| Posted by: wiggs
- Sustainer [04991311] Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 12:13
Vick Dog Fighting |
| 1 | barilko6
ID: 43524213 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 13:55
|
Vick might be the next one to be made example of.
|
|
| 2 | Punk42AE Donor
ID: 036635522 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 13:59
|
From the sound of it he just owns the property and has no connection there besides that.
|
|
| 3 | barilko6
ID: 43524213 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 15:10
|
Yeah...but why does it always seem trouble seems to follow the guy around. I know tons of people that own property and have NEVER had anything like that happen to them.
|
|
| 4 | barilko6
ID: 43524213 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 15:14
|
Plus this quote can't be too good for Mikey:
"heard troubling reports for some time that Michael Vick has been involved in organized dog fighting"
|
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 837278 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 15:14
|
Maybe he didn't know, but I find it hard to believe that he had a property with more than 60 dogs and didn't know it.
|
|
| 6 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 15:30
|
I actually find it hard to believe that Vick had a relative living on the property and that he wasn't involved in the purchase of the dogs. Why would Vick own the property and the house, but not the dogs?
At a minimum, he had to have known about them. But, I would guess he was a bit more involved than just knowing about them.
|
|
| 7 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Apr 27, 2007, 15:34
|
Just becuase he owns the property does not mean he knows what is going on. If was renting the house out would people be like ow he must have known what was going on, i think not.
|
|
| 8 | barilko6
ID: 43524213 Sat, Apr 28, 2007, 12:05
|
Considering Vick has had troubling reports circulating around him for dog fighting for quite some time, according to the Humane Society, I find it very hard to believe he didn't have any clue at all.
Its kind of like when you walk into the kitchen and you see all the cookies gone and your 4 year old son has chocolate all over his face and tries to profess his innocence.
Also, unfortunately for Vick, his past actions do nothing to help him in this new ordeal.
|
|
| 9 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 354152921 Sat, Apr 28, 2007, 22:33
|
RE: 7 Yeah, except your hypothetical is just that: hypothetical.
Instead, he was letting a relative stay at the place, meaning he had to have at LEAST known there were 60 dogs on the property. And if he knew there were 60 dogs on the property and he were a complete up-standing, law-abiding citizen, wouldn't he wonder WHY there were 60 dogs on the property? That's not exactly a number that most pet owners reach.
We can come up with hypotheticals all day long about what the story would seem to indicate under different circumstances, but that just avoids what the actual circumstances are: Vick owns the property. He had a relative staying there. There were 60 dogs on the property that showed signs of being part of dog fighting.
Don't get me wrong, though. Vick's certainly innocent until found guilty, but I'm not buying the idea that he had NO clue about what was going on. Again, at a minimum he had to have known there were 60 dogs there. That's not exactly something that's easy to hide.
|
|
| 10 | Fosten
ID: 35445422 Mon, May 14, 2007, 04:11
|
SNL: Weekend Update should do another 'Really?' segment on Michael Vick. That was easily the funniest skit of the entire season.
|
|
| 11 | barilko6
ID: 52261810 Mon, May 14, 2007, 10:41
|
For those that weren't sure:
"Another report has surfaced that claims Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was involved in illegal dog fighting. Fox Sports Radio's Chris Landry told a Tampa Bay radio station on Friday that he was told by former Falcons player Ray Buchanan that Vick is directly involved in dog fighting."
|
|
| 12 | Tree
ID: 29082512 Tue, May 15, 2007, 13:09
|
if you get banned for a season for smoking weed, then Vick oughta face a life time ban for this.
|
|
| 13 | Razor
ID: 2107611 Tue, May 15, 2007, 13:12
|
Well, you don't get banned for a season for smoking weed. Not the first offense, anyway.
|
|
| 14 | barilko6
ID: 17481513 Tue, May 15, 2007, 16:31
|
Yeah, I thought it was a 3 strike thing for the one year suspension for weed, no?
|
|
| 15 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Sat, May 19, 2007, 16:02
|
New Vick jerseys just hit the stores:
and
|
|
| 16 | rockafellerskank
ID: 51281619 Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 13:00
|
Question.... ESPN has an article about the Vick investigation:
link
However, i don't care about Vick, but rather have a grammer/journalist question. What do the [ ]'s signify in written stories/ there are 3 of them in this paragraph.
"There is probably enough there to bring a bill [of indictment]," one source said, "but how some of [the evidence] would play out at trial, or if it even reached a trial ... I just don't know. These kinds of prosecutions are tough. There are some holes, definitely, and that's why [investigators] are digging for more information. You want more than just smoke. You're always looking for the smoking gun.
|
|
| 17 | Species Dude
ID: 07724916 Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 13:08
|
rfs - that is their way of putting some clarification/context into the quote while keeping the integrity of the quote. Typically they are pronouns used and they place those [] into the quote to make it clearer to the reader.
Those lines were probably uttered something like:
"There is probably enough to bring a bill" - with the quotee already knowing he meant 'a bill of endictment' - but he didn't utter those words so they slip it in for the ease of the reader
"...but how some if it would play out in trial...." - the storywriter replaces "it" with "the evidence"
"...that's why they are digging for more information" - replacing "they" with "investigators"
By using [ ] they are noting that the portion in question is not exact quoted text.
|
|
| 18 | rockafellerskank
ID: 51281619 Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 13:18
|
Thanks.
(do you actually have a job, dude?) :)
|
|
| 19 | Species Dude
ID: 07724916 Fri, Jun 01, 2007, 13:31
|
I drop everything I'm doing during a busy day to help a friend.....and THAT is the thanks I get? ;-)
For that........next March.....I'm slipping a mickey into one of your drinks, finding a really ugly woman, drugging her, and then putting you both on a couch somewhere to wake up and wonder wtf happened! lmao
|
|
| |
| 21 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 21:56
|
|
|
| 22 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 11:01
|
LMAO!
|
|
| 23 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 11:33
|
if he's guilty - and it's looking likely he is - i hope michael vick goes to prison for a LONG time, and does hard time, and not some sort of country club stint.
to me, he's a serial killer. if what they're saying is true, he shot, hung, drowned, and electrocuted dogs until they were dead - one death apparently had the dog doused with water, then electrocuted with live wires.
allegedly, on just one occasion this year, Vick was involved in killing eight dogs. and that is just one occasion.
i realize some of you may mock me for this, but crimes don't get much more heinous than this, and Vick should go to prison for a damned long time.
|
|
| 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 11:34
|
cannot disagree with you Tree. IF he is indeed guilty, he needs to pay and pay big for it.
|
|
| 25 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 11:48
|
*disclaimer* Trying to be careful since he was only indicted and not found guily of anything *disclaimer*
Like Tree said, what a terrible story if it is proven to be true. I don't get what some of these athletes are thinking sometimes, and even if you aren't a pet lover, you have to sympathize for the animals.
|
|
| 26 | Balrog Dude
ID: 02856618 Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 18:48
|
If it is true and he's found guilty, I hope they play "Old Yeller" on the prison TV the first night he's there.
|
|
| 27 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 06:30
|
i hope michael vick goes to prison for a LONG time, and does hard time, and not some sort of country club stint.
to me, he's a serial killer. if what they're saying is true, he shot, hung, drowned, and electrocuted dogs until they were dead - one death apparently had the dog doused with water, then electrocuted with live wires.
I cannot agree with you more. Deliberate animal cruelty is one of the most disgusting crimes I can think of. This isn't some player with a booze or a drug problem. This is a player with an animal homicide problem. I don't want that in my favorite sport.
As a lifelong fan of the NFL, it would permanently ruin the image of the sport I hold most dear if the commish allows Vick to play. I don't want to see some limp "personal conduct policy" statement where he gets 8 games or so. I'd like to see Upshaw and the commish both come out and say this s#it will not be tolerated and Mike Vick is out of the league. Goodbye. Sayonara.
Maybe instead of showing Old Yeller in prison, they ought to treat him like Old Yeller and put him out of his misery.
How can a person contact the league office?
|
|
| 28 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:15
|
Man when did this place become the front office for PETA.
|
|
| 29 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:23
|
Man when did this place become the front office for PETA.
so you're saying you have no issues with torturing and killing animals?
|
|
| 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 37623238 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:25
|
What Vick did was break the law. It wasn't soiling the sensibilities of PETA members.
|
|
| 31 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:32
|
well killing animals no, inless there are not many of that species left. I mean i eat meat, i do not see anyone complaing when the slaughter hurds of cows.. I would prefer that animals not get tortured. but out side of the throwing the dog on the ground to kill it, i would not consider it really torture. shooting a dog to kill it, seems pretty humane, eletricuting it seems pretty humane.
|
|
| 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 37623238 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:34
|
Well, if you are arguing that animal cruelty laws shouldn't be in place that is one thing (a silly argument, but certainly one you might be making).
But complaining about PETA because Vick broke the law makes no sense.
|
|
| 33 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:53
|
shooting a dog to kill it, seems pretty humane, eletricuting it seems pretty humane.
And just how did the dog get into the physical condition wherein being shot or electricuted to death would be putting it out of its misery?
|
|
| 34 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 13:57
|
I mean i eat meat, i do not see anyone complaing when the slaughter hurds of cows.. I would prefer that animals not get tortured. but out side of the throwing the dog on the ground to kill it, i would not consider it really torture. shooting a dog to kill it, seems pretty humane, eletricuting it seems pretty humane.
good to see someone else making a non-political issue into someone political. i really hate humans sometimes.
and i eat meat too. i LOVE meat. but there is a HUGE difference - at least to me - between eating meat, and *murdering* a dog because you've already tortured it.
you do realize that these dogs were killed only after humans made them suffer.
and regarding your comment "shooting a dog to kill it, seems pretty humane", i assure you that if you tried to shoot my dog, you would be the one on the ground, dead. because that is an intolerable to me, and i would absolutely fight to the death to defend my dog.
|
|
| 35 | barilko6
ID: 46637248 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 14:21
|
I say forget prison for Vick. He will probably get too much preferential treatment.
Instead, if found guilty, tie 5 steaks to his body, throw him into the barn with 5 of the dogs they found on his property, and set the timer for 10 minutes...
|
|
| 36 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 14:31
|
set it for 8 steaks, 9 dogs, and 17 minutes, and you have a deal.
|
|
| 37 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 13:10
|
tree the only reason i said i eat meat is that you asked if so you're saying you have no issues with torturing and killing animals? i was just answering the second part of your question about killing animals, i really do not see how that is political answer, is your mind that one track. as for the shooting and electricuting i was just making the comment that if you are going to kill an animal there are much less humane ways than that. If you are so troubled by the death of dogs why don't you stop posting and go down to the local humane societ and adopt every dog there that is about to be killed.
As peta protesting law breaker as of right now the only crime vick is guilty of is being owning the house where dog training and fighting appeared to happen at.
|
|
| 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 13:19
|
ROFL! The "why don't you dedicate your life to that cause?" fell out as a viable debating strategy about the sixth grade, I believe.
Boikin, I'd suggest you actually look at the indictment before you declare what Vick was and wasn't guilty of.
|
|
| 39 | leggestand Leader
ID: 451036518 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 13:19
|
boikin - I don't think you can separate "killing animals" from "torturing and killing animals" to make your point. Semantically, you could probably make that case if Tree would of said "or" instead of "and," but he didn't, so, he obviosuly is saying that he is against torturing and killing animals; not just killing animals.
In addition, levels of "humane" doesn't matter. Are there more "inhumane" ways to kill a dog? Sure, but that doesn't make what was done to these dogs "humane." It sounds like you are saying, "Good for Vick, he could of done worse to these dogs and didn't."
As for the Vick being guilty portion of your post, you are right, he hasn't been convicted. But everywhere I read says that federal indictments have a 95% conviction ratio. I'd say that odds are stacked against Vick being wrongfully accused.
|
|
| 40 | Frick Donor
ID: 3410101718 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 13:48
|
How many people are expecting video of this to pop up at some point?
Considering Vick has more excess cash than the entirety of these boards combined, doesn't it seem likely that some of the actions were videotaped, or at least pictures were taken, even if it just a camera phone?
|
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:00
|
True enough Frick. I long ago ceased "counting", the nr of criminals caught and successfully prosecuted, using their own video of their "escapades". I'd venture someone will turn "states evidence", and provide the video to ease the prosecution of the "big fish". Unodubtedly, that video will find its way to youtube.
|
|
| 42 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:02
|
...but out side of the throwing the dog on the ground to kill it, i would not consider it really torture...
I'll wager heavily, that you'd consider it torture if YOU were put in the pen with one or two of these animals.
|
|
| 43 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:38
|
boikin -
i really do not see how that is political answer, is your mind that one track.
you brought up PETA, acting as if those who thought what Boikin did belonged to this group - you may not have said "dumb liberals," but the implication was clear. YOU brought the politics into this.
as for the shooting and electricuting i was just making the comment that if you are going to kill an animal there are much less humane ways than that.
the point is apparently so far beyond you, i'm not sure you'll ever grasp it. these were animals that needn't have been in that position in the first place. they were placed in danger by ignorant humans.
what happened to these dogs is disgusting, vile, and any human who treats that animals like that, in my opinion, would have no problem acting that way toward a human. Children that torture animals in such a manner tend to grow up to be serial killers, so why is an adult doing it even remotely acceptable.
quite frankly, any person who doesn't see a problem with what doing what Michael Vick has been accused of is sub-human, and i'd much rather see that person get shot, electrocuted, or drowned than an innocent dog
If you are so troubled by the death of dogs why don't you stop posting and go down to the local humane societ and adopt every dog there that is about to be killed.
and if you knew anything about owning a pet, you'd know that taking more animals than you can handle into your home is probably more inhumane than an animal being put to sleep.
But when i have welcomed a new pet into my life, he or she was certainly adopted, and not bought from a pet store.
As peta protesting law breaker as of right now the only crime vick is guilty of is being owning the house where dog training and fighting appeared to happen at.
Actually, Vick isn't guilty of anything. he hasn't even been tried yet.
Bottom line - your attitude and devil-may-care attitude about this disturbs me tremendously.
perhaps you find it perfectly acceptable for someone to beat, shoot, drown, or electrocute your spouse and children?
|
|
| 44 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:41
|
perhaps you find it perfectly acceptable for someone to beat, shoot, drown, or electrocute your spouse and children?
C'mon Tree. You had a sound and solid argument going, until you tossed in the strawman at the end.
|
|
| 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:51
|
Here here.
Go to the link I posted in #38, and start reading about page 4 of the indictment.
No need to say anything more.
|
|
| 46 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:50
|
You had a sound and solid argument going, until you tossed in the strawman at the end.
while i can understand that opinion, to me, it's not a strawman. my dogs are my children, and i know i am not the only person who feels this way about their pets.
i adopted them, i brought them into my home, i feed them, and they depend on my to take care of them. they are no different than children in that respect, nor in the heart of many dog owners.
|
|
| 47 | Perm Dude
ID: 386132511 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 17:01
|
Yes, but you are projecting your feelings onto someone else.
My guess is that someone who doesn't have the same level of feeling about pets as you do would look upon their spouse or children in a different light. And there is nothing wrong with that. But you imply there should be.
|
|
| 48 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 17:54
|
I completely agree Tree, with the sentiment that ouor pets are as dependant upon us as are our youngsters. But that opinion on my part, doesnt hold acorss the board, and thus the projection (well put PD), creates the strawman since boikin never said anything of the sort.
|
|
| 49 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 22:07
|
you brought up PETA, acting as if those who thought what Boikin did belonged to this group - you may not have said "dumb liberals," but the implication was clear. YOU brought the politics into this. Is this what you think that i think? I mean is your mind really that one track, well then i guess this fact would make me a "dumb Liberal" i support green peace and several other eviormental organizations. In realtity i think that PETA equals dumb vegans.
ow and pett are not dependent on people i know of several cats in neigborhood that survive quite well with out their human masters.
|
|
| 50 | Tree
ID: 26562518 Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 22:30
|
i know of several cats in neigborhood that survive quite well with out their human masters.
and, again, if you knew anything about maintaining a pet, you'd know that having a cat outside is not a wise idea, for all sorts of reasons.
anyway, the bottom line is that you made this political with your PETA comment, and then you compounded things with the fact you seem to be showing support - or at least acceptance - of Michael Vick's actions.
|
|
| 51 | rockafellerskank
ID: 51281619 Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 23:37
|
I had an interesting moment this past weekend. I was watching "Rebel without a Cause" The opening seen has James Dean, Natalie Wood and others including Sal Mineo in a police station. All are being "talk to" for juvenile behavior. James Dean was drunk, I think Natalie had a fight with her family and broke curfew. Sal's character "shot a puppy" --- I'm serious!!!!!
My observation, was how times have changed (yes for the better). Apparently in the late 50's shooting a puppy was akin to juvenile mischief as the nice police office "talked" to Sal and he was released to his family's nanny.
I also seem to recall movies from my childhood where "Dad" drowns puppies ina sack to get rid of the unwanted litter.
Just odd. I don't think animal cruelty laws are more than 20-25 years old. I suspect that there are millions of people in the USA that killed animals as youth who are now appalled at behavior they once engaged in. I'll bet my Grandpa killed more than a few dogs. I have no point here, just an observation or few.
For the record. If Vick is guilty, he should be punished IMO.
|
|
| 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 48622711 Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 12:17
|
More shrillness by the "dumb vegans".
Man, what ever happened to the days when what happened between a man and his pony wasn't dredged up by do-gooder vegans? What happens in the barn, stays in the barn...
|
|
| 53 | Species Dude
ID: 07724916 Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 14:36
|
Reading the indictment was very interesting. Outside of the physical evidence at the house that Vick owned (to which Vick denied having anything to do with), you have 4 "CW's" (Cooperating Witnesses) that place Vick AT dog fights representing "Bad Newz Kennels", including going to his rig and pulling out a duffle bag full of cash to pay off a $23,000 dog fight loss. There is ONE account where Vick directly was involved in the cruelty to a dog that was being killed, if memory serves.
Of course, these witnesses were directly involved in dog fighting as well. So it will be interesting to see Vick's lawyers pull out the "rat defense" (amongst anything and everything else they can pull from their bag of tricks), stating that these witnesses are 'making up' stuff about Vick in order to save themselves from prosecution. If Vick's lawyers can't shoot down the witnesses' character, he is a dead duck and, at a MINIMUM, will be nailed for organizing and betting on these dog fights.
|
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 48622711 Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 14:44
|
Word is that the government will file an amended indictment. The noose appears to be tightening around Vick.
|
|
| 55 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 15:51
|
Tree please explain this anyway, the bottom line is that you made this political with your PETA comment so basically you like to stereo type others think and then after they tell you that you made mistake you let them know that you are still right and you are still right. since it appears you can read people minds i would think that could put those talents to better use that posting about people here. I am not sure why i bother trying to rebuke you but all i was saying was that i was surprised by level of dog loving going on here you are the the only one making that into any kind of political statement. maybe you should reread post 49. when i said cats with out owners i meant wild cats and maybe you like rats living near you i don't and i have seen the wild cats kill quite a few, so maybe it is not good to have wild cats but at least my chances of rat infestation goes down. then again don't you live in the city tree what do you know about the outside.
As for vick he is done guilty or not he is probably seen his last days playing even there is like some kind of we made mistake we meant micheal Vick the mechanic not micheal vick the NFL quarterback.
Now that i have totally lost my credibility in here I did find something about the crime that has yet to be commented on anywhere and that is fact that he reportedly started his dog fighting operations his rookie season, the question i have is when did he really start, i mean you do not get into dog fighting over night i would assume he had to be into for year or two. this would mean that he was doing it in college, did VT know about this? How many others are out there? i mean in college. i find the idea that college football players betting on underground dog fights as being a real problem.
|
|
| |
| 57 | GoatLocker Sustainer
ID: 060151121 Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 10:27
|
PD, My wife said that yesterday on TV, the comment on the Ammended Indictment was that it would include Racketeering charges.
Don't have a source, just what she heard.
Cliff
|
|
| 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 1625288 Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 11:46
|
No kidding? Wow.
Unfortunately, many people seem to be lining up on this issue around racial lines.
|
|
| 61 | Action Figure
ID: 420372221 Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 11:52
|
"The Reverend Marcellus Harris says the community wants to emphasize Vick's right to due process and that the rush to judge him is premature."
I agree but he cut off all his hair so dew process doesn't really work well any more.
|
|
| |
| 63 | Species Dude
ID: 07724916 Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 15:44
|
The opinion of this Sports Attorney on ESPN.com certainly doesn't bode well for Vick. When the attorney says Taylor's plea is "terrible news for Vick", you KNOW it's bad because these guys don't tend to exaggerate.
|
|
| 64 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 07:26
|
Now your dogs can get revenge on Mike Vick; actually a rubber likeness of him.
Mike Vick Chew Toy
The Official Vick Dog Chew Toy
Is it different you ask? You bet it is! The Vick Dog Chew Toy is made of state of the art "dog" material. The Vick Toy Doll is so strong and flexible, it will challenge every breed. Especially The Pit Bull.
Unlike Vick, our manufacturer is so sure of its durability they guarantee it against the most playful dog destruction. It Bends. It Bounces. It Flies. It Floats. And best of all, it lasts through the whole season and more!
|
|
| 65 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:28
|
boy...he's in BIG trouble this time. roflmao
$63,000,000,000 lawsuit filed vs M Vick
If it werent so clearly abuse of the system, that would be hilarious.
|
|
| 66 | Toral
ID: 575542418 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 00:14
|
Jim Brown, greatest RB of all time and black activist, says on Toronto FANradio/simulcastRogers sportsnet that Michael Vick should "lose his career" if the allegations of cruelty are true.
Toral
|
|
| 67 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 12:25
|
How many innocent people consider a plea deal?
I'm not saying it's proof he's guilty, but I don't know many innocent people who would take this long to consider a plea deal... much less consider it at all.
|
|
| 68 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 16:32
|
Vick plea deal "likely"?
Falcons owner Arthur Blank said Friday that, "It seems to be a pretty clear indication there will be some sort of plea entered."
|
|
| 69 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 14:53
|
Vick has agreed to plead guilty this afternoon and accepts full responsibility for all charges against him according to ESPN breaking news.
|
|
| 70 | Perm Dude
ID: 22740208 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 14:58
|
I think he'd only plead guilty if he was able to keep playing football (even if he has to sit out a year or so).
|
|
| 71 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 15:00
|
A Legal expert who is familliar with the case said that Vick didn't negotiate, but he surrendered to all charges to plead guilty so the superceding indictment would not be brought today. The judge has full authority to hand down the maximum sentence even if there were a "deal" so it really doesn't matter he says. The racketeering and other charges that were to be added today would have meant severe jail time apparently.
|
|
| 72 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 15:06
|
Federal sentencing guidelines means that you serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence.
From what they are saying he will likely spend over a year in jail. Maximum apparently is 5 years in jail and a $500K fine.
The state of Virgina is now coming after the four guilty men for at least fines, but the legal expert said he may bring criminal charges but his guess is that he will let them plea and escape added jail time once the fines/probation or whatever have been made.
|
|
| 73 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 15:32
|
I wonder what all the supporters will say now. I'm guessing it won't be, "There should be more role models like him." or "I know he loves animals. Why he would throw them in a ring and try to kill them, I don't know."
Some of the details that keep making their way into the news are just downright grisly.
|
|
| 74 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 15:38
|
Roger Cosack says that he must serve 87%, but says that perhaps the last 10% or so may be served in a halfway house. The judge is very tough when it comes to sentencing. He says Vick had no chance to win at this trial. Plea aggreemnets are guidelines but he says typically judges follow the basic guidelines. Defendants may not appeal, but the government can. Since Vick is the mastermind of this entire deal, so that will add points onto the sentence. He feels that he will get away from those points. No prior felony conviction from Vick. He says the judge will unlikley takc on omre than 6 months onto the plea deal to be announced next Monday.
|
|
| 75 | Species Dude
ID: 07724916 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 16:23
|
Taking everything on the original indictment was a smart move if it meant the heavier racketeering stuff did not get handed down. Smart move by Vick.
It will be interesting to see the NFL's take.
|
|
| 76 | rockafellerskank
ID: 51281619 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 16:47
|
Just because the RICO stiff didn't come down in an indictment, that won't stop the NFL from conducting their own investigation and acting according. I'd be willing to bet (pun intended) that Vick will be banned because of the gambling. I'm mean, Leonard Little killed a person, but at least he didn't bet on it. Add in the fact that by the time Vick gets out in 1-3 years (est.), the NFL will be even more PC and sensitive. Regrettably another person with a once-in-a-lifetime talent wasted it. He won't be the last.
Anyone want to give odds ATL goes after him in court for some signing money back? Vick could end up broke.
|
|
| 77 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167 Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 17:26
|
I don't know if Vick will get outright banned by the NFL, but it wouldn't surprise me. Personally, I imagine a 2-3 year suspension (given Pacman Jones' 1-year suspension without a conviction) would be a minimum. Whether or not that's concurrent with the jail time is another question.
Anyone want to give odds ATL goes after him in court for some signing money back? Vick could end up broke.
Let's just say I wouldn't take the odds AGAINST them going after some of his money. I would be very surprised if there weren't "conduct" clauses in his contract that they could use against him.
Given that a lot of players end up broke anyhow, it definitely wouldn't surprise me if Vick ended up broke after this is all said and done.
|
|
| 78 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Tue, Aug 21, 2007, 00:14
|
NFL Network's Adam Schefter reports Michael Vick's expected suspension will likely not kick in until he's done with his jail sentence.
Schefter says Vick will be suspended anywhere from one year to a lifetime. If he only gets a one-year ban, Vick could play that season in the CFL or AFL if he's still intent on getting back to the big leagues. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution believes Vick will formally be suspended next week.
|
|
| 79 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Tue, Aug 21, 2007, 01:26
|
Say it ain't so, Mike
It's unbelievable, unimaginable, that a football player, or anyone associated with that noble sport, would be sullied with the savagery and cruelty of dog fighting. In dog fighting, players are raised and trained to attack other players on the principle that winning is the only thing. Successful fighters are given a luxurious life, with the best of food and comfortable living conditions - until someone better comes along, at which point they are killed, a splendid economy of pension costs. This is inevitable because they are given no life skills outside the game itself, such as chasing frisbees or being tickled behind the ears or playing in the lawn sprinkler with kids, and a ruthless selection and winnowing process reduces their numbers by factors of ten along the way. The whole enterprise is carried on for the amusement of a fan base that gibbers after physical attack and injury, the while reciting pieties about sportsmanship and skill. In dogfighting, the paying audience has no interest whatever in the moral standing or personal qualities of the contestants, as long as they fight and win. Finally, dogfighting supports an industry of illegal gambling embroiled with organized crime and therefore with drugs, prostitution, and the like.
|
|
| 80 | holt
ID: 41512278 Tue, Aug 21, 2007, 05:04
|
He is done. If this were some random DB or OL or something like that then I could imagine there might be a prayer that he could play again, but a QB is held to a higher standard. The QB is the face of the team. This isn't something that people are going to forget.
|
|
| |
| 82 | The Judge
ID: 42725229 Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 10:26
|
I heard on Mike & Mike yesterday that, including signing bonus and lost salary, his actions have cost Vick around $85,000,000.
To me, to risk that much money on ANYTHING bordering on ILLEGAL or IMMORAL just ain't worth it. Heck, I would even give up my drinkin' and my drivin' to keep that much money (and no, I don't do BOTH at the same time).
|
|
| 83 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167 Wed, Aug 22, 2007, 16:25
|
It's not a matter of what Marbury said, it's when he said it.
Right now is probably NOT the best time to come out and say that you feel dogfighting is okay. Particularly if you're a highly-paid professional athlete.
|
|
| |
| 85 | holt
ID: 41512278 Fri, Aug 24, 2007, 20:09
|
LMAO!
|
|
| 86 | Frick Donor
ID: 3410101718 Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 13:37
|
And again....
Vick test positive for marijuana
Well I'm guessing anyone who took the never plays in the NFL option of your local office pool is feeling better after this story. I some how doubt that Goddell is going to just let this slide or be covered by his prior suspension.
|
|
| 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 16:30
|
and his woes continue to compound....
Royal Bank of Canada sues Michael Vick for 2.3 million dollar loan default
TORONTO -- The legal woes of former NFL superstar quarterback Michael Vick took an unexpected Canadian twist yesterday as the country's biggest financial institution, the Royal Bank of Canada, revealed in court documents it's suing the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback for more than US$2.3 million.
The Toronto-based bank, which also does business in the U.S. South under its RBC Centura banner, is arguing Vick's guilty plea on federal dogfighting charges and the resulting impact on his career have prevented him from repaying money he borrowed.
Vick borrowed $2.5 million from the Royal's private banking arm in January, with plans to use the money for real estate investments, the Toronto-based bank said in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Newport News, Va.
Vick, from the Virginia community, now lives in Hampton, Va.
Details of the Royal Bank lawsuit came yesterday as Vick was also indicted on state charges -- on top of his guilty plea last month on federal charges -- related to a dogfighting ring operated on his Surry County property in Virginia.
In its lawsuit, Royal Bank said the loan's terms specify any employment change reducing Vick's income constitutes a default on the loan.
"The defendant has been suspended by the National Football League from his employment as a quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, or his employment is otherwise in jeopardy as a result of a plea bargain agreed to by the defendant in connection with criminal charges stemming from his involvement with a dog-fighting ring," the legal filing said.
Vick, the bank alleges, also failed to "promptly provide" a semi-annual personal financial statement, as well as disclosure of his liquid assets.
Yet Vick has taken certain advances from the term note, accruing interest and other fees or costs, the filings says.
Royal is demanding "immediate payment in full" of $2,313,694.37, plus $499 in interest a day, starting Sept. 19, as well as lawyer's fees.
poor, poor Michael....
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 91 | Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 18:02
|
23 months sentence.
|
|
| 92 | Frick Donor
ID: 3410101718 Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 19:03
|
I heard a couple of reasons for the longer sentence than what the others got.
1. Was that he tested positive for smoking marijuana. 2. He told conflicting stories about the marijuana. He told one official that it was a couple of months before the test and told an FBI official that it was the day before.
|
|
|