There are I believe seven witnesses ,including an FBI undercover man.
No one says toss him in jail until his trial is done. But, does he have the right to play football when so many in the stands will be disgusted by him.? Will he be able to lead or play in the horrible circumstances that will be present. ? Will his team mates shrug it off?
Seeing as how Pacman Jones got booted for a year even though he got no jail time, fair is fair, right? Vick should be out for a year. There’s precedence now.
If he does go to jail, well, then he gets to be kicked out for a little longer.
I don’t understand this use of the word “right.” Do you mean, should he be able to force his team to play him? If so, no. I don’t think he should be able to force that.
Do you have a cite for that number? The indictment only mentions four witnesses, all of whom seem to be offering testimony in exchange for leniency in their own cases.
And how many of those persons claim to have witnessed Vick’s direct involvement? Much of the indictment is couched in terms of Vick being a “sponsor” of a dog, which seems like vague language to me. For all we really know, this could just mean Vick’s mooching cousin showed up with a dog he bought using Vick’s money.
Vick may be guilty, but IMO we don’t yet have enough information to reach that conclusion.
Pacman had a long history of run-ins with the police. Ten prior incidents.
Vick has had:
Incident with a water bottle at airport. No charges were filed. (Though one wonders if team officials greased the right palms to get the matter dropped.)
Flipping off fans who were booing him.
Lawsuit over an STD. (Embarrassing but not a criminal matter.)
Anything else?
What, that’s not enough?
He didn’t get any jail time for the most recent transgression. Goddell was disciplining him for his entire list of evils.
In any case, the rest of what I said still stands.
What, that’s not enough?
He didn’t get any jail time for the most recent transgression. Goddell was disciplining him for his entire list of evils. Hell, for future evils, he might warrant suspension.
In any case, the rest of what I said still stands.
This article mentions some others.
Well, there are no prior crimes. He might have smoked some pot. (Probably did.) He has some unsavory associates. (Per the article linked by Xema.) But that doesn’t make him a criminal.
It’s nothing like the record Pacman amassed.
Sports radio in my car yesterday. I did not record it.
That dude’s three heartbeats away from the presidency. That makes 3 1/2 heartbeats to President Condi Rice.
At least he wont ignore the constitution he swore to uphold.
Sounds like the commissioner is trying to talk Vick into taking a paid leave. (The implicit threat may be that if Vick doesn’t take a paid leave, he will get an unpaid one.)
And it sounds like Sen. John Kerry, with one finger in the wind, is riding to the front of the lynch mob:
Due process be damned, I guess. Disappointing that an attorney and supposed defender of the Constitution would take that stance. He should know better.
Politicians typically don’t know better. One of the best stories from the Manson case involved Nixon calling Manson guilty while the trial was still going on, and Manson smuggling the paper headline into court the next day and flashing it to the sequestered jurors. This required all of the jurors to be interviewed in detail to show that they hadn’t been unduly influenced by the President’s comments.
Politicians, maybe not, but Kerry is a lawyer - a former prosecutor, no less. God, he’s a tool.
Right. Nixon was a lawyer as well. Let’s keep in mind that neither of these guys had really practiced law for some decades at the time of these comments.
There are some situations where an indictment can and does take folks out of their jobs pending results of a criminal case - I’ve known of prison guards and parole agents who were suspended from their jobs (with pay) pending results. And a teacher accused of sexual misconduct can expect to be suspended pending results of trial as well. The issue is generally if it’s with or without pay.
I suspended an employee w/o pay pending results of an internal investigation over banking irregularities (without a criminal indictment).
Hey, since when do YOU defend the liberal while I call him a tool? 
wring, in the cases you cite, the concern is that having the person on the job may well result in further harm. The person is accused of a crime which calls into question their faithfulness or trustworthiness in performing their job.
In Vick’s case, he has been indicted for a crime which has nothing to do with performance of his job. If he had been indicted for betting on football games, then it would be more analogous to the situations you mention.
And even in that case, I think suspension with pay would be the appropriate way to go, pending outcome of the legal proceedings. (Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.)
I actually think the commissioner’s proposal is best for all concerned. It’s a leave of absence with pay, so Vick is not being financially punished based solely on unproven accusations. At the same time, it forestalls the circus which would surely ensue if Vick were to play this year, something the NFL doesn’t need. And from Vick’s perspective, it allows him to focus his full attention on defending himself. It’s a win-win proposal (with the losers, I guess, being Arthur Blank and Falcons ticketholders).
The article says Vick is determined to play, though, so who knows how this will all turn out?