I am disappointed in Zone posters

[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.

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.

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!

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"... ..

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

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 though

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?