Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
