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.

[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...

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

In PA, you are. My mother was able to evict a tenant due to drug dealing.

[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!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 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!

That is wishful thinking if I've ever heard it. Good luck

[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

[litAKAtor]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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).

Thanks . .this is true. All of the information is not and won't be in the indictment, but I am hoping that have some significant evidence. And as you know "eyewitness accounts" are always questionable. It will remain to be seen how much they really saw or whether it was just what they "heard" Actually, I have not heard of these reports about him moving dogs only him sending money for dogs to be purchased in other states (via the indictment) which were subsequently used in dog fights in both VA and NC. Apparently there is a Federal Statute that makes dog fighting, and the gaming of it, illegal (that is my recollection of the indictment, but I could be wrong).

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.

I would have to disagree when you look at it in relation to the NBA referee situation. Again, that is far more egregious in my eyes vs. Vick and dog fighting. . . but that is jmo.

[AKA_Monet]

But a Federal Grand Jury indicting you is one thing vs. local po-po rolling up in the house busting you for illegal activities...

There would have been neighborhood complaints just due to the nighttime noise ordinances during these alleged "dog fights".

And it is not about 2 male dogs fighting to the death. It is a matter of improper disposal of carcases that breeds maggots and flies among several other things. Not to mention brutal fight wounds exposing both the jugular vein and the carotid artery--which means there was a large sum of blood--which means that makes it a "biohazard"... Moreover, I KNOW he did not have a licensed veterinarian, so pain and distress was NEVER allieviated with Bunoproprine or other vet cleared NSAIDS relievers. And special K is a controlled substance.

The breeding requires a 2-3 dog per kennel max with hay. Only 1 litter per breeding, with special Purina breeder chow for dogs... And kennel changing out occurs 2-3 per week. Moreover, all dogs MUST have strong environmental enrichement due to their social behavior. No matter if Pit Bulls are psycho or not, the fact is if you DON'T walk them or let them play, YOU WILL make them go crazy...

Now, I know Vick may be a dog lover and breed them. But I skeeriousllllyyyy doubt he was following AVMA guidelines, much less AKC or Pit Bull club guidelines.

The other issue is he crossed these "questionably illegal" animals over State Lines... Pit Bulls are illegal in SOME states. That means to me he lacked knowledge of the permits, licensure and papers. Whether he actually did it himself of that was his business, his issue was HE was ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of the dogs. And that is SPCA requirements...

He dayum lucky he was not a researcher because he would have been crucified...

It does make me wonder though, some of these things that are happening to him--was he set up for this fall from grace?

[jon1856]

As my Brother pointed out, the Media is all over this.
Following is a sample of what the Op-Ed cartoonist think/feel about this.
There are some rather well thought out 'toons:
http://cagle.com/news/VicksDogFight/main.asp

[UGAalum94]

Not that this is part of the indictment because I haven't even tried to read it, but don't they also have the cooperative witness who watched Vick retrieve cash to pay the owner of a dog who had beaten one of their kennels dogs?

And a video of him at a fight being greeted by name?

I mean, it's a little more than just buying and breeding pit bulls.