first of all, from my reading, they have to prove bad newz kennels exists as an entity for gambling. second of all, maybe I'm reading to far into it, but handing out money isn't collecting, which the initial indictment only talks about others receiving money. i assume that the threat portion of the law plays a big role because the intention of the law was to stop the mafia from preying on people who couldn't pay back gambling debts.
max, I don't know if you know this but bad newz kennels is not the name of vick's enterprise. its an alleged organization.
1. they just have to show the entity was involved. entities exist for any and all purposes...not one, exclusively, necessary. if i used my law firm to practice law and collect gambling debts my law firm starts falling into RICO concern. 2. you're right...i made mention of that. the indictment talks specifically about the money being handed out directly...but i'm guessing the same sources would be talking about money collected. that's what they'll be asking the co-defendant. and i'm guessing they knew that already. 5 years of activity here...if they paid out gambling debts you can bet they collected them, too. 3. the intent of the law was to zap the money out of organized crime. gambling was a huge source of revenue for the mafia. so this was to give feds a way into prosecuting crimes otherwise left to the states...and to do so aggressively.
why is anyone defending punk like vick to begin with? (and he's a punk with or without the dog fighting).
not really a question of defending him. the question is whether he falls as guilty under the nuances of different statutes. i'm not sure i've seen anyone defend him, personally, except for clinton portis. and it was funny to see emmit smith get on TV and try to pretend to be a lawyer after his stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.
This article spells things out pretty well...I've pulled out the portions that seem to be most relevant to the way the conversation in this thread have gone. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/colum...lester&id=2954580&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2 What other charges are possible as the result of Taylor's cooperation with federal prosecutors? One of the admissions Taylor makes in his agreement with the government is that the kennel and the dogfighting were part of a "business enterprise." Vick and his lawyers do not want to hear about any "business enterprise." It could become the foundation for a racketeering charge in the new indictment to be filed next month. A racketeering charge would raise the stakes for Vick and the others. If they're convicted of racketeering, they could face stiffer prison sentences and forfeitures of anything they own. It was bad enough for Vick to have to defend himself against charges of a conspiracy that lasted for six years in five states. A racketeering charge would make it even more difficult for Vick and his five lawyers to mount a defense. Statistics indicate that federal prosecutors are victorious in more than 90 percent of their cases. Can this be true? Yes. It can be and is true. Federal prosecutors should succeed in more than 90 percent of their cases. They are supported by highly trained and specialized agents of the IRS, FBI, DEA and, in the Vick prosecution, the Department of Agriculture. Federal prosecutors look over what those agents bring them. If the prosecutors aren't satisfied with the evidence, they refuse to prosecute. They won't even present the case to the grand jury. Most state court prosecutors, in contrast, don't have that privilege. They are stuck with whatever evidence the police bring them, and often must go forward even if they have doubts about their prosecutions.
This may have been discussed already in this thread, but I didn't see it. What will be interesting is how his teammates are dealt with. If he really was the ring leader or main financial bankroll for this operation, then odds are he was in deep and probably spoke about this dog fighting stuff to a teammate or two at one point or another. If they traipse enough of his fellow players in to the interrogation room, one of them is bound to spill the beans and admit Vick had discussed this stuff before. A teammate would likely be a lot more credible witness for the prosecutors than another criminal like Vick's cohorts.
Some ppl could like Vick, or the Atlanta Falcons. Some ppl may dominate with him on Madden 2k7. Or some ppl might be bla.. uhh yea, some ppl might like the Falcons.
Didn't ESPN do a poll about how people feel about Vick and how it was broken down by race? I think this case has racial undertones written all over it. DD
i just don't understand why. i would hope anyone would condemn this, no matter the color of their skin.
I think, and this is just my opinion is that some people will be more willing to forgive Vick, and feel that this is just another example of the white establishment coming down hard on Vick, because he is an African American male. Much like the Barry Bonds issue, where an ESPN poll showed that the way people felt about him breaking the record was significantly skewed by one's ethnicity. I actually fall on the serious minority side of things, because I want Bonds to break the record, but the poll showed that most White people did not want him to break it, while a much higher percentage of African American people were on his side in the "Nothing is proven" so we are rooting for him camp. It seems to me that this issue breaks along the same grounds....... DD
I can't believe this much time and energy is being wasted on 4 guys and some dog fighting. Port security surrenders/ etc.
Yeah, even Yahoo! did a story the other day about how 90% of the people against Vick were white outside the courtroom and 95% of the people who supported him outside the courtroom were black. So, does any event in which a highly-publicized African-American figure comes under scrutiny have racial undertones?
Yeah but even Hank caught grief for breaking the record because it is the most coveted record in sports. I think it is relevant because many whites accuse Bonds of knowingly using steroids but blacks feel that he is innocent until proven guilty. Same with Vick, many whites are already saying he is guilty but many blacks are saying he is innocent until proven guilty.
I agree he is innocent until proven guilty, but the pendulum on issues like this has swung a good ways. Witness the Duke Lacrosse team, people of all races had rushed to judgement on them. I don't see the same loyalty to whites accused of crimes from the white community as it seems comes from the African American community when an African American is accused of a crime. I think your question about all high profile cases is relevant......it does show that race is still an issue, regardless of whether people say they are enlightened. As for Mike Vick, I think he is guilty, just because he is up against Federal charges and those usually stick, I also BELIEVE he will have his day in court. And I would feel the same way if it was Payton Manning facing these charges. As for Bonds, I want him to break the record because I think it is cool, even if he did cheat, I believe so many players were cheating it is hard to single him out. DD
absolutely. that's why i keep saying this case is so different from your run-of-the-mill athlete-in-trouble-with-the-law situation. because it's the feds. and federal indictments mean far more than charges in a state court. but there's a difference between being "innocent until proven guilty" before the law...and the rest of us looking at evidence and making up our own minds
