PETA, sic balls!

[QandA 0]

Just a note on hunting for sport. Here in NB it keeps the deer and moose population at a reasonable amount. Their are limits per person, but it does keep numbers at a level which is appropriate for the animal and the human being.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Just a note on hunting for sport. Here in NB it keeps the deer and moose population at a reasonable amount. Their are limits per person, but it does keep numbers at a level which is appropriate for the animal and the human being.

But to me, thats not really hunting for sport, it's population control, there is a service being done, and you don't go out of your way to torture the animals for hours before killing them.

You may mount a head or something, but it's still a service, and infinately more humane than dogfighting.

If anyone has the stomach for it, go to youtube, and do a search for dog fighting.

How anyone can get pleasure from that sort of barbosity is beyond me

[D-MaN88 0]

Allsmoke, I totally agree. In the earlier stages of this case when word first came out and they would show some clips from fights on CNN and that I had to turn the channel. I don't get how one could much less train and treat a dog fight like that much less a human being actually being able to walk into something like that and cheering and watching 2 dogs rip eachother's throats apart.

The sickness of some people in this country is beyond belief and it's no wonder why our world is the way it is today. If one could get pleasure out of watching and participating in something like that, you deserve to have a dog rip your throat out while you're helpless and defenseless.

Some people (Mike, his cousin and all the others involved) also those that fight dogs around the world need to burn in hell or have an eye for eye account with them fighting one of the dogs.

[Chadd 916]

I thought I had heard somewhere that they weren't going to offer him a plea deal? In no way am I saying I know this for a fact but I thought I overheard on a news cast or sports radio show saying the feds weren't going to offer him a plea deal?

I think if he can cast the net wider, and get the bigger fish, they will offer a plea.

However, I don't think they are interested in a plea to reduce sentence for him.

The public opinion is that this is a despicible act, and he should be punished. They seemingly have a strong case on this indictment to the point that they are going to file another indictment with more serious charges.

This will possibly be a case that will force states to increase the penalties for this type of crime, along with showing those that take part in it, even the superstar athletes, that no one is above the law.

I think the only plea they will accept is if he starts singing like a songbird on anyone and everyone involved, and it may even be too late for that, since there are already 4 co-operating witnesses who are likely getting a good deal for their testimony.

Vick is the bigger fish. The witnesses have taken plea deals and are offering him up.

Bear in mind that the state of Virginia can come along and try him on their own charges once this is all over and testimony is on the record. It's also a pretty good reason why he wouldn't take any deal that was offered to him that didn't include immunity from state charges.

[TheBert 0]

I'm a vegetarian, so I obviously have the moral highground on all of you.

[Cheesehead 0]

Nike suspends Vick's contract with out pay, Rbk stopped selling Vick's jersey and no more Vick football cards

link

[Flack38 0]

I made a rant earlier but now I've read the indictment (first 18 page one, there's talks of them adding on charges)

Here is what the indictment told me.

1.) Vick Bought property to build a house and kennels to start his legitimate dog breeding kennel that he was license to do.

2.) No evidence of Vick himself killing a dog or forcing dogs to mate/rape each other.

3.) Vick Paying for dogs from other kennels (not uncommon for dog breeders to pick select dogs)

4.) Vick Witnessed and bet on dog fights (Eye witness via "other dog fighters" that are unknown and unnamed to the grand jury.)

5.) Vick Traveling with dogs for interstate fighting on 2 occasions 1 of them during the football season of 2003 (Witnesses were other dog fighters not in Vick's camp unknown and unnamed to the grand jury.)

The indictment itself doesn't have Vick killing any dogs, betting on dog fighting yes (via eye witness of other dog fighters) and traveling to bet on dog fighting (other unknown eye witnesses)

As of right now this case has enough holes in it to get Vick off IMO because there is no evidence against him other than eye witness accounts of other dog fighting scum bags.

I suggest anyone with a bias opinion to read the indictment and wait for more evidence to arise before you pass judgment. I told myself I'd never do that again after the Duke rape case, as soon as I heard a government official say they had DNA evidence to connect the kids to the crime I was ready to watch them hang. Although the killing of dogs is a horrible thing, I do feel that betting on dog fighting isn't an offense that should ruin a person's life.

[mack 44]

I'm going to send this postcard to Vick's fan club.

"My dogs and I wish to show our support.

H & Ks,

Mack"

[Chadd 916]

The indictment itself doesn't have Vick killing any dogs, betting on dog fighting yes (via eye witness of other dog fighters) and traveling to bet on dog fighting (other unknown eye witnesses)

As of right now this case has enough holes in it to get Vick off IMO because there is no evidence against him other than eye witness accounts of other dog fighting scum bags.

I believe the charges against him in this indictment are all "conspiracy to..." charges. That means he was part of a group that committed the crimes. He doesn't have to have done anything on his own to be convicted of those charges.

[Oberon 0]

Looks like one of his pals is ready to play ball with the feds.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

The indictment itself doesn't have Vick killing any dogs, betting on dog fighting yes (via eye witness of other dog fighters) and traveling to bet on dog fighting (other unknown eye witnesses)

Item 83 on page 17 of the indictment has vick and the others killing 8 dogs in april 2007

Item 53 on page 12 of the indictment has peace consult vick about a losing dog, that cost them $26000, after consulting vick, he hosed the dog down with water and electrocuted her.

The indictment has vick killing dogs, unless you read something different, I read it too, and linked to it on the last page of the thread

[Flack38 0]

The indictment itself doesn't have Vick killing any dogs, betting on dog fighting yes (via eye witness of other dog fighters) and traveling to bet on dog fighting (other unknown eye witnesses)

Item 83 on page 17 of the indictment has vick and the others killing 8 dogs in april 2007

Item 53 on page 12 of the indictment has peace consult vick about a losing dog, that cost them $26000, after consulting vick, he hosed the dog down with water and electrocuted her.

The indictment has vick killing dogs, unless you read something different, I read it too, and linked to it on the last page of the thread

PACE, Electrocuted the dog, says so right there on page 12 item 53 just like you said. He "Consulted with Vick". Item 83 on page 17 has Pace, Phillips and Vick, but like any murder / cruelty case, where is there any physical evidence that Vick Kill any of these dogs.

Again, if he did it he should pay. What I'm saying is don't pass judgment until he's been proven guilty or until you see all the physical evidence for yourself. An indictment is nothing more than an opinion.

[mack 44]

Weird, they should have a crime differentiating people who actually kill someone from those who know about it. They could call it something weird like "conspiracy to commit murder." That's probably just a crazy idea of mine though.

[Flack38 0]

Weird, they should have a crime differentiating people who actually kill someone from those who know about it. They could call it something weird like "conspiracy to commit murder." That's probably just a crazy idea of mine though.

Ok, now prove it through hearsay and conjecture and send him to jail.

[mack 44]

Done and done.

[Chadd 916]

This is going to end up like Bonds where his "supporters" won't believe it without video showing him capping a dog, while wearing his own jersey and a name tag thet says :Hi, my name is ron mexico Michael Vick". At that point I'm sure some will still refuse to believe it.

[Flack38 0]

This is going to end up like Bonds where his "supporters" won't believe it without video showing him capping a dog, while wearing his own jersey and a name tag thet says :Hi, my name is ron mexico Michael Vick". At that point I'm sure some will still refuse to believe it.

I'm not personally a supporter, but I don't think you should send a man to jail and ruin his life based on the testimony of someone trying to get out of or lessen a jail term. If I were offered to roll on you to save my ass, I would make stuff up about what you did just to save myself and please the D.A. / FBI.

You shouldn't rely on the testimony of a crook to put another crook away, if I was on the jury I wouldn't trust the words of some criminal trying to save his own ass.

and why are you stealing quotes from Jim Rome?

[Chadd 916]

This is going to end up like Bonds where his "supporters" won't believe it without video showing him capping a dog, while wearing his own jersey and a name tag thet says :Hi, my name is ron mexico Michael Vick". At that point I'm sure some will still refuse to believe it.

I'm not personally a supporter, but I don't think you should send a man to jail and ruin his life based on the testimony of someone trying to get out of or lessen a jail term. If I were offered to roll on you to save my ass, I would make stuff up about what you did just to save myself and please the D.A. / FBI.

You shouldn't rely on the testimony of a crook to put another crook away, if I was on the jury I wouldn't trust the words of some criminal trying to save his own ass.

and why are you stealing quotes from Jim Rome?

I haven't listened to Rom in years though I'm impressed at how much he's improved if his comments lately sound anything like what I've said.

As for not believing the word of someone trying to avoid jail time, it's not the only evidence. It's simply confirmation of the other evidence that they have. It's also unlikely that the other guy will walk entirely, he's still going to serve some time for what he has done.

[Flack38 0]

As of right now, with only the indictment being public I would have to say that hearsay from crooks/other crooks are the only things we have to base our opinions on. If there is smoking gun evidence I'll be the first one in line to want to throw this guy away and ruin his career. Until then I'll wait for the story and facts to unfold a bit more before I'm willing to ruin another human's life.

Duke rape case.

[Chadd 916]

As of right now, with only the indictment being public I would have to say that hearsay from crooks/other crooks are the only things we have to base our opinions on. If there is smoking gun evidence I'll be the first one in line to want to throw this guy away and ruin his career. Until then I'll wait for the story and facts to unfold a bit more before I'm willing to ruin another human's life.

Duke rape case.

A witness is not hearsay evidence.

[Flack38 0]

As of right now, with only the indictment being public I would have to say that hearsay from crooks/other crooks are the only things we have to base our opinions on. If there is smoking gun evidence I'll be the first one in line to want to throw this guy away and ruin his career. Until then I'll wait for the story and facts to unfold a bit more before I'm willing to ruin another human's life.

Duke rape case.

A witness is not hearsay evidence.

If its a cook snitching on another crook it is. If it were an FBI agent... thats a bit different. I would not throw a person in Jail because Person A and B said Person C did something without physical evidence of them doing it.

[mack 44]

So you have absolutely no faith in the court system and perjury offences.

[Chadd 916]

As of right now, with only the indictment being public I would have to say that hearsay from crooks/other crooks are the only things we have to base our opinions on. If there is smoking gun evidence I'll be the first one in line to want to throw this guy away and ruin his career. Until then I'll wait for the story and facts to unfold a bit more before I'm willing to ruin another human's life.

Duke rape case.

A witness is not hearsay evidence.

If its a cook snitching on another crook it is. If it were an FBI agent... thats a bit different. I would not throw a person in Jail because Person A and B said Person C did something without physical evidence of them doing it.

No it is called direct evidence. Hearsay is what person A heard person B say about person C. This is what person A saw and heard person B say and do. You don't get to make up your own legal definitions, we have a legislature and a court system for that.

And what you would do has nothing to do with the law. If anyone had business dealings with him about this or was at any of the dogfights, they are crooks by definition. There is no way any pure and clean individuals saw him commit the crimes, so by your definition it didn't happen and you can't convict him. The kennel was run by his friends and family, it's not like they were going to get someone on the inside.

While I am a big believer in letting a hundred guilty men go free rather than imprisoning one innocent man, your standards are absolutely asinine and require a totally unreasonable level of proof. In this case, there is a significant amount of evidence showing that dogfighting took place on property he purchased, in a house that he built where a Kennel that he owned was based. Now that would probably be enough to convict him simply on the "conspiracy to..." charges, but they also have people who had dealings on dogfights with him personally. This isn't some type of roundabout if A = B and B =C, then A = C type of case. This is 1+2=3. You may not like how they establish the connections but what you like is entirely irrelevant in this case.

[Chadd 916]

Tony Taylor, 34, who will be sentenced Dec. 14, said he was not promised any specific sentence in return for his cooperation.

Taylor faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but federal sentencing guidelines likely will call for less. The guideline range will be determined by the court's probation office, and U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson can depart from that range if he finds aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

The written plea agreement requires Taylor to "testify truthfully and completely at any grand juries, trials or other proceedings." It says any truthful information provided by Taylor cannot form the basis of a stiffer sentence or additional charges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_...IqEpIxQA8MLMxIF

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/foot...s.ap/index.html

The two remaining co-defendants in Michael Vick's federal dogfighting case on Monday scheduled hearings to enter plea agreements.

Purnell Peace is set to appear in federal court in Richmond on Thursday and Quanis Phillips on Friday.

Last month, another original co-defendant, Tony Taylor, pleaded guilty to his role in a dogfighting conspiracy he says was financed almost entirely by the Atlanta Falcons quarterback.

Taylor agreed to fully cooperate with the government in its prosecution of Vick, Peace and Phillips, who are accused of running an interstate dogfighting enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels" on Vick's property in rural Surry County.

Attorneys for Peace and Phillips did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.

Collins R. Spencer III, a spokesman for Vick's defense team, said the lawyers were surprised by the plea deals.

"They didn't see it coming," Spencer said.

But he said it wouldn't affect the way he proceeds with the case.

Vick has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiring to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.

Vick, 27, attended several dogfights in Virginia and other states with his partners, according to the statement. Prosecutors claim the fights offered purses as high as $26,000.

And then there was one