http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/etick...e=vicksatlanta
It raises some very good points. It's easy to see why the black community in Atlanta isn't nearly so quick to rush to judgement as most of the rest of America.
Absolutely ing ridiculous. None of that made sense at all. So because Atlanta has a strong history of good black people fighting the good fight we should all ease up on this guy. Why....because he's black and lives in Atlanta.
Great tidbits of history but none of it had to do with Vick. It was his ing house with his money tied up in his kennel. His finances are directly linked to his kennel's sanctioned events.
NO NO NO its racism. Total garbage.
I'm sorry, but Michael Vick and dogfighting is the wrong ing place to make a stand. It's about cruelty to animals. There's scores of young black men on death row, guilty or not, that didn't get adequate legal representation. But Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would rather hold hands with Tookie Williams because he wrote some poems.
The point of the article is to show that it may be unfair to rush to judgment. As far as I know every citizen is innocent until proven guilty.
Allow me to play devil's advocate here: Has Vick been incarcerated? The legal system has not given him anything but innocent until proven guilty.
But you and I both know that the court of public opinion will simply not allow for innocence until proven guilty however right/wrong it may be. It's pretty sad, too.
But I'd love to see how many of Vick's defenders (and as the article said, some could probably be seen as defending Vick because of his position as a starting QB of the Falcons) have come out for Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, Tank Johnson and Bill Romanowski.
And tlong, your company bowed to consumer outrage.
I didn't say Vick wasn't en led to due process. I just think that the black community could do better when it comes to pointing out some of the injustices in our society.
Just because he's innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean we can't formulate an educated assumption to his guilt beyond what is already fact. The information that is stacking against his is pretty hard to ignore.
I think he's guilty as not to mention wether he actually physically committed these acts on dogs or not doesn't take away the fact that it happened in his home with his kennel supported by his money with his animals, of that he's guilty and cannot be argued any other way. Thats cold hard fact, so for some reason just because he may or may not have participated directly we should all reserve judgement? Thats horse .
So he's getting due process to determine wether he actually physically personally hurt these animals and personally partook in these events. Still doesn't change the fact that it was his money and his company and his house and his animals. Since its fact that he's guilty of that why shouldn't we be blasting him. He is an adult isn't he. Or is he not responsible for his home, his money, his kennel and his animals and what goes on with them wether he pysically has his hands on them or not?
None of that matters because of what....he's black and we don't want to be labeled racist or because he's rich and its just too much to expect a young rich man to be reponsible with his personal equities. ing absurd.
How can you allow for the presumption of guilt on one charge yet allow for the presumption of innocence on another, B2B?
Because at this point he's trying to prove that he didn't pysically touch or kill or maim or torture animals. We aren't 100% sure of that hence the due process as to how far he can be punished. I'm not 100% sure it was by his direct hand either so presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Then on the other side. We already know that it was his place, his money, his kennel and his animals. Thats already fact, he's guilty in that reguard. Now I suppose its up for debate on wether or not he should be responsible for his personal equities but I personally don't find any reason to debate that.
See how its a two parter. One part is unclear and the other is cold hard fact. Did that make sense?
So he's guilty for not being responsible with home, money, kennel and animals. He may or may not be guilty of pysically doing the damage.
But we don't know that as the feds have yet to present their case to a jury.
So we aren't sure if it was his house, his money, his kennel and his dogs?
I think its safe to say NO we are sure of all of the above.
What we aren't sure of is how deep the rabbit hole goes and did he actually do this things first hand.
There is a difference.
I'm sorry but to some legal extent you are responsible for that goes on with your home, your money, your business and your animals. His ownership of those things aren't up for debate, its fact. The degree of guilt is up for debate. His person actions to the animals are up for debate but we are arguing as to wether or not the man should be responsible for his . I say yes reguardless of what a jury says. He get the free ride because he's Vick. If it were any one of us we'd be ed.
Now is he guilty of first hand dog murder or first hand funding illegal gambling....maybe, TBD.
If we go by that standard, then nobody is guilty of anything unless there are witnesses and it's caught on tape. Michael Vick will get his day in court, but as B2B stated, given what we already do know, we can make an educated guess as to his guilt or innocence.
If we go by your standard, OJ isn't a double murderer.
By the legal system's standard, he isn't.
See my post above about the court of public opinion.
Well, yeah. But that's another topic.
I don't know 100% exactly, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barry Bonds took steroids, but I am of the opinion he did. Just like I am of the opinion that OJ did it and that Vick is guilty of this.
However, just because I believe these things happened does not make them true. I think that is where Blaze is going. Michael Vick does deserve due process and I don't see where he is not getting it. To me, if he is somehow exonerated of these charges, then I move on. Sadly, God himself could come down and say "Mike is innocent" and some people will still choose not to believe it. You still get people yelling "rapist" at Kobe even though the case was never proven.
I can't prove Vick, Bonds or OJ are innocent, and I believe their not but just because I believe they are not, doesn't make it so. Everyone deserves due process.
Let me make it real simple
How can you allow for the presumption of guilt on one charge.
We know without doubt its his house, his money, his business and his animals. I believe he should be responsible to some extent(TBD) for his equities. The law as already stated and in precedence found many people guilty for not being responsible with their property, money, businesses and animals. So its easy to say guilty here. Pretty much undebatable.
allow for the presumption of innocence on another.
I don't know if Mike Vick used his two hand to put the dog in water and pull the electricution plug. I don't know if Mike Vick used his two hands to kill and bury and maim scores of dogs. I don't know if Mike Vick used his money to set up the fights or if someone who had access to his money did it.
Hence assumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
Vick is guilty of at least one of the following....
1. He participated in this
2. He didn't participate in this, but knew all about it
3. He didn't know what was going on on his property. That is not illegal but really, really stupid. (actually, I think it might be illegal)
The law as already stated and in precedence found many people guilty for not being responsible with their property, money, businesses and animals. So its easy to say guilty here. Pretty much undebatable.
Vick is accused of cruelty to pit-bulls.. NOT DOGS... (Does anyone really care about viscous wild animals)...
This is a dog...
This is a pit-bull...
Racist!Vick is accused of cruelty to pit-bulls.. NOT DOGS... (Does anyone really care about viscous wild animals)...
This is a dog...
This is a pit-bull...
I know a guy from Texas that shoots rattle snakes...Should he be prosecuted for a hate crime?
It doesn't matter if you are black or white, the public will often have an opinion on any given situation based on the information they have at any given time.
I'll give you an example of a someone totally opposite, a WHITE WOMAN.
When I first heard the story about Susan Smith the first thing I thought was, that did it...
Now I wouldn't have gone around telling everyone I know that, but it was in my head, and I did say it out loud to whoever was around at the time.
Whatever the case things don't look good for Michael Vick, Tony Taylor pleaded guilty and talked about Vicks involvement, not to mention all the other evidence that shows his involvement.
And yes I have formed an opinion on this situation as well, sure I don't know everything but it doesn't matter, that's the point, and I'm not the only one that does this, and I do it regardless of if the person is black or white.
Michael Vick has no criminal record, every single other person involved does, Michael Vick certainly made an error in judgement to associate with people that had felony convictions.
I hate to think he'd throw everything he had away just to bet on some dog fights, but it's certainly possible.
Tony Taylor plead guilty WITHOUT a plea agreement, and still said Vick was involved, that certainly doesn't look good for Vick.
I think he may have been involved, but Tony Taylor certainly doesn't have a ton of credibility, but why would he lie?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
