go to trial.

Ever had a client so guilty that you thought he should be in jail for the rest of his life? If so, what advice did you give him? Plea for a reduced sentence? I bet you fought tooth and nail, busting that poor prosecutor's butt, trying to get the scumbag out of prison in half the time he deserved.

And that poor prosecutor that went to law school and didn't finish in the upper part of his class and get a job offer from a private firm.

It is all about winning and losing.

[03EBZ06]

I will go on record right now and say if I get a search warrant on my house next week and find 60 dogs and 30 burried carcasas then you all can call me a dog fighter...
Yeah, but you live in your property while Vick is claiming that he had no knowledge of dogfighting because he rarely visited that property, which I don't believe for one second.

[fortdick]

I cant believe there are people out there saying that, "we dont know yet, lets let it play out".

I will go on record right now and say if I get a search warrant on my house next week and find 60 dogs and 30 burried carcasas then you all can call me a dog fighter...

But what if you were a retirement home for old pitbulls? You just keep them there because they are old and going to die soon. Those graves out back are for the poor little doggies that have passed to the next world.

You wouldn't want people to judge you too early, would ya?

/saracasm

[peplaw06]

I cant believe there are people out there saying that, "we dont know yet, lets let it play out".

I will go on record right now and say if I get a search warrant on my house next week and find 60 dogs and 30 burried carcasas then you all can call me a dog fighter...

Lookit... there are a couple of things that you should know.

1) I think Vick is guilty. That is my personal opinion.

2) However, when it comes to the question of "should he be suspended right now?", the answer is easy. My personal opinion means next to nothing. I was not a part of the investigation, nor am I a prosecutor in the case, nor am I Vick's defense attorney (no matter how much you guys want to think so).

I don't know all the facts. I don't know if anyone knows all the facts, save maybe the defendants. Therefore, I don't pretend to know that I know how this case will turn out.

Me personally, if I don't know all the facts, I am not going to clamor for the NFL or the Falcons to make a decision based on what little I do know. But hell, I guess that's just me.

3) Because in my mind, I think he is guilty, if when the trial is over he is ultimately found guilty, I will be able to say "I was right," just like fort, just like Jaxonsdadddd, just like thehoofbite, just like dbair. If he winds up being found not guilty, I will be wrong. But my being wrong won't cost him anything.

[Kilyin]

The feds wouldn't be involved if there wasn't a strong case with plenty of evidence. If I were a betting man, I'd bank on a conviction.

[Seven]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I wanna kow what in the hell you're doing at............that place. Talk about disappointment. :p:

[CowboyWay]

normally true...but not in this case

sad but true...ES showing more sense than the majority of people here

David


I couldn't disagree more, and I think this is the difference between ES posters and us. We're smarter. Here's why........

Vick deserves his day in court, nobody condones what he did, but this is america, like it or not, and if it were you, you'd like it, he deserves his day in court. Its an right you have as a citizen, and you should be damn happy you have it.

If vick is found guilty, he will pay, and pay dearly.

No need to rush to judgement here.

If a woman accuses you of rape, should you be suspended from your job before you go to court? How bout the Duke Lacrosse team, they had everything taken from them from the getgo, how'd that turn out? INNOCENT, and it wasn't even close.

Like it or not, VIck deserves his day in court.

I personally think he's a guilty scumbag, but I'm not at the point where I think he doesn 't deserve a free trial yet, and if I ever do, someone buy me a plane ticket to Cuba where the rest of the commies are.

[Green28]

I couldn't disagree more, and I think this is the difference between ES posters and us. We're smarter. Here's why........

Vick deserves his day in court, nobody condones what he did, but this is america, like it or not, and if it were you, you'd like it, he deserves his day in court. Its an right you have as a citizen, and you should be damn happy you have it.

If vick is found guilty, he will pay, and pay dearly.

No need to rush to judgement here.

If a woman accuses you of rape, should you be suspended from your job before you go to court? How bout the Duke Lacrosse team, they had everything taken from them from the getgo, how'd that turn out? INNOCENT, and it wasn't even close.

Like it or not, VIck deserves his day in court.

I personally think he's a guilty scumbag, but I'm not at the point where I think he doesn 't deserve a free trial yet, and if I ever do, someone buy me a plane ticket to Cuba where the rest of the commies are.

What's your stance on PacMan?

[ThreeSportStar80]

Means 70% are from Virginia and they probably feel shamed about the whole thing. He is a local.

I'm from Virginia, there will always be a divide when it comes to Michael Vick, stemming back before any of this mess came about... I'm a Vick fan because I've known him since way back.

[peplaw06]

I could care less about being right or wrong. I was wrong on the O.J. trial. But I was glad on that because of the threats of riots if he was convicted. Then please tell me what you have invested in this case? What is the incentive for you to prejudge him?



That is the beauty of it. I will never be indicted. I don;t do anything wrong. I don't even speed in my car. I don't drink, so no drunk driving in my future. I both respect and fear the law. Vick does neither. Well then all the easier for you to have an unreasonable point of view.... and a very immature one at that.

I seem to remember when I was in high school, some representative from MADD coming to school and giving a speech about drunk driving. They said the reason so many young people get killed and/or kill other people, even though they hear about people getting killed drunk driving, is because they think, "That will never happen to me." Something about youth and new found freedom makes teenagers feel infallible. You think you're infallible?

Remember, you can indict a ham sandwich. It could be something as little as a 4 year old telling someone you touched them in a bad spot. Bang, you're indicted... You want to be prejudged? Sometimes that hit to your reputation can never be regained.

Oh bullocks! You know the more you win the more you can charge. If you win cases, you get to charge more money. If you were working in some nonprofit thing, then I would applaud your altruism, but the fact is, lawyers don;t practice law for the good feeling it gives them.

Does James Sokolove get paid up front, or does he takes cases on a contingency? Just wondering what you say to all that? Honestly I can charge whatever I want. I could charge outrageous retainers upfront if I wanted to. Problem is, with me being a newbie, I would never get any clients. Generally, the more experience you get, the more you can charge and actually get clients. Your reputation and experience are the biggest things that determine the market for your services.

Sometimes you gain a positive reputation by winning cases, sure. Sometimes it's by being an honest person and treating clients right. They don't post the winning percentage of attorneys in the paper.

And yes, some lawyers practice solely for money. Some practice because it does give them a good feeling. I finalized an adoption the other day, that's a pretty good feeling, no matter how "soulless" you are.

I'm not surprised you're skeptical. Cops hate lawyers. How's that generality for you?

As far as contingency fees are concerned, those are typically only set up in personal injury cases. Personal injury attorneys can do that because they are basically guaranteed a settlement from someone. But you'll never find an attorney who takes a case on a contingency fee without knowing the facts. they hear the facts, then determine whether it's worth their time to try to get a settlement, then they take a cut. But that cut is predetermined. The percentage of the attorney's take doesn't go up as the settlement amount goes up.

Ever had a client so guilty that you thought he should be in jail for the rest of his life? If so, what advice did you give him? Plea for a reduced sentence? I bet you fought tooth and nail, busting that poor prosecutor's butt, trying to get the scumbag out of prison in half the time he deserved.No I haven't. I've had clients who I thought should go to jail, and I told him he was looking at jail time. Again, I didn't say, "you should go to jail." I don't give my opinions like that. And of course if I run into a guy like that, I'm going to fight for less time. That's my job. My personal opinion means little.

And that poor prosecutor that went to law school and didn't finish in the upper part of his class and get a job offer from a private firm.LOL @ poor prosecutors. There are a lot of good prosecutors who will bust your butt just the same. There are also a lot of lazy prosecutors who could get into private practice, but don't for whatever reason, but one big reason is that they don't want to work past 5:00 or on weekends. Another one is they get a good pension plan from the state/county/government.

I didn't finish in the upper part of my class, nor did I get an immediate offer from a private law firm. but I am not opposed to busting my butt, working past 5:00 every day, or on weekends. I hope my bosses have picked up on that.

It is all about winning and losing.Already addressed... but what is your job about?

[03EBZ06]

I'm a Vick fan because I've known him since way back.
Since you are a Vick's fan, what is your take on his situation? Are you still Vick's fan even with this indictment?

[COWBOYSNUM1]

I don't like Vick at all. I think he is the most overrated player in the NFL. Still, I would like to wait until he has his day in court before he is suspended.

But if (when) he is found guilty, I hope he is suspended for life.

[ThreeSportStar80]

Since you are a Vick's fan, what is your take on his situation? Are you still Vick's fan even with this indictment?

I'm a dog lover so I have mixed emotions about it but he's also an associate of mine so... I have no real comment on it.

[03EBZ06]

I have no real comment on it.
Precisely what Clinton Portis and Joe Horn should have said.

[rathalarge]

Option 5: Who thinks ES opinion counts for anything?

Agreed!! :starspin

[RW Hitman]

That is the beauty of it. I will never be indicted. I don;t do anything wrong. I don't even speed in my car. I don't drink, so no drunk driving in my future. I both respect and fear the law. Vick does neither.



I think we may have found out where your flaw is fort dick. Answer this, do you think only guilty people are indicted? Is this your train of thought, "He must be guilty because he was arrested."?
According to your above quote, that is what I get out of it. You say you do not do anything that would get you indited later. Well, what if you were arrested because someone saw you near a crime scene for whatever. You are innocent, but who is to listen to a guilty man?
Also, the obious reason for some to not reach bail is likelihood of guilt associated with the danger of flight of a possible dangerous being. This presumption while meant to protect society against a possible danger, still maintains a sense of innocent until proven guilty in that that defendant has a right to a speedy trial so that the innocent only pay the smallest of time and this sacrifice is much needed for the system to work.

[RW Hitman]

Lookit... there are a couple of things that you should know.

1) I think Vick is guilty. That is my personal opinion.

2) However, when it comes to the question of "should he be suspended right now?", the answer is easy. My personal opinion means next to nothing. I was not a part of the investigation, nor am I a prosecutor in the case, nor am I Vick's defense attorney (no matter how much you guys want to think so).

I don't know all the facts. I don't know if anyone knows all the facts, save maybe the defendants. Therefore, I don't pretend to know that I know how this case will turn out.

Me personally, if I don't know all the facts, I am not going to clamor for the NFL or the Falcons to make a decision based on what little I do know. But hell, I guess that's just me.

3) Because in my mind, I think he is guilty, if when the trial is over he is ultimately found guilty, I will be able to say "I was right," just like fort, just like Jaxonsdadddd, just like thehoofbite, just like dbair. If he winds up being found not guilty, I will be wrong. But my being wrong won't cost him anything.

This is perfect right here and basically says it like it should be said. I think he is guilty, but like anyone else, I prefer justice to work its course and that person be found guilty before punsihment is dished out and that is what you point out in #3

[HailGreen28]

After the Duke lacrosse fiasco, wasn't it the prevailing opinion nationwide that people should keep an open mind until one side concedes, or the case is tried?

That being said, if Vick did even half the stuff he's accused of, I hope he gets serious jail time.:(

[RW Hitman]

What's your stance on PacMan?


Not entirely familiar with all the details of what was up with PacMan, what happen in his court cases, or where he is at for that matter, but I will go out on a limb here and say that he has had I believe about a dozen run-ins with the law since entering the NFL (read something like that somewhere and I believe it was more but...) and the NFL has provisions in the contract with the NFLPA that says multiple offenses that reflect on the NFL outside of NFL itself may be dealt with by Goodell. I do not believe that it says anything about whether they are actually guilty of any of those multiple offenses. This can be looked up.

So yes, there is a difference here since this would be Vick's first run in with the law. I cannot for a minute believe that Vick knew nothing of what was going on at his own house, but he does deserve his day in court before his career is affected.

[CowboyWay]

What's your stance on PacMan?

Pacman has a long and glorious list of reasons why he was suspended. I don't care that he hasn't been convicted of anything. The guys been arrested 8-9 times in the last 2 years.

This is a different matter completely. Vick says "I'm innocent of these charges".

You have to admit, at this point, with what you know by reading the inditement (spelling), there is a "reasonable" doubt in your head that he did it isn't there? Or have you read enough of the inditement to throw him in prison right now?

[dargonking999]

This thread is proof that American's never learn from their mistakes.

[GimmeTheBall!]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I don't know
Maybe this board is just filled with those with "feelings"
I think normally that reason would prevail, but no
On the other hand I think people at this board are a bit more pragmatic
In a kinda bland, vaguely educated touchy-feely way
But hey, that is just what I have observed
:)
I guess the message from here is let the system wend its way and then convict da thug
:D

[CrazyCowboy]

I just glad this does not pertain to a Dallas Cowboy

[bbgun]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

[theogt]

Reread your post and ask yourself a question. "Did I think before I posted that?"

If I dressed in a tennis outfit, would anyone be surprised if I was seen plaing tennis?

If I was dressed in a business suit, would anyone be surprised to see me playing tennis?

I gotta figure most people want to project an image of who they are. You are prolly assuming I am a white guy, Christian, with a middle class upbringing. You prolly suspect I am a republican. You might even think I drive a pickup.

Want to guess how many of those are correct?

If you were getting on an airplane and and stood in the boarding line behind five guys talking Farsi, repeating. "Durka, Durka, Mohammed Jihad!" would you call security? We all have prejudices. I am just not so sanctomonious to admit it.I see what you're saying, and I certainly agree with it to an extent. Profiling (even racial profiling) is perfectly acceptable in my book, but we won't get into that here.

The problem is crossing the line between assuming something for the sake of further investigation, rather than coming to a conclusion based on an assumption. Some people seem to have concluded that Vick is guilty based on their assumptions. That's just silly.

PS, LOL @ "Durka, Durka"

[theogt]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.Quick, someone alert the authorities. bbgun's account has be hacked!

[dargonking999]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.


Holy freaking crap!!!

I think someone had a chat with

[03EBZ06]

Personally, I think Vick should have been indicted for posing as a NFL QB.

[bbgun]

Quick, someone alert the authorities. bbgun's account has be hacked!

No, I've always been sweet, wonderful and reasonable. Remember, I'm Mr. Sunshine.

[Yakuza Rich]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I think it means that people have a different interpretation of the *Conduct Policy*.

I'm still a believer that he's innocent in my mind until the evidence makes me feel like he's guilty (he could be found innocent, but I could still think he's guilty).

Personally I think he should be suspended since Pacman Jones has never been found guilty and was suspended because he violated player *conduct*. On the flip side, you have to find out whether or not Vick was actually involved somehow in dogfighting. Even if he didn't have a fighting dog but was present at the dogfights or gambled on dogs, he should be suspended.

While I applaud Goodell for his fervent attitude towards player conduct off the field, it has created a bit of a slippery slope.






YAKUZA

[peplaw06]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.On the frickin nosey.

Part of me thought that people were wanting to see Vick go down because they thought it would benefit the Cowboys, I just couldn't say it as well as you did. Problem is we don't play them this regular season, and I didn't think they were a threat to snag a playoff spot.

But I guess, if he's gone you have one less thing to worry about if we are in the playoffs. But I think it's a little petty.

[zrinkill]

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.

Personally I think its barbaric and stupid.

But I do not think I could send someone to jail and ruin their life over a dog or a cat.

Now I would have no problem for someone to beat his arse ...... punk deserves it if he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

But I dont know if I could sit on a jury and send a kid who has never gotten in any real trouble (other than being an idiot)to prison over an animal.

Sorry ahead of time if that offends anyone.

[03EBZ06]

On the frickin nosey.

Part of me thought that people were wanting to see Vick go down because they thought it would benefit the Cowboys, I just couldn't say it as well as you did. Problem is we don't play them this regular season, and I didn't think they were a threat to snag a playoff spot.

But I guess, if he's gone you have one less thing to worry about if we are in the playoffs. But I think it's a little petty.
Maybe small sample of them has that reason but I think majority of the people are disgusted and angry with crimes Vick is charged with.

[Crown Royal]

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way. The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.


I am not a lawyer, but this is one of the silliest things I have read today. My gut, and no one else's gut, is a valid reason to condemn a man, even if it is what is coming to him.

I'd rather wait for all the facts to be presented and judgment be rendered after careful evaluation of all items presented and be right 98% of the time than indict someone on my gut and be right 90% of the time.

[03EBZ06]

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.

Personally I think its barbaric and stupid.

But I do not think I could send someone to jail and ruin their life over a dog or a cat.

Now I would have no problem for someone to beat his arse ...... punk deserves it if he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

But I dont know if I could sit on a jury and send a kid who has never gotten in any real trouble (other than being an idiot)to prison over an animal.

Sorry ahead of time if that offends anyone.
Until the law gets changed, he is charged with felony crime, which is a serious crime and if he is found guilty, he will be imprisoned, whether or not some people think torturing and killing dogs aren't a serious crime.

[big dog cowboy]

I was checking out Extemeskins
The off season really sucks doesn't it.

[zrinkill]

Until the law gets changed, he is charged with felony crime, which is a serious crime and if he is found guilty, he will be imprisoned, whether or not some people think torturing and killing dogs aren't a serious crime.

Not arguing that ....

[Crown Royal]

3) Because in my mind, I think he is guilty, if when the trial is over he is ultimately found guilty, I will be able to say "I was right," just like fort, just like Jaxonsdadddd, just like thehoofbite, just like dbair. If he winds up being found not guilty, I will be wrong. But my being wrong won't cost him anything.

On the fricking nose. This is kind of why I am a Kantian. I think he likely is guilty as well, but in no way would I indict someone without KNOWING they are guilty, with that guilt being supported by EVIDENCE presented in a formal and customary fashion.

Just because I feel very strongly that he is likely guilty (I will go a step further - I will say it is likely, but I never commit to knowledge without firm evidence), doesn't give me the right to judge someone, if ONLY because I OWE it to a fellow human to allow all facts to be presented before rendering judgment.

Vick has more to lose than Goodell - Goodell would be acting ethically to keep from suspending anyone until there is solid PRESENTED evidence that wrong has been committed.

[Chocolate Lab]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well. ;)

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it. ;)

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

[Crown Royal]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well. ;)

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it. ;)

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

And like I have said, I feel it would be premature. While it may not be a matter of legality, it is a matter of ethics. Ethics apply everywhere, including this case.

[Jaxonsdaddd]

I am amazed that people constantly look to the Duke lacross situation as a reason to not prematuerly judge Vick. The two situations couldnt be more different.

First and foremost, there was never any evidence in the Duke case. Once that story broke I took the position of, lets wait to hear what the DA has on these kids and the evidence never surfaced..

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"...:rolleyes: ..

[Crown Royal]

I am amazed that people constantly look to the Duke lacross situation as a reason to not prematuerly judge Vick. The two situations couldnt be more different.

First and foremost, there was never any evidence in the Duke case. Once that story broke I took the position of, lets wait to hear what the DA has on these kids and the evidence never surfaced..

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"...:rolleyes: ..


I'm not stating this anymore than I would with anyone else. I stated it with Duke, I stated it with Vick, I did it with Kobe.

Go look at the old Sean Taylor threads where there was evidence of wrong doing when he fired a gun. Is that a little closer. I believe I was taking that approach then when most of the board wanted to lynch him over some good evidence.

[peplaw06]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well. ;)

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it. ;) Well when the legal system is involved, I tend to view things through a legal perspective. The system, though fallible, which I agree with, is still IMO the best way to determine guilt or innocence.

I definitely think it's better than what is basically a corporate figurehead making a decision based on the league's bottom line.

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message. And at the moment he has that power, no argument. Problem is like I said above, the legal system will do something with Vick. It will be one thing (guilt and possible imprisonment) or another (no guilt and he will go about his life). And I happen to think that will be a more reliable judgment. Why make a snap decision that could end a career, when you can wait, see what facts are presented, and make a more informed decision?

[bbgun]

On the frickin nosey.

Part of me thought that people were wanting to see Vick go down because they thought it would benefit the Cowboys, I just couldn't say it as well as you did. Problem is we don't play them this regular season, and I didn't think they were a threat to snag a playoff spot.

But I guess, if he's gone you have one less thing to worry about if we are in the playoffs. But I think it's a little petty.

If this were McNabb or Eli Manning or dare I say Brady Quinn, the cartwheels around here would make more sense. After all, their loss would be our gain. Nor is Vick a loathsome figure in the mold of a Barry Bonds or Dennis Rodman. Yes, he's had some embarrassing episodes, and his little brother appears to be a recidivist truant (where are their parents??), but the casual fan doesn't "love to hate" him. He just picked the worst possible victims from a public opinion standpoint.

[theogt]

If this were McNabb or Eli Manning or dare I say Brady Quinn, the cartwheels around here would make more sense. After all, their loss would be our gain. Nor is Vick a loathsome figure in the mold of a Barry Bonds or Dennis Rodman. Yes, he's had some embarrassing episodes, and his little brother appears to be a recidivist truant (where are their parents??), but the casual fan doesn't "love to hate" him. He just picked the worst possible victims from a public opinion standpoint.I heart Brady Quinn.

[peplaw06]

I am amazed that people constantly look to the Duke lacross situation as a reason to not prematuerly judge Vick. The two situations couldnt be more different.

First and foremost, there was never any evidence in the Duke case. Once that story broke I took the position of, lets wait to hear what the DA has on these kids and the evidence never surfaced..

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"...:rolleyes: ..Omigod.... I just told you I thought he was guilty. There's a huge difference between believing someone is guilty based on the little evidence you know, and acting out on that belief based on the little evidence you know.

If your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 human carcasses in his backyard, would you go over and execute him yourself?

And it doesn't matter how different the situations are. Jeffery Dahmer has the same right to due process as Joe Blow who got arrested for DWI.

[silverbear]

Knew the lawyer would come to his defense. Musta traded in your soul when you signed up for law school.

Actually, they have it surgically removed shortly after the start of the second semester...

[Vintage]

Repeat after me....

"baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa"

[Chocolate Lab]

BB, your last sentence explained it all.

This has nothing to do with the Falcons, or wins and losses, or the sport he plays. If you're going to eletrocute and otherwise torture man's best friend, people are going to hate you for that fact alone. It's that simple.

[Crown Royal]

I was in the shower thinking of this thread, and the below popped into my head.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5687/1220angry20men20posterwf5.jpg

[bbgun]

BB, your last sentence explained it all.

This has nothing to do with the Falcons, or wins and losses, or the sport he plays. If you're going to eletrocute and otherwise torture man's best friend, people are going to hate you for that fact alone. It's that simple.

Exactly. You can slap around a ho, but keep your hands off Fido. Now we have to determine if it really happened.

[Jaxonsdaddd]

Omigod.... I just told you I thought he was guilty. There's a huge difference between believing someone is guilty based on the little evidence you know, and acting out on that belief based on the little evidence you know.

If your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 human carcasses in his backyard, would you go over and execute him yourself?

And it doesn't matter how different the situations are. Jeffery Dahmer has the same right to due process as Joe Blow who got arrested for DWI.


Peplaw, my post really wasnt directed specifically at you but I see you took it that way. I have just been hearing for days how not to jump to conclusions ala the Duke case. As I said before the only problem with making that point is one case had no evidence, Duke, and the Vick case has a tremendous amount of evidence that we already know of. I can only imagine the totality of everything they have....

And of course I believe Vick deserves a defense and due process as every other american does.

[Jaxonsdaddd]

Hmmm this is a touchy subject.

Personally I think its barbaric and stupid.

But I do not think I could send someone to jail and ruin their life over a dog or a cat.

Now I would have no problem for someone to beat his arse ...... punk deserves it if he is guilty of cruelty to animals.

But I dont know if I could sit on a jury and send a kid who has never gotten in any real trouble (other than being an idiot)to prison over an animal.

Sorry ahead of time if that offends anyone.

I have to admit that your position on this issue does disturb me a great deal but obviously we are all entitled to our beliefs....But the idea of someone walking the streets, who would hang dogs, bash there heads in and drown a dog for pleasure scares the hell out of me...I think someone who would commit these types of acts is capable of just about anything

[diamond cutter]

Cowboys fans want the Falcons to have more wins than the Browns!

[theogt]

Cowboys fans want the Falcons to have more wins than the Browns!Good point. Vick getting suspended may actually hurt us. Eek.

[Hoofbite]

Good point. Vick getting suspended may actually hurt us. Eek.

I would think the Falcons would be in line for a QB if Vick is suspended. Cut bait and move on.

[theogt]

I would think the Falcons would be in line for a QB if Vick is suspended. Cut bait and move on.Maybe. Or maybe they'd be willing to trade out to someone who wanted McF.

[Hoofbite]

Maybe. Or maybe they'd be willing to trade out to someone who wanted McF.

yeah....that too.

[M'Kevon]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

All these polls mean is the Vick isn't a Cowboy or a Skin. If he were, I doubt more than 20% would want him suspended.

[Sarge]

It's called innocent until proven guilty even though one knows the "true" answer.

To say what you "think" is one thing, to follow the rules of the country when rendering your decision is another.

[MarionBarberThe4th]

It doesnt look good for Vick, obviously.

But you have to wait it out.

Look at the Duke kids, they didnt do **** and theyre lives are forever changed. A coach resigned, the season was cancelled ect.



It has all the makings of Vick heading to jail anyway, so let the courts take care of it

[GlitzCowboy]

Stop reading so much into this. It's simple. Portis. It's a knee-jerk reaction to Portis' comments following the Vick fallout. Shamed, and their reasoning has been construed and they probably don't even know where they stand. Just want to make it a point that they "don't endorse" behavior like this. We would be no better if it was one of our players having made those comments.

[03EBZ06]

Stop reading so much into this. It's simple. Portis. It's a knee-jerk reaction to Portis' comments following the Vick fallout. Shamed, and their reasoning has been construed and they probably don't even know where they stand. Just want to make it a point that they "don't endorse" behavior like this. We would be no better if it was one of our players having made those comments.

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog,"

"If that's what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their business."

When told that dog fighting is a felony, Portis replied, "It can't be too bad of a crime."

"You want to hunt down Mike Vick over fighting some dogs?," Portis told the television station. "I think people should mind their own business."

- Clinton Portis

Knee jerk reaction? Not hardly, no need to read into Portis' comments, it's pretty clear what he is saying. Are you a Portis fan or something?

[fortdick]

I see what you're saying, and I certainly agree with it to an extent. Profiling (even racial profiling) is perfectly acceptable in my book, but we won't get into that here.

The problem is crossing the line between assuming something for the sake of further investigation, rather than coming to a conclusion based on an assumption. Some people seem to have concluded that Vick is guilty based on their assumptions. That's just silly.

PS, LOL @ "Durka, Durka"

Maybe it is silly, buit I pretty much think he is guilty. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, good chance it is a duck.

[fortdick]

The off season really sucks doesn't it.


Boy, Howdy! Ain't that the truth!

[fortdick]

I would think the Falcons would be in line for a QB if Vick is suspended. Cut bait and move on.

Actually, they could line McF up at the QB position and let run from there. That's what they have been doing with Vick. He sure can;t pass!

[fortdick]

Then please tell me what you have invested in this case? What is the incentive for you to prejudge him?

There is no incentive, it just is. I am just stating my opinion based upon the evidence I have read. He may walk, but I think he is scum.



Well then all the easier for you to have an unreasonable point of view.... and a very immature one at that. . . . .I You think you're infallible?

So you are going to start insulting me? It isn't that hard to live according to the law. I am not saying I don;t make mistakes, I am just saying I don't break the law. It's not really that hard.


Your reputation and experience are the biggest things that determine the market for your services.
Sometimes you gain a positive reputation by winning cases, sure. Sometimes it's by being an honest person and treating clients right. They don't post the winning percentage of attorneys in the paper.

I have seen good lawyers win cases and bad lawyers lose cases. I know which I would recommend to my friends.


And yes, some lawyers practice solely for money. Some practice because it does give them a good feeling. I finalized an adoption the other day, that's a pretty good feeling, no matter how "soulless" you are.

Good for you! Of course you waived the bill, right?


I'm not surprised you're skeptical. Cops hate lawyers. How's that generality for you?

News flash! It ain't just cops. You may the most ethical lawyer in the world. I respect your views and you seem reasonable. But you have to admit, lawyers generally have a poor reputation due to guys like Sokolove.


As far as contingency fees are concerned,

Well, you implied that lawyers get paid up front. You prolly forgot about this and I wanted to remind you.


No I haven't. I've had clients who I thought should go to jail, and I told him he was looking at jail time. Again, I didn't say, "you should go to jail." I don't give my opinions like that. And of course if I run into a guy like that, I'm going to fight for less time. That's my job. My personal opinion means little.

Thanks for making my point. Even if dude should fry, you will do what you have to do to get him out of jail as soon as possible. That is not justice.


Already addressed... but what is your job about?

LOL! Let's see, today I am going to mow the lawn, the go play golf. My biggest responsibility right now is coaching high school football. I retired in 2006.

[tyke1doe]

Mainly because it is what we expected from him. The fact that it is dogs that he is abusing for his entertainment just makes it easier to condemn him.

Uh, evidence, please, that he's abusing dogs?

As a lawyer, you are too tied up in that give "the guy the benfit of the doubt" stuff. It is your living. You have to think that way.

I'm not a lawyer. And you do know that giving a person the "benefit of the doubt" is not a legal concept, right?

The rest of us can just go with our gut, and we are correct 90% of the time.

First, "going with our gut" is what led to vigilante justice, and we all know how right the mob was in that regard. ;)

Second, do you have any stats to back up that 90% figure, or is that the same type evidence supporting a conviction of Vick without a court trial?

Third, last I remember, many posters had a "gut" feeling that the Cowboys were going to make it to the Super Bowl last year. Opps. :(

I thought something was wrong with the Duke case,
I did too, so?
but I have little or no doubt that this one is solid.
This case hinges on the testimony of four people who say Vick is involved in dog fighting and the fact that he owns the property.
It's still circumstantial at this point, though, admittedly, it doesn't look good for him.


The entire Vick gangsta image is the thing that convinces me it is real. HE portrays himself as that type of person, everyone around him is in trouble with the law, and he is completely indifferent to anything but his own self interest.

Uh, but that's not evidence.

He was supposed to be the icon of the 21st century QB. He is a loser. HE has limited skills and lives of his popularity with the Hip Hop generation. Now he has is caught up in the gangsta lifestyle. I, for one, expected no less of him.

Does that answer your question, counselor?

Not that I'm a counselor, but it seems to me you're convicting him because of his image. I would hardly say that constitutes fact or evidence but, hey, you're entitled to your "educated" opinion. :)

[tyke1doe]

I think it means that people have a different interpretation of the *Conduct Policy*.

I'm still a believer that he's innocent in my mind until the evidence makes me feel like he's guilty (he could be found innocent, but I could still think he's guilty).

Personally I think he should be suspended since Pacman Jones has never been found guilty and was suspended because he violated player *conduct*. On the flip side, you have to find out whether or not Vick was actually involved somehow in dogfighting. Even if he didn't have a fighting dog but was present at the dogfights or gambled on dogs, he should be suspended.

While I applaud Goodell for his fervent attitude towards player conduct off the field, it has created a bit of a slippery slope.






YAKUZA


But that's the problem. There was no question PacMan was involved in questionable conduct. He admitted as much.

There is a question whether Vick is involved in questionable/criminal conduct. He has not admitted as much.

So the league can't suspend him because he has not tested positive for a drugs nor has he been involved in a night club brawl.

There is no video tape putting Vick at these dog fights. If there were, that would be a different matter altogether.

But it's just Vick's word that he wasn't involved against the opinion of others who think he was.

And you can't suspend merely on your/an opinion. That's why the Salem Witch Trials were so bogus. ;)

[peplaw06]

Maybe it is silly, buit I pretty much think he is guilty. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, good chance it is a duck."Good chance?" You want to take away a guy's life because there's a "good chance" he committed a crime?

There is no incentive, it just is. I am just stating my opinion based upon the evidence I have read. He may walk, but I think he is scum.So my original question is finally answered. There is no incentive to prejudge the guy. Still doesn't tell me why you do it. And you're not "just stating your opinion" that the guy is guilty. That is what I did. You're calling for the NFL to act according to your opinion.

So you are going to start insulting me? It isn't that hard to live according to the law. I am not saying I don;t make mistakes, I am just saying I don't break the law. It's not really that hard.1) I insulted your unreasonable point of view, not you personally. If you've become so emotionally invested in your opinion that an insult to that opinion = an insult to you, then I apologize that I insulted you.

2) You've hurled countless insults yourself. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have seen good lawyers win cases and bad lawyers lose cases. I know which I would recommend to my friends. Ever seen a good lawyer lose a case? Or a bad one win one? Would that change your recommendation?

Good for you! Of course you waived the bill, right? Yes... because everyone who does a job that "makes them feel good" works for free.:rolleyes:

FYI we do actually do work for no charge.... it's called pro bono. But that fact doesn't fit into your agenda does it?

News flash! It ain't just cops. You may the most ethical lawyer in the world. I respect your views and you seem reasonable. But you have to admit, lawyers generally have a poor reputation due to guys like Sokolove.Well, lawyers generally hate cops. And "news flash," it ain't just lawyers. Cops have bad reputations due to guys like Mark Fuhrman, or pretty much anyone in the LAPD, you have to admit that.

Well, you implied that lawyers get paid up front. You prolly forgot about this and I wanted to remind you.I didn't imply it. I came right out and said it. In my firm, we get paid up front 99% of the time. Really the only area of the law where you'll find a lawyer working on a contingency fee is in personal injury. I've explained that. I didn't forget.

Thanks for making my point. Even if dude should fry, you will do what you have to do to get him out of jail as soon as possible. That is not justice.Even if "dude should fry." Melodramatic much? I never said "dude should fry." I said, he deserved jail time. And he got it. How much jail time did he deserve? That wasn't my decision to make. If the prosecutor couldn't live with the sentence that he offered, he shouldn't have offered it.

And LOL @ "That's not justice." You're right... Justice is asking for a guy's livelihood to be taken away because he was indicted. :rolleyes:

LOL! Let's see, today I am going to mow the lawn, the go play golf. My biggest responsibility right now is coaching high school football. I retired in 2006. Ahhh, going to play golf and coaching high school football. What are those about? "Winning and losing?"

When you were in law enforcement, did you ever feel a sense of competition, or winning and losing? If say you investigated a case for example, or made an arrest, and the guy went away for a while, did you feel like you had won?

:clubbed:

[tyke1doe]

Peplaw, as others have said, law school has trained you to think like a lawyer all too well. ;)

Not everything has to be viewed through a legal perspective. The question was about suspension, not about guilt or innocence in the eyes of the legal system.

Uh, but unjustly suspending a person would be a legal matter. If the NFL violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement and how such matters should be decided within the league, it would become a legal matter.

No matter how you try to address it, legality is still a component of the issue.

Dang those lawyers. ;)

And it's not like the system is infallible anyway. Otherwise, O.J. didn't do it. ;)

Well, I would say having your blood at the murder scene is a bit different, wouldn't you? Now if Vick's blood is present at his house of repute, you may be on to something. ;)

I've read enough to believe with reasonable certainty that Vick at the very least knew what was going on at his property. Even if some of the details in the indictment are wrong -- for instance, taking the dogs across state lines to fight them -- I still think he's brought embarrassment to the league by his actions. And that should be enough for the Commish to send him and other players a message.

Nope, it isn't. That's why the discussion has centered around "voluntary" suspension. The league knows it can't suspend Michael Vick simply based on an indictment. It won't have legal grounds to do so.

What people want to happen and what legally can happen are two different things.

[big dog cowboy]

Boy, Howdy! Ain't that the truth!
:lmao:

At least the countdown is under a week until camp begins.

[tyke1doe]

With Vick there is so much evidence that it is ridiculous..People wont admit this but because hes a NFL player and rich, some people are taking more of a wait and see than they would for anyone else. I mean think about it, if you learned your neighbor Bob Smith had 30 carcases in his back yard, would you all really be saying, "He may not know anything about it, lets wait and see, its only a vacation house"...:rolleyes: ..

Uh, you do know that dead bodies have been dug up in a person's yard only to discover that the person who formerly owned the house committed the crime, right?

Yeah, blame your neighbor Bob Smith for the crime. :rolleyes:

Of course, that's why we have courts because "all" the information will be filtered through in the proper context and the proper venue.

Be that as it may ... You're conflating two arguments.

1. Vick participated in illegal dog fighting and participated in exterminating dogs.

2. Vick knew illegal dog fighting occurred on his property.

So exactly where is the evidence of the first?

As for the second point, I too find it hard to believe he didn't know that happened on his property. But let me ask you a question?

Do you know how many properties/homes Vick owns?
Do you know how many he has bought for others?

Without knowing those questions, it's hard to say whether he is indeed guilty of the second question.

Or let me expand the argument.

Let's assume I'm a landlord and I own several properties. And one of my tenants is running an illegal dog fighting operation in his home. Should I be aware of this?

Yes, but if an only if I visit all the houses and inspect them thoroughly to see the blood stains and draw a conclusion that something illegal is going on. But that's if I'm a diligent landlord.


But could it be possible that I'm a lazy, indifferent landlord and I don't check after my people or inspect my property. And we know that such landlord's exist.

Still, how does any of this amount to evidence?

You're arguing "likelihood" and even that has to be backed up with hard evidence otherwise, the case against Vick, IMO, is going to fall.

Right now, as far as we know, we have four anonymous sources who have told federal investigators Vick fought dogs and participated in their execution.

And mind you, these are four people who are from this shaddy underworld.

Good luck with their credibility. Vick's lawyers will eat them for lunch.

The government better have a stronger case than four "questionable" sources.

[adbutcher]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

:hammer:
Apparently they lack the ability to discern indictment from guilt or innocence. I guess it is a reflection of the rest of the rush to judgment infestation that has afflicted our society.

In the midst of all of this is, what if he is innocent?

[adbutcher]

I see what you're saying, and I certainly agree with it to an extent. Profiling (even racial profiling) is perfectly acceptable in my book, but we won't get into that here.

The problem is crossing the line between assuming something for the sake of further investigation, rather than coming to a conclusion based on an assumption. Some people seem to have concluded that Vick is guilty based on their assumptions. That's just silly.

PS, LOL @ "Durka, Durka"

Easily stated if you have never been racially profiled!

[fortdick]

Uh, evidence, please, that he's abusing dogs?



I'm not a lawyer. And you do know that giving a person the "benefit of the doubt" is not a legal concept, right?



First, "going with our gut" is what led to vigilante justice, and we all know how right the mob was in that regard. ;)

Second, do you have any stats to back up that 90% figure, or is that the same type evidence supporting a conviction of Vick without a court trial?

Third, last I remember, many posters had a "gut" feeling that the Cowboys were going to make it to the Super Bowl last year. Opps. :(


I did too, so?

This case hinges on the testimony of four people who say Vick is involved in dog fighting and the fact that he owns the property.
It's still circumstantial at this point, though, admittedly, it doesn't look good for him.



Uh, but that's not evidence.



Not that I'm a counselor, but it seems to me you're convicting him because of his image. I would hardly say that constitutes fact or evidence but, hey, you're entitled to your "educated" opinion. :)


Thanks, I appreciate that.

[adbutcher]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

:hammer:

[fortdick]

But that's the problem. There was no question PacMan was involved in questionable conduct. He admitted as much.

There is a question whether Vick is involved in questionable/criminal conduct. He has not admitted as much.

So the league can't suspend him because he has not tested positive for a drugs nor has he been involved in a night club brawl.

There is no video tape putting Vick at these dog fights. If there were, that would be a different matter altogether.

But it's just Vick's word that he wasn't involved against the opinion of others who think he was.

And you can't suspend merely on your/an opinion. That's why the Salem Witch Trials were so bogus. ;)

Yes, give him a break because he is a liar, too. Witch trials? you equate the U.S. Justice Dept with the witch trials?

Everyone wants to tell me not to judge the guy. Sorry, but I had him pegged years ago. If you can;t look at the evidence and believe he was involved there is a problem. Read the indictment. Some pretty smart people put that together.

[fortdick]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude? Perhaps. After all, we like to see the high and mighty humbled. Vick has also been the beneficiary of too much off-the-field hype--which has always outstripped his play--so maybe that's a factor. But it's not like Vick is a heated rival who's burned us in the past. Unless you perceive Atlanta to be a threat to us, there's really no incentive or advantage to be gained from seeing him go down. So what accounts for the visceral reaction I'm witnessing. Maybe it's all tied into the specificity of the alleged crime. When a Bengal gets arrested, it's usually for DUI, speeding, or resisting arrest. The worst you can say is that they were "stupid" or "reckless." Vick's alleged crime falls closer to "evil." We'll forgive a guy who throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs before we forgive an animal abuser. Thinking he's guilty is one thing; wanting him to be guilty is the headscratcher. The fact that animals give love unconditionally, and are more or less totally at our mercy, is probably fueling this rush to judgment. For the moment, Vick's rights will (and should) trump our emotions.

You are correct, sir! But I don't care if he is acquitted, he is scum. O.J. was acquitted, then tried to sell a book explaining how he, "would have done it."

I really wouldn't be so concerned if it was illegal boxing he was caught up in. That would be people getting hurt by thei rown doing. But he is hurting dogs. At the very least, he is enabling others to hurt dogs.

Don't get me wrong, I eat steaks, and I have hunted. I quit hunting birds when my best bird dog ever died. I just didn't want to hunt wiithout him. I would still hunt deer, but my coaching football gets in the way.

I am opposed to bow hunting because I feel it is cruel and wasteful. I have seen deer crippled from arrows that missed a vital area. Even those that do hit the heart or lungs kill by making the deer bleed to death. At least a rifle is a quicker death.

Anyway, a guy that would hurt dogs for his own amusement is sick.

But other than that, let the legal system deal with him. I will judge him from a public standpoint.

[adbutcher]

"Good chance?" You want to take away a guy's life because there's a "good chance" he committed a crime?

So my original question is finally answered. There is no incentive to prejudge the guy. Still doesn't tell me why you do it. And you're not "just stating your opinion" that the guy is guilty. That is what I did. You're calling for the NFL to act according to your opinion.

1) I insulted your unreasonable point of view, not you personally. If you've become so emotionally invested in your opinion that an insult to that opinion = an insult to you, then I apologize that I insulted you.

2) You've hurled countless insults yourself. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ever seen a good lawyer lose a case? Or a bad one win one? Would that change your recommendation?

Yes... because everyone who does a job that "makes them feel good" works for free.:rolleyes:

FYI we do actually do work for no charge.... it's called pro bono. But that fact doesn't fit into your agenda does it?

Well, lawyers generally hate cops. And "news flash," it ain't just lawyers. Cops have bad reputations due to guys like Mark Fuhrman, or pretty much anyone in the LAPD, you have to admit that.

I didn't imply it. I came right out and said it. In my firm, we get paid up front 99% of the time. Really the only area of the law where you'll find a lawyer working on a contingency fee is in personal injury. I've explained that. I didn't forget.

Even if "dude should fry." Melodramatic much? I never said "dude should fry." I said, he deserved jail time. And he got it. How much jail time did he deserve? That wasn't my decision to make. If the prosecutor couldn't live with the sentence that he offered, he shouldn't have offered it.

And LOL @ "That's not justice." You're right... Justice is asking for a guy's livelihood to be taken away because he was indicted. :rolleyes:

Ahhh, going to play golf and coaching high school football. What are those about? "Winning and losing?"

When you were in law enforcement, did you ever feel a sense of competition, or winning and losing? If say you investigated a case for example, or made an arrest, and the guy went away for a while, did you feel like you had won?

:clubbed:

:fight: Down goes Frazer! Down goes Frazer!

[theogt]

Easily stated if you have never been racially profiled!I've been profiled, but not racially. I can't imagine I'd feel any different if it had been racially.

[Bob Sacamano]

So we know, with certainty, all of the evidence?

the evidence that we know of is pretty compelling though

[theogt]

the evidence that we know of is pretty compelling thoughIs it? I haven't really been following, but I did see that just a week or so ago people were predicting that he wouldn't even be indicted. Now it's supposed to be conclusive that he's guilty?

[adbutcher]

I've been profiled, but not racially. I can't imagine I'd feel any different if it had been racially.
In my opinion that is a hypothetical that can't be answered on your part even with the most robust of imaginations. There is that small little saying about walking in some one's shoes, etc...

[theogt]

In my opinion that is a hypothetical that can't be answered on your part even with the most robust of imaginations. There is that small little saying about walking in some one's shoes, etc...In my opinion, you having any idea of how I'd feel about a particular situation is just silly. You can really only answer to your own feelings, and apparently you don't feel comfortable with racial profiling. I know people of just about every race that *are* comfortable with it, so don't presume to know one way or the other how anyone else would feel.

[Pats Fan]

The OJ and Vick cases are somewhat similar. Stress the word somewhat. Two high profile football players finding themselves in a major crime and major mess.

What I have come to realize is that justice is always served in one way or another. Yes, OJ was found innocent. Problem is, no one believed it for a moment. So here is this good looking, famous, well liked, endorsement rich guy that has been reduced to a mockery. A joke. He may not be behind bars, but he is living in his own prison right now. And I am sure if he could do it over again he would have controlled his temper and moved on. Too late for that.

Vick is somewhat different in that he killed dogs, not people. But probably equally bad because OJ probably did it under the influence of drugs and had a jealous rage. Crime of passion so to speak. But Vick was involved with killing for fun. Enjoyment. And not just killing, really inhumane treatment. Vick is also good looking, famous, and endorsement rich. Well liked doesn't go along with Vick though, and he was never the player OJ was.

What is true for both is that no matter the verdict, their lives are over. The lives they knew. Money, fame, attention. Vick may be able to play football --jury is still out on that, but when his playing days are over, he will still be known for this incident -- and it will follow him. Even if he is found innocent. If he is found guilty, I really do not believe he will just get a slap on the wrist with all this publicity following the story. So Vick, you have better been saving your pennies better than OJ did.

Justice will be served fellow dog lovers.

[adbutcher]

In my opinion, you having any idea of how I'd feel about a particular situation is just silly. You can really only answer to your own feelings, and apparently you don't feel comfortable with racial profiling. I know people of just about every race that *are* comfortable with it, so don't presume to know one way or the other how anyone else would feel.

Silly? Hardly.

Remember counselor you already stated that you have never been racially profiled and if you are a white american male it would be very unlikely you would be in the foreseeable future.

But we get it, no matter the subject we know you like to argue. However, it takes two but feel free to carry on by yourself because my time is too valuable to argue your circular logic about how you would feel about something that you would most likely never feel, lol.

[theogt]

Silly? Hardly.

Remember counselor you already stated that you have never been racially profiled and if you are a white american male it would be very unlikely you would be in the foreseeable future.

But we get it, no matter the subject we know you like to argue. However, it takes two but feel free to carry on by yourself because my time is too valuable to argue your circular logic about how you would feel about something that you would most likely never feel, lol.Someone should look up the definition of circular logic.

[bbgun]

Someone should look up the definition of circular logic.

Enough of your Jedi mind tricks!

[fortdick]

Is it? I haven't really been following, but I did see that just a week or so ago people were predicting that he wouldn't even be indicted. Now it's supposed to be conclusive that he's guilty?

It ws ESPN that reported he wouldn't be indicted. Consider the source.

[Bob Sacamano]

Is it? I haven't really been following, but I did see that just a week or so ago people were predicting that he wouldn't even be indicted. Now it's supposed to be conclusive that he's guilty?

4 witnesses

his property

all that's missing is Vick's confession

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

Maybe it just means we are more thoughtful and realize there are concepts like you are innocent until proven guilty, a concept a cop like you wouldn't understand.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

4 witnesses

his property

all that's missing is Vick's confession

Four witnesses turning stoolie to save their own hide is not that credible.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The feds wouldn't be involved if there wasn't a strong case with plenty of evidence. If I were a betting man, I'd bank on a conviction.

Circular argument 101 also known as the Nancy Grace argument, if you are charged, you must be guilty because after all if you weren't guilt, you would never be charged.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I can;t tell you how many times I have sat in court and heard lawyers spin up lies and misrepresentations in defense of their scumbag clients. Our legal system is a battle of lawyers, very little of it actually has to do with the truth. You try to present a case and some high priced lawyer gets your evidence thrown out becasue it is prejudical. Yeah, the guy is on trial for trafficking drugs. But the fact that he has two priors should not be admitted becaue the jury might feel ill of him.

Peps, I respect you becasue I know what you are doing, and why. You may be able to convince some of these other people that it is really about fairness, but there is a reason some lawyers get $500 an hour and some work as public defenders for $75 an hour.

I bet you can tell me your win/loss record, can't ya? Why would that be important if it was about fairness and the law?


So what about when cops plant evidence, embellish their stories, decide someone is guilty and just railroad them etc? Cops' problems is that they don't understand law.

[Bob Sacamano]

Four witnesses turning stoolie to save their own hide is not that credible.

:lmao: cases are made against mafia bosses all the time based largely on their associate's testimony who turn coat

how do you think cases are made against drug king-pins?

again, there are 4 witnesses who can attest to the physical evidence linking Vick to dog-fighting, this case against him is pretty strong

[Pats Fan]

Mr. Canadian -

You are quite correct in a number of your statements. That's why so many innocent people sit in jail. It is not right. And is there racial profiling - yes. I find it -- well I cannot put the right word on it -- how about just flat out wrong.

But you have to recognize that there is a difference here. This is the federal government going after a very high profile person. Yeh, a football player, and as fans it gets more personal. These people going after Vick are not your average yee-haws. I am sure they have lots of evidence. And if true, in your heart, you simply cannot just go along with it.

So relax, life is not fair always. True. Can we fix it. Darn if I know. I try to do my part, it is all I can do.

My thoughts, I own property. Did I ever go there? Did I ever go outside? If the answer is yes, then the verdict is easy.

[peplaw06]

Mr. Canadian -

You are quite correct in a number of your statements. That's why so many innocent people sit in jail. It is not right. And is there racial profiling - yes. I find it -- well I cannot put the right word on it -- how about just flat out wrong.

But you have to recognize that there is a difference here. This is the federal government going after a very high profile person. Yeh, a football player, and as fans it gets more personal. These people going after Vick are not your average yee-haws. I am sure they have lots of evidence. And if true, in your heart, you simply cannot just go along with it.

So relax, life is not fair always. True. Can we fix it. Darn if I know. I try to do my part, it is all I can do.

My thoughts, I own property. Did I ever go there? Did I ever go outside? If the answer is yes, then the verdict is easy.Wha??? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDKcX0Ji90)

[peplaw06]

4 witnesses

his property

all that's missing is Vick's confessionIs there some sort of evidence checklist you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt?

hmmm... witnesses - check

property - check

confession?? well if we can get that, that's all we need!!!

Please pass that info on, sounds like it would be very useful.

[Bob Sacamano]

Is there some sort of evidence checklist you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt?

hmmm... witnesses - check

property - check

confession?? well if we can get that, that's all we need!!!

Please pass that info on, sounds like it would be very useful.

that's right, you can't refute that the evidence so far that we know of, there could be more, and probably is, is pretty strong

let's see what Vick has going for him:

"it wasn't me"

....

[peplaw06]

that's right, you can't refute that the evidence so far that we know of, there could be more, and probably is, is pretty strong

let's see what Vick has going for him:

"it wasn't me"

....

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1558290&postcount=135

[Bob Sacamano]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1558290&postcount=135

I'm sorry, I won't disrupt your saving of the world again

[Chocolate Lab]

Uh, but unjustly suspending a person would be a legal matter. If the NFL violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement and how such matters should be decided within the league, it would become a legal matter.

No matter how you try to address it, legality is still a component of the issue.

Nope, it isn't. That's why the discussion has centered around "voluntary" suspension. The league knows it can't suspend Michael Vick simply based on an indictment. It won't have legal grounds to do so.

What people want to happen and what legally can happen are two different things.Was PacMan actually convicted of anything yet? I didn't think he had been.

And see, when you talk about blood being there etc. in the O.J. case, you're going outside what the courts found, right? They said he wasn't guilty. How could you decide against the court in that example but not this one?

Let me put it another way: Should the league suspend him right this second? No, they shouldn't, just to protect themselves. But I took the question to mean that if Vick has done even *some* of the things in these allegations, should he be suspended? I say yes. IMO if he even knew that his friends/relatives/whatever were conducting dogfights on his property, he should be outta here. And I can't imagine that he didn't know.

[bbgun]

The only way Vick gets suspended this year is if animal activists/lovers put enough heat on companies to start pulling their ads from NFL broadcasts. The commish will always side with the almighty dollar over any player. But this scenario is a stretch.

[peplaw06]

I'm sorry, I won't disrupt your saving of the world againhttp://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1558296&postcount=138

[fortdick]

So what about when cops plant evidence, embellish their stories, decide someone is guilty and just railroad them etc? Cops' problems is that they don't understand law.

Ya know, you hate cops so much, I am starting to form an opinion about you.

Let me think,,,,, ops don't understand the law.

Firemen don't understand combustion.

Pilots don't understand aerodynamics.

What did that Mountie do to you?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You must be from France, that is what Frenchmen do. When they cannot respond or form an opinion, they respond with a question like you did.

[GimmeTheBall!]

A sizable number of readers seem ready to send this guy straight to the gallows. I wonder why that is. A simple case of schadenfreude?

BB and others should not be using such words

What's next? Exegeises? romansbild?

I don't think the education level here and words such as these are compatible

Let's stick to easy words, OK?

[GimmeTheBall!]

Ya know, you hate cops so much, I am starting to form an opinion about you.

Let me think,,,,, ops don't understand the law.

Firemen don't understand combustion.

Pilots don't understand aerodynamics.

What did that Mountie do to you?

The plain truth is that many cops do not understand the law
Some refs don't understand the rules
Some accountants don't understand the IRS rules
We're all in the same boat

What did that fort do to you?;)

Now you and Canadian shake hands and let's all go get drunk at that BBQ place where the gals show lots of um, personality:)

[tyke1doe]

Was PacMan actually convicted of anything yet? I didn't think he had been.

No. But PacMan admitted he was at a strip club where a shooting took place and a security guard was shot and paralyzed. He has admitted to being at clubs where incidents have occurred.
He also has a string of incidents that have followed him throughout his career.

That alone violates the conduct policy, even if he was not convicted.


And see, when you talk about blood being there etc. in the O.J. case, you're going outside what the courts found, right? They said he wasn't guilty. How could you decide against the court in that example but not this one?

Uh, because the jurors (interviewed afterwards) gave assinine reasons for acquitting O.J. One juror basically said she wanted to convict him but the other jurors would not change their minds and she didn't want it to end in a hung jury.

Second, the difference would be obvious. We would have information after the trial that we do not have before the trial.

Let me put it another way: Should the league suspend him right this second? No, they shouldn't, just to protect themselves. But I took the question to mean that if Vick has done even *some* of the things in these allegations, should he be suspended? I say yes. IMO if he even knew that his friends/relatives/whatever were conducting dogfights on his property, he should be outta here. And I can't imagine that he didn't know.

But that's the question. Maybe he didn't know. I agree with you that it's hard to believe that he didn't know. (And personally, I believe he's guilty.) But as long as he says he didn't, legally, the presumption of innocence is there. Remember, in court, a defendant doesn't have to prove he's innocent. The government must prove that he's guilty.

I'm just saying, there will be plenty of time to condemn him afterwards. I can't fault people who support him simply because they want to give him his day in court.

[tyke1doe]

Yes, give him a break because he is a liar, too.

Obviously, the point was lost on you.

PacMan has admitted he was at location where violence occurred. Vick has not.


Witch trials? you equate the U.S. Justice Dept with the witch trials?

Uh, no. I'm equating those who want to convict Michael Vick without giving him his day in court with a mindset that is similar to those who conducted the Salem Witch trials.

The government is prosecuting a case and is willing to give Vick his due process. The government is not convicting him before it has given him his right to a fair trial.



Everyone wants to tell me not to judge the guy.

Who said you couldn't judge the guy? :confused:

I'm responding to your criticism of others who want to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Sorry, but I had him pegged years ago. If you can;t look at the evidence and believe he was involved there is a problem. Read the indictment. Some pretty smart people put that together.

Uh, smart people put together all indictments. But people aren't always convicted based on evidence in indictments.

Second, again you're conflating two concepts.
No one is saying - at least not I - that the indictment isn't damaging to Vick.
But an indictment is one side. We haven't heard Vick's side. And even if the information in the indictment is proven in court, what's the harm in giving the guy the benefit of the doubt until after his trial? :confused:

You seem upset because some of us want him to get his due process and because some football players are giving him the benefit of the doubt until he has a fair trial.

Seems to me you are the one with the hangups not us.

[tyke1doe]

:lmao: cases are made against mafia bosses all the time based largely on their associate's testimony who turn coat

Uh, they're not just made based on an associate. The government also does a fair amount of wiretapping and tracking money laundering. The government rarely rests its case just on an associate's testimony because those are easy to debunk. You basically have a person from the criminal element who's trying to cut a deal for a lesser sentence taking on another criminal. Those are easy to shoot down.

how do you think cases are made against drug king-pins?[/quote]

Uh, tapping into bank accounts. Wiretapping. Tracking money. Again, an associate's testimony alone is not going to bring down a drug king-pin.

again, there are 4 [B]witnesses who can attest to the physical evidence linking Vick to dog-fighting, this case against him is pretty strong

Unless, these guys have receipts where Michael Vick purchased this torture equipment, it's not going to be strong "evidence."

Again, from what we know, these are guys who say Vick purchased this stuff and treated these dogs this way.

I would like to see the physical evidence. If it's just based on testimony, that's easy to refute on cross-examination. I've seen it happen too many times.

[superpunk]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

I'm dissapointed in 55% of this board, apparently.

Funny, I thought that number would have been higher. :(

[GimmeTheBall!]

Someone should look up the definition of circular logic.

You be confused on circular logic

More like circular falacy

The falacy begins thus:
You see, theogt, you say you don't mind racial profiling
Therefore racial profiling is not a bad thing to you
ergo If it is not a bad thing, then racial profiling is OK though you are not in a group that is, by most credible soruces, profiled
Targeted
That, my theogt is circular fallacy on your part
Logic plays no part in it

Do not try your philosophical tricks upon the unsuspecting populace!!!

We are not the bowling league miscreants you suppose, though we do roll close to 300

Stop your misleading wordage posturings and stop the philosophical dead ends
We know better and you should too
:cool:

[GimmeTheBall!]

that's right, you can't refute that the evidence so far that we know of, there could be more, and probably is, is pretty strong

let's see what Vick has going for him:

"it wasn't me"

....

Do you mean refute or do you mean deny?

I Think you are confusing the two

Refute means to disprove and at this stage, nobody can

If you mean deny, then that makes sense, since both sides will make denials

Let's be careful with slinging around the English language in such a caviar way

John Wayne died to assure us good schools and proper English, by gum

No need to thank me, just give the language some respect, dude

:)

[GimmeTheBall!]

You must be from France, that is what Frenchmen do. When they cannot respond or form an opinion, they respond with a question like you did.

Um, a little more love for our French allies, OK?

:)

[theogt]

You be confused on circular logic

More like circular falacy

The falacy begins thus:
You see, theogt, you say you don't mind racial profiling
Therefore racial profiling is not a bad thing to you
ergo If it is not a bad thing, then racial profiling is OK though you are not in a group that is, by most credible soruces, profiled
Targeted
That, my theogt is circular fallacy on your part
Logic plays no part in it

Do not try your philosophical tricks upon the unsuspecting populace!!!

We are not the bowling league miscreants you suppose, though we do roll close to 300

Stop your misleading wordage posturings and stop the philosophical dead ends
We know better and you should too
:cool:I chuckled.

[Bob Sacamano]

Uh, they're not just made based on an associate. The government also does a fair amount of wiretapping and tracking money laundering. The government rarely rests its case just on an associate's testimony because those are easy to debunk. You basically have a person from the criminal element who's trying to cut a deal for a lesser sentence taking on another criminal. Those are easy to shoot down.

how do you think cases are made against drug king-pins?

Uh, tapping into bank accounts. Wiretapping. Tracking money. Again, an associate's testimony alone is not going to bring down a drug king-pin.

I'm not saying witnesses who flip is enough by itself, but to throw their testimony out because of their lifestyle, and say it isn't credible isn't correct, that's the only thing I was getting at, the feds have no problem using a mob-boss' associates or middle-men as apart of their case, or a big part, watch Goodfellas, because they are the closest people to the day to day operations of their illegal activity, hardly are you going to find outstanding citizen witnesses, who have seen the crimes taking place, like you will maybe find an investigator or 2 who have seen Vick's illegal activities, because noone who goes to dog-fights is an upstanding citizen whose testimony many would see as credible, just like noone who could testify to mob action would be an upstanding citizen

and although there probably isn't any mob connections in this case, there are some similarities to be drawn, such as rackateering, illegal gambling, taking it across state lines

Unless, these guys have receipts where Michael Vick purchased this torture equipment, it's not going to be strong "evidence."

Again, from what we know, these are guys who say Vick purchased this stuff and treated these dogs this way.

I would like to see the physical evidence. If it's just based on testimony, that's easy to refute on cross-examination. I've seen it happen too many times.

they also have his property, in which equipment for dog-fighting has been found, such as the links for tying them down, the "rape-stand", etc. dog carcasses, and some of the testimony of the witnesses has been proven in fact correct, such as the 8 carcasses of dogs who were executed for not performing well in tests

this case is pretty strong because there is physical evidence and witnesses who can link Vick to that evidence

[tyke1doe]

I'm not saying witnesses who flip is enough by itself, but to throw their testimony out because of their lifestyle, and say it isn't credible isn't true, that's the only thing I was getting at, the feds have no problem using a mob-bosses associates or middle-men to make cases, because they are the closest people to the day to day operations of their illegal activity, hardly are you going to find outstanding citizen witnesses, who have seen the crimes taking place, like you will maybe find an investigator or 2 who have seen Vick's illegal activities, because noone who goes to dog-fights is an upstanding citizen whose testimony many would see as credible, just like noone who could testify to mob action would be an upstanding citizen

Well, it seem like you were singling in on the associates' testimony. But thanks for the clarification.


they also have his property, in which equipment for dog-fighting has been found, such as the links for tying them down, the "rape-stand", etc. dog carcasses, and some of the testimony of the witnesses has been proven in fact correct, such as the 8 carcasses of dogs who were executed for not performing well in tests

Here's the problem, though. It may have been Vick's property, but it wasn't his main residence. The feds must make the connection not only that it was his property but that he was present when dog fighting occurred.

Vick maintains he purchased the home for a relative. Just because it belongs to him doesn't mean he frequented the facility.


And you can bet that Vick's lawyers are going to distance him from the residence. It's going to be the federal prosecutor's job to link Vick's presence to the property.

Furthermore, just because the witnesses testified about the equipment doesn't mean Vick knew about it.

I know this sounds silly, but it is possible that these things happened sans Vick's knowledge. Admittedly, it doesn't sound plausible - this aint just a rinky dink house, this is a nice house and I wouldn't just give a house to someone without knowing about its upkeep - but it's possible.

this case is pretty strong because there is physical evidence and witnesses who can link him to that evidence

I disagree, but we shall see. I'm eager to hear all of the evidence presented in court.

[GimmeTheBall!]

This is perfect right here and basically says it like it should be said. I think he is guilty, but like anyone else, I prefer justice to work its course and that person be found guilty before punsihment is dished out and that is what you point out in #3

I'm aboard with that

The get the noose faction simply wants to have it both ways

To have the presumption of guilt and then prove someone guilty

Sort of like reducing the legal system to a rubber stamp system so popular in the gulag

I am lucky the founding fathers, though just emerging from a colonial war, were not French Revolution get the guillotine and more post-American Revolution in which deliberation takes place with both arguments presented

That is the beauty of the American system

:starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin

[GimmeTheBall!]

I chuckled.

And probably smirked

Come back anytime when you have a counterpoint

:rolleyes:

[Bob Sacamano]

Well, it seem like you were singling in on the associates' testimony. But thanks for the clarification.

I was only responding to CanadianCowboyFan saying that the witnesses weren't credible, but no problem

Here's the problem, though. It may have been Vick's property, but it wasn't his main residence. The feds must make the connection not only that it was his property but that he was present when dog fighting occurred.

Vick maintains he purchased the home for a relative. Just because it belongs to him doesn't mean he frequented the facility.


And you can bet that Vick's lawyers are going to distance him from the residence. It's going to be the federal prosecutor's job to link Vick's presence to the property.

Furthermore, just because the witnesses testified about the equipment doesn't mean Vick knew about it.

the equipment isn't the only thing the witnesses are tying VIck to

they're also tying him to being present at dog-fights, sponsoring the fights from his Bad News Kennels, betting, visiting interested parties to pay up, executing a dog(s) etc.

I know this sounds silly, but it is possible that these things happened sans Vick's knowledge. Admittedly, it doesn't sound plausible - this aint just a rinky dink house, this is a nice house and I wouldn't just give a house to someone without knowing about its upkeep - but it's possible.

it is possible, we rented out a house to a family because my Dad was in the Navy and we had to move, paid a suprise visit one day, and found something we didn't know about...a filthy, near delapidated house lol and no pun intended, alot of dogs

but there are witnesses who place Vick at the house, getting dogs ready to fight

I disagree, but we shall see. I'm eager to hear all of the evidence presented in court.

me too, but the evidence I'm hearing right now is pretty compelling IMO

[aikemirv]

I have seen some many post on this forum about not forcing ones morality on another. So many don't care about the said morality of a player just what they do on the field. They don't care if the do drugs, cheat on their wives, beat their wives, have convictions on their record or what they have done in the past, just play football.

But now, whether you like it or not, whether it is legal or not (really does not matter because legality does not determine right and wrong) you want to force your morality on Vick, who does not have a problem with fighting dogs.

Now, while the consensus is that it is morally wrong to do this to animals really does not have a bearing does it. I mean, 40 years ago abortion was considered heinous by probably 90% of the American population but now is perfectly legal and considered heinous and barbaric by probably 50% or less of the American people.

Now, to bring it back to yourself, do you love to watch grown men beating the crap out each other in ultimate fighting? Do you love to watch boxing where people are beating the crap out of each other? I mean these are pretty barbaric if you ask me and not much different than what Vick is doing.

People in this country care more about animals than they do other human beings.

Do you get this riled up when a football player is found guilty of DUI and taking innocent lives into his hands. When he beat his wife or was involved in a drug ring?

So while you may think I don't care, I do, It is a terrible thing, but in my view not as bad as some other things that are done that many don't get so riled up about. Seems all hypocritical to me. So next time you want to harrass someone about their moral code and forcing it on someone else remember this Vick incident and don't be so quick to tell someone to check their morals at the door.

I say all this because many of you would like to see him suspended for life and never be allowed to play in the NFL again. That just does not ring true in light of past indiscretions in the NFL does it? It would not be quite fair IMO.

[Sam I Am]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.

Just like they sign FAs. They sign the name rather than looking at what a player can do for them.

[Doomsday101]

If Vick is found guilty he deserves to go down hard. I'm more than willing to wait but it is not looking good for him.

[Stautner]

I was checking out Extemeskins to see how they were taking the Vick news over there.

Their poll

81% say he should be suspend

Our poll

55% say he should be suspended.

Now, does that mean that Skins fans are more compassionate towards animals? Or that we just have more persuasive Vick defenders?

IT doesn't have to mean either.

It may just mean that the posters here believe a hasty decision shouldn't be made - that more of the facts need to come in.

[fortdick]

You must be from France, that is what Frenchmen do. When they cannot respond or form an opinion, they respond with a question like you did.

Must hurt something when I said Canada was western France. You are being ridiculous, you know. Your saying I can;t form an opinion? Seems to me you have been attacking my opinion because you don't agree.

[fortdick]

Obviously, the point was lost on you.

PacMan has admitted he was at location where violence occurred. Vick has not.

That is what I mean. The point isn't lost at all. Vick said he didn;t know anything about it and rarely goes there. It is apparent that this is a lie.



Uh, no. I'm equating those who want to convict Michael Vick without giving him his day in court with a mindset that is similar to those who conducted the Salem Witch trials.

Hyperbole, then? I am not talking burning him at the stake. Should this guy be allowed the privilege to play football? Is this the image the NFL wants to project?

We differ because I think the NFL would be better served by suspending him and making a statement that no one is above the rules. If Vick isn't suspended, then Pacman should be allowed to play until he is convicted.

You can't condemn one and not the other. Pacman has had no due process. The only difference between the two is that the NFL was played up Vick to be the image of the "New Quarterback". He is too important to the Falcons game plan. Goodell knows if he suspends Vick, any hope the Falcons have is down the toilet. That is why there has been no suspension handed down.


The government is prosecuting a case and is willing to give Vick his due process. The government is not convicting him before it has given him his right to a fair trial.

But, in the court of public opinion, he can be found guilty. I am but one vote in that court, and I believe it is more likely true than not. I don;t believe him when he says he knew nothing about it.

Due process has nothing to do with my opinion. The Constitution says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I am denying him none of those with my opinion.



Who said you couldn't judge the guy? :confused:

I'm responding to your criticism of others who want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You are actually flaming me because you disagree.


Uh, smart people put together all indictments. But people aren't always convicted based on evidence in indictments.

I never heard of anyone convicted from an indictment. They get convicted in court. I understand the process very well. I have worked with federal investigators and the U.S. Attorneys Office. I can assure you these people are smart. They aren't your local DA's Office.

Second, again you're conflating two concepts.
No one is saying - at least not I - that the indictment isn't damaging to Vick.
But an indictment is one side. We haven't heard Vick's side. And even if the information in the indictment is proven in court, what's the harm in giving the guy the benefit of the doubt until after his trial? :confused:

We have heard Vick's side. HE didn't know and wasn't there. That is always a bad stand to take in regards to charges, unless you actually were not there and didn't know. It is too easy to refute.


You seem upset because some of us want him to get his due process and because some football players are giving him the benefit of the doubt until he has a fair trial.

Seems to me you are the one with the hangups not us.

I could care less what other people want or don't want. I think the guy should be suspended. IF he isn't, the Goodell should give up any pretense of cleaning up the NFL.

The indictment is strong. They have four witnesses that say he was involved up to his teeth. The physical evidence is damning in itself. I just can't understand why people would think he was not involved.

It is very simple. You want to wait until legal proceedings are complete to hold him accountable to NFL fans. I don't. The gangsta image he portrays is bad for the game. IF you want to clean it up, he is as good a place to start as any.

[Tennione72]

Option 3: They're more apt to jump to conclusions before knowing all the facts.


I agree

[Stautner]

That is what I mean. The point isn't lost at all. Vick said he didn;t know anything about it and rarely goes there. It is apparent that this is a lie.

To who? Who gets to decide? The fans? Peta? The news media?

That's the point - league decsioins should be made when the league feels comfortable they have seen and know all they need to in order to make the appropriate decision. They should not be on any timetable other than that.


Hyperbole, then? I am not talking burning him at the stake. Should this guy be allowed the privilege to play football? Is this the image the NFL wants to project?

We differ because I think the NFL would be better served by suspending him and making a statement that no one is above the rules. If Vick isn't suspended, then Pacman should be allowed to play until he is convicted.

You can't condemn one and not the other. Pacman has had no due process. The only difference between the two is that the NFL was played up Vick to be the image of the "New Quarterback". He is too important to the Falcons game plan. Goodell knows if he suspends Vick, any hope the Falcons have is down the toilet. That is why there has been no suspension handed down.

So, it's all or nothing? Either lay down the hammer at the mere accusation or lay down the hammer only when convicted?

Come on, there are different layers, and a guy who has built a long history of consistent problems with the law in only one short year in the NFL deserves much less consideration than one who has a much cleaner record in 5-6 years in the NFL.

There is a preponderance of evidence that Pacman has repeatedly embarassed the NFL, and PAcman has admitted wrongdoing in the past and even been convicted or marijuana charges in the past if I'm not mistaken.

While Vick is no choir boy, his history is much cleaner than Pacman's, and that's the difference.


But, in the court of public opinion, he can be found guilty. I am but one vote in that court, and I believe it is more likely true than not. I don;t believe him when he says he knew nothing about it.

Due process has nothing to do with my opinion. The Constitution says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I am denying him none of those with my opinion.


If the court of public opinion is allowed to prevail, then you are denying him that - and that's the argument for the NFL stepping back and being clear about the evidence they have available to them before making a decsion, and why it might even be appropriate to let things develop awhile before taking severe action.


We have heard Vick's side. HE didn't know and wasn't there. That is always a bad stand to take in regards to charges, unless you actually were not there and didn't know. It is too easy to refute.

And if that gets refuted by reputable sources then let Vick suffer the consequences, but the NFL needs to satisfy itself, not take the word of fans or a media that is known to sensationalize at every opportunity.

I could care less what other people want or don't want. I think the guy should be suspended. IF he isn't, the Goodell should give up any pretense of cleaning up the NFL.

The indictment is strong. They have four witnesses that say he was involved up to his teeth. The physical evidence is damning in itself. I just can't understand why people would think he was not involved.

It is very simple. You want to wait until legal proceedings are complete to hold him accountable to NFL fans. I don't. The gangsta image he portrays is bad for the game. If you want to clean it up, he is as good a place to start as any.

And I just don't get why the NFL's decison has to be immedate - give them a little time to get comfortable with everything - the info, the evidence that they will have, discussions with the Falcons and Vick.

Careful cnsideration of all factors clearly has to be better than a knee-jerk reaction to the meda circus.

[CrazyCowboy]

More intellect maybe.....;-)

[GimmeTheBall!]

Now, while the consensus is that it is morally wrong to do this to animals really does not have a bearing does it. I mean, 40 years ago abortion was considered heinous by probably 90% of the American population but now is perfectly legal and considered heinous and barbaric by probably 50% or less of the American people.

So you are saying Vick is ahead of the curve and maybe, in 40 years, most families will go to Dog-Fighting World in Orlando?

Hmmmm. Let me think about i . . . No. Do not agree.

As to boxing, the distinction is that men (and some women) make the conscious decision to fight and be beaten.
Dogs are not allowed the choice. And there are no medical backstops to ensure dogs do not get injured and/or killed.

Good effort, though. Food for thought.;)

[aikemirv]

So you are saying Vick is ahead of the curve and maybe, in 40 years, most families will go to Dog-Fighting World in Orlando?

Hmmmm. Let me think about i . . . No. Do not agree.

As to boxing, the distinction is that men (and some women) make the conscious decision to fight and be beaten.
Dogs are not allowed the choice. And there are no medical backstops to ensure dogs do not get injured and/or killed.

Good effort, though. Food for thought.;)


Nope, not saying he is ahead of the curve at all. Just saying that legality is no determination of right and wrong and what is morally OK. He obviously has different morals than you. His morals are just deemed illegal, some of mine or yours may not be deemed illegal but can very well still be wrong!

My point about boxing and ultimate fighting was not really the choice of the people to fight but the choice of people to watch the brutality of it (especially the ultimate fighting, and pay to see it). While the choice may not be the same the brutality that people want to see is!

[tyke1doe]

That is what I mean. The point isn't lost at all. Vick said he didn;t know anything about it and rarely goes there. It is apparent that this is a lie.

Maybe so. I think he's lying too.

But that has to be proven in court.




Hyperbole, then? I am not talking burning him at the stake. Should this guy be allowed the privilege to play football? Is this the image the NFL wants to project?

No, but my argument is that he's still innocent until proven guilty. And if the Falcons decide to suspend him, then that's a legal matter. The Falcons can get around that by releasing Vick. The organization doesn't need a legal reason for that because teams can release players for any reason.


We differ because I think the NFL would be better served by suspending him and making a statement that no one is above the rules. If Vick isn't suspended, then Pacman should be allowed to play until he is convicted.

I agree with you that it would be better for the NFL if he was suspended, simply because of the negative press. But I don't think it can legally do that. That's my point.

Second, here again, PacMan admitted he was at the scene of a crime. He had a discussion with Goodell and Deion Sanders - on national television - in which he acknowledged his part in hanging with the wrong crowd and being at the scene of a crime. That's different than Vick's situation. An indictment is not the same as a confession or admission.


You can't condemn one and not the other. Pacman has had no due process. The only difference between the two is that the NFL was played up Vick to be the image of the "New Quarterback". He is too important to the Falcons game plan. Goodell knows if he suspends Vick, any hope the Falcons have is down the toilet. That is why there has been no suspension handed down.

If that's the case, then the NFL can't suspend a player who tests positive for drugs. It's not always about a criminal conviction. It's about violating the league's policy. And the league has a conduct policy. PacMan's mulitple trangressions and penchant for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, IMO, violates the league's conduct policy. Michael Vick's allegations don't fit the same criterion.



But, in the court of public opinion, he can be found guilty. I am but one vote in that court, and I believe it is more likely true than not. I don;t believe him when he says he knew nothing about it.

I agree. But if Vick is suspended based on the court of public opinion, he's going to get his day in court to refute that court. If he's found "not guilty," I dare say he will be due some money, if he were suspended without pay.

Again, Blank can get around this by just releasing Vick. No legal mess need be required.

Due process has nothing to do with my opinion. The Constitution says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I am denying him none of those with my opinion.

I think we're talking pass one another now. I have no problems with people thinking Vick is guilty. I do have a problem with those who think those who want him to get his due process are supporting him. I do have a problem with posters who think teammates or ex players supporting Vick need to just shut up. Why is it so strange that brothers in the same fraternity (football) want to wait until all the evidence is presented before they speak ill of Vick? :confused:




You are actually flaming me because you disagree.

No, I'm not flaming. I'd rather have a very civil conversation. And to your credit, you've returned the tone to a discussion rather than a flame argument.

Let's just say we'll agree to disagree. :)



I never heard of anyone convicted from an indictment. They get convicted in court.

Uh, yes, I understand this. But the information in the indictment is what the government has to prove in court.

I understand the process very well. I have worked with federal investigators and the U.S. Attorneys Office. I can assure you these people are smart. They aren't your local DA's Office.

So have I, as a reporter covering federal cases. And I'm sure they have a very solid case against Vick. Again, I'm saying I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I really don't see a problem in that position.



We have heard Vick's side. HE didn't know and wasn't there. That is always a bad stand to take in regards to charges, unless you actually were not there and didn't know. It is too easy to refute.

Vick's problem is that he didn't come out and categorically deny it - assuming he's telling the truth.

His next problem is that he's so wedded to his "boyz" that he can't say, "Not only am I not guilty, I will cooperate with investigators to bring to justice those who fought and killed these dogs."

That's what he should have said if he was truly innocent. But I doubt he is.



I could care less what other people want or don't want. I think the guy should be suspended. IF he isn't, the Goodell should give up any pretense of cleaning up the NFL.

Again, suspension without concrete evidence would lead to a lawsuit. And, sorry, but an indictment is not concrete evidence.


The indictment is strong. They have four witnesses that say he was involved up to his teeth. The physical evidence is damning in itself. I just can't understand why people would think he was not involved.

Sigh. Again, it's not whether he was involved or not but whether action should be taken against him (suspension) if

a.) there is no pattern of such behavior
b.) if he did not admit he was involved and
c.) if there is no strong evidence he was at the scene of any of these fights.

Once again, an indictment is not evidence. It's only the case that the government brings to determine if a trial should be conducted.

It is very simple. You want to wait until legal proceedings are complete to hold him accountable to NFL fans. I don't. The gangsta image he portrays is bad for the game. IF you want to clean it up, he is as good a place to start as any.

But it's not about what you want. It's about what the league can legally do. And that gets back to our disagreement. The league can suspend him. But it would have to state its reasons if Vick sues. And I can almost assure you any judge worth his law degree would rule in Vick's favor if the league suspended him without legal grounds to do so. And pointing to an indictment when a case hasn't even been tried, is not legal grounds.

Now if Blank releases Vick, that's another matter. That may be the better option and solve the dispute between whether he should be suspended or whether his legal rights would be violated (I believe they would) if the league or the club did suspend him.

[03EBZ06]

Surry Co. prosecutor won't ask for charges to be filed

By STEVE WYCHE (swyche@ajc.com)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/23/07

Commonwealth Attorney Gerald Poindexter will not seek an indictment of Falcons quarterback Michael Vick when a Surry County, Va. grand jury meets tomorrow, according to his office.


Only last week Poindexter told the AJC that he would seek an indictment of Vick on charges related to dog fighting this year, most likely in September.

Vick was federally indicted last week on dogfighting charges that were similar to the ones being considered by state officials. Poindexter said he planned to use evidence gathered by federal officials to bring a local indictment.

After tomorrow's meeting, the next scheduled grand jury in Surry County meets in September, according to Poindexter.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/07/23/0724vickvirginia.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

What the heck is wrong this guy? One day, he act like he has more than enough of evidence to convict Vick, next day he won't even attempt to indict Vick. This guy needs to be fired.