Michael Vick indicted - This guy and his brother have always just missed the reach of the long arm of the law. It now appears he will get caught on this one.
I personally find what they did as totally sick and disgusting.
posted by MikeyA to sports at 1:38 P.M. EST(26 Comments)
Comments ...
If you want details, view the 18-page indictment at The Smoking Gun. From the corresponding TSG article:
"According to prosecutors, Vick and his cohorts began purchasing pit bull puppies in late-2001 and would eventually "sponsor" individual dog fights with purses as high as $26,000. In the indictment's most harrowing parts, federal investigators describe what happened to some Bad Newz Kennels dogs that either lost matches or did not perform well in test fights."
"After a March 2003 loss by a female pit bull, codefendant Purnell Peace, "after consulting with Vick," electrocuted the animal. In April, prosecutors allege, Vick, Peace, and Quanis Phillips, "executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions." These animals, the indictment claims, were killed "by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." "
posted by jr at 01:49 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
This makes me sick.... I hope they get ALL they deserve...
posted by SJD at 02:11 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
Is the number of instances of stupid behavior from professional athletes on the upswing or is it my imagination? These are some of the people, (along with Rappers), that our children are looking up to and whose success they're hoping to emulate. A lot of these celebrities come from poverty and it seems they just plain forgot where they came from and how good they have it now.
In this case, a million-dollar body ferrying around a two-cent mind!
posted by Catharsis at 03:19 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
About six weeks ago, I wrote a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell regarding Michael Vick, urging that Vick be suspended pending the outcome of this investigation.
The response I got (from an NFL PR guy) said, "... any NFL employee proved to be involved will be subject to prompt and significant discipline under our personal conduct policy."
Personally, I think if the evidence is strong enough to indict Vick, then the time has come for the NFL to act.
The "word" is that Vick is not the only NFL player to be involved in dogfighting. If Vick is suspended, perhaps that action will have a ripple effect throughout the league as players decide that risking their multi-million-dollar contracts might not be worth the "thrill" of dogfighting.
Dogfighting is not only disgusting and unthinkably cruel, but I honestly think you'd have to have something seriously not right inside you to enjoy it or participate in it.
posted by jmleong at 04:43 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
Let me start by saying that I think Vick is as innocent as OJ, but...
An indictment is easy to get from a Grand Jury. It only takes probable cause, the defendant has no right to testify at a grand jury, nor does he have the right to challenge or explain the evidence presented against him. There is an old saying that goes, "any good prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich."
My point is this; before you start ranting about how Vick should be suspended, fired, or otherwise by the NFL, consider whether you think that would be reasonable if it happened to you. It's easy to say that you won't have that problem because you are a good person. Believe me, there are plenty of people out there who will say anything if there is something it for them. That is even more true when the police get involved.
Suspendinging someone just for being accused of doing something wrong just isn't fair or smart (unless there is a public or business policy reason). If they are eventually found not guilty, they will most likely sue and will often be able to win. And they ought to. The fact that he is accused of doing something extra despicable doesn't change the fact that every defendant in the United States is innocent until proven guilty (at least in the legal system).
I'm just as aware as everyone else that Vick has probably gotten away with a number of crimes in the past, but that doesn't make him guilty of this one. I THINK he's guilty, but that ain't proof and it sure shouldn't be enough to take away his livelihood. And, so what if he makes a lot of money, that just makes him lucky as hell.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 05:27 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
He shouldn't be fired.. he should be taken out and electrocuted,drowned a bit and hung and maybe slammed into the ground a few times. Over and over until he ends up just like those dogs he so causally ordered killed.
posted by OhioKat at 06:12 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
If the allegations are true, my opinion of Michael Vick sinks much lower than it already was. Granted, my opinion of Michael Vick has more to do with his pathetic fantasy football numbers than his character, which is also lousy.
posted by historymike at 07:12 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
while i'm hardly a legal scholar, i heard plenty of lawyers on sports radio today. everyone pointed out this came from a federal grand jury and that's an important consideration. the feds apparently are much tighter as to whether or not a case gets presented to an actual grand jury. the feds also have a much higher conviction rate; they won't try a case unless they're confident they will win.
anyhow, he's a bottom-dweller. this stuff rates just below kiddie porn/ sex cases for me. i hope he gets punked while in prison.
i would have never guessed his younger brother, marcus, was the better of the two.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:46 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
What do you get when you take a P.O.S. ghetto trash and add millions of dollars?
Rich P.O.S. ghetto trash.
posted by JeepMaker at 09:33 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
"this stuff rates just below kiddie porn/ sex cases for me."
Yeah, but a child molester probably doesn't get as strong a punishment as Vick could get for dog fighting/exterminating.
posted by jr at 09:42 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
You can take the gangsta out of the ghetto, but.......
And on top of this sick shit, he's always been another overrated quarterback who can't decide if he wants to be a running back or not. One week record-breaker, next week benched. Nuts.
posted by Darkseid at 10:04 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
vick is some serious trouble. with this dog fighting, there was gambling. where there is gambling, there is the potential for tax evasion. that is assuming his 1040 doesn't list any income for his dog fighting ring.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 10:58 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 18, 2007 #
My point is this; before you start ranting about how Vick should be suspended, fired, or otherwise by the NFL, consider whether you think that would be reasonable if it happened to you. It's easy to say that you won't have that problem because you are a good person. Believe me, there are plenty of people out there who will say anything if there is something it for them. That is even more true when the police get involved.
Suspendinging someone just for being accused of doing something wrong just isn't fair or smart (unless there is a public or business policy reason). If they are eventually found not guilty, they will most likely sue and will often be able to win. And they ought to. The fact that he is accused of doing something extra despicable doesn't change the fact that every defendant in the United States is innocent until proven guilty (at least in the legal system).
I'm not ranting, but thanks for the characterization.
You argue the side of the coin that is justice, and that's a fine and noble and even patriotic thing to do; and it's something I can respect and appreciate.
However, while the extent of Vick's participation remains, indeed, unproven in court, what does not need to be proven is that Vick bought and owned the property in question, where dogs were kenneled, chained to car axles buried below ground, fought for purse winnings, bred, "raped," and executed. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you have to get a jury's nod on the validity of property deeds filed in auditors' offices.
So, just on that basis, on that fact which is not in dispute, I will answer the question you put to me: *IF* the feds ever came a-knocking on my door armed with a deed in my name to a property where, say, child porn was being made or crystal meth was being manufactured or a terrorist plot was being developed -- whether or not I was under investigation for possibly playing a part in those illegal activities -- I would suspect that none of the employers I've ever had would think twice before disassociating their companies from me. AND if said employer(s) had only in the past couple of years made a big deal out of holding their employees to a higher moral responsibility even while not "at work," via some new "personal conduct policy" they hatched because, say my fellow employees and I spent quite a bit of time in the public spotlight and our out-of-work activities reflected not only on our particular company but on our industry in its entirety, then yeah, that disassociation would be reasonable.
That answer is based only on the deed to the property alone. It doesn't even consider the fact that my employer might have access to an 18-page very detailed federal document which sources four different cooperating witnesses willing to testify that, indeed, I WAS a participant in the alleged illegal activities. It also doesn't consider the fact that maybe some of my colleagues in my industry and associated industries might've been suspended for other unseemly activities, some of them never having even been charged with anything illegal.
Sure, I could sue for wrongful termination if an investigation and jury decision concluded I had done nothing wrong, had never set foot on my own property and was in total ignorance of any goings-on there. But armed with the deed to the property and a better lawyer than I'd possibly procure, I'd expect my employer to claim in court that the deed to the property was enough of an association to illegal activities that it blemished my company's reputation and violated the terms of my contract which included a personal conduct policy.
posted by jmleong at 01:27 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
MorethanRhetoric,
There were many on this and other boards who not only called for a suspension but firing of Don Imus for something that never caused anyone permanent damage.
Vick is charged with the unhumane slaying of animals. He should be suspended.
It's true that an indictment isn't the same as a conviction which is why I only favor a suspension and not firing or banishment. However since the NFL does have rights to "regulate conduct" Vick should be suspended.
posted by MikeyA at 08:23 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
Well, alrighty then.
Certainly no one has ever had their property unknowingly used for illegal purposes. That may or may not have happened here.
Look, I'm not saying I think he's innocent, I highly doubt it. Still, convicting a guy before he's ever had an opportunity to explain or contradict the evidence against him is dangerous. You have no idea how many of the "sources" are people charged with crimes related to this case or in other cases - as you are aware, Vick hangs with one hell of a shady crowd. As for your comment about federal prosecutors, you're right, they only file cases they are fairly certain they can win. But believing that you can win and doing it are two different things. If they always won every case they filed we could just dispose with the whole pesky trial thing.
I don't like the tone in the NFL or the NBA these days, but they decided a long time ago to encourage and coddle thugs. I'm all for getting the Iversons and Lewises out of the sport, but do you really expect that to happen?
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 08:41 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
it was just announced nike is not "changing" their relationship w/ vick. this includes a planned new vick shoe release scheduled for mid-august.
i'm surprised by this, but wonder how long this stance will remain.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 08:55 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
this includes a planned new vick shoe release scheduled for mid-august.
and a line of spiked dog collars with the famous Swoosh embroidered on them...
posted by billy at 09:10 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
"... planned new vick shoe release scheduled for mid-august."
Hah! I can think of a joke or two related to all of this, but I'll refrain out of respect to the dead dogs.
posted by jr at 09:16 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
Uh, oh. I see billy is warming things up.
I suggest the name for the new shoe be: Air Bull-Shoe-Vicks.
"Attend your next dogfight with these extremely soft shoes made from the hides of loser pit bulls."
posted by jr at 09:33 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
Oops, drop the 's' so it's Air Bull-Shoe-Vick, otherwise the vapor rub company may get upset.
posted by jr at 09:36 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
I don't like the tone in the NFL or the NBA these days, but they decided a long time ago to encourage and coddle thugs. I'm all for getting the Iversons and Lewises out of the sport, but do you really expect that to happen?
Actually the NFL just released a new policy that deals with personal behavior.
Currently they are hiding behind the fact that most of the language deals with "repeat offenders" but it does have enough language in it to suspend Vick. The reason why they put this in was because of the Ray Lewis indictment. The NFL should suspend Vick at least for the preseason for this.
Like I said due process is one thing but the NFL is acting like it can't intervene when that is just not true.
posted by MikeyA at 10:26 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 19, 2007 #
this includes a planned new vick shoe release scheduled for mid-august.
Syndicate ToledoTalk
