Michael Vick

[effo5231]

So Vick is getting out of jail this week, and plans on playing in the league this fall. My question is where do you see him going and would you want him on this team?

Me personally, I'd like to see this guy rot in obscurity for the rest of his life, and I would personally stop supporting the Ravens for the duration of his stay here should we do the unthinkable... but I know that I'm a bit biased as I own a fight rescue and work with such dogs routinely.

Thoughts?

[Dragz]

I don't see him playing in the league this season. Goodell is a stern commissioner and I think he'll make Vick sit out for a year. When he does come back to the game, I could see him in Seattle, if his skills haven't degraded TOO much. Hasselbeck is gettin towards the end and they don't have a viable QB on their roster behind him.

[effo5231]

I agree with the first part, about sitting out a year... But I don't see Vick making a team as a QB ever again. He's more likely going to make a team as a Pat White style Wildcat QB who plays mostly RB, WR, or KR.

That's why I see us having a need for him... at WR, I just don't want him.

[Mista T]

"Just say no" to this thug. :thumbdown:

[bmorebirds_24]

I get a feeling I may get blasted here but, the guy did his time pad for his mistake and I think he deserves another chance.


PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM SAYING WHAT HE DID WAS RIGHT. But, the man paid his dues; Why not let him have a second chance in life and in the NFL.


As for on our team, I don't see a spot for him, or a reason to play o this team. So to him as a Raven, NO. But, I would still be a Raven fan if they were to do the "unthinkable".

[effo5231]

I get a feeling I may get blasted here but, the guy did his time pad for his mistake and I think he deserves another chance.


PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM SAYING WHAT HE DID WAS RIGHT. But, the man paid his dues; Why not let him have a second chance in life and in the NFL.


His second chance is getting out of prison. The NFL is not a right.

[highwater]

I see no way that the Ravens would even consider bringing Vick on board.

As to the broader issue of whether or not he deserves a chance to play again in the NFL, I think it's a slightly more complicated question than a lot of people are making it out to be. Yes, he did his time and can re-enter society, but that doesn't mean he has earned the right to play again in the NFL. If I got arrested for multiple felonies and lost my job because of that, do you think my former employer would welcome me back with open arms after I served my sentence? The answer is NO. They would not be obligated to rehire me, and the same holds for Vick.

Some idiot team (Oakland, anyone?) may bring him in if Goodell allows it, but I personally hope he nevers plays again in the NFL.

[Beerracuda]

I wouldn't blast you for having an opinion, bmorebirds.... Granted, the guy did 2 years in prison, and rightfully so. If I thought he was a decent guy before the dog-fighting case was revealed, then I might think differently of him. However, this is a guy who was clearly a piece of shit before all this went down, including giving the double finger salute to the home crowd fans. He certainly needed to be brought down a few notches.

Has his stint in jail transformed him into a decent person? Perhaps so, perhaps not. Let him sit out another year and see what his attitude is after being free for a year. (I would advise just telling him that his suspension is indefinite, so that he has no idea how long he has to play "Mr Nice Guy", just in case he's putting on an act). A feeling deep down inside me says that he probably hasn't changed. Anyone who's capable of doing what he's done will probably not change. But, of course, that remains to be seen.

As for if/when he does return to the NFL, I think it would be a publicity nightmare for any team to bring him aboard. Not only for the obvious protesters who would still want blood, but it would heap a lot of negative national attention onto that team.

All that said, I never thought he was that good of a QB anyway.

[RavensDomination]

I think there's a decent shot he'll never play again. He wasn't that great of a QB in the first place, and what team is going to want that kind of backlash? Thank God the Ravens have their solution at the QB position so we don't hear any Vick rumors.

[NC Raven]

At this point I think a team would have to be in a bad way at QB to sign him. He hasn't played in .... how long? And now two years older (maybe 3 by the time he's allowed a chance in the league) he won't have the wheels and elusiveness he used to have, so any chance of playing a non QB position like WR, a position he's never played BTW, is pretty much nil.

As to the other issues, I think: he did something horrible, but so did Leonard Little. And our own Ray committed obstruction of justice in a murder case. Jamal Lewis did time in a drug case. He got to play again. Guys commit crimes, like it or not, they get to move on in life. So if one guy commits a crime and gets to play, then IMO why not Vick? The NFL is just like any other workplace; if you have the ability you can be signed. I see no reason why if he's done with his criminal stuff, that he should be allowed to do one kind of job, but not another.

To go to effo's points: while playing in the NFL "is not a right", neither is driving a cab, digging a ditch, or waiting tables. So ANY job he applies to, you could say "he has no right to that." But that''s not correct. His punishment was his jail time, probation and his fines. NOT a lifetime of being banned from gainful employment and harassed into perpetual poverty. If you think the penalty should have been worse, lobby the federal govt and ask for the law to be changed. This society is a democracy, not a mob.

[HoustonRaven]

To go to effo's points: while playing in the NFL "is not a right", neither is driving a cab, digging a ditch, or waiting tables. So ANY job he applies to, you could say "he has no right to that." But that''s not correct. His punishment was his jail time, probation and his fines. NOT a lifetime of being banned from gainful employment and harassed into perpetual poverty. If you think the penalty should have been worse, lobby the federal govt and ask for the law to be changed. This society is a democracy, not a mob.

I'm nit-picking, but there is no right to a job written anywhere. You me, or Vick have absolutely zero right to any job.

And we're not a Democracy; not even close. We live in a representative Republic.

[kfd023md]

Let me say off the bat, I do not condone what Vick did. However, I do believe he deserves another shot in the NFL.

Sure what he did was horrible, but he paid his debt, and he deserves the right to begin making a living again. His way of making a living is playing professional football.

He’s a great talent, and I hope he comes back and crushes it.

And are we all forgetting that Leonard Little killed a human, got a second DUI , and still is playing in the NFL.

[highwater]

So if one guy commits a crime and gets to play, then IMO why not Vick?

I would argue that he didn't commit "a crime" -- this was multiple crimes commited over several years. This is why I can't stand the "He made a mistake, let's get over it" arguement. He did not make a mistake -- this was a premeditated, multi-year operation, not "a mistake." It certainly has little in common (IMO) to what happened to Ray Lewis or Jamal Lewis.

Leonard Little is another matter, as he is also a multiple offender, even after taking someone's life. I don't think he should be in the league either.

[HoustonRaven]

I would argue that he didn't commit "a crime" -- this was multiple crimes commited over several years. This is why I can't stand the "He made a mistake, let's get over it" arguement. He did not make a mistake -- this was a premeditated, multi-year operation, not "a mistake."

I would also add it was an operation he attempted to cover up.

[effo5231]

And are we all forgetting that Leonard Little killed a human, got a second DUI , and still is playing in the NFL.

You seem to assume that there's only a certain amount of outrage and that if I use it all up on Vick, I can't spare any for the indecency that is Tagliabue's refusal to discipline Little... Both situations disgust me. And if Donte Stallworth is proven responsible for the guy that he killed in Florida I wouldn't want him playing either...

But even if I had to choose only one of those guys to keep out, I'd still pick Vick. Little and Stallworth got drunk and did something exceedingly reckless, but nobody is claiming that they woke up one morning and thought, "Hmm... I sure would like to kill someone with my car today." Vick was the financier and manager of a criminal organization focused on torturing animals for sport, torture that he directly took part in both through fights, training, and the brutal killings of dogs.

In effo's grand scales of justice, Vick committed a more reprehensible crime, even though the victims in Stallworth and Little's cases were clearly more valuable lives.

[psuasskicker]

And are we all forgetting that Leonard Little killed a human, got a second DUI , and still is playing in the NFL.

No one here has forgotten that and more than a few of us don't agree with Little still being allowed to suit up. Don't put words in people's mouths...

- C -

[crazyraven]

Vick was an exciting player to watch. I have to admit Id like to see if he still can out run a defense. if he catches on with a franchise and does well most fans will forget what he did in the past. Ultimately He did his time so let him play.

[highwater]

Little and Stallworth got drunk and did something exceedingly reckless, but nobody is claiming that they woke up one morning and thought, "Hmm... I sure would like to kill someone with my car today." Vick was the financier and manager of a criminal organization focused on torturing animals for sport, torture that he directly took part in both through fights, training, and the brutal killings of dogs.

I totally agree. I'm definitely not giving Little or Stallworth a pass, but Vick is different because he planned all this, and carried it out for years. That's why it's not a mistake, it was a choice -- hell, it was a lifestyle.

And you reminded me of the sadistic nature of the killing of the dogs they didn't deem worthy of fighting. They obviously didn't need to kill the not-worthy dogs at all -- they could have simply gotten rid of them -- but if you're going to kill them, a bullet in the head would have been a lot easier than hanging them, drowning them, beating them to death, and electrocuting them. You have to actually go to a lot of trouble to hang a dog; they apparently did it because they enjoyed it. Sick, sick, sick.

That may have little to do with the issue of whether or not Vick should be allowed back into the league, but everyone who thinks he has a right to be employed by the NFL is wrong. He can get a job anywhere once he's out of federal custody, but the NFL doesn't have to hire him.

[RavenScallywag]

I think he'll end up playing in the CFL or UFL before someone brings him in seriously here. He's been in prison for over a year, so he can't be totally in football shape yet. Let him prove himself at a lower level before bringing him back in.

After that, the Raiders.

[psuasskicker]

I think he'll end up playing in the CFL or UFL before someone brings him in seriously here. He's been in prison for over a year, so he can't be totally in football shape yet. Let him prove himself at a lower level before bringing him back in.

Is the UFL the new league that's opening up in a couple years? There's some good money going into that league. A couple months back a few friends of mine and I were discussing Vick, and I said my theory was actually that Vick wouldn't come back to the NFL. I think he'll wind up headlining the UFL, and they'll make him their poster-child. "Reformed criminal, he's turned his life around! Come see one of the most electric men in football lead the UFL!"

It's all dependent on him actually turning things around. But the UFL will have time to evaluate that before they start up. And if he does, is Vick gonna take vet min to back up someone till he proves he can play again? Or is he gonna take $3 mil to headline a league and be their premiere player? That's a no-brainer...

- C -

[afcnchamps]

I think that the law took care of him. He was made an example out of and he has paid his time. The league has a right to suspend players for things they don't think are acceptable but for the most part these guys don't face any jail time and therefore must be punished by the league itself. But in Vick's case he did have to serve time. If he didn't serve time he would've been suspended and reinstated by now most likely so why does he now have to serve two seperate terms for the same crime?

Also the same people that don't think there will be any interest in him are the same people that thought nobody would want TO. If we could get him for cheap then I would be excited but I would see him going to a team with no QB or a team with a great quarterback that he can't threaten for the starting job.

[ravenmaniac]

So Vick is getting out of jail this week, and plans on playing in the league this fall. My question is where do you see him going and would you want him on this team?

Me personally, I'd like to see this guy rot in obscurity for the rest of his life, and I would personally stop supporting the Ravens for the duration of his stay here should we do the unthinkable... but I know that I'm a bit biased as I own a fight rescue and work with such dogs routinely.

Thoughts?

Sorry, the dude paid his debt to society. He will have spent almost 2 full years in federal custody and will have lost about $100 Million in the process. If that isn't being punished then nothing is. He should be allowed to earn a living doing what he does which is playing profootball. There should be NO reason to not allow him to play at this point.

[ravenmaniac]

I see no way that the Ravens would even consider bringing Vick on board.

As to the broader issue of whether or not he deserves a chance to play again in the NFL, I think it's a slightly more complicated question than a lot of people are making it out to be. Yes, he did his time and can re-enter society, but that doesn't mean he has earned the right to play again in the NFL. If I got arrested for multiple felonies and lost my job because of that, do you think my former employer would welcome me back with open arms after I served my sentence? The answer is NO. They would not be obligated to rehire me, and the same holds for Vick.

Some idiot team (Oakland, anyone?) may bring him in if Goodell allows it, but I personally hope he nevers plays again in the NFL.

Maybe not your formal employer but some other employer in your field should. If he did something to the game like gamble and throw games, then a lifetime ban would be in order but this is separate from his profession.

[pyite32]

The fact is that "paying your debt to society" isn't usually enough for most people, why should it be for Vick? I work in the finance industry and if I commited multiple felonies there is no way I would ever be allowed to work in this industry again. In fact most people who have commited crimes like Vick did are lucky to get dishwashing jobs. The fact that he can run fast should not make him any different or more special.

[ravenmaniac]

The fact is that "paying your debt to society" isn't usually enough for most people, why should it be for Vick? I work in the finance industry and if I commited multiple felonies there is no way I would ever be allowed to work in this industry again. In fact most people who have commited crimes like Vick did are lucky to get dishwashing jobs. The fact that he can run fast should not make him any different or more special.

It would depend on what the felonies were. If you were convicted of insider trading sure, you'd be looking to work elsewhere. The point is, he should still be able to make a living. If you don't think 2 yrs in prison, $100 Million is enough then nothing ever will be.

[jonboy79]

It would depend on what the felonies were. If you were convicted of insider trading sure, you'd be looking to work elsewhere. The point is, he should still be able to make a living. If you don't think 2 yrs in prison, $100 Million is enough then nothing ever will be.

I'm pretty sure he would not be able to retain a series 7 license with ANY felony on his record. Most "bonded" industries remove ex-felons from the equation.

[ravenmaniac]

I'm pretty sure he would not be able to retain a series 7 license with ANY felony on his record. Most "bonded" industries remove ex-felons from the equation.

Better stay out of the dog fighting business then.

[jonboy79]

Better stay out of the dog fighting business then.

And make sure you are sober every time you drive...

The point is, if the NFL wanted to ban the guy for life over this, I would have no issue with it. It is well within their rights, and would be acceptable.

[ravenmaniac]

And make sure you are sober every time you drive...

The point is, if the NFL wanted to ban the guy for life over this, I would have no issue with it. It is well within their rights, and would be acceptable.

I never drive drunk. I have, but I don't. I would have a problem with it because he's already lost $100 Million. It was a heinous crime, I didn't defend him when it happened and I don't today. But 2 years of confinement and $100 Million is A LOT of punishment. Depriving him of earning his living on top of it is OVERKILL.

[pyite32]

he can still earn a living. Last I heard he is making $10 dollars an hour doing construction. The NFL should be the pinnacle of what a person can reach, not a right.

Goodall needs to get even stricter until it is either a deterrent or he just weeds out all the bad seeds.

[ravenmaniac]

he can still earn a living. Last I heard he is making $10 dollars an hour doing construction. The NFL should be the pinnacle of what a person can reach, not a right.

Goodall needs to get even stricter until it is either a deterrent or he just weeds out all the bad seeds.

If it were a right we'd all be clamoring to play ball. The point is, he did a bad thing, a really bad thing and he PAID for it literally. $100 Million gone. 2 yrs of earning in a career that is relatively short anyway and federal prison for 2. He's been suspended for 2 yrs also. If someone wants to hire him and give him a shot, they should be allowed to. If you want him to be punished more than he already has, get in the PETA protest line when he comes to Baltimore.

[TheExtraPoint]

I actually wrote an article about this yesterday for another site that can be read here (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/178814-acquiring-vick-poses-inherent-risks-but-ravens-potentially-super-match).

The gist is that I think the Ravens could handle Vick properly, that they would pave a road to success for him that few other franchises could offer, that they could insulate him from the media better than a lot of teams would have the presence of mind to do, and also insulate themselves from risk in the way his contract is structured.

And that as a situational runner, receiver, passer, and decoy, he could make a major difference in the way teams defend the Ravens.

As for whether or not he's paid his dues, the answer is an undeniable yes, because the United States is a country governed by laws, in which the consequences of breaking them are tangible.

If a team WANTS to employ Vick, they now can and should (reinstatement permitting). The Humane Society's president has already met with Vick, and they share a mutual interest in working together to use his notoriety and that of his case to make an actual difference in this area.

If no team in the league wants to take on that risk, then he'll continue to suffer the consequences in the intangible ways that result: ie public perception of Vick, of his crimes, and the other various risks/rewards NFL employers consider.

Other occupations do not apply to this situation. The NFL is guided by a collective bargaining agreement and led by a commissioner amicable to reinstating Vick if he sees fit. There is nothing that will keep Michael Vick from playing football other than an utter lack of interest.

And if somehow that's the case, he'll almost definitely be the centerpiece for the upcoming UFL.

I don't advocate that the Ravens blindly sign him, nor do I intend to minimize the nature of his crimes - but I do see Baltimore as more of a fit than many others do, and think it's worth investigating.

And I think this incredibly horrifying incident offers a silver lining - The opportunity for Vick to resurrect his career, his image, his lifestyle, and most importantly his character, while bringing to light the consequences of his utterly stupid act so that others can learn from it.

[jonboy79]

he can still earn a living. Last I heard he is making $10 dollars an hour doing construction. The NFL should be the pinnacle of what a person can reach, not a right.

Goodall needs to get even stricter until it is either a deterrent or he just weeds out all the bad seeds.

Beyond that there is the CFL and the new football league starting... Certainly not depriving him of earning a living.... maybe comparable to what he was doing before... but not the situation we are describing above.

[ravenmaniac]

He wants to work with the humane society to teach young children who grew up on this stuff that its wrong. If this isn't working to get back and show you are ready to become an upstanding member of the community then nothing is.

I actually think he's a fit in San Fran. They have a hard line disciplinarian in Coach Singletary, Crabtree, a city thats used to a scrambling left handed QB and he'll be 3000 miles away from the boys he grew up with.

[pyite32]

If it were a right we'd all be clamoring to play ball. The point is, he did a bad thing, a really bad thing and he PAID for it literally. $100 Million gone. 2 yrs of earning in a career that is relatively short anyway and federal prison for 2. He's been suspended for 2 yrs also. If someone wants to hire him and give him a shot, they should be allowed to. If you want him to be punished more than he already has, get in the PETA protest line when he comes to Baltimore.

My point doesn't have anything to do with PETA. It's time the league took a serious stance on crime. It is getting out of hand. I am not only thinking about Vick when I am writing my comments. It's time for a new age of accountability in the NFL. It's time to expel players.

[HoustonRaven]

It would depend on what the felonies were. If you were convicted of insider trading sure, you'd be looking to work elsewhere. The point is, he should still be able to make a living. If you don't think 2 yrs in prison, $100 Million is enough then nothing ever will be.

The world needs ditch diggers, too.

[pyite32]

The world needs ditch diggers, too.

Captain, My Captain!

[ravenmaniac]

My point doesn't have anything to do with PETA. It's time the league took a serious stance on crime. It is getting out of hand. I am not only thinking about Vick when I am writing my comments. It's time for a new age of accountability in the NFL. It's time to expel players.

Really? Which crimes? And when does it start? Does it go back to the time when Ray pled guilty to obstructing justice in a double murder trial?

[HoustonRaven]

Really? Which crimes? And when does it start? Does it go back to the time when Ray pled guilty to obstructing justice in a double murder trial?

Really? You really dont see the difference between the two? Honestly?

:grbac:

Ray plead guilty to to his charge and if the prosecutor really thought Ray had something to do with those two dudes getting off'ed he would have NEVER accepted the deal. Ray got caught up in a horrific situation, none of which was his doing, and lied to protect friends before he even knew the bodies were room temperature. Ray did his time, made numerous apologies and reached out, sought and received redemption from both victims families (whom do not think he had anything to do with it, either)

On the flip side, Vick fought this every step of the way. Not to mention, this was not Vick's first transgression. He met the Commish and bold face lied to the Commish that he had nothing to do with it only to have those comments come back to burn him. He is damn lucky he is getting the shot he is getting.

[ravenmaniac]

I didn't say they weren't different. I said which crimes and when does this new process of expelling players begin.

[RavenTD]

He should go to Cleveland and let the Dawg pound get hold of him.
Sorry I could not resist.

Michael and Marcus Vick are thugs and Michael is not the role model you want in your holier than thou league that will never be clean,because you will always get the rotten apples coming through.When kids are brought in to colleges for physical abilities over intelligence and good character.

[ravenmaniac]

I'll bet anyone on here $100 that he plays again in the NFL though.

[NC Raven]

he can still earn a living. Last I heard he is making $10 dollars an hour doing construction. The NFL should be the pinnacle of what a person can reach, not a right.

Goodall needs to get even stricter until it is either a deterrent or he just weeds out all the bad seeds.

Why should he be allowed the privilege of working in construction? If you're going to says it's ok for him to work in one field, then on what basis -- what principle that you can apply fairly, across the board, in any situation -- can you say that he cannot work in another?

Dog training, I'll give you that. He should not be allowed to work in a pet grooming shop either. But football? Construction? Dishwashing? Fixing power lines? Why should he be allowed to do any of those, but not one of them in particular?

[NC Raven]

On the flip side, Vick fought this every step of the way.


He pled guilty. He did not go to trial and fight the charges. He admitted them.

[effo5231]

Why should he be allowed the privilege of working in construction? If you're going to says it's ok for him to work in one field, then on what basis -- what principle that you can apply fairly, across the board, in any situation -- can you say that he cannot work in another?

Dog training, I'll give you that. He should not be allowed to work in a pet grooming shop either. But football? Construction? Dishwashing? Fixing power lines? Why should he be allowed to do any of those, but not one of them in particular?

No one buys shirts with their favorite dishwasher's name on it. Children don't look up to ditch diggers. The NFL players enjoy elevated status in a society that practically worships them... Vick doesn't deserve that. He deserves to spend his life earning a living in a way that makes sure I never have to teach my son "Yes, sometimes really evil people get cheered and admired, but you still shouldn't act like them."

[highwater]

He pled guilty. He did not go to trial and fight the charges. He admitted them.\

He eventually admitted that he was guilty but only after it was apparent that he had no choice. Before the feds got involved and essentially nailed him, he did deny he had anything to do with it. He only admitted his guilt after being presented with a mountain of evidence that basically proved he was guilty. He doesn't get any brownie points for that.

[darb72]

I don't like what Vick did. I'm the kind of person who can't hurt any animal on purpose and dog fighting is just sick in my opinion.

That said, Vick has paid his debt to society. He made a huge mistake and he paid for it. Who among us doesn't have skeletons in our closet? I've got a few that I wouldn't want brought to light just like everybody else. If a NFL team thinks he can help them win, then it is their right to sign him if the Commish let's him back in.

Now do I want Vick on the Ravens? No. I just don't see how he'd be any help to us. We have Smith to run the Wildcat and need to focus on getting some of our players locked up long term.

[effo5231]

That said, Vick has paid his debt to society. He made a huge mistake and he paid for it. Who among us doesn't have skeletons in our closet? I've got a few that I wouldn't want brought to light just like everybody else.

I agree with a previous poster in that I am utterly sick of this "He made a huge mistake" nonsense. I once put diesel fuel in my non-diesel engine; that was a huge mistake. Running an interstate dog fighting/ gambling operation is not something you do by mistake. He did not trip and fall and land in on top of a large criminal organization. He spent years working to build a dog fighting empire, and worked very hard to conceal said empire from the authorities... That is not something that I call a mistake.

Also, I don't have any skeletons in my closet that even begin to compare to what Vick did... I assume that I am not unique in this regard.

[NC Raven]

I think the bottom line for a lot of this is: very few teams are going to want the media circus and negative publicity of signing him. Whether he "ought" to be "allowed" to freely consent to a contract with another freely consenting party is largely beside the point: I think most people understand there is no basis for preventing two consenting parties from making a deal together.

That said, it is extremely unlikely to happen. I wouldn't want the distraction on the Ravens -- this team is a championship contender, and might have gone on to win it all last year had one, single bonehead penalty not put them so far out of reach at the end of the afc championship game.

Vick is a living, breathing series of bonehead mistakes waiting to happen. Before this, it was other, minor things off the field, but he's never seemed to completely straighten out and be 100% about football. And I wouldn't want to be the team that tries to get him to be. That in itself is a gamble -- getting him to focus, since it's never happened. Then you add on the negative press... the media circus. Forget it. Not for the Ravens, and I suspect, it's not going to be worth it for anybody.

[darb72]

Also, I don't have any skeletons in my closet that even begin to compare to what Vick did... I assume that I am not unique in this regard.

You've never cheated on a test? You've never had a few to many and got behind the wheel of a car? You've never taken anything that doesn't belong to you?

Must be nice to be perfect. Just remember when you fall off a pedestal it tends to hurt like the dickens.

[jonboy79]

I agree with a previous poster in that I am utterly sick of this "He made a huge mistake" nonsense. I once put diesel fuel in my non-diesel engine; that was a huge mistake. Running an interstate dog fighting/ gambling operation is not something you do by mistake. He did not trip and fall and land in on top of a large criminal organization. He spent years working to build a dog fighting empire, and worked very hard to conceal said empire from the authorities... That is not something that I call a mistake.

Also, I don't have any skeletons in my closet that even begin to compare to what Vick did... I assume that I am not unique in this regard.

I agree, this is not a simple mistake. This is not even resembling drinking and drinving. This is continued involvement with gambling and organized crime. He ran an underground crime ring.

[effo5231]

You've never cheated on a test? You've never had a few to many and got behind the wheel of a car? You've never taken anything that doesn't belong to you?

Must be nice to be perfect. Just remember when you fall off a pedestal it tends to hurt like the dickens.

To answer your questions; no, a massive completely emphatic no, and yes.

So, in your mind would you be willing to compare shoplifting from Hot Topic when I was 15 to running an interstate dog fighting operation for years after graduating college? Would you say that the former is even kind of like the latter?

I never claimed to be perfect, but I don't think its a stretch to imagine that I am similar to the vast majority of Americans in that I am a law abiding, responsible citizen... Whereas Vick is the disgraced former kingpin of a criminal organization.

[Dave Lap]

Not sure what the answer is here. On the one hand I think that people deserve a second chance and that we should let the criminal justice system do the punishing.

On the other hand the NFL is a super high profile profession. The league has every right not to want players who have obvious criminal records.

I can see both sides...

[ravenmaniac]

No one buys shirts with their favorite dishwasher's name on it. Children don't look up to ditch diggers. The NFL players enjoy elevated status in a society that practically worships them... Vick doesn't deserve that. He deserves to spend his life earning a living in a way that makes sure I never have to teach my son "Yes, sometimes really evil people get cheered and admired, but you still shouldn't act like them."

LOL, why don't YOU teach your son the truth? I've been a dog owner all of my life and I don't believe this makes him "really evil". Really wrong, really naive, really selfish certainly but evil people rape babies and commit serial killings.

[ravenmaniac]

I agree with a previous poster in that I am utterly sick of this "He made a huge mistake" nonsense. I once put diesel fuel in my non-diesel engine; that was a huge mistake. Running an interstate dog fighting/ gambling operation is not something you do by mistake. He did not trip and fall and land in on top of a large criminal organization. He spent years working to build a dog fighting empire, and worked very hard to conceal said empire from the authorities... That is not something that I call a mistake.

Also, I don't have any skeletons in my closet that even begin to compare to what Vick did... I assume that I am not unique in this regard.

Dog fighting empire? LOL. Dude didn't make a penny on said empire. He would have been charged with money laundering. He LOST money on this empire.

[effo5231]

LOL, why don't YOU teach your son the truth? I've been a dog owner all of my life and I don't believe this makes him "really evil". Really wrong, really naive, really selfish certainly but evil people rape babies and commit serial killings.


Dog fighting empire? LOL. Dude didn't make a penny on said empire. He would have been charged with money laundering. He LOST money on this empire.
Reply With Quote


Clearly we have different standards of evil in that I consider anyone who tortures and kills helpless creatures evil. How you qualify torture as something "naive" or "selfish" indicates that you simply don't know what those words mean.

Also... you are demonstrating that you have a very poor understanding of what Vick did if you believe he wasn't making any money off this whole operation. Between the gambling and the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation he made a killing.

Vick was running fights with purses in the tens of thousands. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065)

[HoustonRaven]

Dog fighting empire? LOL. Dude didn't make a penny on said empire. He would have been charged with money laundering. He LOST money on this empire.

You obviously have zero idea about the case or what does and does not constitute money laundering.

[ravenmaniac]

I said it was wrong but I reserve the term "evil" for truly evil people like baby rapists. Michael Vick ain't the brightest bulb in the room but he didn't invent dog fighting. Its been going on for centuries all across the world. To indicate that he is a "kingpin" and an organized criminal is a joke.

[Rochardrik]

I agree with a previous poster in that I am utterly sick of this "He made a huge mistake" nonsense. I once put diesel fuel in my non-diesel engine; that was a huge mistake. Running an interstate dog fighting/ gambling operation is not something you do by mistake. He did not trip and fall and land in on top of a large criminal organization. He spent years working to build a dog fighting empire, and worked very hard to conceal said empire from the authorities... That is not something that I call a mistake.

Also, I don't have any skeletons in my closet that even begin to compare to what Vick did... I assume that I am not unique in this regard.

Spot On!!!!

[ravenmaniac]

You obviously have zero idea about the case or what does and does not constitute money laundering.

I read every article I could find at the time. It sickened me. It was disgusting. I clearly know about the case and about money laundering. The point is, he served 2 yrs and it cost him upwards to $100 MILLION. THAT is punishment enough for his crime. If he comes out and works with The Humane Society in teaching inner city kids (who grow up with this as if its normal) then I think he can turn a really bad thing into something positive. Not allowing him to work in his chosen profession is piling on in my opinion.

[effo5231]

I said it was wrong but I reserve the term "evil" for truly evil people like baby rapists. Michael Vick ain't the brightest bulb in the room but he didn't invent dog fighting. Its been going on for centuries all across the world. To indicate that he is a "kingpin" and an organized criminal is a joke.

Dude... he was an organized criminal. You're obvious ignorance on the subject is what I'd call a joke.



[Michael Vick was] instrumental in promoting, funding and facilitating this cruel and inhumane sporting activity."



In a plea agreement, Vick admitted bankrolling the dogfighting ring on his 15-acre property in rural Virginia.



JULY 17--NFL star Michael Vick was indicted today on a federal conspiracy charge for his alleged role in a dog fighting venture that operated from a Virginia property owned by the Atlanta Falcons quarterback. A copy of the indictment, filed today in U.S. District Court in Richmond, can be found below. The 27-year-old Vick, whose nickname is listed as "Ookie" in the indictment, allegedly established the Bad Newz Kennels in early-2001 in Smithfield, Virginia. It was this property, for which Vick paid $34,000, that the star athlete and his codefendants used as the "main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved in the dog fighting venture and hosting dog fights." According to prosecutors, Vick and his cohorts began purchasing pit bull puppies in late-2001 and would eventually "sponsor" individual dog fights with purses as high as $26,000. In the indictment's most harrowing parts, federal investigators describe what happened to some Bad Newz Kennels dogs that either lost matches or did not perform well in test fights. After a March 2003 loss by a female pit bull, codefendant Purnell Peace, "after consulting with Vick," electrocuted the animal. In April, prosecutors allege, Vick, Peace, and Quanis Phillips, "executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions." These animals, the indictment claims, were killed "by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

Read the indictment. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick1.html) Kingpin is clearly the word that best describes Vick's involvement in an organized crime ring devoted to the torture and killing of animals for sport. and if you don't consider torturing defenseless animals evil... well you and I clearly have very different views on morality.

[ravenmaniac]

He organized dog fights for sport and fun and small change wagering. When you are working on $100 million for sports and endorsements, a $10K bet on a dog fight is CHUMP change. Organized criminals run the organization as a for profit business. He did it for thrills.

[effo5231]

He organized dog fights for sport and fun and small change wagering. When you are working on $100 million for sports and endorsements, a $10K bet on a dog fight is CHUMP change. Organized criminals run the organization as a for profit business. He did it for thrills.

Wow... that makes it less wrong in your mind? That he killed animals for fun?

Regardless, his personal wealth in comparison to the overall expenditure of the organization does nothing to mitigate the fact that he was running a very large criminal organization.

Also, according to the FBI definition of the word, he's an organized criminal'



The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in significant criminal activity. These organizations often engage in multiple criminal activities and have extensive supporting networks. The terms Organized Crime and Criminal Enterprise are similar and often used synonymously.

[ravenmaniac]

Wow... that makes it less wrong in your mind? That he killed animals for fun?

Regardless, his personal wealth in comparison to the overall expenditure of the organization does nothing to mitigate the fact that he was running a very large criminal organization.

Also, according to the FBI definition of the word, he's an organized criminal'

Uh, I never said it makes it "less wrong", IT WAS WRONG!! It just doesn't make it organized crime. He and a cpl of buddies raising pit bulls for occasional sat night fights does not constitute "a very large criminal organization". Otherwise, RICO statute would have kicked in and if they had a real case for that, he'd never see the light of day.

[effo5231]

Uh, I never said it makes it "less wrong", IT WAS WRONG!! It just doesn't make it organized crime. He and a cpl of buddies raising pit bulls for occasional sat night fights does not constitute "a very large criminal organization". Otherwise, RICO statute would have kicked in and if they had a real case for that, he'd never see the light of day.

Jesus, you're willful ignorance on this subject is stunning.

[ravenmaniac]

2 years locked up and $100 Million is enough punishment. He should be and he WILL be reinstated into the NFL. Someone, will take a flyer on him and it should be San Fran.

[Jeremiah W]

I do not think anyone needs to forgive or forget, but I think they do need to let him go back to work.

There is no good reason to not let him play football once he does his time and pays his debt. That does not have to make anyone like, respect, trust or root for him or anything. He is not going to make nearly the same kind of money he other wise would have, but he was the highest paid player in the game. There is no way he could have forgot how to play all together, and until they ban guys like Jeramy Stevens, they have no legit reason to ban Vick from playing.

It is going to be tough for him to get a team willing to pay him and take the PR hit, but I can not see any reason to ban him for any longer than any one else that has done time in jail or should have.

[psuasskicker]

Uh, I never said it makes it "less wrong", IT WAS WRONG!! It just doesn't make it organized crime. He and a cpl of buddies raising pit bulls for occasional sat night fights does not constitute "a very large criminal organization". Otherwise, RICO statute would have kicked in and if they had a real case for that, he'd never see the light of day.

You very clearly have no actual concept of the definition of "organized crime." (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm)

RICO applies to a "criminal enterprise," NOT to "organized crime." It is questionable whether or not he had built a criminal enterprise.

There is NO question he was involved in organized crime. That's not even a debatable point.

- C -

[yeahravens]

I can't get by the torturing animals part of his crime, and the desensification that would require. Personally, hearing a dog yelp is one of the worst sounds I have ever heard, and he did it for recreation.

In my opinion, he has not paid his debt, he has done his sentence, but by no means made up for what he did and had done to those innocent dogs.

Just my opinion.

[Dade]

Riddick Bowe, the former undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, served 18 months in federal prison for kidnapping his estranged wife and five children and driving them 200 miles away before releasing them.


For his objections to the Vietnam War, Muhammad Ali was convicted of draft evasion by a federal court in 1967. He was released on bond as he appealed the five-year sentence, and as public sentiment against the war grew, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction with a unanimous decision four years later.

Art Schlichter was suspended from the NFL indefinitely for gambling over 1 million dollars on NFL games. Was later reinstated for the 1984 sseason.

Bam Morris in 1996 pleaded guilty to felony drug charges. Was charged with the assualt of a woman, pleaded guilty to felony drug trafficking.

In 1974, the Yankees owner pleaded guilty to 14 federal counts connected to Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, including making illegal contributions and obstructing justice. Steinbrenner was originally suspended from baseball for two years -- later reduced to just nine months -- but his name was cleared when Ronald Reagan pardoned him in 1989.

Lonny Baxter, an NCAA champion with Maryland in 2002, has found himself in trouble twice. He received 60 days in jail for firing a gun into the air near the White House and plead guilty to shipping guns illegally through Federal Express.

Here is just a few people who committed crimes (over varying severity) during their playing careers and allowed to continue playing ball.

Just some food for thought.

[ravenmaniac]

You very clearly have no actual concept of the definition of "organized crime." (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm)

RICO applies to a "criminal enterprise," NOT to "organized crime." It is questionable whether or not he had built a criminal enterprise.

There is NO question he was involved in organized crime. That's not even a debatable point.

- C -

If you know the Feds, they don't go easy on anyone. If he was a "kingpin, leader of a large organized crime" as quoted on this thread, he'd have been charged and prosecuted w/those crimes. He wasn't, debate over. Rico Statutes were created to go after "organized crime".

[Mista T]

2 years locked up and $100 Million is enough punishment. He should be and he WILL be reinstated into the NFL. Someone, will take a flyer on him and it should be San Fran.

No.

The NFL doesn't suspend or ban players as a form of punishment. That's up to the court. The NFL suspends or bans players to keep thugs and bad seeds off its fields and away from law-abiding and well-behaved young men who play the game.

Very simple: Vick is a thug who should be banned. If not banned, hopefully all 32 teams will shun him anyway. He does not belong in an NFL uniform.

[yeahravens]

Riddick Bowe, the former undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, served 18 months in federal prison for kidnapping his estranged wife and five children and driving them 200 miles away before releasing them.


For his objections to the Vietnam War, Muhammad Ali was convicted of draft evasion by a federal court in 1967. He was released on bond as he appealed the five-year sentence, and as public sentiment against the war grew, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction with a unanimous decision four years later.

Art Schlichter was suspended from the NFL indefinitely for gambling over 1 million dollars on NFL games. Was later reinstated for the 1984 sseason.

Bam Morris in 1996 pleaded guilty to felony drug charges. Was charged with the assualt of a woman, pleaded guilty to felony drug trafficking.

In 1974, the Yankees owner pleaded guilty to 14 federal counts connected to Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, including making illegal contributions and obstructing justice. Steinbrenner was originally suspended from baseball for two years -- later reduced to just nine months -- but his name was cleared when Ronald Reagan pardoned him in 1989.

Lonny Baxter, an NCAA champion with Maryland in 2002, has found himself in trouble twice. He received 60 days in jail for firing a gun into the air near the White House and plead guilty to shipping guns illegally through Federal Express.

Here is just a few people who committed crimes (over varying severity) during their playing careers and allowed to continue playing ball.

Just some food for thought.

The bottom line here is that it is not like he had 12 DUI's and is asking for his license back. The state will loose no sleep if you don't drive again.

We are talking about a billion dollar corporation trying to decide if he will make them money or cost them money, and we all know how millionaires put money before conscience.

[psuasskicker]

If you know the Feds, they don't go easy on anyone. If he was a "kingpin, leader of a large organized crime" as quoted on this thread, he'd have been charged and prosecuted w/those crimes. He wasn't, debate over. Rico Statutes were created to go after "organized crime".

No, they weren't. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Or simply to click the link in my post if you haven't.

RICO doesn't apply to "organized crime."

Vick was the leader of an organized crime organization. You can feel free to refuse to believe that if you want, but you're sort of arguing that 2 + 2 <> 4 right now.

- C -

[ravenmaniac]

Organized crime was used to define the mafia. The Mafia leaders were brought down using the RICO statute. The crimes listed that fall under the RICO Statute doesn't included dog fighting. There was no real "formalized structure" here w/a leader and his various underlings. They didn't maintain their position through force or violence, they organized dog fighting matches w/other kennels. This definition is CLEARLY meant to go after Mafia-like organizations. I have no reading comprehension issues.

Organized Crime

The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole.

[highwater]

I'm not sure why we're having a debate over whether or not what Vick did constituted "organized crime," but regardless of the definition, what he was doing was enough to attract the attention of the feds, who quickly turned this case into a slam dunk after the local authorities looked the other way. The fact that interstate gambling alone was part of this is enough to dispell the notion that this was some small-time operation.

And please spare me the notion that he has lost all these millions of dollars -- first of all, he OWES millions of dollars which he has yet to pay, and it was clearly his own decisions that led him to lose that money, assuming he ever gets around to paying it. It's not as if he were robbed.

[Jeremiah W]

I'm not sure why we're having a debate over whether or not what Vick did constituted "organized crime," but regardless of the definition, what he was doing was enough to attract the attention of the feds, who quickly turned this case into a slam dunk after the local authorities looked the other way. The fact that interstate gambling alone was part of this is enough to dispell the notion that this was some small-time operation.

And please spare me the notion that he has lost all these millions of dollars -- first of all, he OWES millions of dollars which he has yet to pay, and it was clearly his own decisions that led him to lose that money, assuming he ever gets around to paying it. It's not as if he were robbed.

My issue is what price has anyone else in the history of the country had to pay for the same crimes? As offensive as you, I or anyone finds these particular crimes, the punishment should be the same for anyone convicted. No one else I have ever heard of has even been prosecuted, and some of the animal cruelty that goes on at many of the "puppy mills" around the country is equally criminal in my view but not under the law. Vick really only got the time he got because of the gambling and interstate angle.

My wife works here in animal control and says thousands of figting dogs go through the shelter every year and no one has ever been convicted of dog fighting, or even investegated and charged as far as I know.

If people are so sickend by animal cruelty, why not prosecute the other 99.9% of the people that do it?

[psuasskicker]

My issue is what price has anyone else in the history of the country had to pay for the same crimes? As offensive as you, I or anyone finds these particular crimes, the punishment should be the same for anyone convicted. No one else I have ever heard of has even been prosecuted, and some of the animal cruelty that goes on at many of the "puppy mills" around the country is equally criminal in my view but not under the law. Vick really only got the time he got because of the gambling and interstate angle.

My wife works here in animal control and says thousands of figting dogs go through the shelter every year and no one has ever been convicted of dog fighting, or even investegated and charged as far as I know.

If people are so sickend by animal cruelty, why not prosecute the other 99.9% of the people that do it?

You have a special phone in your living room where prosecutors call you direct every time they prosecute one of these cases? Wow, that's pretty cool...

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

You have a special phone in your living room where prosecutors call you direct every time they prosecute one of these cases? Wow, that's pretty cool...

- C -

No but I thought I would look it up since everyone was all coming down on Vick, and sure enough nt a single one of the dogs brought into Baltimore animal control from one of the many local dog fighting rings led to any sort of convictions, prosecutions or even investigations that I know of. They created a task force of some sort after the Vick story was all over the place, but from what I hear there are still no cases or other federal investigations going on. Vick did not invent this "sport" or have a kennel just to fight among people he knows.

Try for once not to be an ass hole. Of course no DA is calling to keep me informed of what they are up to, but thanks to the internet, I can find out a little about what they doing or not doing about a crime that obviously has the country outraged, but focused all on one guy like he is the kingpin of dogfighting or something and not just some herkoff with a ton of money to burn and idiot buddies to help.

[ravenmaniac]

This wasn't even something the Feds should have pursued. It goes to the State of VA's incompetence that they even got involved.

[HoustonRaven]

This wasn't even something the Feds should have pursued. It goes to the State of VA's incompetence that they even got involved.

Hate to burst your bubble but when people travel across state lines to engage in illegal activity, that's 100% federal jurisdiction.

Sometimes the crimes can violate both state and federal law. They are not mutually exclusive.

[ravenmaniac]

Bubble isn't burst...there are tons of legal scholars debating whether this should have been pursued federally...this was another case of the Feds stretching the law to fit the crime...

Let me repeat: the only federal law against dog fighting prior to May 7, 2007 was a misdemeanor. And the only way the feds could even get involved is if the dogs were transported across state lines, which is something of a technicality.

To make this a felony, the prosecutors also charged Vick with a violation of "Conspiracy in interstate commerce/aid of unlawful animal fighting venture" (Title 18, USC, Section 371)

Huh? I hate these gobbledygook statutes that, in the hands of a motivated prosecutor, are designed to encompass almost anything. Essentially, Vick was charged with conspiracy to commit a state crime. The state crimes were dog fighting and gambling, which in Virginia are felonies, therefore making the federal conspiracy charge a felony.

In other words, the only substantive federal dog fighting law that Vick violated was a misdemeanor. It was the conspiracy to commit a state felony that became a federal felony. This is absurd, although this type of legal maneuvering to federalize state crimes is actually quite common.

What about abusing and killing dogs? Those facts, which were identified in paragraph 83 of an 84 paragraph indictment, were utterly irrelevant to the legal charges. They were presented for PR purposes only. The prosecutors knew that the public would focus on that one issue and ignore the more mundane legalities, which had nothing to do with killing dogs. In other words, the torture and killing gave the feds the "cover" to execute what was essentially a very unfair and sneaky maneuver in undercutting the state in this matter.

Why would the feds to this? Simple. It was Michael Vick. Period. If this case only involved the other defendants without Michael Vick, does anyone seriously believe the feds would have pursued it? Has anyone ever been prosecuted federally for dogfighting under this statute?

[Mista T]

My issue is what price has anyone else in the history of the country had to pay for the same crimes? As offensive as you, I or anyone finds these particular crimes, the punishment should be the same for anyone convicted. No one else I have ever heard of has even been prosecuted, and some of the animal cruelty that goes on at many of the "puppy mills" around the country is equally criminal in my view but not under the law. Vick really only got the time he got because of the gambling and interstate angle.

What's your point, Jeremiah? Vick got extra punishment because of gambling and interstate racketeering. Your local Baltimore City back alley dogfighter gets less because it was not interstate offense, no Feds, just a local matter. Vick's punishment assumedly was consistent with Federal sentencing guidelines, while your local thug would be punished per local ordinances. I have no idea what they are, but I would be surprised if it would be anything more than a small misdemeanor.

btw: while wailing over the unjust punishment for Vick, keep in mind that he voluntarily took this punishment in a plea bargain.

[crazyraven]

The NFL will not keep him out because he is thug thats for sure, the bengals wouldnt have a team if that was the case. He has served his sentence and at some point He'll be back in the NFL in some capacity on some team.

I just dont see how th NFL could or would keep him out indefinitely. OK He did one of the worst thing anyone could do to animals. I'm not that emotionally tied to what he did, it really doesnt bother me too much, but I do know that some people go ape shit about animal cruelity. But He is still allowed to make a living and there is no where else in this country where he can do that and make the money that he rightfully deserves.

[HoustonRaven]

You're blind.

The Feds cannot create or manufacture charges. Your own post proves our points. In that very quote (of which you offer no attribution, I might add), the law is listed -- traveling across state lines to engaged an unlawful animal fighting venture.

According to the US code, that's a felony, and is a conspiracy charge.

YOU may agree with some hack law person, but that doesnt change the facts surrounding Vick and this shit he has done.

[ravenmaniac]

What's your point, Jeremiah? Vick got extra punishment because of gambling and interstate racketeering. Your local Baltimore City back alley dogfighter gets less because it was not interstate offense, no Feds, just a local matter. Vick's punishment assumedly was consistent with Federal sentencing guidelines, while your local thug would be punished per local ordinances. I have no idea what they are, but I would be surprised if it would be anything more than a small misdemeanor.

btw: while wailing over the unjust punishment for Vick, keep in mind that he voluntarily took this punishment in a plea bargain.

When the Feds have you in their clutches, you take the plea or else. Thats just the way it is. The law at the time was a felony in the state of VA but a misdemeanor federally. THATS why the feds charged him with the catchall felony that they charged him with.

[ravenmaniac]

The Feds cannot create or manufacture charges.

Really, they can't? Go take a look at few federal cases and get back to me.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson194.html

[HoustonRaven]

The Feds cannot create or manufacture charges.

Really, they can't? Go take a look at few federal cases and get back to me.

Wow. Strong and factual rebuttal.

Let me know when you want to start debating facts.

[psuasskicker]

Try for once not to be an ass hole. Of course no DA is calling to keep me informed of what they are up to, but thanks to the internet, I can find out a little about what they doing or not doing about a crime that obviously has the country outraged, but focused all on one guy like he is the kingpin of dogfighting or something and not just some herkoff with a ton of money to burn and idiot buddies to help.

No you can't. Thanks to the internet, you can find out what was already done, if there's been some media related stories about it. Or maybe if you sift through the thousands or maybe millions of public records to see if there have been convictions on dog fighting. You won't find anything on activities on-going, because no one is going to compromise their investigations by telling the public all about it until they break the case.

A simple google search turns up a ton of different articles and notes on various busted dog fighting operations that aren't related to Vick...
http://www.la-spca.org/archive/conviction021507.htm
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusdogfighting.htm
http://www.anairhoads.org/animal/vadogvideo.shtml
http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/feb/13/dog-fighting-godfather-given-prison/
http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/120108c.htm
etc etc

Specifically, an article that discusses how easy it is to find out these organizations exist, but how tough it is to actually get a conviction:
http://blacknewsmagazine.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/officials-know-dogfighting-goes-on-but-conviction-rates-remain-low/

You act like it's easy. "Oh, look, an abused dog. I heard he was a dog fighter. That should be an open and shut case for conviction!" Real life doesn't work that way. I spent years studying the criminal justice system. Creating a case that is big enough to get a conviction is insanely difficult.

As for acting like an asshole, frankly I don't care much. You're talking about this stuff as if you actually know what's going on. Certainly there are bigger experts about dog fighting and criminal justice than me. But I majored in it, and have worked for police organizations at the city and county levels. You're pretending to know what you're talking about here...I can say that with conviction, and I'll be damned if I'm not gonna call you on it.

- C -

[HoustonRaven]

But wait ... how can that be Mr. PSU ....

Vick was prosecuted for just being Michael Vick.

It was an abuse of federal authorities, I say ... and so says a blogger who tells me how to think instead of me doing the research on my own!

:261695:

[psuasskicker]

Like I said...

2 + 2 <> 4

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

What's your point, Jeremiah? Vick got extra punishment because of gambling and interstate racketeering. Your local Baltimore City back alley dogfighter gets less because it was not interstate offense, no Feds, just a local matter. Vick's punishment assumedly was consistent with Federal sentencing guidelines, while your local thug would be punished per local ordinances. I have no idea what they are, but I would be surprised if it would be anything more than a small misdemeanor.

btw: while wailing over the unjust punishment for Vick, keep in mind that he voluntarily took this punishment in a plea bargain.

To me the issue is not about Vick or even the animals. I do not feel at all sorry for him at all. The issue is justice, crime and punishment and equal treatment under the law. The other people that do this kind of thing, and there are a lot of them, not only get less punishment, they get very little or none. Like the other poster said, it was not even really more than a minor crime with trumped up charges just because the offender is famous. I am not at all for the rich and powerful getting away with stuff because of it, but to me this is the other very dangerous end of the extreme, making something more of a crime because the defndant is famous is also unfair.

I have no problem with people holding a grudge, but making him a felon and taking away more of his freedom and rights because of that grudge is too much, and when did Goddel become a judge of malice in the heart and true remorse or what ever bullshit standard he tries to apply, to let yet another convict play in the NFL, as long as they do not bring too much negative PR I guess.

I also really doubt that Vick so much as even owns another dog, much less tries to fight them. I am not nearly as sure Leonard Little is still not drinking and driving every once in a while or Stevens is not plannig his next date rape, or Jamal does not still have a coke empire behind his legit buis interests.

[psuasskicker]

To me the issue is not about Vick or even the animals. I do not feel at all sorry for him at all. The issue is justice, crime and punishment and equal treatment under the law. The other people that do this kind of thing, and there are a lot of them, not only get less punishment, they get very little or none.

God dammit would you do just a LITTLE research before you try to come off sounding like an expert?

Four of the five articles I linked...

One dude faces up to 15 years. Sentencing TBD.
Another faces up to 10 years. Sentencing TBD.
One got 8-10 months.
One got three years.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

- C -

[ravenmaniac]

The point is, 2 yrs in federal custody, $100 Million lost is MORE than fair for the crime committed.

[pyite32]

and when did Goddel become a judge of malice in the heart and true remorse or what ever bullshit standard he tries to apply, to let yet another convict play in the NFL, as long as they do not bring too much negative PR I guess.


Not sure, but I am pretty sure it happened when he became commissioner.



I also really doubt that Vick so much as even owns another dog, much less tries to fight them. I am not nearly as sure Leonard Little is still not drinking and driving every once in a while or Stevens is not plannig his next date rape, or Jamal does not still have a coke empire behind his legit buis interests.

This is my point. Any repeat offender, and/or Felony conviction should immediately get the violator expelled from the league going forward.

[highwater]

Let me repeat: the only federal law against dog fighting prior to May 7, 2007 was a misdemeanor. And the only way the feds could even get involved is if the dogs were transported across state lines, which is something of a technicality.

I really don't understand your defense of Vick, unless it's for purely philosophical reasons. Does it really matter when the feds declared dogfighting a felony? It was already considered a felony in every state expect Louisana and maybe one other state, where it was considered a misdemeanor. In the other 48 states, it's a felony. As it should be.

And this was a multi-state operation, which you call a technicality for some reason, but it's still illegal. Vick deserved to get arrested and deserved to get convicted. Whether or not he deserves another shot at an NFL job is a separate issue, but as far as his sentencing goes, he got what he deserved.

[ravenmaniac]

I really don't understand your defense of Vick, unless it's for purely philosophical reasons. Does it really matter when the feds declared dogfighting a felony? It was already considered a felony in every state expect Louisana and maybe one other state, where it was considered a misdemeanor. In the other 48 states, it's a felony. As it should be.

And this was a multi-state operation, which you call a technicality for some reason, but it's still illegal. Vick deserved to get arrested and deserved to get convicted. Whether or not he deserves another shot at an NFL job is a separate issue, but as far as his sentencing goes, he got what he deserved.

If you want to get down to semantics, this should have been tried in state court from day one. The feds only got involved when VA dropped the ball. I don't have a problem with his conviction, his prison time, his loss off income. I DO have a problem with not allowing him to go back to work after he has paid for his crime greatly.

[4G63]

If you want to get down to semantics, this should have been tried in state court from day one. The feds only got involved when VA dropped the ball. I don't have a problem with his conviction, his prison time, his loss off income. I DO have a problem with not allowing him to go back to work after he has paid for his crime greatly.

If you went to jail with a felony conviction, do you feel that your former employer is obligated to rehire you?

[highwater]

I don't have a problem with his conviction, his prison time, his loss off income. I DO have a problem with not allowing him to go back to work after he has paid for his crime greatly.

Fair enough. As far as I know, he hasn't been blackballed yet, although it's up to the Commish as to when he can return. Until Goddell lifts the suspension, no team can even bring him in for a tryout. When the suspension is lifted, I'm sure some team (I'm still betting on Oakland) will at least give him a shot.

[Jeremiah W]

If you went to jail with a felony conviction, do you feel that your former employer is obligated to rehire you?

That is different than banned from hiring you. I would think if you were good at your job your employer or another one in the same feild would hire you, maybe for less money than if you had more options.

[4G63]

That is different than banned from hiring you. I would think if you were good at your job your employer or another one in the same feild would hire you, maybe for less money than if you had more options.

I personally don't think he should be banned by the NFL but at the same time I don't know whether his skills as a football player outweigh the negativity that a team would receive. A deal would have to be brokered with PETA and the ASPCA behind closed doors before any team would think of picking him up........

[Mista T]

That is different than banned from hiring you. I would think if you were good at your job your employer or another one in the same feild would hire you, maybe for less money than if you had more options.

That's not in the real world. Convicted felons are lucky to be able to find jobs, even as garbagemen or construction laborers.

I have a friend who negotiated a Federal felony plea - white collar, relatively benign offense. Ten years after he served his one year sentence, he still cannot find a white collar job, a sales job, or really any job that involved dealing with people or requiring trust.

[ravenmaniac]

I personally don't think he should be banned by the NFL but at the same time I don't know whether his skills as a football player outweigh the negativity that a team would receive. A deal would have to be brokered with PETA and the ASPCA behind closed doors before any team would think of picking him up........

The idea that you have to broker a deal with these radical organizations is laughable. The dude already met with the Humane Society about working with inner city kids to educate them on dog fighting.

[psuasskicker]

That is different than banned from hiring you. I would think if you were good at your job your employer or another one in the same feild would hire you, maybe for less money than if you had more options.

No it's not. It's no different. If your company doesn't rehire you, it's basically banning you from coming back. And they certainly have every right to do so.

Vick can go to a competitor if he wants and if the competitor wants to take him. His current employer isn't the Falcons, it's the NFL. If the NFL doesn't want him back, their competition is the UFL and other professional leagues in the country and out of the country.

No one is obligated to hire him. Anyone can say "I'm not hiring a convicted felon." Neither is wrong.

The issue is that it still represents a significant risk to take the guy back. Yeah, sure, he paid his debt to society. I'm not arguing that...he's lost a ton in this whole thing. But let's not pretend that there's zero risk in picking the guy up at this point. It's one thing for a construction worker to get caught running a dog fighting ring. The guy goes to prison, they find someone else off the street to pay $10 an hour.

But a highly public football player? You don't replace those guys so easily. And if Goodell feels there's too much risk taking the guy back on, then I certainly have no problem with him saying "Nope, you're done here."

I also have no problem if he decides to take him back by lifting the suspension, btw.

- C -

[psuasskicker]

The idea that you have to broker a deal with these radical organizations is laughable. The dude already met with the Humane Society about working with inner city kids to educate them on dog fighting.

BS. First off, calling the Humane Society a "radical organization" is what's laughable.

Secondly, this is a high profile company under intense media scrutiny. You're just not living in reality if you think there isn't value in sitting down with these organizations and getting their input on the matter. It's not like everyone that pays for the NFL's product thinks Vick should be allowed to play again.

If that were true, then I agree with your point. But it's just not, and it's unrealistic to think that it's stupid that those people shouldn't have a say in the matter...

- C -

[HoustonRaven]

It bears repeating, the world needs ditch diggers too.

[ravenmaniac]

BS. First off, calling the Humane Society a "radical organization" is what's laughable.

Secondly, this is a high profile company under intense media scrutiny. You're just not living in reality if you think there isn't value in sitting down with these organizations and getting their input on the matter. It's not like everyone that pays for the NFL's product thinks Vick should be allowed to play again.

If that were true, then I agree with your point. But it's just not, and it's unrealistic to think that it's stupid that those people shouldn't have a say in the matter...

- C -

I called PETA radical and I stand by that.

[ravenmaniac]

No it's not. It's no different. If your company doesn't rehire you, it's basically banning you from coming back. And they certainly have every right to do so.

Vick can go to a competitor if he wants and if the competitor wants to take him. His current employer isn't the Falcons, it's the NFL. If the NFL doesn't want him back, their competition is the UFL and other professional leagues in the country and out of the country.

No one is obligated to hire him. Anyone can say "I'm not hiring a convicted felon." Neither is wrong.

The issue is that it still represents a significant risk to take the guy back. Yeah, sure, he paid his debt to society. I'm not arguing that...he's lost a ton in this whole thing. But let's not pretend that there's zero risk in picking the guy up at this point. It's one thing for a construction worker to get caught running a dog fighting ring. The guy goes to prison, they find someone else off the street to pay $10 an hour.

But a highly public football player? You don't replace those guys so easily. And if Goodell feels there's too much risk taking the guy back on, then I certainly have no problem with him saying "Nope, you're done here."

I also have no problem if he decides to take him back by lifting the suspension, btw.

- C -

His former employer is the Falcons they won't hire him but if some other team in the same industry wants to thats their decision. Its their risk to take. Goodell will give him another chance and there will be another team that makes him an offer. He is better than at least 7 starting QBs in this league.

[jonboy79]

The point is, 2 yrs in federal custody, $100 Million lost is MORE than fair for the crime committed.

$100m has nothing to do with punishment...

He broke MANY contracts he signed. He broke the one he signed with the Falcons, as well any endorsers, each and every Bank that lent him money. THAT is why he lsot $100m, not because the Feds locked him up for Dogfighting.
There is a cause and effect relationship no doubt, but like others are saying 2 +2 <>4.

[ravenmaniac]

$100m has nothing to do with punishment...

He broke MANY contracts he signed. He broke the one he signed with the Falcons, as well any endorsers, each and every Bank that lent him money. THAT is why he lsot $100m, not because the Feds locked him up for Dogfighting.
There is a cause and effect relationship no doubt, but like others are saying 2 +2 <>4.

The cancelled endorsements, the lost salary from losing his job, all of it counts. This contributes to what he lost because of his actions. There comes a point when enough is enough. How much should someone pay? Taking away any possibility of earning it back and paying off his creditors is overkill.

[highwater]

I called PETA radical and I stand by that.

This is one point on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am sure there are people who belong to PETA who are genuinely interested in the welfare of dogs and other animals, but the people who actually run PETA appear to be fools. They consistently make themselves look like idiots -- there are plenty of examples of this, but I don't have the energy or interest in citing them.

I found it interesting and revealing that when Vick was being convicted, the Humane Society took a very laid-back attitude -- they made themselves available to answer questions, but they did not go out of their way to protest like a bunch of extremists, which is exactly what PETA did. I really think that the Humane Society thinks that PETA is an embarrassment.

[jonboy79]

The cancelled endorsements, the lost salary from losing his job, all of it counts. This contributes to what he lost because of his actions. There comes a point when enough is enough. How much should someone pay? Taking away any possibility of earning it back and paying off his creditors is overkill.

I can't agree with this even the least tiniest little bit. They are not equivalent.
Punishment was jailtime and some fines. This is simply related fallout. Most peopel that go to jail go bankrupt, it's pretty hard to pay your bills when you have no income. See a normal convict getting out of jail and looking for a job. You are straight up asking Vick to be treated differently then normal people and to give him special rights. No one has a RIGHT to make millions of dollars.

He should have thought of all of that before he got involved in interstate illegal gambling and dogfighting on the side of such a lucrative football career. I feel no sadness his way. He made this mess, and not by accident. He spent several years and plenty of money to build this mess.

[psuasskicker]

I called PETA radical and I stand by that.

I don't dispute that.


His former employer is the Falcons they won't hire him but if some other team in the same industry wants to thats their decision. Its their risk to take. Goodell will give him another chance and there will be another team that makes him an offer. He is better than at least 7 starting QBs in this league.

No. The NFL is his employer. The NFL is to their franchises the same way that a company like GE is to all its arms. It's not exactly the same, but overall it's very similar, and if the NFL doesn't want to take the risk then there's no reason they should allow him back in.


The cancelled endorsements, the lost salary from losing his job, all of it counts. This contributes to what he lost because of his actions. There comes a point when enough is enough. How much should someone pay? Taking away any possibility of earning it back and paying off his creditors is overkill.

So you're arguing that the NFL should just be forced to give the guy a couple mil a year and take the risk that he's learned nothing from this whole ordeal, so that he has a chance to get right back to where he was before this whole thing went down?

Sorry dude, that's just not right. I own a successful business and I make close to six figures at a corporate job...if I organize a criminal ring and get busted and sent to jail for committing a felony, I have no right to expect that once I get out I get my old job back and my business just comes back to me. Life doesn't work like that, and it shouldn't.

He brought this on himself. No one's done anything to him. If he has to spend the rest of his life earning $10/hour working construction, no one here should feel the least bit bad for him.

- C -

[ravenmaniac]

I don't dispute that.



No. The NFL is his employer. The NFL is to their franchises the same way that a company like GE is to all its arms. It's not exactly the same, but overall it's very similar, and if the NFL doesn't want to take the risk then there's no reason they should allow him back in.



So you're arguing that the NFL should just be forced to give the guy a couple mil a year and take the risk that he's learned nothing from this whole ordeal, so that he has a chance to get right back to where he was before this whole thing went down?


- C -

The Atlanta Falcons was his employer. His checks were signed by Arthur Blank and I guarantee you they said Atlanta Falcons NOT the NFL.

As for arguing about the NFL being forced to hire him and give him a couple of million, when did I say that? I've argued that the commissioner should remove the suspension and IF one of the owners is willing to take a chance on him, that would be up to them.

[effo5231]

The Atlanta Falcons was his employer. His checks were signed by Arthur Blank and I guarantee you they said Atlanta Falcons NOT the NFL.

As for arguing about the NFL being forced to hire him and give him a couple of million, when did I say that? I've argued that the commissioner should remove the suspension and IF one of the owners is willing to take a chance on him, that would be up to them.


NFL players are employees of the National Football League, under contract with specific teams. As the teams only operate under the auspices of the league, it doesn't matter which team you are on as you are required to follow the rules of the league.

You keep trying to shape reality to your misconceptions. First you tried to redefine money laundering, then organized crime, then when the federal government has jurisdiction in a case, then what RICO is for, and now who NFL players work for.

[E-ROC]

Roger G. is a good commissioner. He wields strong hand when delivering punishment to those who violate the rules. This whole he needs to prove to me that he's sincere is a bunch of crap. So if Vick does all of what you asked, then he gets reinstated? Yes, folks that is how things are suppose to work. Make face with some animal activist organizations, smiles for the camera, and he's reinstated. Isn't Vick wrong for using those organizations to get ahead, and stop once reinstated? Will throw him out of the league because he stopped? Because he wasn't sincere throughout his tenure in the NFL? Where is PETA when DMX had dogfights in his own music videos? Nowhere to be found. They don't step foot in the hood. That's most of these dogfights happen. I don't need an apology or for him to show remorse. Just be a man and a father to your kids. That's what I care about. Unfortunately, that has not been said enough times in the media. Instead, we hear on and on about how he needs to prove himself to get back into the league. Our priorities are in order. :ww:

Vick won't be the last person involved in dogfighting and gambling.

Also, businesses publicly saying they will not higher convictions would get lawsuits from all angles. Its one thing to back ground checks of prospective employees and tell them no because of a prior conviction, but its another to outright alienate and discriminate against a certain type of person with a certain history. Lawyers would be lined up looking to get their clients paid.

[HoustonRaven]

The teams pay the players, not the league.

The league legally cannot pay the players because it's technically an unincorporated non-profit organization -- a 501(c)(6).

The individual teams are members within the structure of the NFL and operate under their rules and bylaws. Each player is an independent contractor, contracted to play and get paid by the team they are under contact with.

[ravenmaniac]

NFL players are employees of the National Football League, under contract with specific teams. As the teams only operate under the auspices of the league, it doesn't matter which team you are on as you are required to follow the rules of the league.

You keep trying to shape reality to your misconceptions. First you tried to redefine money laundering, then organized crime, then when the federal government has jurisdiction in a case, then what RICO is for, and now who NFL players work for.

LOL, really, I tried to redefine money laundering? How so? I tried to redefine organized crime? Enlighten me. RICO statutes? educate me, please.

[ravenmaniac]

The teams pay the players, not the league.

The league legally cannot pay the players because it's technically an unincorporated non-profit organization -- a 501(c)(6).

The individual teams are members within the structure of the NFL and operate under their rules and bylaws. Each player is an independent contractor, contracted to play and get paid by the team they are under contact with.

Hence, employees of the teams they are under contract with.

[effo5231]

LOL, really, I tried to redefine money laundering? How so? I tried to redefine organized crime? Enlighten me. RICO statutes? educate me, please.

:grbac: I am more than willing to throw your own words back in your face to prove my point. Let's start with how you tried to redefine money laundering.


Dog fighting empire? LOL. Dude didn't make a penny on said empire. He would have been charged with money laundering. He LOST money on this empire.

Apparently you believe money laundering is running a gambling operation for profit, rather than what it actually is; the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money.

Moving on, where did you try to redefine organized crime you ask? Here.


He organized dog fights for sport and fun and small change wagering. When you are working on $100 million for sports and endorsements, a $10K bet on a dog fight is CHUMP change. Organized criminals run the organization as a for profit business. He did it for thrills.

Apparently its only organized crime to you if one is doing it for the purposes of making lots of money, more than one would make in some other enterprise one may engage in. Furthermore you consider motive a defining characteristic of organized crime. You followed that example up with the following;


Uh, I never said it makes it "less wrong", IT WAS WRONG!! It just doesn't make it organized crime. He and a cpl of buddies raising pit bulls for occasional sat night fights does not constitute "a very large criminal organization". Otherwise, RICO statute would have kicked in and if they had a real case for that, he'd never see the light of day.

Hey, there's that RICO thing. Apparently, to you, the FEDs must pursue a RICO conviction in order for something to be organized crime.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968.


If you know the Feds, they don't go easy on anyone. If he was a "kingpin, leader of a large organized crime" as quoted on this thread, he'd have been charged and prosecuted w/those crimes. He wasn't, debate over. Rico Statutes were created to go after "organized crime".

Organized crime was illegal before RICO, RICO provides a means of prosecuting criminal who would otherwise be difficult to do so. Examples include Mafia bosses who do not directly engage in illegal activity, but use a large group of employees to do it for them. Vick was directly involved in his criminal enterprise and therefore it was not necessary to pursue a RICO style prosecution.


Organized crime was used to define the mafia. The Mafia leaders were brought down using the RICO statute. The crimes listed that fall under the RICO Statute doesn't included dog fighting. There was no real "formalized structure" here w/a leader and his various underlings. They didn't maintain their position through force or violence, they organized dog fighting matches w/other kennels. This definition is CLEARLY meant to go after Mafia-like organizations. I have no reading comprehension issues.

Organized Crime

The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole.

There it is again, you're redefining organized crime by limiting the definition to Mafia like entities. The FBI also considers Bloods and Crips to be organized crime. And seeing as how Vick formed an actual business (Bad Newz Kennels) with a very defined hierarchy of responsibility solely to act as a front for, and means of furthering the goals of, his criminal network, its very obvious to everyone but you that he was engaged in organized crime.

Moving on, I forgot to include that you also apparently are better at deciding what is federal jurisdiction than the federal government.


This wasn't even something the Feds should have pursued. It goes to the State of VA's incompetence that they even got involved.


If you want to get down to semantics, this should have been tried in state court from day one. The feds only got involved when VA dropped the ball. I don't have a problem with his conviction, his prison time, his loss off income. I DO have a problem with not allowing him to go back to work after he has paid for his crime greatly.

Silly rabbit, federal prosecution is viable in the event that one engages in criminal activity across state lines.

[E-ROC]

:grbac: I am more than willing to throw your own words back in your face to prove my point. Let's start with how you tried to redefine money laundering.



Apparently you believe money laundering is running a gambling operation for profit, rather than what it actually is; the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money.

Moving on, where did you try to redefine organized crime you ask? Here.



Apparently its only organized crime to you if one is doing it for the purposes of making lots of money, more than one would make in some other enterprise one may engage in. Furthermore you consider motive a defining characteristic of organized crime. You followed that example up with the following;



Hey, there's that RICO thing. Apparently, to you, the FEDs must pursue a RICO conviction in order for something to be organized crime.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968.



Organized crime was illegal before RICO, RICO provides a means of prosecuting criminal who would otherwise be difficult to do so. Examples include Mafia bosses who do not directly engage in illegal activity, but use a large group of employees to do it for them. Vick was directly involved in his criminal enterprise and therefore it was not necessary to pursue a RICO style prosecution.



There it is again, you're redefining organized crime by limiting the definition to Mafia like entities. The FBI also considers Bloods and Crips to be organized crime. And seeing as how Vick formed an actual business (Bad Newz Kennels) with a very defined hierarchy of responsibility solely to act as a front for, and means of furthering the goals of, his criminal network, its very obvious to everyone but you that he was engaged in organized crime.

Moving on, I forgot to include that you also apparently are better at deciding what is federal jurisdiction than the federal government.





Silly rabbit, federal prosecution is viable in the event that one engages in criminal activity across state lines.

Nice breakdown! :happy:

[ravenmaniac]

:grbac: I am more than willing to throw your own words back in your face to prove my point. Let's start with how you tried to redefine money laundering.



Apparently you believe money laundering is running a gambling operation for profit, rather than what it actually is; the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money.

Moving on, where did you try to redefine organized crime you ask? Here.



Apparently its only organized crime to you if one is doing it for the purposes of making lots of money, more than one would make in some other enterprise one may engage in. Furthermore you consider motive a defining characteristic of organized crime. You followed that example up with the following;



Hey, there's that RICO thing. Apparently, to you, the FEDs must pursue a RICO conviction in order for something to be organized crime.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968.



Organized crime was illegal before RICO, RICO provides a means of prosecuting criminal who would otherwise be difficult to do so. Examples include Mafia bosses who do not directly engage in illegal activity, but use a large group of employees to do it for them. Vick was directly involved in his criminal enterprise and therefore it was not necessary to pursue a RICO style prosecution.



There it is again, you're redefining organized crime by limiting the definition to Mafia like entities. The FBI also considers Bloods and Crips to be organized crime. And seeing as how Vick formed an actual business (Bad Newz Kennels) with a very defined hierarchy of responsibility solely to act as a front for, and means of furthering the goals of, his criminal network, its very obvious to everyone but you that he was engaged in organized crime.

Moving on, I forgot to include that you also apparently are better at deciding what is federal jurisdiction than the federal government.





Silly rabbit, federal prosecution is viable in the event that one engages in criminal activity across state lines.

LOL, no, I'm intimately familiar with what the govt THINKS money laundering is. And trust me, had he profited from this venture, they would have said he used the profits to pay for his mortgage and we are going to pile on with money laundering charges.

There was no organized formal structure or they would have used RICO. There ARE formal structures to Bloods and Crips and they do engage in REAL organized crime. I worked w/the feds and if you've ever walked in to the courtroom during a gang trial, they break it down on the white board. If there was a real organized structure to Vick and a cpl of buddies breeding dogs for fights, they'd have charged him.

As for the Feds getting involved, they jumped in when VA dropped the ball, period.

[effo5231]

LOL, no, I'm intimately familiar with what the govt THINKS money laundering is. And trust me, had he profited from this venture, they would have said he used the profits to pay for his mortgage and we are going to pile on with money laundering charges.

There was no organized formal structure or they would have used RICO. There ARE formal structures to Bloods and Crips and they do engage in REAL organized crime. I worked w/the feds and if you've ever walked in to the courtroom during a gang trial, they break it down on the white board. If there was a real organized structure to Vick and a cpl of buddies breeding dogs for fights, they'd have charged him.

As for the Feds getting involved, they jumped in when VA dropped the ball, period.

So you're arguing that if he had made money (which he did, but that's entirely beside the point) then the feds would have charged him with money laundering even though he wasn't engaged in money laundering because the federal government has an erroneous understanding of what money laundering is? Seriously? What the fuck are you smoking and may I have some?

As for the organized crime thing... You're clearly simply delusional about what the word means.

And as for federal involvement. HE WAS COMMITTING CRIMINAL ACTS ACROSS MULTIPLE STATES... that means it was a federal case. Jesus Christ on a cracker learn what federal jurisdiction means.

[ravenmaniac]

So you're arguing that if he had made money (which he did, but that's entirely beside the point) then the feds would have charged him with money laundering even though he wasn't engaged in money laundering because the federal government has an erroneous understanding of what money laundering is? Seriously? What the fuck are you smoking and may I have some?

The feds can do whatever they want and they do it everyday. I have a friend who was charged with a federal crime, they piled on with money laundering because he owned a building, even though he had owned that building for yrs before they accused him of what they accused him of. There was no effort to hide or launder proceeds of a crime. So yes, the feds can do what they want.

Organized Crime

The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole.

This is the FBI's definition. Vick's group had no formalized structure of chief and captains/liutenents. It was just a couple of nimrods who put together a rinky dink operation for kicks. THey didn't maintain the position w/the use of violence, graft or extortion and had nothing to do with corrupt public officials. Also, they didn't have a significant impact on people in their locale.

Bloods/Crips/Mafia, they all fit into that description but these guys were nothing but a bunch of 2 bit thugs.

[effo5231]

The feds can do whatever they want and they do it everyday. I have a friend who was charged with a federal crime, they piled on with money laundering because he owned a building, even though he had owned that building for yrs before they accused him of what they accused him of. There was no effort to hide or launder proceeds of a crime. So yes, the feds can do what they want.

I'd like you to link me to one actual case in which the federal government charged and convicted someone of money laundering contrary to the fact that they weren't laundering money. Surely if they can do "whatever they want" they must do it all the time right? One case.




Organized Crime

The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole.

This is the FBI's definition. Vick's group had no formalized structure of chief and captains/liutenents. It was just a couple of nimrods who put together a rinky dink operation for kicks. THey didn't maintain the position w/the use of violence, graft or extortion and had nothing to do with corrupt public officials. Also, they didn't have a significant impact on people in their locale.

Bloods/Crips/Mafia, they all fit into that description but these guys were nothing but a bunch of 2 bit thugs.

Vick's group had a formalized structure. It was a corporation called "Bad Newz Kennels" and it served as a front for their illegal gambling and dog fighting operation. Bad Newz Kennel's primary function was to obtain money through illegal activities, that makes it a criminal organization. Is it on the same scale as the Mafia? No, but its still a criminal organization.

Oh and check this piece from ESPN that agrees with me and thinks you're talking out your ass.




Vick is charged with "conspiracy" and violations of the "Travel Act." What does that mean?

The conspiracy charge will make things extra difficult for Vick and his lawyers. Under federal laws, the conspiracy charge allows federal prosecutors to link Vick to things that occurred even if he was not present. If the prosecutors can connect the four defendants, crimes committed by one of them can be used to add to the evidence against the others. It's a tricky legal procedure that prosecutors love and defense lawyers detest. [effo's note; That sound's like an application of RICO... Wow you must feel like a dumbass maniac] The Travel Act is a device invented by Robert F. Kennedy when he was U.S. Attorney General in the early '60s. It was designed for use against organized crime and made it easier to prove cases against hoodlums.

What was Vick's role in the dogfighting conspiracy described in the indictment?

According to the indictment, Vick was in the middle of everything from beginning to end. He purchased a vacant piece of property for $34,000, the indictment says. He then had sheds built for training dogs and staging fights and a fence erected to shield the operation from view. And finally, the indictment says, he had a two-story frame house with a basketball court put up as a residence for the people taking care of the dogs. If you believe the indictment, the Vick property had everything anyone could want in a dogfighting operation.

[ravenmaniac]

You wanted to argue the definition of "organized crime". By said definition, it wasn't, period. Just because they had a name for the kennel doesn't make it organized crime by the FBI's definition.

The feds, once you are charged, are going to convict you, guilty or not, you are going to lose. Now, you want me to research and detail when they've charged and convicted someone? I've given you the one case where I am intimately familiar with where they were charged. They dropped it but they only used it in an effort to pressure them to plead to lessor charges. This is how the game is played.

[effo5231]

You wanted to argue the definition of "organized crime". By said definition, it wasn't, period. Just because they had a name for the kennel doesn't make it organized crime by the FBI's definition.


Except that he was running a fairly large multi-state criminal enterprise. That is organized crime. Its right there on the page you quoted.




The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in significant criminal activity. These organizations often engage in multiple criminal activities and have extensive supporting networks. The terms Organized Crime and Criminal Enterprise are similar and often used synonymously.

What part of that definition doesn't apply to Vick? It was a criminal enterprise which the FBI says is a synonym for organized crime. Do you know what synonymously means?



The feds, once you are charged, are going to convict you, guilty or not, you are going to lose. Now, you want me to research and detail when they've charged and convicted someone? I've given you the one case where I am intimately familiar with where they were charged. They dropped it but they only used it in an effort to pressure them to plead to lessor charges. This is how the game is played.

Do you know why the Feds have such a great rate of conviction? Its because they know how to prosecute effectively. One does not prosecute effectively by levying nonsensical charges. And your example is an anecdote... lets see an actual source.

[ravenmaniac]

What part of that definition doesn't apply to Vick? It was a criminal enterprise which the FBI says is a synonym for organized crime. Do you know what synonymously means?

But thats the definition of criminal enterprise not organized crime. You've been arguing for several pages about the FBI's definition of organized crime and his doesn't meet it. The page said that they are OFTEN iused synonymously. However, various federal criminal statutes specifically define the elements of an enterprise.

Do you know why the Feds have such a great rate of conviction? Its because they know how to prosecute effectively. One does not prosecute effectively by levying nonsensical charges. And your example is an anecdote... lets see an actual source.

LOL, really? The feds always win because they have the full weight of the US govt behind them. You can't win. They'll outspend you, they'll bankrupt you, they'll overcharge you to get you to plead to something less. Finally, they'll threaten you with a trial tax if you don't plead out.

[psuasskicker]

The Atlanta Falcons was his employer. His checks were signed by Arthur Blank and I guarantee you they said Atlanta Falcons NOT the NFL.

My wife works at HMC, a division of Wellpoint. Her checks say HMC. If she got conviced of a felony, and Wellpoint said "We don't want her back," then she's not coming back to HMC or any other division of Wellpoint. And Wellpoint shouldn't be forced to take her back just cause HMC wants her.


As for arguing about the NFL being forced to hire him and give him a couple of million, when did I say that? I've argued that the commissioner should remove the suspension and IF one of the owners is willing to take a chance on him, that would be up to them.

But that's the point. Why should he remove Vick's suspension just because an owner wants to sign him? He should just take it for granted that Vick will never do this again?

Look at yourself, and wherever it is that you work...I dunno where that is. But let's say another job opens up in your company and you want it. Now let's say some other random dude out there who was convicted of a felony and is friends with the hiring manager, and he wants that job too. You're telling me that it's okay if you're competing with that guy for that job because the hiring manager wants him, even if the company says "We don't want to take a chance on this guy?"

Vick isn't some normal dude off the street who's a solid guy. He's a convicted felon. He operated a criminal organization. He did it for years. And then he lied about doing it once it came out. He represents a GIGANTIC risk for any employer, that he may have learned nothing from this whole thing, and may just turn right back around and commit another crime. Why should the NFL be forced to just accept that he's paid his debt to society and let him back in?


Vick's group had no formalized structure of chief and captains/liutenents. It was just a couple of nimrods who put together a rinky dink operation for kicks.

You're wrong.


THey didn't maintain the position w/the use of violence, graft or extortion and had nothing to do with corrupt public officials. Also, they didn't have a significant impact on people in their locale.

You have absolutely no POSSIBLE way of knowing this. "Because they would have charged him with it" is not a valid argument. In the work I did for police agencies and DAs offices, I saw MANY instances where people and organizations went uncharged for things that they did. The agencies simply wouldn't have been able to prove it in a court of law, so they didn't bother charging them with it.

And beyond all of that, you still don't seem to understand that RICO doesn't apply to "organized crime," it applies to "criminal enterprises," which are two different things, and which I (and I don't believe anyone else) am not arguing is what Vick ran...he didn't.

- C -

[ravenmaniac]

I saw MANY instances where people and organizations went uncharged for things that they did. The agencies simply wouldn't have been able to prove it in a court of law, so they didn't bother charging them with it.


These are the feds, they charge first and think about how they can prove it later.

[ravenmaniac]

But that's the point. Why should he remove Vick's suspension just because an owner wants to sign him? He should just take it for granted that Vick will never do this again?

Again, I didn't say that. He should remove the suspension and leave it up to individual owners to see if they want to take a chance. Not just because an owner wants to sign him.

[effo5231]

These are the feds, they charge first and think about how they can prove it later.

Why that logic has me convinced... But just for the slow learners, can you go ahead an prove it... like by showing one case where the feds charged money laundering in obvious contradiction to the facts? You know, like you claim they can do whenever they want? Hell why not just tell me the name of your friend as in "The US Government vs...." and I'll look up the relevant info for you.

[ravenmaniac]

Here is an example of how the Feds set out to entrap someone in an effort to prove what? I don't know.

http://bsalert.com/news/2447/The_Story_Of_Tommy_Chong_-_What_The_Feds_Dont_Want_You_To_See.html

[psuasskicker]

These are the feds, they charge first and think about how they can prove it later.

Blanket statement. Completely false. Akin to saying "All Polish people are stupid" or any other racist or prejudiced statement you could think of.


But that's the point. Why should he remove Vick's suspension just because an owner wants to sign him? He should just take it for granted that Vick will never do this again?

Again, I didn't say that. He should remove the suspension and leave it up to individual owners to see if they want to take a chance. Not just because an owner wants to sign him.

Um, if that's what you really think, then yes, you DID say that. If an NFL owner takes on the risk, the NFL is taking on the risk. If you don't understand that relationship, there's not much I can really do to help you.

- C -

[ravenmaniac]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102589818

don't forget this classic

[effo5231]

Here is an example of how the Feds set out to entrap someone in an effort to prove what? I don't know.

http://bsalert.com/news/2447/The_Story_Of_Tommy_Chong_-_What_The_Feds_Dont_Want_You_To_See.html

Two problems with your example.

1. What the feds did is not entrapment. Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed, and since Chong was already selling the bongs they did not trick him into doing anything he wouldn't do anyway. Do I think it was a stupid bust? Yes. But all Chong had to do was send an email to the fed asking him to ship him a bong to whatever state said bong was illegal saying that he couldn't sell bongs in that state and he would have never had a problem. If you want to sell something that is illegal in some states, learn which states and don't sell there.

2. What does that example have to do with your earlier claim, the one I asked you to back up, that feds will charge anyone for money laundering regardless of whether or not they are laundering money?


EDITED TO ADDRESS YOUR SECOND EXAMPLE...

That appears to be a case of the individual attorneys representing the US fucking up at their job. Your point is further weakened by the fact that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the ones who are shutting down the prosecution because of improper behavior in regards to trial rules such as discovery and personal misconduct.

[ravenmaniac]

Go read the book and get back to me on Chong. He was entrapped plain and simple, he agreed to the deal because they said they'd indict his wife and son.

I'm not going around and around in circles with you about the feds. I've lived through it, you obviously haven't. If you want to know the details of the my specific case email me, we'll talk on the phone and I'll tell you everything. It was BS from beginning to end, the feds knew it, the judge knew it, and in the end the USA for MD knew.

I worked there for two years prior to being intimately involved in this case. The joke at the Courts is "the house always wins". It isn't because they are all necessarily guilty either. DOn't get me wrong, 95% probably are but those who aren't, don't get an apology and an opportunity to walk away either.

[effo5231]

Go read the book and get back to me on Chong. He was entrapped plain and simple, he agreed to the deal because they said they'd indict his wife and son.

No he wasn't, and as I've said to others, repeating it won't make it true. Once again, entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have, otherwise committed. You probably also think its entrapment to have undercover cops try to buy drugs.



I'm not going around and around in circles with you about the feds. I've lived through it, you obviously haven't. If you want to know the details of the my specific case email me, we'll talk on the phone and I'll tell you everything. It was BS from beginning to end, the feds knew it, the judge knew it, and in the end the USA for MD knew.

I worked there for two years prior to being intimately involved in this case. The joke at the Courts is "the house always wins". It isn't because they are all necessarily guilty either. DOn't get me wrong, 95% probably are but those who aren't, don't get an apology and an opportunity to walk away either.

It wasn't your case though, you said it was a friend's. And I don't care which case you provide, but I want you to back up your claim that the federal government can and will charge someone with money laundering in obvious contradiction to reality.

[Mista T]

Go read the book and get back to me on Chong. He was entrapped plain and simple, he agreed to the deal because they said they'd indict his wife and son.

Geez ... here we go again! Let's all take pity on yet another druggie. :261695: Screw Tommy Chong ... he knew the laws, yet chose to flaunt them.

Why such sympathy for criminals? :229031_confused2:

[ravenmaniac]

It was entrapment, read the book, "I Chong". Not only entrapment but a big waste of resources and $12Millon in tax payer money.

As for the other case, I was there, everyday. I lived through it and I know everything there is to know about it.

but I want you to back up your claim that the federal government can and will charge someone with money laundering in obvious contradiction to reality.

Find my quote where I said that. I did say and I'll stand by it, that they govt charged them with money laundering by paying the mortgage on their building w/alleged profits from and illegal operation. There was no way to trace the money to the mortgage payments. It was a stretch to say the least and they had been paying the mortgage for a number of yrs BEFORE the alleged crime began. When you think of money laundering, you think of someone running a drug business and hiding the money away in a legit restaurant business in a way to hide the proceeds from the govt. Again, no way do I post the real information online but I can tell you anything you want to know about it.

[effo5231]

Geez ... here we go again! Let's all take pity on yet another druggie. :261695: Screw Tommy Chong ... he knew the laws, yet chose to flaunt them.

Why such sympathy for criminals? :229031_confused2:

Because the feds are big meanies who can charge anyone for anything at anytime all the time regardless of what they're actually doing and they always win because they're so big and mean.

Duh.

[ravenmaniac]

Geez ... here we go again! Let's all take pity on yet another druggie. :261695: Screw Tommy Chong ... he knew the laws, yet chose to flaunt them.

Why such sympathy for criminals? :229031_confused2:

Because its about abuse of power. DUH! I don't want MY govt entrapping we the people. I want them going after REAL terrorists. They spent $12 million trying to get Chong's plastic pipe making company sell them pipes in PA. They refused at least 20 times on tape but the govt kept at it and offered to drive to CA to buy them. This wasn't a company going out of their way to break the law. They knew where it was illegal to sell and our govt set up a phony headshop in an effort to go after law abiding citizens, not drug dealers. Read the book. Its about basic right and wrong.

[effo5231]

It was entrapment, read the book, "I Chong". Not only entrapment but a big waste of resources and $12Millon in tax payer money.


Actual legal type people.... whattaya call em... Judges? Clearly think you're wrong. I'm gonna side with them.



As for the other case, I was there, everyday. I lived through it and I know everything there is to know about it.

but I want you to back up your claim that the federal government can and will charge someone with money laundering in obvious contradiction to reality.

Find my quote where I said that.


Why? Are you denying you said it?



I did say and I'll stand by it


Oh, I guess not.



The govt charged them with money laundering by paying the mortgage on their building w/alleged profits from and illegal operation. There was no way to trace the money to the mortgage payments. It was a stretch to say the least and they had been paying the mortgage for a number of yrs BEFORE the alleged crime began. When you think of money laundering, you think of someone running a drug business and hiding the money away in a legit restaurant business in a way to hide the proceeds from the govt. Again, no way do I post the real information online but I can tell you anything you want to know about it.

Lovely... really stirring stuff. But unless you prove it, I reserve, and exercise the right to call bullshit.

One actual proven example, and I admit I'm wrong. It can't be that hard to do can it?

[ravenmaniac]

How do I prove it douchebag? They charged him, then they dropped the charges. Do you want to see the indictment? Then, do you want to see the response from the govt at the end of the procedings? Why the eff would I make this up? I've told you I'd share it but I'm guessing you aren't old enough to have a drivers license.

Back to my point, Vick should be reinstated and given a chance at redemption. I'm betting he will be.

[effo5231]

How do I prove it douchebag? They charged him, then they dropped the charges. Do you want to see the indictment? Then, do you want to see the response from the govt at the end of the procedings? Why the eff would I make this up? I've told you I'd share it but I'm guessing you aren't old enough to have a drivers license.


You prove it by stating the actual case. As in US vs. ________. Find one example, any example since you're opposed to stating your friend's name. You claim that they can do it any time they want and I postulated that therefor they must do it fairly often. I also don't recall you ever admitting that they dropped the charges before this post... I find that interesting.



Back to my point, Vick should be reinstated and given a chance at redemption. I'm betting he will be.

No he shouldn't, but yes... he probably will.

[HoustonRaven]

Because its about abuse of power. DUH! I don't want MY govt entrapping we the people. I want them going after REAL terrorists. They spent $12 million trying to get Chong's plastic pipe making company sell them pipes in PA. They refused at least 20 times on tape but the govt kept at it and offered to drive to CA to buy them. This wasn't a company going out of their way to break the law. They knew where it was illegal to sell and our govt set up a phony headshop in an effort to go after law abiding citizens, not drug dealers. Read the book. Its about basic right and wrong.

Mr Juris Doctor, that's not entrapment.

So the Govt can take as many swipes as they want at a terrorist and its ok with you but that same govt takes swipes at disrupting an illegal paraphernalia ring and it an abuse of government power?

Hello pot (pardon the pun), meet kettle.

[ravenmaniac]

Mr Juris Doctor, that's not entrapment.

So the Govt can take as many swipes as they want at a terrorist and its ok with you but that same govt takes swipes at disrupting an illegal paraphernalia ring and it an abuse of government power?

Hello pot (pardon the pun), meet kettle.

Read the book, then make an informed opinion.

[HoustonRaven]

Read the book, then make an informed opinion.

And in there lies the problem.

You read books written by Chong to get your law knowledge.

I read ... well, the laws themselves to get my knowledge.

[ravenmaniac]

And in there lies the problem.

You read books written by Chong to get your law knowledge.

I read ... well, the laws themselves to get my knowledge.

LOL, ah you read laws. So, you decide to comment on a case that you know nothing about and you think you know the truth. Thats the definition of ignorance.

[effo5231]

LOL, ah you read laws. So, you decide to comment on a case that you know nothing about and you think you know the truth. Thats the definition of ignorance.

:laugh: Ignorance? Just like your attempts at defining organized crime, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[RavensDomination]

this thread is all over the place. I just spent 10 minutes trying to read through it all and still don't know what the hell is going on, haha.

[effo5231]

this thread is all over the place. I just spent 10 minutes trying to read through it all and still don't know what the hell is going on, haha.

Well to summarize, ravenmaniac is claiming that the federal government is capable of charging anyone for anything and will go to any lengths to slam you if they decide they don't like you. To justify this claim, he has linked to a story about the federal government declining to prosecute someone because the attorneys present were very bad at their jobs, and a story about Tommy Chong not understanding what "illegal" means in regards to the statement "It is illegal to sell bongs in Pennsylvania." Oh, and told an anecdotal story which he is unwilling or unable to prove is true.

In response I have called a hearty bullshit.

Now that you're caught up, feel free to contribute.

[RavensDomination]

thanks for the run down. I actually read up a little bit on the Tommy Chong thing after seeing that referenced, did he get different treatment for being famous? I think so, but that happens all the time, if you are famous they will make an example out of you. Don't break the law and you won't have that problem though, its that simple.