And if the Feds have already traced to money to his accounts . . . . he's beyond ed.
He should've just made a plea bargain.
The opportunity to plea bargain never stops until you are convicted.
I very much expect Vick to plea the case. He stands to gain nothing by going thru with the trial, if he is guilty.
So he pleas, the Fed gets their conviction, Vick doesnt do jail time, but the details of the case are never argued and we, the public, will never know what really happened.
Touche
Lastest info has Vicks money directly tied to setting up some large events. Ultimately without his money the events would not have gone off. I really hope they nail this guy.
He won't do jail time? I thought if the Feds got their conviction you were done anyway? Meaning that you would get jail time. Maybe not the whole 6 years, but at least something....
If Vick pleads guilty, his football career is over.
The opportunity to plea bargain lasts as long as the prosecution has an offer on the table. At this point, I don't know if the prosecution has an offer on the table or ever will have one on the table. It will all revolve around two things: if there are bigger fish than Vick that the prosecution can go after with testimony from Vick, and the confidence the prosecution has in it's witnesses and evidence against Vick.
If Vick is the the big target of the prosecution's case and they feel pretty confident in their evidence and ability to convict (which is what it seems like at this point), then there will not be an offer to Vick and they will use their resources to attempt to take his ass down.
ESPN's legal analyst said that since they have one of the defendants pleading "guilty", which pretty much means he turned on Vick, the Feds are going to be less willing to strike a deal with Vick.
So, in essence, he's going to be facing some prison time.
I dont know, to be quite honest. But high profile cases like this...
Like I said, he gains nothing by going to trial IF he has an actual hand in the gambling/dog-fighting. Reason being is that he was indicted by the Feds. Indictments dont hinge upon cir stancial evidence, they have phone records, eye witness testimony, a money trail, etc, etc, etc.
Pleading "not guilty" is a stall tactic. Buys him and his defense some time to haggle a deal, see where they stand, etc.
Ultimately, I expect him to plea to some lesser charges with no jail time and some big-WHOPPING fines only a superstar millionaire could afford. He'll buy his way out of it, but not quite so.
What he stands to gain by pleaing down is obvious. No jail time (potentially, Im guessing) and most importantly, no discovery. Evidence will never be revealed nor argued. Details will never come to light (or at least not in the same capacity). He'll leave himself the most important asset he could possibly hope for at this stage....doubt.
Doubt that he did it. Doubt that he wasnt rail-roaded. Doubt so that the TLWisfoines, RC's Boss and the Day Day Cartiers of the world can always say this was a racist witchhunt and he pleaded so he wouldnt get totally rolled over.
At least, thats how I see it going down. A conviction, yes. Closure, not a chance in .
That is completely true. No argument here. But the best he can hope for is community support afterword under the assumption that this was a racist prosecutor in a racist country that continues to try and prosecute innocent black men like OJ and Vick.
Hmmm, good point. I still expect a plea bargain. Money talks, bull ...you know the rest.
disclaimer: I hope I am wrong IF he is guilty of the crimes he is charged with.
And right on queue....
Word is that if the case goes to trial, DeAngelo Hall might be called to testify.
Alfred plea. Book it.
I might be late to the game with this, but HBO's Real Sports has a segment airing this week that deals with dog fighting. It was graphic (though I'm sure not as graphic as it could have been) and alarming, if only because of the complete lack of concern the dog fighters have for the animals -- and not just their own animals, but dogs who are pets and (allegedly) are taken to be used as "sparring partners" for the fighting dogs. The "sparring partners" are usually incapacitated in some way before being thrown into the fight; they showed heartbreaking pictures of a family pet who was used for that purpose and had its mouth taped shut to prevent resistance against the fighting dog; in another story, the kidnapped pet had its hip shattered, presumably by the fighting dog's handler.
I posted it earlier in the thread, but seeing that reminded me of my original thought about dog fighters -- they strike me as the kind of people who get a thrill from watching Russian Roulette, but would never have the balls to actually put the gun to their own heads and pull the trigger.
We get mad over dog fighting, and yet we support violent sports such as boxing and ultimate fighting?
Boxers and ultimate fighting participants have self-determination to enter those events; the dogs do not.
To me, its not just about the violence that is inherent in those events; it's about the degree to which those who have the violence visited upon them can choose whether to participate. The dogs don't have any say in that issue -- frankly, to the extent that they have any "say" at all, it's limited to fight or be executed.
No boxer or MMA fighter ever faces that choice.
Dog fighters seem to speak of the thrill of a fight, but ironically, aren't doing any of the fighting themselves. Frankly, I suspect most of the dog fighters wouldn't stand a chance in a real fight with anyone; they consider themselves tough guys but aren't willing to do anything more than send an innocent proxy in to wage that fight for them.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 08-15-2007 at 03:46 PM.
Thats the dumbest damn argument anyone can make on this.
Do you think youre the first idiot to come up with that original defense of dog fighting since this Vick case broke?
Youll be in a line among other village idiots who even think for a moment that a comparison between dog fighting and professional boxing/fighting have even the slightest correlation.
Among the (literally) thousands of ways one could argue against such an asinine statement, lets start and end with the most completely obvious.
What is legal? Easy answer.
Which sport(s) draws HUGE pay per view numbers, watched and dissected by millions of people the country over?
If dog fighting were allowed and was showcased on PPV, it would be the last truly alarming signal that we as a society are nothing more than sociopaths under a false sedation called "Civilization" if more than 2000 people ordered it.
-------
The only "sport" I can think of (right now) that even remotely compares to dogfighting is bullfighting.
Yet, the matador is in the ring, putting his life on the line (in a very crude sort of way). While I dont agree with it (nor does the American public at large), the human enters a ring with an enraged animal with nothing more than a cape and a few stabbing swords.
Dogfighting just throws two dogs in a ring, see who limps out last, and the loser gets some torturous death at the hands of some ing wacko without the basic human emotion called compassion.
that just made me want to throw up. I despise Michael Vick and all those like him. yeah, yeah. Not guilty til proven and all that. But we all know he did it. And we all know he'll get off too.
Micheal Vick is going to prison.
That's for damned sure now.
It's over for him.
His career is over.
He will be playing football in Canada when he gets out of prison.
Damn Dark Reign, do you get this passionate over the genocide happening in Darfur, or other atrocities that are against actual human beings, or do you just have a bleeding heart towards those damn dogs?
Secondly, I know those sports are legal and the participants are willing participants, but that doesn't make it any less brutal and gory, and we all sit back watch and enjoy as these men enter the ring with one objective, to bring the other man to his destruction. Not to mention the effects that such sports have on a person later on in life.
Wait, did you just try to change the subject? Vick's case isnt about Darfur. Start a thread in the Political Forum led "Darfur". Until then, this thread is in the NFL section led "Falcons' Vick indicted by grand jury".
I'll stay on topic, thanks.
I started bolding your first sentence, then realized you contradicted yourself at the end.Secondly, I know those sports are legal and the participants are willing participants, but that doesn't make it any less brutal and gory, and we all sit back watch and enjoy as these men enter the ring with one objective, to bring the other man to his destruction. Not to mention the effects that such sports have on a person later on in life.
"...how gory" "...later in life"
Until society allows the "Two men enter, one man leaves" rule, this isnt a comparison. And then, even then, the two combatants are doing it willfully.
So, to make your point for you, for dogfighting to be even remotely compared to human pugilists, the rules would be...
1. Two men enter, one man leaves (no exceptions)
2. The two combatants must have NO VIABLE CHOICE whether or not to participate.
Until boxers and ultimate fighters train for fights by pummeling your kidnapped sister to death, just shut your stupid ass the up.
Is Ron Mexico gonna have to electrocute a ?
I don't disagree with you about the brutality of any fighting sport -- it's why I generally am uninterested in those sports.
But I can easily draw a distinction between humans who exercise their own self-determination and choose to participate in a combat sport and an animal that has no self-determination and is forced to fight.
As to the effects of such sports on the participants later in life, there's also a marked distinction in the genres. Fighting dogs are generally killed once their fighting days are over -- they're killed in the pit, they're killed by their owners, or they're saved from the owners but euthanized by animal control authorities because they're too dangerous to put up for adoption. Boxers and other humans who participate in fighting sports may spend the rest of their lives in pain or facing other difficulties, but they at least have an opportunity to live -- and to live a life on terms that they chose for themselves, having taken a punishment that they chose to subject themselves to.
As such, I absolutely do not see any viable comparison between boxing and dog fighting.
Dark Reign: Firstly, I would start a topic about Darfur but it wouldn't get any responses since nobody seems to care about suffering black people. Secondly, how the was I contradicting myself? The affects of these sports are two fold, you see the immediate affects of the fight when you see the person all bruised and bloodied up. All you have to do is look at the likes of Ali to see the long term affects. Did that make it through your thick skull, dummy.
FromWayDowntown: I agree with you that there obviously is a difference between choosing to do something dangerous and being forced to do something dangerous. What I'm trying to say here is that I just find it a bit hypocritical for people to condemn one combat sport but cheer for another, and I am not calling you a hypocrite since you expressed your general disintrest in those sports. Also, if the dogs were not to be killed, and it seems to me that is what people are the most angry about, then would it be okay if they just fought each other?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote