Vick Indicted

[03EBZ06]

Canada isn't North America. . .

It's Western France!

Doh!

 

[fortdick]

Beautiful dog.

I just love this breed. They are always so happy. How can anyone with a heart not look at that picture and smile?

 

[AbeBeta]

Someone ought to bust a cap on him! A Golden Retriever has to be the gentlest breed on earth. The AKC give them a 1 on a scale of 1-5 as watchdogs.

But a five on stupidity. So they got that going.

 

[fortdick]

what's the difference between a smart cop and a dumb one? When you find a smart cop, then I will tell you.

Must have had a bad experience with a Mountie.

 

[fortdick]

But a five on stupidity. So they got that going.

Well, they do lose their minds in the presence of a tennis ball.

Last time I looked, the U.S. was second in the world in average number of dogs per household. Ireland was first. Being Irish, myself, I guess I don;t have a choice. Dogs are a big part of Gaelic culture. Finn McCuhal always had his Staghounds with him. (If you have to ask, you aren't Irish)

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

What if there were FOUR people making the same claim?

Don't you have to consider who the four are? If they are hoods themselves who can benefit from pinning it on Vick, wouldn't you look at their comments with suspicion?

 

[LowTech]

yes i would

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Canada isn't North America. . .

It's Western France!

Before you spout off about Canada and France, perhaps you should learn a little about the countries.

Re France, I suggest you read Sixty Million Frenchmen can't be wrong by Jean-Benoit Nadeau or Adam Gopnik's Paris to the Moon.

Re Canada, there are many books on Canada, too numerous to mention. Open up an Amazon.com account and learn about the rest of the world and stop being so insular.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Must have had a bad experience with a Mountie.

If you consider making them look stupid in court because they embellished, lied or whatever in giving evidence a bad experience, then yes you are right.

 

[silverbear]

I asked you to show me where the mere charge or accusation is grounds for termination, and you provide me with something that says they have to be GUILTY.

A suspension is not a termination... with a suspension, the door is open for you to return...

And I never said a guy had to be guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, I only said that they could face legal action IN A COURT OF LAW if they aren't careful about taking action when guilt cannot be proven

So long as the NFL does not violate the CBA, there is no action that could be taken against them IN A COURT OF LAW, because what they've done would be quite LEGAL... well, OK, action could be taken, but the complainant would stand zero chance of prevailing...

 

[silverbear]

child molesters would clearly be higher on the garbage chain...but these pieces of trash arnt far behind

You've spoken a whole mouthful of truth there... let's just say that inasmuch as I have a dog, if Vick showed up on my property, he'd be starin' down the business end of my shotgun...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You've spoken a whole mouthful of truth there... let's just say that inasmuch as I have a dog, if Vick showed up on my property, he'd be starin' down the business end of my shotgun...

you mess w/ the bear's dog

you get killed

 

[silverbear]

Don't you have to consider who the four are? If they are hoods themselves who can benefit from pinning it on Vick, wouldn't you look at their comments with suspicion?

Not if they gave me specific information, specific FACTS, that proved to be completely accurate...

 

[irishline]

Read the words in bold above ...........then think about it, then respond.

I asked you to show me where the mere charge or accusation is grounds for termination, and you provide me with something that says they have to be GUILTY.

And I never said a guy had to be guilty IN A COURT OF LAW, I only said that they could face legal action IN A COURT OF LAW if they aren't careful about taking action when guilt cannot be proven - your own quote above even shows they have to be guilty - and guilty in public opinion doesn't carry any legal weight.

TRY AND UNDERSTAND - PLEASE THINK:

1. There is a difference between saying that there can be legal ramifications for the decisions the NFL makes and saying the NFL has to work in conjunction with the court system.

2. I AM saying the NFL has to consider the legal ramifications of their decisions.

3. I AM NOT saying they have to tie themselves to what courts decide in a given case.

Not to detract from this interesting discussion but but since you brought up the obvious with the word guilty in what he quoted, I can't quite understand how you missed the obvious with the word or two words earlier. Lets look at the definition...

or 1

(ôr; ər when unstressed) Pronunciation Key
conj.

1. 1. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
   2. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

According to that one of the two criteria needs to be met not both. Now lets look at what he linked from the CBA...

Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players....
....or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commisioner to be detrimental to the league or professional football, the Commisioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or terminate his contract

Nowhere before the word "or" do I see the word guilty. Therefore, according to this he does not have to be found guilty to meet the criteria of part one of what I am reading. And in reading this, if he meets part one and does not meet part two (being the part where he must be found guilty of something) he could still face the punishment listed at the bottom.

Before I get burned by one side or the other on this, I don't mean to add to the fire on either side. I know there is some substance in there is left out by typing "....." and I could be completely wrong. Just thought I would mention that small oversight. I don't post here often but read you guys everyday for my Cowboys news (beats any other sports site or channel). Just decided to see if I could get some information and clarification... and boy did I... all 32 pages lol

Please keep up the good work... keep me informed and entertained lol

carry on...

 

[03EBZ06]

For you lawyers...

When verdict is read, why does judge or jury foreman say "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"?

Why not "Guilty" or "Innocent"?

Just wondering.

 

[03EBZ06]

and boy did I... all 32 pages lol

I only see 13 pages.

user cp < edit options < number of posts to show per page = 40

 

[Seven]

Not to detract from this interesting discussion but but since you brought up the obvious with the word guilty in what he quoted, I can't quite understand how you missed the obvious with the word or two words earlier. Lets look at the definition...

or 1

(&#244;r; &#601;r when unstressed) Pronunciation Key
conj.

1. 1. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.
   2. Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whether: Your answer is either ingenious or wrong. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

According to that one of the two criteria needs to be met not both. Now lets look at what he linked from the CBA...

Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players....
....or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commisioner to be detrimental to the league or professional football, the Commisioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or terminate his contract

Nowhere before the word "or" do I see the word guilty. Therefore, according to this he does not have to be found guilty to meet the criteria of part one of what I am reading. And in reading this, if he meets part one and does not meet part two (being the part where he must be found guilty of something) he could still face the punishment listed at the bottom.

Before I get burned by one side or the other on this, I don't mean to add to the fire on either side. I know there is some substance in there is left out by typing "....." and I could be completely wrong. Just thought I would mention that small oversight. I don't post here often but read you guys everyday for my Cowboys news (beats any other sports site or channel). Just decided to see if I could get some information and clarification... and boy did I... all 32 pages lol

Please keep up the good work... keep me informed and entertained lol

carry on...

Welcome and nice post. Have ya tried the Guinness yet?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

For you lawyers...

When verdict is read, why does judge or jury foreman say "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"?

Why not "Guilty" or "Innocent"?

Just wondering.

don't you want a straight answer?

 

[Seven]

For you lawyers...

When verdict is read, why does judge or jury foreman say "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"?

Why not "Guilty" or "Innocent"?

Just wondering.

Same reason they call it "fishing" and not "catching"? Who knows.

 

[03EBZ06]

don't you want a straight answer?

Yeah, you are right, my mistake.