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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not trying to argue........but it isn't just the media that is all over this guy. Watch ESPN sometime.........I have seen probably 7 or 8 different defense attorneys and prosecutors that all agree that Vick is in a serious, serious amount of trouble. Now, this may have changed, but ESPN's head legal analyst also said that the state (Georgia) isn't going to charge him with anything simply because the Federal Courts have such a strong case against him. I dunno, I just don't think they take him to court without a strong case. (read: they don't start trials that they don't have a very, very strong chance of winning).

Furthermore, the whole "I didn't know what was going on there" defense is pretty weak. Pretty sure you are responsible for what happens on your property.

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Not trying to argue........but it isn't just the media that is all over this guy. Watch ESPN sometime.........I have seen probably 7 or 8 different defense attorneys and prosecutors that all agree that Vick is in a serious, serious amount of trouble. Now, this may have changed, but ESPN's head legal analyst also said that the state (Georgia) isn't going to charge him with anything simply because the Federal Courts have such a strong case against him. I dunno, I just don't think they take him to court without a strong case. (read: they don't start trials that they don't have a very, very strong chance of winning).

Don't get me wrong, I never said the allegations weren't serious, they are . . but don't be misled either . . just because someone is indicted doesn't mean they will win. neither does it mean that the government has a very very strong change of winning. . it just means there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. . .the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is a VERY HIGH standard . .and unless they have some fool proof hard core tangible evidence linking him . . the informant testimony may not fly.

Furthermore, the whole "I didn't know what was going on there" defense is pretty weak. Pretty sure you are responsible for what happens on your property.

In some cases you are. . but not always. They have to present evidence that he either was acquiescing to what was going on, or was an active participant. . both of which require that he have some knowledge. Just because something happens on your property doesn't necessarily mean you are always responsible. Case in point .. if you rent a house to someone and someone is selling drugs out of the house, you aren't responsible and can't be held criminally liable for the trafficking of drugs unless there is some evidence that you knew that activity was going on. KNOWLEDGE is key here and if they don't have any evidence that he knew what was going on - the charges aren't going to stick . .period

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by litAKAtor

Don't get me wrong, I never said the allegations weren't serious, they are . . but don't be misled either . . just because someone is indicted doesn't mean they will win. neither does it mean that the government has a very very strong change of winning. .

I read recently that the US Government has something like a 95% (maybe 98%) success rate in trials and hasn't lost a case since 1994. I just don't think they take cases to trial that they don't think they have an excellent chance of winning.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I read recently that the US Government has something like a 95% (maybe 98%) success rate in trials and hasn't lost a case since 1994. I just don't think they take cases to trial that they don't think they have an excellent chance of winning.

Especially high profile cases with the kind of evidence that has leaked out about this one.

You wouldn't want to think they're going to lose this one, but I'm constantly surprised by the government's ability to goof stuff up.

[ZTABullwinkle]

My fiancee thinks that he will be able to get a lawyer who will be able to get the innocent verdict. I think he is screwed.

It seems to me that the amount of time that has passed was specifically so the government had a case. At least the government is doing more than the Commonwealth's Attorney for Surry County. (Yet again, the Surry County grand jury met this week. The CA wants to investigate more before he presents anything to the grand jury. Umm, yeah....right!)

They are expecting a circus at the court tomorrow. Blocking streets to traffic among other things. I am sure I will have my fill of the whole arraginment by tomorrow night.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ZTABullwinkle

My fiancee thinks that he will be able to get a lawyer who will be able to get the innocent verdict. I think he is screwed.

It seems to me that the amount of time that has passed was specifically so the government had a case. At least the government is doing more than the Commonwealth's Attorney for Surry County. (Yet again, the Surry County grand jury met this week. The CA wants to investigate more before he presents anything to the grand jury. Umm, yeah....right!)

They are expecting a circus at the court tomorrow. Blocking streets to traffic among other things. I am sure I will have my fill of the whole arraginment by tomorrow night.

If Jeffrey Skilling couldn't hire a good enough lawyer to get him out of trouble........I seriously doubt Michael Vick could.

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

Especially high profile cases with the kind of evidence that has leaked out about this one.

You wouldn't want to think they're going to lose this one, but I'm constantly surprised by the government's ability to goof stuff up.

Exactly . . in a Jury System NOTHING is 100% . .

[virgo921]

I wonder what the potential penalty is for all of the charges against him. No offense to any animal lovers but Vick is getting this attention because he's famous. Charge him, try him, convict if necessary and let's move on.

Is it just me?

[Drolefille]

Aren't you responsible for illegal activities that happen on your property, whether you're there or not?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Aren't you responsible for illegal activities that happen on your property, whether you're there or not?

I don't think so. I mean, if two people rob the house next to yours, and the owner comes out with a gun, and by the time he shoots them, they're all on your property, you couldn't be held responsible. I doubt there's any way that they could make a law that was spesific enough to cover appropriate/inappropriate applications.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I don't think so. I mean, if two people rob the house next to yours, and the owner comes out with a gun, and by the time he shoots them, they're all on your property, you couldn't be held responsible. I doubt there's any way that they could make a law that was spesific enough to cover appropriate/inappropriate applications.

That's what I'm wondering though, I was under the impression that if, lets say you host a poker game every week. One week you have other plans but you tell your buddies to use your house anyway. All of a sudden the cops bust the game for illegal gambling (I know totally happens all the time). I would think you'd be liable even though there's no proof you knew about the illegal gambling.

Does it come down to what your buddies say you knew? Same with Vick, if those who actually did the fighting said "he knew" is that enough? (I suppose it's enough for conspiracy at least...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's what I'm wondering though, I was under the impression that if, lets say you host a poker game every week. One week you have other plans but you tell your buddies to use your house anyway. All of a sudden the cops bust the game for illegal gambling (I know totally happens all the time). I would think you'd be liable even though there's no proof you knew about the illegal gambling.

Does it come down to what your buddies say you knew? Same with Vick, if those who actually did the fighting said "he knew" is that enough? (I suppose it's enough for conspiracy at least...

The bolded part is where your analogy breaks down - you're clearly responsible, in some measure, for activities that you condone or order on your property, regardless of whether you're there.

Remember, the indictment is not going to list all of the government's evidence against Vick - there are many reports of eyewitness accounts placing Vick at the scene of fighting, and of him moving dogs personally to other states to wager and fight (hence, Federal case) . . . the 'missing link' in the case that litAKAtor noted won't necessarily be in the initial indictment/complaint (which I'm sure she knows, but is worth pointing out).

Given those reports, I'm not so sure the media coverage has been as heavy-handed as some claim - I think it's been surprisingly fair, honestly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The bolded part is where your analogy breaks down - you're clearly responsible, in some measure, for activities that you condone or order on your property, regardless of whether you're there.

Remember, the indictment is not going to list all of the government's evidence against Vick - there are many reports of eyewitness accounts placing Vick at the scene of fighting, and of him moving dogs personally to other states to wager and fight (hence, Federal case) . . . the 'missing link' in the case that litAKAtor noted won't necessarily be in the initial indictment/complaint (which I'm sure she knows, but is worth pointing out).

Given those reports, I'm not so sure the media coverage has been as heavy-handed as some claim - I think it's been surprisingly fair, honestly.

However, you'd say that you let them use the house but that you didn't know they were going to play for money. (Much like Vick knew there were people and dogs at his house, just not what they were doing in this hypothetical)

I really haven't followed it closely enough to know all the details, I was just operating under the assumption that there wasn't anything tying him to it other than owning the property for the sake of discussion and my curiousity.

[OneTimeSBX]

fyi: it is a regular circus down here in richmond...they're closing a whole street down from 6a to 6p for the media that is coming in to be at the courthouse...i hope this is quick and precise!