Vick indicted in dog fighting case

[litAKAtor]

I have read the indictment and quite frankly it doesn't establish anything except (1) Vick and the other co-defendants started a breeding business to breed pits; (2) Vick purchased a home in which to conduct the breeding business (3) Vick gave money to the co-defendants to purchase various dogs (4) dog fighting occurred at the home along with various other activities. I am not condoning what when on because it is very disturbing, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the media is convicting this man based on an indictment ONLY. All an indictment means is that the government presented enough evidence to the grand jury to support the grand jury okaying the government to proceed to trial. It doesn't mean that the the government will be able to PROVE the allegations in the indictment, it just means that there was sufficient evidence to proceed. The media won't tell you that.

The problem with all of this is that the government has to prove Vick's knowledge regarding the dog fighting. They are including him based strictly on conspiracy which says to me they don't have any hard evidence except the testimony of an informant (which based on my experience isn't that strong if their credibility is shaky, which it usually is), and other circumstantial evidence, i.e., the house in his name, the money he gave his cousin to purchase dogs in other states. They will have to prove that Vick gave the money to purchase the dogs KNOWING that the dogs would be used to fight. They have to PROVE that Vick knew that dog fighting was going on at the house and actively participated in what was going on (not necessarily that he was there, but that he gave money to his business partners with knowledge that the money was going to be used for ill gotten means).

If Vick is guilty of anything it is being stupid . . .associating with people in his family and with whom he grew up that weren't doing anything with themselves, and didn't have as much to loose as him. I think many professional athletes are guilty of that . . .you trust your friends and your family to have your back and not put you in a bad position or in a situation and they do and you get caught up in it. . .that to me is what is going on here. Bottom line - my belief is that Vick bought the house, sent money to his family and took a passive position as to what was going on up there. . not the brightest thing to do, but that doesn't make him guilty of what is in the indictment.

As an aside, I think the NBA ref who bet on games (allegedly) in which he was officiating is far more egregious that Vick's situation. His conduct challenges the integrity of the previous NBA seasons . . . it reaks of dishonest and to me deserves much more media attention that Vick's case . . .I won't get into the discussion about the double standard here, but I think we know that there is one.