Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
