Vick will be offered a deal - lawyers say, "Take it!"
- Thread starter enserio
- Start date
yeah but i was right about vick not being suspended UNTIL peta wackos started staging protests. BLANK AND GOODELL WERE GONNA LET THIS PLAY OUT UNTIL THE PUBLIC OUTCRY. and still to this day this case rests solely on the accusations made by sinking men. go read those indictments. there are no specific dates, just general time frames sometimes months such as "in or around" spring of 2003. please. he hasnt plead yet. no solid evidence THAT WE KNOW OF. and if you think a picture of 4 guys posing with a dog is enough to convict vick of dogfighting then you better start bitching about r lee ermey. there are pictures of him posing with a pitbull he bought from lockjaw kennels, one of the kennels supposedly involved in this dog fighting operation.
you operate under the assumption that there is no way these prosecutors are being overzealous. also the 90 percent conviction rate which is also skewed. when cases in vicks area of indictment are taken to trial the rate is 50/50 go look up the doj stats.
what is gonzales the a.g. getting questioned about recently? FIRING PROSECUTORS WHO DIDNT INDICT WHEN INSTRUCTED TO EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE WASNT SUFFICIENT. you put an awful lot of trust in the feds. we'll find out today, if vick takes the deal or not. i think he's going to but right now its still up in the air.
what is gonzales the a.g. getting questioned about recently? FIRING PROSECUTORS WHO DIDNT INDICT WHEN INSTRUCTED TO EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE WASNT SUFFICIENT. you put an awful lot of trust in the feds. we'll find out today, if vick takes the deal or not. i think he's going to but right now its still up in the air.
wow..you I think you love Vick more than his Family does.
THE INDICTMENT SHOWS THAT SHIT. Once they get to trial they will give "specifics". no solid evidence??? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, everyone is just pleading guilty for the fuck of it...lawyers looked at the case and what the prosecution has, and made the wise decisions of having thier clients plead....if there was no solid evidence there wouldn't be some many pleas already.
And this case isn't about ermey...this case is about Vick...who point blank said he had no knowledge, no connections and no invovlment....if you don't think a pic right before a fight disapproves all 3 of his denials you are 1 rock stupid "FAN"
i didnt say there wasnt solid evidence of dogfighting. im just saying its possible vick was sending these guys an allowance to live off of and to this day theres no solid evidence that you or i know of that says otherwise. JUST TESTIMONY FROM THOSE OTHER CATS. what evidence proves BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT VICK KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON?
youre right, there is evidence. TO CONVICT THE THREE LIVING THERE. now they have to prove that vick KNOWINGLY GAVE MONEY TO THEM FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DOGFIGHTING. beyond a reasonable doubt.
vick starts up breedig business for buddies.
vick gives them 3000 to maintain business.
buddies get busted fighting dogs without vicks knowledge.
prosecutor and usda want vick for dogfighting.
buddies roll to save their ass.
thats enough to resemble reasonable doubt.
the prosecution now has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that vick knowingly gave those boys money for dogfighting. if all the evidence they have against vick is the word of these cooperating witnesses then he is beating this case. those dudes credibility will be shredded so they better have evidence PROVING vick KNEW what they were doing.
im not saying this is what happened but i cant think of any other gameplan the defense would go for. you have to put away in the back of your mind the fact that its likely vick knew about this situation. the jury is dealing with facts not opinions here. the situation i presented resembles reasonable doubt and if the prosecution doesnt have documentation or video audio evidence the case falls apart.
why the hell would the prosecution give vick a break by allowing him to plea out today and not have to face the serious charge carrying 20 years?
think about it. when has that ever happened?
how solid is their case once the credibility of the witnesses is destroyed?
especially without a paper trail or video/audio evidence.
a picture of vick posing with a dog and the other 3 proves nothing unless there is a ring in the background with dogs in the act of a fight.
im not saying how the case goes either way til i see the evidence or lack thereof.
vick starts up breedig business for buddies.
vick gives them 3000 to maintain business.
buddies get busted fighting dogs without vicks knowledge.
prosecutor and usda want vick for dogfighting.
buddies roll to save their ass.
thats enough to resemble reasonable doubt.
the prosecution now has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that vick knowingly gave those boys money for dogfighting. if all the evidence they have against vick is the word of these cooperating witnesses then he is beating this case. those dudes credibility will be shredded so they better have evidence PROVING vick KNEW what they were doing.
im not saying this is what happened but i cant think of any other gameplan the defense would go for. you have to put away in the back of your mind the fact that its likely vick knew about this situation. the jury is dealing with facts not opinions here. the situation i presented resembles reasonable doubt and if the prosecution doesnt have documentation or video audio evidence the case falls apart.
why the hell would the prosecution give vick a break by allowing him to plea out today and not have to face the serious charge carrying 20 years?
think about it. when has that ever happened?
how solid is their case once the credibility of the witnesses is destroyed?
especially without a paper trail or video/audio evidence.
a picture of vick posing with a dog and the other 3 proves nothing unless there is a ring in the background with dogs in the act of a fight.
im not saying how the case goes either way til i see the evidence or lack thereof.
first off it's only 6 not 20..the 20+ is if he doesn't accept the plea and they add on addl charges....like the gambling charges I mentioned earlier.
why would they let him off??? same reason they let THOUSANDS of people a day plead....so they don't waste the courts time, the juries time, the defendants time, etc....... It happens everyday
My question to you is why would he be working on a deal if he's not guilty?? with all that he has at stake (career), with all the money he has don't you think he has some pretty smart lawyers? If they seen anyway to beat it they would go after it to keep them on books to get paid, and to also free thier client......none of this is happening....why? because they have what you are looking for, they just don't supply that for pulic knowledge before the casese are tried...comprimises jury pool!
I understand you don't want your boy to be guilty, but with everything going onit is highly unlikely he isn't.
well theres no plea deal as of yet. i do think thats going to happen. im really hoping the prosecution isnt that lame that all the evidence they have has been seen. i doubt they would stoop that low but its possible. but if this goes to trial you better believe its because the evidence is pretty much word of mouth. and look at the mouths these words are coming out of.
there was a rumor months ago that one of the guys cooperating with the feds was this guy
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2187/SC/US/
there was a rumor months ago that one of the guys cooperating with the feds was this guy
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/2187/SC/US/