| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Night Angel
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 7022
Location: Allentown, PA
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| dtwizzy2k5 wrote: | Damn this is one of the longest threads ive ever seen 
I dont know if anybody has mentioned this but Peter King has said on SI.com that the Falcons announced they will make a decision regarding how to punish Vick by Tuesday (tomorrow). According to PFT they have 2 possible options: cut him or suspend him for 4 games. The obvious scenario is to suspend him, and then Goodell will probably suspend him for the remaining 12 games somewhere down the line. |
I would be shocked if they cut him. I would be happy to see it done, for multiple reasons, but I can't see them cutting him now when they have the option of suspending him, retaining his rights on the chance that he is found not guilty or something. It just doesnt seem good business to cut him now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mattmatt
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| dtwizzy2k5 wrote: | Damn this is one of the longest threads ive ever seen
I dont know if anybody has mentioned this but Peter King has said on SI.com that the Falcons announced they will make a decision regarding how to punish Vick by Tuesday (tomorrow). According to PFT they have 2 possible options: cut him or suspend him for 4 games. The obvious scenario is to suspend him, and then Goodell will probably suspend him for the remaining 12 games somewhere down the line. |
I could see a 4 game suspension then after that either the Falcons will ask him to take a leave or Goodell will suspend him. This all really depends on how the trial goes.
_________________
Keato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbllstr22
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 6349
Location: Hell. The only place where the devil's advocate can reside.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| dtwizzy2k5 wrote: | | I dont know if anybody has mentioned this but Peter King has said on SI.com that the Falcons announced they will make a decision regarding how to punish Vick by Tuesday (tomorrow). According to PFT they have 2 possible options: cut him or suspend him for 4 games. The obvious scenario is to suspend him, and then Goodell will probably suspend him for the remaining 12 games somewhere down the line. |
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/22/vick/index.html
Got the link right here.
But that doesn't mean he will punish Vick. If Blank stands up to the public like he usually does, he will let the federal system run its course before making a decision.
I never go to PFT, they're just full of rumors and if's that most of the time never happen or are never true. I also try to stay away from Peter King's articles, because I hate his opinions with a passion and that's what most of his articles are: opinionated.
Also, bronco67 I think, who says we have to be on here and reply 24/7. Some of us have a life. And this stuff in here is getting pretty repetitive.
_________________
Reggie Wayne for HOF
Career---------968 receptions (10th), 13063 yards (14th), 78 TDs (24th)
Playoffs--------92 receptions (2nd), 1242 yards (4th), 9 TDs (7th) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HOVA333
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 4614
Location: Brockton MA Richard Sherman is a Pansy
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| InTressleWeTrst wrote: | | HOVA333 wrote: | | InTressleWeTrst wrote: | hovito213,
You have officaly grasped for more straws than workers at Friendly's
(Assist over to Bill Simmons)
Nothing really left to say in this thread after Night Angels(Great post)
I just got one quick question,
Lets say for example, that a highschool kids parents go out of town. That kid then has a party. Someone at the party drinkis to much, then drives home, gets in a crash. The parents of the house( who were unaware of what was going on,) can still be held accountable.
So at the very least, even if Vick had no knowledge(  ) is he at least guilty of being the owner of a house were illegal activity took place ? |
Same thing if u had No Idea that a person was cooking crack in your house. |
What are you talking about? I really have no idea what that means, or how it answered my question.... |
Well I didnt necisarly put much thought into my statement,but what Im implying is just another example. If there are illegal activities goinig on in ur house ur still liable. It's ur house and u shoukd know whats going on in ur house. Even if Vick was never there I mean never the man is still liable if there was dogfighting going on in the house. Haven't u guys ever saw a case and say the law is messed up, well that can easly happen in this case. Allthough I think Vick flat out sponcered it. My opinion.
_________________
I DO NOT LIKE RICHARD SHERMAN AS A PERSON NOR TERRELL SUGGS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
InTressleWeTrst
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 15409
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hovito213 wrote: | | InTressleWeTrst wrote: | hovito213,
You have officaly grasped for more straws than workers at Friendly's
(Assist over to Bill Simmons)
Nothing really left to say in this thread after Night Angels(Great post)
I just got one quick question,
Lets say for example, that a highschool kids parents go out of town. That kid then has a party. Someone at the party drinkis to much, then drives home, gets in a crash. The parents of the house( who were unaware of what was going on,) can still be held accountable.
So at the very least, even if Vick had no knowledge( ) is he at least guilty of being the owner of a house were illegal activity took place ? |
After all the posts that I've responded to about this issue I think I'm going to have to have a certain standard for the posts I reply to. You have got to come with something better than this. Some people have come with some valid well thought out responses and I can get down with that but I don't think there is a reason for me to respond to regurgitated inquiries that I have already chewed on and made whatever point I needed to make. I'm not real big on repeating myself.
I will however repeat this one thing, it seems that some people aren't getting this. I don't think that Mike Vick is innocent! I am simply not convinced of his guilt. I don't know how many different ways I have to say this but as of right now Vick has not done anything wrong in my eyes because I am simply not sold on the evidence they have reported. Does that mean Vick didn't do anything? No, it simply means I don't know whether he did or didn't. Please stop saying that I am fighting for Vicks innocense cause I am not. |
A standard to talk to you? Hahaah... Man, just when i didn't think you could top yourself...
Well your highness, the question wasn't directed at you, just anyone who had some knowledge on that, bc at the least Vick would get in trouble for that.
Hovi( sir, knowing of all that is well) the reason this thread is so long, is bc we understand what you are saying, and so many people are trying to show you that your wrong. If this was the Duke case, i would be right here with you, bc thats what i was doing for that case, I didnt think those guys were guilty anyway, and the media circus had all but convicted them, but this is so utterly and competly different its not even funny. I'm not big on repeating myself or others who have already made this point, so I won't, and i don't recall your highness ever making a good rebuttle to this... But i don't have a standard for people to talk to me, so I might of forgot it...
Don't you find it a bit odd, that thier is enough evidence for him to get indited, but not enough for you? I don't know, Fed Government vs You, hmm
I humbly submit this, hope you take your precisous time to read this, and mabey i will get the blessing of an answer. * Finishes bowing, kisses pinky ring and walks away*
_________________
| mistakebytehlak wrote: |
no one will break the bonds of ITWT and I's e-love.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hovito213
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 513
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well I suppose since you remembered to kiss the ring I can grace you with a response.
For real though that was a funny post. I actually lol a couple times. Glad you have a sense of humor.
Now as far as the federal indictment goes, I don't think they have released all the evidence that they have against Vick. I really don't see how they would expect to go to trial with just the testimony of 4 shady witnesses. I don't think that makes for a very strong case. So I really think they are holding the real evidence back until they have to let it out. But with the evidence they have thrown out there as of now I'm just not convinced.
I look at it this way, if I was on the jury would I vote guilty? Well if this was all the feds brought to the table I wouldn't be able to say without a shadow of doubt that Vick was guilty.
_________________
In reference to the Manning vs Brady debate
Hilit wrote: I think this is the argument you have to be involved in when youre in purgatory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0town12
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 4299
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Pretty sure Joey Harrington should replace Michael Vick in everyones sigs...
JOEY!
JOEY!
JOEY...! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneyMaroney
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1504
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I bet they're wishing they didnt trade Matt Schaub.....as unproven and hyped up as he is 
_________________
| TMX Cowboy wrote: | | Although Tom Brady is a great quarterback, I think he is overrated this year because his receivers make him look better than he is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
broncos67
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 18119
Location: Capitol Cit-ay
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bbllstr22 wrote: | | dtwizzy2k5 wrote: | | I dont know if anybody has mentioned this but Peter King has said on SI.com that the Falcons announced they will make a decision regarding how to punish Vick by Tuesday (tomorrow). According to PFT they have 2 possible options: cut him or suspend him for 4 games. The obvious scenario is to suspend him, and then Goodell will probably suspend him for the remaining 12 games somewhere down the line. |
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/22/vick/index.html
Got the link right here.
But that doesn't mean he will punish Vick. If Blank stands up to the public like he usually does, he will let the federal system run its course before making a decision.
I never go to PFT, they're just full of rumors and if's that most of the time never happen or are never true. I also try to stay away from Peter King's articles, because I hate his opinions with a passion and that's what most of his articles are: opinionated.
Also, bronco67 I think, who says we have to be on here and reply 24/7. Some of us have a life. And this stuff in here is getting pretty repetitive. |
I don't believe that's what I said. I just wondered aloud who some people have delcared Vick's innocence for so long and then failed to say anything when the indictment came out. Don't call me out.
Anyway, if Atlanta is willing to make a move here, it's going to be a statement that explains how they will wait for the Feds to continue and finish their investigation. Atlanta won't cut him. That'll count way too much against the cap and it's not worth it at this point. They would be better off seeing how it plays out.
_________________
Thanks, Tzimisce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THE DUKE
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 14280
Location: Centerville, OH
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BoneyMaroney wrote: | | I bet they're wishing they didnt trade Matt Schaub.....as unproven and hyped up as he is :) |
Even if I knew this was going to happen I still probably would have traded Schaub for what they got. I really don't think Schaub was worth nearly 2 2nds and they can still sign Culpepper.
_________________
-I am bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one else i'd rather be, than me.
-"Our life is what our thoughts make it" - Marcus Aurelius |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K2fromtheU
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 3344
Location: Akron, OH
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaytrajik
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 13235
Location: Odessa, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
LOL … this thread reminds me of an 80’s sitcom in syndication. Everyone keeps rehashing the same ideologies and theories just in a different format. Maybe it’s time we let this topic take a hiatus.
_________________
"Tackling is a lost art because thanks to the CBA, nobody can practice it anymore." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Broad Street Bullies
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1483
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woz
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 17421
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| hovito213 wrote: | | And you better believe the Feds know they have a very weak case as of right now which is why they are withholding the real evidence. Everything they have put out is circumstantial and heresay. |
| Inigo Montoya wrote: | | I do not think it means what you think it means. |
Circumstantial evidence
| Quote: | A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.
...
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another their innocence, the 'benefit of the doubt' principle would apply. |
Hearsay in US Law
| Quote: | | The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a general definition of hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." |
Example:
I saw Joe rob the liquor store on 4th Street at 3 AM. <-- This is not hearsay, I am directly attesting to it.
I heard Jim say he saw Joe rob the liquor store on 4th Street at 3 AM. <-- This is hearsay because it depends on whether or not Jim can directly attest to it, not on my own assertion.
Applied Example (page 5 from the federal indictment):
"In or about early 2002, VICK, accompanied by PEACE, purchased 4 pit bulls from Cooperating Witness 1 (C.W.#1) in Virginia. C.W.#1 had previously purchased one of the pit bulls from an individual in North Carolina."
Notice that C.W.#1 stated he sold the pit bulls. This is direct testimony from the witness. This is not C.W.#1 saying that he heard that Joe sold Vick the pit bulls.
"In or about June 2002, Cooperating Witness Number 2 (C .W. 2) observed PEACE, VICK, and others unknown to the Grand Jury representing "Bad Newz Kennels" and "Hard Core Kennels" participate in two separate dog fights against "D.C. Kennels" at a location around Blackstone, Virginia."
A separate witness observed Vick at a dog fight.
Now, here's where we can tie it back up above to circumstantial evidence. Witness #1 sold the pit bulls to Vick. Witness #2 later states that Vick and others participated in two separate dog fights. This leads to the conclusion that Vick purchased pit bulls for dog fighting. Is this circumstantial evidence? Yes. Is it disallowed? I think you are going to be hard pressed on that one.
Now, I have summarized the evidence a bit, considering there is more there about Vick sponsoring the prize money and other fights. But I just wanted to clarify the terms just a bit.
| Quote: | | I want to see the rest of the evidence they have cause its not enough for me yet. |
As do the rest of us. If it's not enough for you, then so be it.
| Quote: | | We don't know all the facts so how can anyone make a truly informed decision. That's like an oxymoron, making an informed decision without all the information. |
Oxymoron
| Quote: | | Oxymor[ons] are a proper subset of the expressions called contradictions in terms. What distinguishes oxymor[orns] from other paradoxes and contradictions is that they are used intentionally, for rhetorical effect, and the contradiction is only apparent, as the combination of terms provides a novel expression of some concept, such as "cruel to be kind". |
I don't like the pluralization of oxymoron to oxymora, so I changed the quote.
Informed decision is not a contradiction in terms. What you were going for was a more generalized contradiction based on the fact that those judging Vick are basing their judgment on the evidence contained in the indictment. You feel that this is not enough to convict Vick; others disagree.
Let me try a different tack:
Reports have come out that Vick bought bags of kibble and veterinary supplies for dogs; it can be reasonably inferred that he knew about the dog kennels there.
Counter-argument: Yes, there were dog kennels there that Vick was aware of, his MV7 Kennels, a legal pit-bull breeding kennel.
^--- That's circumstantial evidence, and if that was all the feds had to go on, then the judge would rule in favor of the defense.
Retort: Evidence, including the dogs themselves, was found consistent with dog fighting at Vick's property.
Counter-argument: Vick had no knowledge of the dog fighting taking place, thinking it was a still legitimate kennel.
^--- Still circumstantial evidence, though a bit less firm.
Retort: Bad Newz Kennels, the alleged dog fighting kennel, advertised itself at the same address as Vick's home and MV7 kennel
Counter-argument: This has nothing to do with Michael Vick, but the other defendants.
^--- Still circumstantial.
Retort: Witness #2 placed Michael Vick at a dog fighting match sponsoring a dog from Bad Newz Kennels.
^--- At this point, when combined with the above logic, it stops being inadmissable and now creates a chain of related circumstances that lead to an indictment of "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in and Animal Fighting Venture." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Night Angel
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 7022
Location: Allentown, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Woz, Im just curious, about how long did it take you to make that post? Nice post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
