Nope. Just a concerned citizen.
Still looking for that Federal indictment on Richard Jewell…maybe I missed it.
Hm. Not there it seems. This isn’t just some dipshit under investigation, this is a 18 page indictment supported by months of god knows how many man-hours of investigation by several agencies.
Jeff is right.
Vick knew, Vick participated, Vick needs to pay.
Moreover, IMO, Vick is human effluvia, simply awaiting his place atop the smouldering ash heap of history’s losers.
He did things he knew were wrong because he thought that money and fame were enough of an insulator to protect him. He was wrong.
Every pass he’s thrown, every play he’s made, every good thing he’s ever done has been wiped out by the torture and execution of innocent animals, and his part in it.
May he rot penniless and in jail until he draws his last breath.
That’s a matter of reputation, trust, and liability. The populace generally feels that such criminals cannot be rehabilitated, so they wish to distance themselves from that person. It may be an indicator that we feel that the law doesn’t punish such criminals sufficiently on its own.
As an interesting comparison of high-profile celebrity criminals, we can look at Errol Flynn and Roman Polanski. Both accused of the same crime, both continued to work in the same field. Flynn was cleared of the crime, and Polanski has evaded trial, but that hasn’t hurt him: he won a Palme d’Or and an Academy Award in 2002.
I said that I don’t personally object if a person loses his job as a consequence of his crime and conviction. I don’t want it to be a de facto punishment. Our cry shouldn’t be “he should lose his job!” but “he should stand trial.”
In reading posts on other boards, I find it odd that many in his “keepin it real” fanbase are calling for the judicial process to play out- when did keepin it real involve faith in the judicial system?
I don’t think they’re exhibiting faith in the judicial system; I think the exhibiting faith in the defense team they think his money can buy.
Yes, as I said. There is an indictment bristling with allegations. Allegations. Mostly supported (apparently) by testimony from people trying to save their own skins.
Maybe Vick is guilty. But neither you nor I (nor Jeff Schultz) have heard any of the actual evidence. All that’s there for the moment is purchased testimony from (IMO) highly suspect sources, and a prosecutor who may be looking for a feather in his/her cap.
Maybe Vick is guilty. Maybe. I am content to wait and let a jury decide that question. I’ve learned my lesson about lynching suspects based on media reports and prosecutors’ statements (Jewell, Duke lacrosse).
Most grand juries rubber stamp whatever indictment a prosecutor brings before them. All an indictment means is that there is some evidence that the defendant committed a crime. It tells us next to nothing about the quality of that evidence. It is an accusation.
Do you feel that someone who regards *watching animals forced to kill each other * as “fun” and slamming a live animal onto concrete until it dies as a hobby can be rehabilitated?
Do you feel that a few years in prison, or a fine that’s a fraction of his income, is sufficient punishment?
Sailboat
This is The Pit, but cite?
I’ve served on a grand jury, and we never rubber stamped a damn thing. We no billed quite a few of the DAs cases for what we thought was insufficient evidence, some that the DA thought would sail right through I’m sure. Also, the instructions we got was not to determine if there was some evidence of a crime, but if there was enough evidence to prosecute. It really had everything to do with the quality of the evidence.
I confess, I kinda believe he is involved. However, I am really pleased with the NFL’s stand.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/07/18/vick.league/index.html
Our country has a code of laws. One of them is “innocent until proven guilty.”
I abhor the crime that has been alleged to take place. It appears without question that the crime did take place. Whether Vick is responsible first must be proved. Until it has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt in a court of law, they are only allegations.
The fine, in his case, is no punishment. That is not a reflection on the seriousness of the crime, but on the means by which those fines are set. The jail time would serve as a better punishment, though I seriously doubt it would rehabilitate him.
Get a grip, I believe he should definitely do some time and face hefty fines if he is found guilty but do you honestly believe he should spend the rest of his life in prison?
I applaud your conscientiousness, but I believe it is the exception. “Rubber stamp” was unnecessarily demeaning to the jurors, and I regret using that description, but in general, prosecutors who know what they’re doing can sway a grand jury to return an indictment. That is common wisdom in the legal community.
Technically speaking, the standard for indictment is variously stated as “probable cause” or “reasonable grounds” to believe the defendant has committed a crime. This is something more than suspicion, but less than conclusive proof. Some history here. From that cite:
Which supports what I was saying.
With all due respect, the grand jury hears only one side of the case. If the prosecutor presents a couple of witnesses who have cut a deal (as is apparently the case with Vick), the grand jury may never realize this. A couple of witnesses saying Vick was at a dogfight will be enough to get him indicted, never mind that these witnesses may be lying through their teeth to try to escape a jail sentence of their own.
Michael Vick may be an idiot, but did you hear Senator Byrd today? Yeesh.
spoke, how does this jibe with a 98%+ conviction rate that’s been thrown around for federal indictments? I can see your point, but I think the “you can indict a ham sandwich” type comments are directed more towards state and local prosecutions. From what I’ve been reading, federal indictments seem to be an entirely different animal.
Not sure where that number came from. The conviction rate in the district where Vick has been indicted is something like 78%. My cite: I read it somewhere in the last day or so. 
And if you read the link in my last post, it says that it’s actually easier to get an indictment in federal court than in many state courts.
According to this (draft) statistical analysis, the overall federal conviction rate is 85%.
I’m sympathetic to those of Byrd’s age, but he really should retire.
Byrd loves his rhetorical flourishes, but as far as I’m concerned, this speech, wisely counseling against war in Iraq (back in 2003), and chastising the Senate for its silent acquiescence during the run-up to invasion, earned Byrd a lifetime seat.
/hijack
I do not believe the people that went after Jewell really believed he was guilty. The Olympics were going on and they had to make the visitors feel safe. Someone had to be blamed and charged . He was in a bad spot.
There actually is a Ron Canada to go along with Ron Mexico.