Vick Indicted

[hilltopper2000]

Right, Cam. Except Ken Starr somehow ended up investigating a civil complaint, not a high crime, and the obstruction in Clinton's case, while criminal, was not central to the claim at all. (Arguably, it wasn't even relevant.) But I digress.....

I think this case raises some interesting questions about prosecutorial ethics--a topic spending a lot of time in the sunlight with the Duke fiasco and the corruption at DOJ. If you are the prosecutor, do you go after Vick here because he is famous and rich? Usually, the guideline is the leader/organizer and/or the person who profits the most personally from the criminal conduct. Now, Vick may be all of those things. But what if he was as uninvolved as he suggests? He likely still committed crimes but it would be interesting to see whether the feds enter into plea agreements with more culpable but less famous individuals to get at Vick. I'd say that is unlikely but I bet you'll be hearing such complaints from his lawyers. BTW: Anyone who is even remotely involved with this type of conduct should spend a long long time in prison. I'm with those who think 6 years is far to lenient.

[hifigator]

The more I think about it, the more I guess some of you might have a point. Maybe Vick is more of a silent partner in this and yet because of his popularity, is presented as the main man. I'm not sure that simply having more money should make someone's crime any worse than anyone else. Therefore, just because he bet more money, and won or lost more money doesn't make him any more or less guilty. If, however, it turns out that he used his money to fund greater and greater activity of this sort, then obviously he should suffer a greater burden of the blame. I guess I jumped the gun a bit in presuming that was true. I still have my hunches, but I guess at least in that regard we should view him as innocent until proven guilty. I am fairly confident that he is guilty in at least some cases, but it might be best to let the next stages run their course before we "sentence" him in our own mind. That being said, I think that when all is said and done, he will be holding several of the bags, so to speak.

[HealyHoya]

austinhoya03 said:

healyhoya said:

Second, the conspiracy charge is essentially a legal catch-all. It suggests to any competent defense attorney that the prosecution believes they can establish that the accused's level of participation, knowledge, and involvement in the scheme was so thorough, so complete that the actions of any of the other accused individuals can be attributed to Vick. In other words, for those saying that this indictment DOES NOT mean the federal government is preparing to represent Michael Vick as the "criminal mastermind" behind this dog-fighting ring, think again. Conspiracy indicates evidence of financial facilitation of illegal activities, direct and indirect participation in illegal activities, control and/or influence over the illegal activities, etc.

Clarification of my earlier comments:

The charges are all the same, but details in the indictment may affect the offer each co-defendant receives. If an armed bank robber and the driver of the getaway car are both charged with conspiracy and robbery, it wouldn't be out of the question for the driver to receive a slightly more generous plea deal than the dude who stuck a gun in the teller's mouth.

Here, Vick did put up the money, but that is less abhorrent to most people than some of the other allegations contained in the indictment (although Vick is accused of killing dogs as well). If the case goes to trial, the defendants will be tried separately, and then of course the United States will paint Vick as the chief enabler in this scheme. But we're a long way from a trial.

Your last statement is certainly correct: we are a long way from trial.

While your bank robber example is also correct, your contention that providing financing and cover for a massive dog-fighting operation which facilitated the maiming and killing of allegedly hundreds of dogs is "less abhorrent" is, in my opinion, dubious.

Less abhorrent that what? Attending dog fights? Vick allegedly attended. Owning/training dogs? Vick allegedly did this. Betting? Vick allegedly bet. Actually killing dogs? Vick is alleged to have killed dogs.

There will be shades of gray in this case. I'm not yet convinced that Vick isn't right in the middle of this situation.

Also:

Michael Vick's arraignment and bond hearing have been set for Thursday July 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm at the US District Court in Richmond. A summons has been issues for Vick and the other 3 defendants Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor.

The 3:30pm bond hearing will be before Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Dohnal, the 4:00pm arraignment will be before District Judge Henry E. Hudson.

Vick and the others will be required to self report to the courthouse, no arrest warrant is being issued.

[hifigator]

healyhoya said:

austinhoya03 said:

Clarification of my earlier comments:

The charges are all the same, but details in the indictment may affect the offer each co-defendant receives. If an armed bank robber and the driver of the getaway car are both charged with conspiracy and robbery, it wouldn't be out of the question for the driver to receive a slightly more generous plea deal than the dude who stuck a gun in the teller's mouth.

Here, Vick did put up the money, but that is less abhorrent to most people than some of the other allegations contained in the indictment (although Vick is accused of killing dogs as well). If the case goes to trial, the defendants will be tried separately, and then of course the United States will paint Vick as the chief enabler in this scheme. But we're a long way from a trial.

Your last statement is certainly correct: we are a long way from trial.

While your bank robber example is also correct, your contention that providing financing and cover for a massive dog-fighting operation which facilitated the maiming and killing of allegedly hundreds of dogs is "less abhorrent" is, in my opinion, dubious.

Less abhorrent that what? Attending dog fights? Vick allegedly attended. Owning/training dogs? Vick allegedly did this. Betting? Vick allegedly bet. Actually killing dogs? Vick is alleged to have killed dogs.

There will be shades of gray in this case. I'm not yet convinced that Vick isn't right in the middle of this situation.

Also:

Michael Vick's arraignment and bond hearing have been set for Thursday July 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm at the US District Court in Richmond. A summons has been issues for Vick and the other 3 defendants Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor.

The 3:30pm bond hearing will be before Magistrate Judge Dennis W. Dohnal, the 4:00pm arraignment will be before District Judge Henry E. Hudson.

Vick and the others will be required to self report to the courthouse, no arrest warrant is being issued.

I'm not sure if it came across right. On the surface I pretty much agree with everything you said, and as best as I can tell you and I are pretty close together on implications and their remifications as well.

All I was saying earlier was that I guess we do need to make a distinction between a "silent partner" who just happens to have more money and a financier. Obviously if he was a major player in the development of this entire system of dog fighting then he will get every bit and then some of the blame. But IF and obviously this is a big IF, but if he is the funding party who merely enjoyed a questionable and illegal activity, then I am not sure it is fair to come down on him especially harder because he has more money or has given more money. I do not expect that to be the case, and my gut tells me that when all is said and done, he will in fact have been involved with the activity start to finish and in almost every aspect. Only time will tell.

[AustinHoya03]

healyhoya said:

Less abhorrent that what? Attending dog fights? Vick allegedly attended. Owning/training dogs? Vick allegedly did this. Betting? Vick allegedly bet. Actually killing dogs? Vick is alleged to have killed dogs.

Not trying to excuse Vick's behavior, just saying it looks as if the day-to-day operations of Bad Newz Kennels were run by Vick's co-defendants, including the vast majority of dog training and dog killing. The only time Vick is alleged to have killed dogs, all co-defendants were present (who did the killing?), whereas some co-defendants frequently killed dogs acting alone. Perhaps these guys couldn't have run this operation without Vick's financial backing. Perhaps they frequently acted on orders from Vick. But that kind of information isn't in the indictment. I can't read that indictment and conclude that Vick's participation in this venture equalled or exceeded that of some of his co-defendants. Descriptions of Vick's behavior are limited, whereas descriptions of his co-defendants' behavior are frequent.

To me, being involved in a dog-fighting operation, while disgusting, is not as disgusting as running a dog-fighting operation. It is my conclusion, based solely on the information contained in the indictment (which may very well not tell the whole story) that Vick was involved in the former. You and/or anyone else are free to disagree with those opinions, but that's the way I feel.

[Deleted]

I gotta disagree, Austin. Perhaps Vick wasn't the day-to-day operator of Bad Newz, and perhaps he didn't organize all the fights, or train the dogs every day, or kill the majority of the dead dogs, etc. But its his property. He financed the criminal activity on top of actively participating. He built the house, the secondary structures, the kennels, paid for fencing, hired contractors to build this and that... this is just as reprehensible in my book.

Remember, all the guys living at this house were "unemployed." They had no income to declare. Through Vick's fat wallet they had a big house, plenty of dogs, and the tools with which to conduct all this disgusting s-h-i-t. I'm not saying he's guilty (yet), but from reading the papers, he's just as big a scumbag as the rest of these guys should these acts be proven true. If it weren't for him, I guarantee these guys would not have been engaged in anything OF THIS MAGNITUDE. Might they still have been dirtball dog fighters? Of course... but they aren't the news item. A guy with EVERYTHING TO LOSE is, and if the allegations are even 10% true, Vick rises to a level of dirtbagness reserved for the lowest of the low.

Also, a co-worker pointed out another potential problem for Vick: his involvement in an illegal gambling operation. This obviously doesn't amount to betting on your own team while you're the manager, but this could prove to be as detrimental to Vick's future in the NFL as the dog fighting allegations. We know how paranoid sports are about mixing their employees and gambling - and Vick is involved in ILLEGAL gambling. Just a thought...

[hifigator]

Aww, come on ... Vick was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He just made a bod decision in choosing friends. They were just taking advantage of his generosity. Sure he made a wager every now and then, but it's not like he shot the president or anything. Besides, as cruel as this might sound, I think it is realistic to consider what these other guys -- who were the real dirtbags in my mind -- would have been doing otherwise. In all likelihood, they wouldn't have been working 40 hours a week, raising a family, going to church on Sundays and making sure their kids made good grades. Yes, Vick whether intentionally or not, was actually helping the surrounding communities by keeping obvious derelicts off the streets. I think he should be given a medal.

[theexorcist]

Right, hifi. It's just like midnight basketball, with the teensy tiny exception of dogs ripping out each other's throats. I *really* hope that you're pulling our leg.

You need money to do things. Someone who provides money to make something "big time" is just as responsible as those that did it - probably even more so since Goofus and Doofus can't do it on their own. More money means better security, which means more bets, which means more dogs. If you're fighting organized crime, you don't take down the one or two guys on the streets running protection rackets - you take away the orgaized funding and brains behind everything.

[thebin]

Whether or not Vick was a ringleader so to speak, my understanding is the conspiracy charge means that doesn't matter. Looks like Vick is going to jail, and not for a few weeks. If the allegations are true, I hope he spends years in jail, and never plays again.

I thought the trial was set- and it starts right when camp opens. It seems pretty clear to me Vick ain't playing football this year.

I hear a lot of people giving bogus excuses that this is like hunting for poor rural southerners, and its a cultural thing. Oh yeah, and child abuse is like theatre for the poor and perverted. There are no words for the amount of violence I would like to see come to anyone depraved enough to torture and kill a domesticated animal because he isn't likely to win you much money. I honestly think that dog fighting as an activity should be classified like child porn in that just watching it should be illegal, you don't have to be promoting it to do be doing wrong.

[Elvado]

Vick ( if he is guilty) and anyone who participated in this abomination is, simply, subhuman.

I am so tired of hearing the explanation that this is some cultuarl phenomenon prevalent in the South.

If that is the case, we should have let those bastards secede.

For Mr. Vick's sake, I hope his jailer is above starving him for weeks and then tossing him into a pit with another starving inmate to see who wins the battle.

There is not a hot enpough place in Hell for anyone involved in this unfathomable torture.

[HealyHoya]

thebin said:

Whether or not Vick was a ringleader so to speak, my understanding is the conspiracy charge means that doesn't matter. Looks like Vick is going to jail, and not for a few weeks. If the allegations are true, I hope he spends years in jail, and never plays again.

I thought the trial was set- and it starts right when camp opens. It seems pretty clear to me Vick ain't playing football this year.

I hear a lot of people giving bogus excuses that this is like hunting for poor rural southerners, and its a cultural thing. Oh yeah, and child abuse is like theatre for the poor and perverted. There are no words for the amount of violence I would like to see come to anyone depraved enough to torture and kill a domesticated animal because he isn't likely to win you much money.

bin -- the bail hearing and arraignment are scheduled for the same day the Falcons open training camp. At best, the trial date will be 2-3 months from the arraignment. At best. In all likelihood, Vick's attorneys will absolutely deluge the court with pre-trial motions thereby kicking the start of the trial into the 5-6-months-down-the-road range. This will also buy the defense more time to conduct their own investigation, proceed with plea negotiations, deal with Falcon management, the NFL and sponsors before the very, very, very public nature of the trial takes over.

Edit: Many have speculated that the trial might be postponed until after the NFL season so that Vick can play. I think that's increasingly unlikely because from what I'm hearing (correct me if you have better info) Blank most likely isn't going to let Vick suit up.

[thebin]

I see.

From a business perspective, if I am Blank or Goodell, I make damn sure he never plays again until/if he is proven innocent on all charges. The NFL has to be clear about where they stand here, their rep has been taking a serious beating for off field crap in the last year. The dog loving lobby in this country is quite large, quite emotional, and quite well off. I would distance myself from Vick sharply and quickly, without even pretending to support him, until there is any good reason to believe he is totally innocent- an outcome I find very unlikely at this point. I mean honestly, drowning, beating and electrocuting dogs to death? Its really about as disgusting as human behavior gets. And from a big time franchise QB? I am a lifelong football and NFL lover but this league is starting to get to me. I can't in good faith continue making all of these jerks richer. I'll just do what I did with basketball- switch to college exclusively. Its becoming like the league in The Last Boy Scout.

[AustinHoya03]

FWIW, the more I read about this, the more I am inclined to back off my statements above and adopt Healy and Buffalo's point of view.

Re: thebin's comments above re: the "dog loving lobby," one of my co-workers said yesterday that if any good comes of this, it might be increased donations to SPCA-type groups.

[Deleted]

thebin said:

I see.

From a business perspective, if I am Blank or Goodell, I make damn sure he never plays again until/if he is proven innocent on all charges. The NFL has to be clear about where they stand here, their rep has been taking a serious beating for off field crap in the last year. The dog loving lobby in this country is quite large, quite emotional, and quite well off. I would distance myself from Vick sharply and quickly, without even pretending to support him, until there is any good reason to believe he is totally innocent- an outcome I find very unlikely at this point. I mean honestly, drowning, beating and electrocuting dogs to death? Its really about as disgusting as human behavior gets. And from a big time franchise QB? I am a lifelong football and NFL lover but this league is starting to get to me. I can't in good faith continue making all of these jerks richer. I'll just do what I did with basketball- switch to college exclusively. Its becoming like the league in The Last Boy Scout.

For someone who so adamantly argued to give the Duke Lacrosse players due process, you're certainly jumping on Vick pretty quickly and harshly.

[thebin]

cam said:

thebin said:

I see.

From a business perspective, if I am Blank or Goodell, I make damn sure he never plays again until/if he is proven innocent on all charges. The NFL has to be clear about where they stand here, their rep has been taking a serious beating for off field crap in the last year. The dog loving lobby in this country is quite large, quite emotional, and quite well off. I would distance myself from Vick sharply and quickly, without even pretending to support him, until there is any good reason to believe he is totally innocent- an outcome I find very unlikely at this point. I mean honestly, drowning, beating and electrocuting dogs to death? Its really about as disgusting as human behavior gets. And from a big time franchise QB? I am a lifelong football and NFL lover but this league is starting to get to me. I can't in good faith continue making all of these jerks richer. I'll just do what I did with basketball- switch to college exclusively. Its becoming like the league in The Last Boy Scout.

For someone who so adamantly argued to give the Duke Lacrosse players due process, you're certainly jumping on Vick pretty quickly and harshly.

1. As stated by many, federal indictment and local dipsh!t DA gunning for re-election in a county where 95% of the voters hate Duke kids are not the same thing. Are they?

2. You are not properly remembering my stand on Duke- for which I took crap from good friends and strangers alike until I was proven correct many months later. I didn't just say "give them due process" or some lilly livered thing. I went further than that, taking a lot of crap in the process, and in the hours after the story broke Drudge (weeks before people in the media reported on the holes in the allegations) said the whole thing smelled like BS. It smelled like a set up to me instantly, the allegations seemed too fantastical in nature, and I called BS. My first clue was that rich white Duke kids don't have the stones to yell the N word in rural NC. It spread from there. The only notable thing about this Vick case, which is not new, is that nobody has seen any holes in the accusations yet. And in place of allibies or questions about the evidence we have a lot of "its really not a big deal down south." NOT the same thing as some platitude about innocent until proven guilty. Is it?

3. You'll note that I said "If I were the NFL" and gave a business rationale, which you should know has precisely ZERO to do with Vick's legal rights as a criminal defendant. I have NEVER been one to say shut down the court of public opinion in the name of LEGAL rights. Am I?

A weak volley Cam.

[theexorcist]

One of the consistent themes on dogfighting is that it's hard to get convictions because it's secretive. So, if you can get associated with somebody famous, even on a weak link to a case, it's a great thing. This makes it political. And politics at the federal level interferes with justice (even if it's just a decision about where to focus resources). This case seems solid. But he hasn't been convicted or plead guilty to anything. There's no video evidence of Vick doing any illegal things that's a smoking gun.

If I were the NFL, I'd do the same thing you did - presumption of innocence or not, Vick has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and the NFL doesn't want to deal with being asked every single week why they allow someone to compete who shows such a blatant disregard for ....

But if I were the NFLPA, I'd fight this. Hard. This is not like a PR exec being suspended with pay for a year. All sports, and football in particular, offer a very short window in which to earn your living - and most would argue Vick is close to the peak of his physical traits. Endorsement deals and general fame may suffer if this was going to be the year for Vick. If not, the NFL has blanket discretion to suspend anyone if any case goes to trial.

Short answer, the NFL and other sporting organizations (as well as universities) need to figure out how best to respond to allegations against athletes associated with them in the period when the allegations are made and at least a primary verdict is reached.

[thebin]

Totally agree with you about the NFLPA of course, I understand they have to make a fight for their membership, even if I won't be rooting for them to succeed in this case. But I don't lose a lot of sleep worrying about that particular union winning a big hand against NFL Corporate. Actually one area where I am pretty pro-union is I think the NFL treats their alum members pretty poorly and I think they could be more decent to their walking wounded alums who built the league.

[hifigator]

bin, you made a very poignant statement but unfortunately it will be used to "justify" the wrong actions. Yes, I too think that the retired NFL players are getting a raw deal in their recent controversies with the current union. But where this casues an even greater problem is in cases like Vick. The Union is going to be obligated (rightly or wrongly) to defend Vick until the case plays out. I think that's wrong. And I think it is bad for the league. I think it is bad for the players and I think it is bad for the union.

The most recent statements that I have heard from both the Falcons and the League are that they will let justice run its course and not act on the issue until after that. I think that is wrong. I understand that the college game is totally different, but in most schools other than FSU, players would be suspended indefinitely under accusations far less severe than these, pending a resolution. Then after that punishment would be handed down in an appropriate form.

At least from what the NFL and Falcons have said so far, Vick is innocent in their minds until proven otherwise. I think that the NCAA approach might be a bit more appopriate in this case.

[Deleted]

thebin said:

cam said:

For someone who so adamantly argued to give the Duke Lacrosse players due process, you're certainly jumping on Vick pretty quickly and harshly.

1. As stated by many, federal indictment and local dipsh!t DA gunning for re-election in a country where 95% of the voters hate Duke kids are not the same thing. Are they?

2. You are not properly remembering my stand on Duke- for which I took crap from good friends and strangers alike until I was proven correct many months later. I didn't just say "give them due process" or some lilly livered thing. I went further than that, taking a lot of crap in the process, and in the hours after the story broke Drudge (weeks before people in the media reported on the holes in the allegations) said the whole thing smelled like BS. It smelled like a set up to me instantly, the allegations seemed too fantastical in nature, and I called BS. My first clue was that rich white Duke kids don't have the stones to yell the N word in rural NC. It spread from there. The only notable thing about this Vick case, which is not new, is that nobody has seen any holes in the accusations yet. And in place of allibies or questions about the evidence we have a lot of "its really not a big deal down south." NOT the same thing as some platitude about innocent until proven guilty. Is it?

3. You'll note that I said "If I were the NFL" and gave a business rationale, which you should know has precisely ZERO to do with Vick's legal rights as a criminal defendant. I have NEVER been one to say shut down the court of public opinion in the name of LEGAL rights. Am I?

A weak volley Cam.

I guess it's "Innocent Until thebin Thinks You're Guilty"

I think Vick's guilty as hell, by the way. I'm just content to let the legal system figure that out before passing judgment. Just like you did with the Duke guys.

[thebin]

"'Im just content to let the legal system figure that out before passing judgment. "

wait for it.....

"I think Vick's guilty as hell, by the way."


Both statements are even right next to each other. That's one for the ages. So exactly what judgemental horrors are you sparing us that I guess I imposed on Vick/you with my posts?