Vick Poll

[03EBZ06]

Until they can get proof that he was involved, why would they charge Vick with something, if he wasn't living at the house?

We don't know whether he lived in that house or not but some locals have stated that he did visit that house occasionally, not sure if that is true or not. He was seen purchasing syringe at a local store, according to a local witness. But again, it has not been proven whether he lived in that house, visited or never stepped into that house.

 

[fortdick]

We don't know whether he lived in that house or not but some locals have stated that he did visit that house occasionally, not sure if that is true or not. He was seen purchasing syringe at a local store, according to a local witness. But again, it has not been proven whether he lived in that house, visited or never stepped into that house.

He needed the syringe to inject herpes into the ugly women.

 

[jay cee]

We don't know whether he lived in that house or not but some locals have stated that he did visit that house occasionally, not sure if that is true or not. He was seen purchasing syringe at a local store, according to a local witness. But again, it has not been proven whether he lived in that house, visited or never stepped into that house.

That's my point. The poster I was responding to said that if Vick was not a famous athlete, he would have been arrested already.

My point is that in a normal situation, unless they were caught in the act of fighting dogs, the only person they would arrest was the one that was known to have been residing at the house.

All the articles that I have seen has said that Vick was not living at the house. As you said, some locals have said that he did visit the house occasionally.

IMO, that would lead any rationally thinking person to believe that he did not live at the house.

That does not mean that he was not involved in dog fighting, but it does make it more difficult to prove.

That's why he has not been charged yet, they want to know that they have him dead to rights before they make their move.

They don't want another water bottle incident. Which turned out to be much ado about nothing.

 

[theogt]

I have reordered your list. I imagine that preponderance is a confusing thing for some. but in essence it is what ever tips the scales one way or the other. A predonderance is generally less than either rreasonable doubt or probable cuase.

Probable cause is the highest standard that law enforcement has to meet. After that, it is up to the proscutor to present a cause that meets the reasonable doubt standrd. You are actually talking apples and oranges when you discuss probable cause and reasonable doubt.

Hmmm...I'll simply disagree regarding POE. Preponderance of evidence is only used, to my knowledge, in the fashion I described.

 

[theogt]

So your saying, Probable Cause is enough for a Federal Judge to issue a Federal Search Warrant, it that correct?

Yes.

Can you give a definition of Probable Cause and an example of what might be present as Probably Cause?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Not trying to be a Jerk. I'm just trying to understand why it would be so easy to get a Warrant. Seems to me that searching a mans private life is a pretty big deal and, under normal circumstances, a violation of one's civil rights.

Easy is a relative term. Relative to beyond a reasonable doubt, it is easy.

For example, under the Virgina Constitution Bill of Rights, it' says the following.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS

A declaration of rights made by the good people of Virginia
in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do
pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and found-
ation of government.

Sec. 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and
have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into
a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or
divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing prop-
erty, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.


Sec. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may
be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of
a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not
named, or whose offense is not particularly described and
supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and
ought not to be granted.

Now, I understand that this is now a Federal Warrant but since it seems to be pretty clear that it's not as easy as just going in and saying to the judge, "I think he's hidding something", I'm wondering what might be different in a Federal Court and exactly what needs to be presented to get authorization for a Warrant.

It's a very vague issue and can mean different things depending on the judge you go to. Some are more willing and some are less willing. Honestly, that's about the best answer anyone can give.

 

[theogt]

Just cause would be the standard used to evaluate a decision made in the spur of the moment. For instance, a officer is investigating a robbery with shots heard and fires his gun at the suspect that he thought was an immediate threat. Later, finding out the suspect was carrying a toy gun and pointed it at the officer. There was just cause for the officer to believe his life was in danger and he acted in self defense.

I'm not sure how this was a response to my post.

Better check again. A predonderance is what tips the scale. 51-49 is a prepondrance. You are thinking of burden of proof in a civil case, or such.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1586&bold=||||
preponderance of the evidence
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

No, I'm correct. "Preponderance of of the evidence" is a more stringent evidentiary standard than "probable cause."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[THUMPER]

The only reason I care about it is that it associates him with a class of people that he shouldn't be associating with: lowlifes, thugs, gamblers, druggies, etc.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Have they even charged the guy that was living at the house?

Until they can get proof that he was involved, why would they charge Vick with something, if he wasn't living at the house?

I can't speak for Virginia but here in New Mexico, you have a law that basically says it's the responsability of the owner for what goes on, on his property. For example, if I rent to a person who runs a Meth Lab out of my rental property, then I'm on the hook for it. Obviously the renter is also responsible but as the property owner, it is my responsability to make sure I'm not aiding in illegal activities by renting property to people who are breaking the law. I could go to jail for what somebody else is doing in my house. If a kid drowns in my pool, regardless of if the pool is covered or not, regardless of fences, whatever, I'm responsible. Just two examples of how it works here. You can't tell me that Vick did not know what was going on. You can say that he wasn't living at the house but there's no way you don't know what's going on at that house. That's BS IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Easy is a relative term. Relative to beyond a reasonable doubt, it is easy.

It's a very vague issue and can mean different things depending on the judge you go to. Some are more willing and some are less willing. Honestly, that's about the best answer anyone can give.

So, in light of these answers, you can't really say that it takes very little to get a federal warrant issued. The best you can say is it may take as little as ---, but, it may also take a good bit of supporting evidence. Is that correct?

 

[peplaw06]

Probable cause is higher than reasonable cause.

It generally goes:

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Clear and convincing evidence.
3. Preponderance of evidence.
4. Probable cause.
5. Reasonable cause/suspsicion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is obviously the strictest and hardest to overcome. Reasonable cause is the least strict. As you can see, probable cause is relatively low on the totem pole of evidentiary standards.

Theo's right guys...

Here's the easiest way I've ever heard it explained:

Let's say you were driving down the road, talking on your cell phone, eating a burger and looking at a map, while searching for a CD in the floorboard. You're swerving all over the road, and a cop sees you. He has a "reasonable suspicion" that you may be driving drunk. That is all he needs to stop you.

Then he comes up to your car, you roll down the window and the smell of alcohol knocks him over, there are beer bottles in the back seat, etc. He then has "probable cause" and at that point can arrest you for drunk driving. This is also the point where they can ask you to take the sobriety tests.

Preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. It essentially means, "enough to tip the scales in your favor," or 50.1% of the evidence supports you. It's really the only burden of proof that can be described numerically.

Clear and convincing evidence is typically reserved for special instances, like if the government wants to take your kids away from you. You want to protect the kids, but don't want to tread on someone's parental rights without clear and convincing evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest and is up to the trier of fact. Typically thought to be around 85-95%, but it's debatable.

Probable cause is a pretty low bar, you basically have to have some identifiable reason to take action (arrest or search). For a search warrant to be issued, typically you have to take the evidence you do have to a magistrate and ask him to sign off on a warrant. Warrants can be issued pretty easily. There are even means sometimes to get telephonic search warrants. Say you have to move on searching a house or something, and it's late at night. A cop can call a magistrate and/or fax him an affidavit stating what he knows and a warrant can be issued by that.

 

[DallasEast]

I voted yes because I care if Vick's involved with dog fighting just as much as I care if ____________ (fill in the blank) would be involved with dog fighting. Why? Because dog fighting is universally wrong.



* Waiting patiently for the ACLU rebuttal *

 

[theogt]

Theo's right guys...

I know that was painful to type.

So, in light of these answers, you can't really say that it takes very little to get a federal warrant issued. The best you can say is it may take as little as ---, but, it may also take a good bit of supporting evidence. Is that correct?

You could say, compared to all other burdens of proof, it's one of the least stringent.

 

[peplaw06]

I know that was painful to type.

I got yo back, no matter how bad it hurts.

 

[theogt]

I got yo back, no matter how bad it hurts.

Yeah, that wasn't homoerotic.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know that was painful to type.

You could say, compared to all other burdens of proof, it's one of the least stringent.

If I read your explinations, I think you could say that it's inconclusive. You said that it can be easy or tough depending on the issuing Magistrate. Am I not understanding what you were trying to explain in your previous post?

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, that wasn't homoerotic.

:laugh2:

Yeah that wouldn't hurt ME.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Vick is a:

POS human being
POS quarterback
POS for being involved in this kind of treatment of animals


Has PETA jumped all over this yet? If not... they will soon...

 

[theogt]

If I read your explinations, I think you could say that it's inconclusive. You said that it can be easy or tough depending on the issuing Magistrate. Am I not understanding what you were trying to explain in your previous post?

Very true.

 

[jay cee]

I can't speak for Virginia but here in New Mexico, you have a law that basically says it's the responsability of the owner for what goes on, on his property. For example, if I rent to a person who runs a Meth Lab out of my rental property, then I'm on the hook for it. Obviously the renter is also responsible but as the property owner, it is my responsability to make sure I'm not aiding in illegal activities by renting property to people who are breaking the law. I could go to jail for what somebody else is doing in my house. If a kid drowns in my pool, regardless of if the pool is covered or not, regardless of fences, whatever, I'm responsible. Just two examples of how it works here. You can't tell me that Vick did not know what was going on. You can say that he wasn't living at the house but there's no way you don't know what's going on at that house. That's BS IMO.

I was talking about why the authorities have not charged him with anything yet. They want a conviction, so they are not going to move on Vick until they have proof that he was in on it.

Not just that he owned the house where illegal activities were occurring.

As for Tx, the only fallout in that situation, is that the authorities could confiscate the home. They could not arrest a landlord for the crimes of his tenant.

I don't know about New Mexico, but I'm pretty sure it's the same.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was talking about why the authorities have not charged him with anything yet. They want a conviction, so they are not going to move on Vick until they have proof that he was in on it.

Not just that he owned the house where illegal activities were occurring.

As for Tx, the only fallout in that situation, is that the authorities could confiscate the home. They could not arrest a landlord for the crimes of his tenant.

I don't know about New Mexico, but I'm pretty sure it's the same.

I'm certain it's not the same. They don't confiscate the home because, more times then not, the meth labs have a habbit of blowing up. It's on the Land Lord. Having said that, the point is that if he was Joe Citizen, he would already have been faced with legal action. Because he is a Celeb, he has not been. A normal person, in that situation, would already have been faced with charges IMO. Nobody worries about making it stick because it's not going to be all over the national news. It is different for Vick then it would be for an average Joe. IMO, Vick has received the benifit of the doubt much more so then an average citizen would have, under the same circumstances.