Vick indicted on felony charges (superdupermegamerge)

[hokie4redskins]

I stand behind my statements. Being a Hokie does not entitle you to anything more than being from any other school. Or a bum off the street.

I could say that your mom swallowed the best part of your gene pool, but I won't. She swallowed so many gene pools, it's hard to tell.

Mom jokes? Seriously? Dude, you're almost 50.

:laugh:

And I wasn't stating anything about "entitlement". I was simply calling you an ******* for comparing 32 dead in the worst U.S. massacre to Vick's dogfighting. Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Though, if you're still acting like a 4th grader when you're approaching the half-century mark, you're probably reading at the 4th grade level too. My condolences.

:ciao:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why would RICO be involved? Anyone in their right mind knows that whatever Vick's financial involvement is in the operation...it probably represents less than 1% of his total worth. He has a $130 mil contract, prob over another $100 mil in endorsements...and they would've had to indict him under the laws of RICO in the 1st place for that to occur. It also makes the case 10 times more complex for the prosecutor to prove. It'd be kind of hard to prove that he's laundering any money...when he has no motive to hide it.

They'll get their conviction on lesser charges...& Vick will be punished probably monetarily ($350,000 is play money to him)...and this whole mess won't even have to see the light of day in court.

This post is so off base, I don't think I can explain it to you, even if I had the hour and a half it would probably take to repeate everything three times. Seriously, you need to read up on this thing and then maybe post some thoughts before you do this. It's very clear that a fine is not going to get this thing done. You are currently looking at the tip of the iceberg for Vick IMO. If found guilty, the IRS is going to get there piece, he will be convicted of gambling in at least two states, which means that it then becomes Rackatering. Because suit is being brought against the Kennel, this is a first step towards positioning just that IMO. If they can prove he was involved in dog fighting and gambling across state lines, I think they have enough. That, in effect, is Rackatering.

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

[Stophovr6]

I find calling me naive, just as offensive. And p.s......have you read some of the post on this site. There has been much worse than what I said on this site.

So because others have done it it's ok? If you feel being called naive is offensive, use the report a post feature. Calling him names isn't the way to go.:2cents:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The "innocent until proven guilty" argument in these types of debates is just a dodge. First of all, no one is ever found "innocenet" in a court of law. People are found "not guilty." And all "not guilty" means is that a prosecutor was unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether Michael Vick is ever convicted or not means little in the larger question of "Is he involved in dog fighting?"

I would say that it is pretty clear that he is. I am not sure to what degree. If it is to the degree that prosecutors allege, he is a truly despicable human being.

But even involvement of a minor degree is too much for my tastes.

Whether Vick is convicted of a felony...whether he ever plays football again...he will always have a stain of guilt in my eyes.

[turbodiesel#44]

Mom jokes? Seriously? Dude, you're almost 50.

:laugh:

And I wasn't stating anything about "entitlement". I was simply calling you an ******* for comparing 32 dead in the worst U.S. massacre to Vick's dogfighting. Might want to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Though, if you're still acting like a 4th grader when you're approaching the half-century mark, you're probably reading at the 4th grade level too. My condolences.

:ciao:

I thought being a Hokie meant you went to Tech. But you claim the level of offense determines whether you are a Hokie or not. We are not talking about doing 40 in a 25 here, we are talking about wanton bloodlust, extreme cruelty and tortuous execution of innocent animals.

Nobody is comparing Vicks alleged offense to the severity of Cho's mass murder, but I guess it is OK to behave like Vick and still count on the Hokie nation for full support. You should be ashamed of yourself. I would guess most real Hokies are ashamed of you.

[HitStickTaylor21]

I have lost all respect for Vick. His brother started it and he has finished it. I think what he did was despicable and he needs to go to jail for it. I don't care about whether he was there or not, either way he knew what was going on there in a house he bought. The inhumane treatment in that place has me wishing he would be subjected to the same punishment. I hope Goodell comes down HARD on him.

[Rocky21]

I thought being a Hokie meant you went to Tech. But you claim the level of offense determines whether you are a Hokie or not. We are not talking about doing 40 in a 25 here, we are talking about wanton bloodlust, extreme cruelty and tortuous execution of innocent animals.

Nobody is comparing Vicks alleged offense to the severity of Cho's mass murder, but I guess it is OK to behave like Vick and still count on the Hokie nation for full support. You should be ashamed of yourself. I would guess most real Hokies are ashamed of you.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[skins4me58203]

So because others have done it it's ok? If you feel being called naive is offensive, use the report a post feature. Calling him names isn't the way to go.:2cents:

'

LOL..just relax. he wasn't offended, I'm not offended. Why are you making it an issues. Stick the the thread.

[hokie4redskins]

Nobody is comparing Vicks alleged offense to the severity of Cho's mass murder,

You should be ashamed of yourself. I would guess most real Hokies are ashamed of you.

:doh:

Actually, yes you did. The only person who brought Cho into this was you. You attempted to compare the two. It was a pathetic attempt, but an attempt nonetheless. It was a cheap shot that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I might've actually been more offended until I saw your resorting to mama jokes..........at age 48. Nice try editing that post, btw.

You're an embarrassment and I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.

:ciao:

[SUSkinsFan]

I thought being a Hokie meant you went to Tech. But you claim the level of offense determines whether you are a Hokie or not. We are not talking about doing 40 in a 25 here, we are talking about wanton bloodlust, extreme cruelty and tortuous execution of innocent animals.

Nobody is comparing Vicks alleged offense to the severity of Cho's mass murder, but I guess it is OK to behave like Vick and still count on the Hokie nation for full support. You should be ashamed of yourself. I would guess most real Hokies are ashamed of you.

That post really says it all

BTW Hokie4Redskins, do you think Vick is innocent or guilty? Everyone has their opinion, so what is yours?

[turbodiesel#44]

:doh:

Actually, yes you did. The only person who brought Cho into this was you. You attempted to compare the two. It was a pathetic attempt, but an attempt nonetheless. It was a cheap shot that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I might've actually been more offended until I saw your resorting to mama jokes..........at age 48. Nice try editing that post, btw.

You're an embarrassment and I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.

:ciao:

Vick was a Hokie, Cho was a Hokie. Deal with it. I didn't enroll either one of them. It was the only comparison.

Try as you might to change the subject of this thread, it is about the heinous acts of one Michael Vick, who happens to be the alumni of VA Tech. You are defending him with the fact he is a Hokie. I don't think that is going to fly in Federal Court, or Goodells office. You are welcome to continue flying his flag if you wish. I don't think the Hokie nation is as proud of him as you are, mainly because he is scum even for just knowing about what he is accused of.

Why aren't you wearing the new sig I made for you? You should be proud.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32685&stc=1

[skins4me58203]

Vick was a Hokie, Cho was a Hokie. Deal with it. I didn't enroll either one of them. It was the only comparison.

Try as you might to change the subject of this thread, it is about the heinous acts of one Michael Vick, who happens to be the alumni of VA Tech. You are defending him with the fact he is a Hokie. I don't think that is going to fly in Federal Court, or Goodells office. You are welcome to continue flying his flag if you wish. I don't think the Hokie nation is as proud of him as you are, mainly because he is scum even for just knowing about what he is accused of.

Why aren't you wearing the new sig I made for you? You should be proud.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32685&stc=1

I don't believe you know what your talking about. I don't recall him saying he's not guilty because he's a hokie. I think he said he's defending him because he's a Hokie.

There is a difference there. And you did bring up Cho. Which was a smart ass comment. The two are not comparable and are on two very different levels.

And if you so disgusted by the allegations, why are you posting a link to a mauled dog. That kind stupid, and not even funny.

[pjfootballer]

Wow, my server here went down at work. Was out for almost 30 minutes. I thought it was just my computer, but then I heard some cussing in the distance.

[Horatio]

Vick should be traded to the Bengals...

they need a guy with strong character and values to be a positive influence on that team.

)

[turbodiesel#44]

I don't recall him saying he's not guilty because he's a hokie. I think he said he's defending him because he's a Hokie.

PLEASE STOP THIS THREAD for a minute while I try to figure this post out.

[skins4me58203]

PLEASE STOP THIS THREAD for a minute while I try to figure this post out.

LOL....thats what I thought. Was that over your head? Think...think very hard....

[hokie4redskins]

LOL....thats what I thought. Was that over your head? Think...think very hard....

:laugh:

That about sums it up.

[megared]

This post is so off base, I don't think I can explain it to you, even if I had the hour and a half it would probably take to repeate everything three times. Seriously, you need to read up on this thing and then maybe post some thoughts before you do this. It's very clear that a fine is not going to get this thing done. You are currently looking at the tip of the iceberg for Vick IMO. If found guilty, the IRS is going to get there piece, he will be convicted of gambling in at least two states, which means that it then becomes Rackatering. Because suit is being brought against the Kennel, this is a first step towards positioning just that IMO. If they can prove he was involved in dog fighting and gambling across state lines, I think they have enough. That, in effect, is Rackatering.

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

So they freeze the 10's of thousands of dollars worth of assets from a multi-millionaire? What exactly is that going to do? He could pay IRS fines out of his pocketchange. What cases have you heard RICO being enacted on threats that weren't living off of primarily the money made from their illegal business???

RICO is a law created to cripple mafia members by freezing assets generated by the illegal activities they're being investigated for. There's no legat precendent of dogfighting related charges being brought forth under the RICO act...why would Vick's case?

From your same site:

"Thus, a prosecutor has no reason to charge a defendant with a RICO violation if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction on the basis of any of the defendant's individual acts of racketeering. For example, if someone engaged in mail fraud, extortion and murder, the prosecutor would only need to prove the elements of mail fraud, extortion and murder beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction on all three counts. Whereas to obtain a RICO conviction, the prosecutor would have to prove all the elements of mail fraud, extortion and murder beyond a reasonable doubt AND also prove the elements of a RICO claim (e.g., operation and management, pattern, enterprise, etc.) beyond reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor will not undertake the added complexities of a RICO claim unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. A RICO claim may be necessary in a criminal action if the defendant never personally engaged in or specifically ordered any criminal actions. You can be convicted under the RICO Act for simply operating and managing a criminal enterprise through a pattern of racketeering. The RICO Act maybe the only way to convict the "Godfather-type" figures in any criminal scenario, but otherwise if the defendant has blood on his hands, there are usually easier ways to get a conviction."

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#rare

[Rocky21]

BTW Hokie4Redskins, do you think Vick is innocent or guilty? Everyone has their opinion, so what is yours?

Still waiting for the answer to this one.

Do you think Vick is innocent or guilty?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I went to the same college as Lyle Menendez. I don't think I am going to defend for the sake of school pride.

[THUNDERDOME]

Chris mortenson just said on nfl live that he thinks if vick pleads guilty or there's a conviction, Goodell might "BANNISH VICK FOR LIFE"

pretty harsh

[ABQCOWBOY]

So they freeze the 10's of thousands of dollars worth of assets from a multi-millionaire? What exactly is that going to do? He could pay IRS fines out of his pocketchange. What cases have you heard RICO being enacted on threats that weren't living off of primarily the money made from their illegal business???

RICO is a law created to cripple mafia members by freezing assets generated by the illegal activities they're being investigated for. There's no legat precendent of dogfighting related charges being brought forth under the RICO act...why would Vick's case?

From your same site:

"Thus, a prosecutor has no reason to charge a defendant with a RICO violation if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction on the basis of any of the defendant's individual acts of racketeering. For example, if someone engaged in mail fraud, extortion and murder, the prosecutor would only need to prove the elements of mail fraud, extortion and murder beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction on all three counts. Whereas to obtain a RICO conviction, the prosecutor would have to prove all the elements of mail fraud, extortion and murder beyond a reasonable doubt AND also prove the elements of a RICO claim (e.g., operation and management, pattern, enterprise, etc.) beyond reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor will not undertake the added complexities of a RICO claim unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. A RICO claim may be necessary in a criminal action if the defendant never personally engaged in or specifically ordered any criminal actions. You can be convicted under the RICO Act for simply operating and managing a criminal enterprise through a pattern of racketeering. The RICO Act maybe the only way to convict the "Godfather-type" figures in any criminal scenario, but otherwise if the defendant has blood on his hands, there are usually easier ways to get a conviction."

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/faq.asp#rare

Originally, it was created for that but it has morphed over the years to cover a huge amount of legal territory. It can even be used in Cival cases. In fact, it is the most widely used criteria on which Federal Prosecution is based. It is not simply for "Godfather-types" anymore.

Doesn't matter. He's not getting off with just a fine. Go read the thread I just posted and it can help clarify the possible outcome of what Vick could be looking at.

[hokie4redskins]

I went to the same college as Lyle Menendez. I don't think I am going to defend for the sake of school pride.

After he was PROVEN guilty? I don't blame you.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

After he was PROVEN guilty? I don't blame you.

What's so hard to understand about this?

So if Vick's celebrity attorney manages to convice one juror that it is only a 50/50 proposition that he actually did this, you think that proves his innocence?

Vick is involved in dogfighting. It took place on his property. To what degree he was involved can probably be debated. I am of the opinion that he was very involved. A jury decision will likely not change that belief on my part.

I've worked in criminal defense (not a lot but some). The dirty little secret: 99 percent of defendants are guilty. The question is: can it be proven in a court of law? No defense attorney goes to bed at night thinking they are defending good people. They go to bed thinking that they are keeping the system fair and honest.

[skins4me58203]

I went to the same college as Lyle Menendez. I don't think I am going to defend for the sake of school pride.

Well what did Lyle do to earn anyones respect in college? Was he considered anything other than a student? Was it hard to believe he was capable of such crimes?