Grand Jury Indicts Vick

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

I also heard about someone who woke up in a tub of ice with their kidneys removed.

Ever heard of an urban legend?

The way people run with this is sickening.

What is the NFL supposed to do? By the way, we live in the United States, not Nazi Germany.

Due process anyone?

I have to side with Grim on this one, he deserves to have a fair trial before any punitive action is taken by the league.

That being said, it's not looking good for him at this point. If he is found guilty of what is alleged I hope he never plays another down again.

[djnemo65]

ESPN - Federal indictment intensifies Vick's legal issues - NFL

Excellent article detailing the depth of the challenge Vick faces

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Seriously, Ookie? What the fuck, atleast pick a better name. I really hate Vick and this whole situation doesn't really help. I am pretty much shocked about this, and since this a federal inditment it is very serious. It is about 96 percent of federal indictees that get convicted.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I have to side with Grim on this one, he deserves to have a fair trial before any punitive action is taken by the league.

That being said, it's not looking good for him at this point. If he is found guilty of what is alleged I hope he never plays another down again.

I agree he deserves a fair trial but the federal government usually doesn't fuck around for the fun of it. The feds have been doing this for 2 years along with the grand jury. There has been some seriously stuff going on that we didn't know.

This is not like the Duke lacrosse charges that were brought up by some local DA. Of course he might not face jail time or whatever, but the way this is going Vick is gonna have to plea to some lesser charge. I highly doubt he will actually fight this unless he truely is innocent. I mean the feds cited 84 instances of cruelty from drowning dogs to dog rape stands. Why would the government go out of their way to charge a high profile athlete? Due to limited funds and other priorities I doubt the government would base this all on circumstantual evidence. They got a solid 2 year case going on here.

I think everyone has the right to say what they feel about Vick. Give the man his trial but Grim and others need to realize this is the Feds, it is a whole different ballgame. The chances of this being just some big misunderstanding at one of his properties seems to be decreasing.

[jsarno]

This is retarded:
on charges of sponsoring a dogfighting operation so grisly the losers either died in the pit or sometimes were electrocuted, drowned, hanged or shot.
And the MAX he would get is 6 years????? That's wrong...he should get a lot more than just 6 years for brutally killing animals. That's plain wrong, and upsetting.

[Daseal]

Grim Reaper and Nemo: When Goodell released his player conduct policy one of the things in it that I didn't like was that someone could be suspended before any sort of conviction from due process came around. Simply putting yourself in the position to get in trouble was enough. However, I don't feel you can suspend pac-man and chris henry (not sure if he's gone to trial yet) if they haven't been convicted, then let Vick slide. Sounds a bit unfair to suspend one person for all of the alleged things they've done yet let the league poster-boy go.

Personally, I wish that everyone had to be convicted before the league could take any action. Hell, ST probably would have been out for 4 games when he had all of his legal troubles. The NFL needs to stay consistent with their rulings. While I think Vick is guilty, that story about him breaking the dogs back is nothing but rumor until proven otherwise. However, I have heard stories about Vick dog fighting when he was at tech, I marked it down to rumor but things are really starting to point against Vick. If he did it, I hope he goes down and hard. If he didn't I hope he comes out innocent when everything is all said and done, but I doubt he will.

[BrudLee]

Noted bastion of good journalism ProFootballTalk.com has correctly noted that Vick could face a lifetime ban for being involved in gambling activities that bring disrepute to the league. He sponsored an interstate dogfighting ring, placed bets on dogs, and killed dogs whose performance did not meet his standards. That's almost textbook "disrepute".

By the way, we malign ProFootballTalk for reporting conjecture frequently, but they have been way out in front on this story. I urge those who haven't to read their coverage.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Grim Reaper and Nemo: When Goodell released his player conduct policy one of the things in it that I didn't like was that someone could be suspended before any sort of conviction from due process came around. Simply putting yourself in the position to get in trouble was enough. However, I don't feel you can suspend pac-man and chris henry (not sure if he's gone to trial yet) if they haven't been convicted, then let Vick slide. Sounds a bit unfair to suspend one person for all of the alleged things they've done yet let the league poster-boy go.

Personally, I wish that everyone had to be convicted before the league could take any action. Hell, ST probably would have been out for 4 games when he had all of his legal troubles. The NFL needs to stay consistent with their rulings. While I think Vick is guilty, that story about him breaking the dogs back is nothing but rumor until proven otherwise. However, I have heard stories about Vick dog fighting when he was at tech, I marked it down to rumor but things are really starting to point against Vick. If he did it, I hope he goes down and hard. If he didn't I hope he comes out innocent when everything is all said and done, but I doubt he will.

I agree with you in this sense: Vick doesn't have to be convicted, it only has to be proven that he had knowledge of or was in attendance at said events. If that can be proven, and it seems like that won't be a stretch at this point, that he is at least guilty of lying to the commissioner.

It is important to note that a critical standard in the NFL's conduct policy is repeat offenses, so ST would have been safe pending his trial. Vick is technically a first time offender as well, although this is an extraordinary crime.

Anyway, all this aside, I think a suspension should be the least of the man's worries right now.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Noted bastion of good journalism ProFootballTalk.com has correctly noted that Vick could face a lifetime ban for being involved in gambling activities that bring disrepute to the league. He sponsored an interstate dogfighting ring, placed bets on dogs, and killed dogs whose performance did not meet his standards. That's almost textbook "disrepute".

By the way, we malign ProFootballTalk for reporting conjecture frequently, but they have been way out in front on this story. I urge those who haven't to read their coverage.

I'm listening to Boomer Esiason on the radio right now and he said that although he normally hates PFT he feels like they have been top notch covering this case. Apparently the guy who runs the site is or was a lawyer and he seems to really know the ins and outs of this sort of thing.

[gibbsisgod]

Didn't Nike say they were not going to terminate his endorsement deals? Bet they are regretting that now.

I got about half way through the story and stopped reading. I can't imagine anyone being that cruel. MV, if this is true, I hope you get the max. You are an underachieving, overpaid, sub-par qb and I hope you burn in hell you Fucking Fuck!

[Schneed10]

Within Goodell's policy is a clause stating that if you're a repeat offender of the conduct policy, your due process need not be played out in order to receive a suspension. That's what happened with Pac Man and Henry. They were repeat offenders, with several arrests and run-ins with the law, and hence Goodell did not wait for verdicts to be rendered on their latest cases; he went ahead and suspended them.

This is where it gets interesting for Vick. He is not a repeat offender in the same way that Pac Man and Henry are. Sure Vick had the water bottle with the hidden compartment, and he gave the finger to the fans, but neither of those situations ever brought on an arrest or charges from the cops. So technically, this is Vick's first run-in with the law. And Goodell's policy clearly states; if you're a first time offender, you will be allowed your due process before a suspension is levied.

I think Goodell has to let this one play out. Then when he's eventually convicted (based on the evidence in the indictment, I'd be SHOCKED if he wasn't convicted), he'll get at least a season ban if not more.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Warpath

This article has some horrible stuff in it...
...Fifty-four pit bulls were recovered from the property during searches in April, along with a "rape stand," used to hold dogs in place for mating; an electric treadmill modified for dogs; and a bloodied piece of carpeting, the documents said.
...Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, according to the documents. The property has an above-ground swimming pool, and investigators were seen looking into the pool Friday.
...investigators uncovered the graves of seven pit bulls that were killed...

Im not sure what actually happens when a person gets indicted. Does that mean there will be a trial? As a dog owner I can't see how people can do this and think its horrific. I hope Vick goes down, not because I don't like him but because hes famous and maybe they can make a big deal of out this so that people will know its not tolerated in the future.

A "rape stand" more commonly reffered to as a breeding stand is a common tool in dog breeding, and not illegal anywhere (as far as i know). The media likes its nickname because it sounds cruel, but if you own a dog theres a good chance your pup was conceived with the help of this breeding tool. But maybe your dog is a "love puppy"

[Schneed10]

For those of you questioning whether Vick will get convicted, you need to read the evidence. I'd like to know what defense a good attorney could possibly use to poke holes in the case?

It's impossible. There are tons of witnesses with tons of different accounts of wrongdoing.

And no, the prosecutors are not going to cut a deal with Vick to get him to roll on others. He's a public figure, and therefore the big dog (sorry for the pun). He's the guy the prosecutors want to take down; they're not going to cut a deal to go after a bunch of relative small timers.

As for the time in prison, I bet he hardly does any. But I think a conviction is in his future, and hence a major punishment from the NFL.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Within Goodell's policy is a clause stating that if you're a repeat offender of the conduct policy, your due process need not be played out in order to receive a suspension. That's what happened with Pac Man and Henry. They were repeat offenders, with several arrests and run-ins with the law, and hence Goodell did not wait for verdicts to be rendered on their latest cases; he went ahead and suspended them.

This is where it gets interesting for Vick. He is not a repeat offender in the same way that Pac Man and Henry are. Sure Vick had the water bottle with the hidden compartment, and he gave the finger to the fans, but neither of those situations ever brought on an arrest or charges from the cops. So technically, this is Vick's first run-in with the law. And Goodell's policy clearly states; if you're a first time offender, you will be allowed your due process before a suspension is levied.

I think Goodell has to let this one play out. Then when he's eventually convicted (based on the evidence in the indictment, I'd be SHOCKED if he wasn't convicted), he'll get at least a season ban if not more.

Does the conduct policy only refer to run-ins with the law. If not he isn't first time offender. Flipping the fans the finger last year should fall into the conduct policy somewhere.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

Does the conduct policy only refer to run-ins with the law. If not he isn't first time offender. Flipping the fans the finger last year should fall into the conduct policy somewhere.

Therein lies the gray area. We'll see how Goodell interprets it.