Michael Vick plea agreement

[friedo]

In case anyone’s interested, here it is (PDF).

The most damning part is the penultimate paragraph:

32. In or about April 2007, PEACE, PHILLIPS, VICK, and two others “rolled” or “tested” additional “Bad Newz Kennels” dogs by putting the dogs through fighting sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road to determine which animals were good fighters. PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in “testing” sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. VICK agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of PEACE, PHILLIPS, and VICK.

[OneCentStamp]

I’m sure the prosecutor wouldn’t have settled for anything less than that.

[Marley23]

But he didn’t plead guilty gambling and said he got no from the fights, which means he didn’t admit to the charge that could have gotten him banned from the NFL for life. And according to ESPN’s reading of the plea, he admits he was aware of the killing of the dogs in April, but doesn’t admit he took part in them.

[friedo]

@Marley23

But he didn’t plead guilty gambling and said he got no from the fights, which means he didn’t admit to the charge that could have gotten him banned from the NFL for life. And according to ESPN’s reading of the plea, he admits he was aware of the killing of the dogs in April, but doesn’t admit he took part in them.

There are two incidents of dog killing discussed in the plea. The first was in the summer of 2002 (discussed in paragraph 12). In that instance, Vick does not admit to participating in the killing. In the April 2007 instance, (paragraph 32) he admits he participated. (That’s my interpretation, anyway. It seems clear enough.)

[Marley23]

@friedo

There are two incidents of dog killing discussed in the plea. The first was in the summer of 2002 (discussed in paragraph 12). In that instance, Vick does not admit to participating in the killing. In the April 2007 instance, (paragraph 32) he admits he participated. (That’s my interpretation, anyway. It seems clear enough.)

I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I can imagine an interpretation where saying the dogs died as a result of his efforts (along with others) doesn’t mean he literally killed them. If he was admitted to actually killing them, I think it would be spelled out.