I am disappointed in Zone posters

[YosemiteSam]

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?

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?

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.

 

[BruceWayne]

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?

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
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.