I just explained his level of pissiness, he didn't want his case taken away. he wasn't vocal about not prosecuting vick, he was vocal about getting his ducks in a row, and if the prosecution fails, he'll be right. you guys are arguing as if there is a conviction.
It is probably more a reflection of the fact that it hasn't been handled at all at the state and local level. And anyone that makes light of this crime, as some already have, is pretty immature. The Comish has already said he will wait until guilt is proven and Atlanta pretty much said the same, but if convicted of these FELONIES I suspect Mr. Vick i gone for good.
He was pissy before they took his case. It increased more after his case was taken over. I wasn't clear about that in the original post. He was very vocal about not wanting to indict a guy just because he is famous. O.K. Fine. But what do you do when all that evidence just keeps stacking up? At best, Poindexter is just cautious and conservative. In which case, he would have been better served to shut up and stop talking about what he wasn't gonna do to Vick. At worst, he's helping another rich guy get off. For me, one key is that Poindexter blocked warrants publicly stating that it was so he could have a careful investigation. He provided no excuse for that. The authorities requesting the warrant felt the ducks were in a row and complained, anonymously, to the media. The warrant would have been a key duck to get in the top row. Incidently, just days after the blocked warrant, the feds entered the property to gather evidence. I guess they didn't need their ducks in a row? By the time the feds took the case, the local media and local residents were questioning his motivation. The locals were with him on the patience deal until word leaked that he blocked searches. Then folks were wondering if this was gonna be a "rich guy gets off free" deal. Vick isn't convicted, but my opinion of him has continued to reach new depths as more details come out. I'll stop here.
I posted this in another forum, but...: One of the most common comments (besides unmitigated abhorrence) to the indictment seems to be along the lines of: Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not going to make any assumptions or rush to judgment. When did reasonable doubt become the standard we use to form judgments in every day life? It's a legal standard. It's almost, but not quite, the very highest standard we have in law. The burden of proof is so considerable because it involves the state trying to take away one's liberty. There's only a preponderance of the evidence (51%) standard to take away your property. The state can take away your children (or lock you in an asylum) based on a "clear and convincing" standard of evidence. I don't base my judgments of other people on reasonable doubt. If I think it's more likely than not that some one is a terrible human being like Vick, well, that's good enough for me. If I'm wrong - who really cares? In other situations, I need even less info before acting. For example, if I thought there was a 3% chance my babysitter would abuse my child, there's no way I'd let him/her come near my baby. Screw reasonable doubt. Michael Vick is entitled to force the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict him of a crime. Beyond that - reasonable doubt is meaningless to this discussion. I'm sure that someone will bring up the Duke lacross case. I freely concede that an indictment is not proof of guilt - heck, it's not even evidence of guilt in a legal sense. But, in the end, most people who are indicted are guilty. This reality is even more true in federal court, where prosecutors tend to be more selective in their indictments. The conviction rate is incredibly high. The indictment identifies at least four witnesses who allegedly personally observed Vick involved in dog fighting. Seemingly undisputed physical evidence almost conclusively links Vick's property to dog fighting. His denials of any awareness of the events on his property are, at best, implausible. Maybe the government won't be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it will adduce the necessary evidence, but Vick's attorneys will obfusicate the truth and hoodwink the jury. I don't know. But I'm sick of being lectured by pretentious faux-scholars, without even a basic understanding of the law, telling me that the public is under some obligation to apply a legal standard of proof before making judgments. As far as I can tell based on the information available to me, Vick is a disgrace as a human being. His apologists need to take a hard look at the man they are defending.
the case hasn't even gone to trial yet. as far as the babysitter example, people don't have that type of vested interest in the case so that's neither here nor there. but you're not even arguing reasonable doubt, you use that as a guise to hide the fact that you believe anyone charged with a crime is guilty.
Didn't the dogfighting story break before May of this year? For Vick to get nailed under the federal statute, he has to have done the criminal acts after the date the law went into affect. He'd have to be an idiot to be involved in this stuff AFTER the story broke.
Jones hasn't even been accused of shooting that man. I think the Pac-Man at this point is being unfairly targeted. That doesn't mean I don't think he doesn't deserve to be suspended and that he's doing nothing wrong. Vick has really showed a poor attitude the last couple of years. All of the criticism has really gotten to him. He's more like Marcus than people realize. I think he'll be convicted on at least one count, or some kind of plea bargain will be reached and he'll plead no contest. This of course is just the feeling that I get.
The indictment is shocking. I did not expect Vick to be so prominent in it. I expected him to be the money-man. Or a name involved. But not like this. If the government is correct...if he bought this property and then almost immediately they set up the dog training crap there...if that is believed by the jury...then I can't see how this guy is gonna get off. Of course, I've thought that before. But the facts are so gruesome...the story the prosecutors will have to tell is gonna shock people. Particularly when told through the testimony of witnesses who claim to have been there. The feds aren't known for willy-nilly indictments...particuarly in high profile cases like this. My best guess is they believe there is significant substantiation of these allegations. I've said before here that I "liked" Michael Vick. That I doubted him as a QB...but that, generally, I liked him. He's making that pretty difficult. If only 1/3 of this stuff is true....yikes.
I didn't think he would be indicted since it seemed like so much evidence was based on informants/witnesses. The informants and witnesses in this case are probably a prosecutors nightmare, so I'm thinking there must be more evidence. Either way, in the court of public opinion, Vick is screwed.
The evidence is what it is. Like the fact they raided the home he owned and found it was being used to train dogs for fighting. Include that with the testimony. So roughly 90% of federal indictments end in a guilty plea or a guilty verdict. The feds don't play around. I think Vick will eventually enter a guilty plea...because he can't afford for these facts to get before a jury. His worst day before a jury is time in prison...and honestly, if he's found guilty before a jury based on these facts, he's going to prison. If he enters a plea, I can only assume the NFL will suspend him for some period of time. If Pacman gets a year for crimes he has not been indicted for, what would Vick get for a guilty plea in a federal case with these kinds of facts?? I read one article this morning that suggested the Falcons MIGHT take the NFL off the hook (perhaps even with pressure from the NFL) by giving Vick a free pass to take the year off to deal with this.
If Vick is convicted, even if he is not sentenced to prison, his NFL career is history. If the charges are true, the man is one sick human being. Look for the Falcons to sign Daunte Culpepper.....pronto.
Even if he isn't found guilty, he is guilty. The guy owned property where this stuff was going down. At the very least, he's guilty of facilitating this in my mind. No way will I ever believe that he bought a house that was immediately converted into a dog fighting pavilion where dogs were executed and he knew NOTHING about it. The rest of the stuff alleged in the indictment is awful, but that's what dogfighting is. If he did what the indictment says he did, I hope he doesn't get off.
