Rocky21 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I will not be surprised that in the very near future... a number of NFL players will be associated with the dog fights and/or gambling on or through this property.If anyone thinks this is the only story... think again. I willing to bet that this Dog Fighting Fiasco will plague this season for a lot of teams other than the Falcons. With the Redskins, Panthers and Steelers being the closest to Vick's property, don't be surprised to see a couple of our boys named. No Redskins have been indicted. This is nonsense. Read this today on ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2942125 Vick may face Virginia charges in addition to federal indictment Michael Vick's troubles might not end at the federal courthouse steps. The top state prosecutor in Surry County, Va. said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback "more than likely" face state charges in addition to the dogfighting charges brought against him by a federal grand jury on Tuesday, according to the Virginian-Pilot newspaper of Hampton Roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 No Redskins have been indicted. This is nonsense. Read this today on ESPN http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2942125 Vick may face Virginia charges in addition to federal indictment Michael Vick's troubles might not end at the federal courthouse steps. The top state prosecutor in Surry County, Va. said the Atlanta Falcons quarterback "more than likely" face state charges in addition to the dogfighting charges brought against him by a federal grand jury on Tuesday, according to the Virginian-Pilot newspaper of Hampton Roads. did I say "indicted"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer is Food Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 To all you "don't rush to judgement, innocent until proven guilty, look at Duke" guys: All absurd arguments. Vick is under federal indictment for multiple serious felonies. Included in this indictment are gambling charges. The league has every right to suspend Vick prior to conviction, but may choose not to. It's the wrong choice. By not acting- the league is tacitly giving preferential treatment to Vick and tarnishing the NFL's image. The reason this is the case, is because they have the power and precedent to suspend vick. There are multiple charges and illegal gambling is included in the charge. By not suspending Vick, the commish is in essence saying that the league doesn't think Vick's Federal Indictment is worthy of receiving the full force of his office. As far as "Rushing to judgement" goes- Vick will get his day in court. The fact that he has been federally indicted is enough for any private or public company for that matter, to suspend an employee. Most companies would just fire you. If your employer found out that you were under Federal Idictment, would you not be fired or suspended? Innocent until proven guilty is the measurement used to convict. Civil matters in court are held to a lesser standard- Preponderance of the evidence. And, as far outside of a court room- Business makes it's own decisions and public opinion is for each of us to decide. So why would the NFL be rushing to judgement if they suspend Vick? They don't have to use the same criteria a courtroom does for an employee. And, ask yourself... would you invite a person charged with a violent felony to your home or work? Would you be "rushing to judgement" if you said no- because a court of law hasn't determined if he's been proven guilty? C'mon! As far as, Duke goes. PLEASE! Just because there has been one injustice doesn't mean you have to throw out the entire system. And, in fact, there wasn't an injustice because the Duke players were proven innocent and let off in the end. The criminal Lawyer was punished. Did the players suffer in public opinion? YES! Was it wrong for the public to judge these guys negativley? NO! It was common sense based on experience. And, with the Duke case, I think there were many people besides myself who were more shocked that the case went as far as it did. If the NFL decides it should spot light an accused felon as one of their "stars", so be it. I just hope the fans and more importantly the sponsers, show gumption enough to make the so called "get tough" commish suffer. Edit: posted in wrong thread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Do you mean other than the dog carcasses, dog fighting equipment, dog blood, and other bits of evidence seized? They don't disclose the evidence they will present in the indictment, just their claim on how the events transpired. A licensed kennel was also run out of the place...I have no idea how much of a defense that adds to their case...but I'm fairly certain it will play a large part. Things like a rape post are existent at almost all kennels. It doesn't seem like they've found any documents, pictures or videos placing Vick @ these fights..all they have is the 4 informants, and possibly his two friends that potentially may turn on him for a lesser sentence. Their evidence to this point (all the publicly released evidence) seems to be circumstantial. Why would the FEDs come out saying that there was no evidence linking Vick to the operation on July 8th? It seems like the local investigators wanted to get to the bottom of the dog fighting ring...while the FEDs are trying to point fingers to determine who was on top of the pyramid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 A licensed kennel was also run out of the place...I have no idea how much of a defense that adds to their case...but I'm fairly certain it will play a large part. Things like a rape post are existent at almost all kennels. It doesn't seem like they've found any documents, pictures or videos placing Vick @ these fights..all they have is the 4 informants, and possibly his two friends that potentially may turn on him for a lesser sentence. Their evidence to this point (all the publicly released evidence) seems to be circumstantial. Why would the FEDs come out saying that there was no evidence linking Vick to the operation on July 8th? It seems like the local investigators wanted to get to the bottom of the dog fighting ring...while the FEDs are trying to point fingers to determine who was on top of the pyramid. Actually, it's rumored that they do have a tape. They also have reciepts proving travel, purchase of medicines and the like, steroids (I guess they could have been for him :laugh: ) etc. I guess we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 It seems like the local investigators wanted to get to the bottom of the dog fighting ring...while the FEDs are trying to point fingers to determine who was on top of the pyramid. Um....yea....that's sort of the point of the two offices. This is what federal prosecutors do. They don't concern themselves with someone who robs a house. They concern themselves with the people who sell the stuff stolen from houses on a national level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 It doesn't seem like they've found any documents, pictures or videos placing Vick @ these fights..all they have is the 4 informants, and possibly his two friends that potentially may turn on him for a lesser sentence. Their evidence to this point (all the publicly released evidence) seems to be circumstantial. 4 witnesses providing direct testimony linking Vick to a crime is not circumstantial evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 4 witnesses providing direct testimony linking Vick to a crime is not circumstantial evidence. I pointed this out yesteday but I think it's worth repeating. The guy who lead the locals to secure a Search Warrent was Devon Boddie, Vick's Cusion or, the guy who lived at the property Vick claimed never to visit. He is not one of those named in the indictment. To me, this is odd. The guy who was basically taking care of the house, running the day to day stuff is not included but all the other players are. I don't know any more then the next guy but this, at least suggests to me, that somebody has gone to some lengths to keep his name off that indictment. Everybody else associated is named but not him. I think they have way more then just 4 guys claiming to have seen Vick at the property or at the fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 4 witnesses providing direct testimony linking Vick to a crime is not circumstantial evidence. I meant outside of that. I definitely don't think that those 4's accounts are going to be enough to convict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I meant outside of that. I definitely don't think that those 4's accounts are going to be enough to convict. it only takes 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 it only takes 2. It only takes one actually. Actually, it doesn't take any eyewitnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I meant outside of that. I definitely don't think that those 4's accounts are going to be enough to convict.99% of federal cases result in convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 99% of federal cases result in convictions. It's more like the lower 90 %s. I'm more interested to know the conviction percentage on the actual charges the defendant was indicted on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 It's more like the lower 90 %s. I'm more interested to know the conviction percentage on the actual charges the defendant was indicted on... Federal Conviction rates are 90 percent overall. My guess is, that conspiracy conviction rates are probably higher because it is - generally speaking - an easier case to prove. But I would think that 90 percent is pretty accurate across the board. (I looked but could not find a breakdown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowghost Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If you read the indictment, the parts that state " persons known to the Grand Jury ", these people are more than likely FBI agents. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 It's more like the lower 90 %s. I'm more interested to know the conviction percentage on the actual charges the defendant was indicted on... The 99% number is correct. Let me try to make this clear: Of the people indicted, the feds have a 95% conviction rate. Which means that 95% of the people indicted end up guilty of the crime they were indicted for. Most of them because they plead guilty. Of the cases that go to trial, 99% of them are found guilty. Thus, they have a 99% conviction rate for those Defendants who go to trial. So why is the overall number 95%? Because there is a small percentage of cases that are dismissed after indictment but before trial or before a plea bargain. These could be for any number of reasons ranging from political considerations, new evidence, change in witness testimony, plea of guilt by a different individual for the crime, death of defendant, and a host of other reasons. I don't know why you are still arguing this megared. The odds are extremely likely (95%+) that Vick will either plead guilty or be convicted at trial. And it's almost a certainty that he will serve jail time once either of those two things occur. Now would you bet on something that has a 5% chance of succeeding? Then why are you yelling at the sea and trying to convince us that Vick isn't in that bad of a situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The 99% number is correct.Let me try to make this clear: Of the people indicted, the feds have a 95% conviction rate. Which means that 95% of the people indicted end up guilty of the crime they were indicted for. Most of them because they plead guilty. Of the cases that go to trial, 99% of them are found guilty. Thus, they have a 99% conviction rate for those Defendants who go to trial. So why is the overall number 95%? Because there is a small percentage of cases that are dismissed after indictment but before trial or before a plea bargain. These could be for any number of reasons ranging from political considerations, new evidence, change in witness testimony, plea of guilt by a different individual for the crime, death of defendant, and a host of other reasons. I don't know why you are still arguing this megared. The odds are extremely likely (95%+) that Vick will either plead guilty or be convicted at trial. And it's almost a certainty that he will serve jail time once either of those two things occur. Now would you bet on something that has a 5% chance of succeeding? Then why are you yelling at the sea and trying to convince us that Vick isn't in that bad of a situation? 5% so your saying there is a chance All jokes to the side if there is 5% that get off a certain guy by the name of Mike Vick has the money to be among that 5% I would guess his chances are better than yours or mine if we were in the situation (which we would never be in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingtar Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 If you read the indictment, the parts that state " persons known to the Grand Jury ", these people are more than likely FBI agents. :2cents: either agents or informants asked to attend dogfights to id other people. Here is a link to the Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center to show some statistics on Federal cases. 90% of the 2005 defendants were convicted. I know crap about law, so I am just going on straight Convicted/Not Convicted and I am not sure how Not Convicted breaks down. It is possible that a lot of those never saw the inside of the court, in which case the Convicted percentage would be higher if you took those out. http://fjsrc.urban.org/index.cfm as for anyone who thinks money will get Vick out of this, you are wrong. if it was about money, the CEO of Enron and Scooter Libby wouldn't be in prison as some fellow posters have stated before. personally, I think Vick knew what was going on (how could he not...he bought the property and owned the kennel, which was called Bad Newz Kennels because of the sweet and loving dispositions of its dogs :-P), though I have no clue to what degree he was involved. All he needed to do was know about it to be guilty though. I think he is a scum bag and deserves whatever he gets out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think he is a scum bag and deserves whatever he gets out of this.Sure looks that way. I read the whole indictment. At first I was thinking there must be some mistake. But now... he looks guilty as hell.What a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The 99% number is correct.Let me try to make this clear: Of the people indicted, the feds have a 95% conviction rate. Which means that 95% of the people indicted end up guilty of the crime they were indicted for. Most of them because they plead guilty. Of the cases that go to trial, 99% of them are found guilty. Thus, they have a 99% conviction rate for those Defendants who go to trial. So why is the overall number 95%? Because there is a small percentage of cases that are dismissed after indictment but before trial or before a plea bargain. These could be for any number of reasons ranging from political considerations, new evidence, change in witness testimony, plea of guilt by a different individual for the crime, death of defendant, and a host of other reasons. I don't know why you are still arguing this megared. The odds are extremely likely (95%+) that Vick will either plead guilty or be convicted at trial. And it's almost a certainty that he will serve jail time once either of those two things occur. Now would you bet on something that has a 5% chance of succeeding? Then why are you yelling at the sea and trying to convince us that Vick isn't in that bad of a situation? It isn't that. I predicted at the beginning that that he'd get a deal from the prosecutor to avoid jailtime and reduce the charges. Not knowing the full details of the case, but knowing he's got every resource available to man...I'd be as shocked if he did substantial jailtime as I'd be if the FEDs dropped the case tomorrow. A good number of the cases never see the inside of a courtroom, due to as you've mentioned circumstances...also plea deals...from what you're saying, plea deals would count against that 95% figure (since in alot of cases it wouldn't be the original charge that they're pleading guilty to)? I'll concede it's a bad situation because of it being a conspiracy charge...you'd have to almost be a war protestor to beat that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingtar Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 It isn't that. I predicted at the beginning that that he'd get a deal from the prosecutor to avoid jailtime and reduce the charges. Not knowing the full details of the case, but knowing he's got every resource available to man...I'd be as shocked if he did substantial jailtime as I'd be if the FEDs dropped the case tomorrow. A good number of the cases never see the inside of a courtroom, due to as you've mentioned circumstances...also plea deals...from what you're saying, plea deals would count against that 95% figure (since in alot of cases it wouldn't be the original charge that they're pleading guilty to)? I'll concede it's a bad situation because of it being a conspiracy charge...you'd have to almost be a war protestor to beat that. Vick won't get a plea deal. If anything his codefendants will and they will turn on him. Even if he were to plea, the NFL will probably ban him for life. He has made his own bed, now he gets to lay in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Hokie4Redskins, we are still waiting for an answer, do you think Vick is guilty or innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 there's no doubt in my mind that CP was there, simply based on what he said to the media.It really worries me about what kind of evidence the feds have. Pictures? Video? Although what Portis said was inexcusable, it doesn't mean he was at VICK'S dog fights. He could have been at dog fights in Mississippi or something on a much smaller scale. Maybe he went to the dog fights one time and that was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Why would the FEDs come out saying that there was no evidence linking Vick to the operation on July 8th? Why would the FEDs talk about evidence in an ongoing investigation? Whoever said that was either telling a tale or didn't know any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Why would the FEDs talk about evidence in an ongoing investigation? Whoever said that was either telling a tale or didn't know any better. It was reported to ESPN on that date that no charges were expected to be filed against Vick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.