I am disappointed in Zone posters

[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 again

http://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?

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?

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]

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 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

 

[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

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

 

[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.