Vick Indicted

El Turco · Post #1 » by **El Turco** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:18 am

I dont think there is going to be much coming out from this as from what i heard they have minimal evidence, but it should create distractions for Falcons. how will this effect Falcons and how bad of a decision was it to trade schaub ?

RaoulDuke79 · Post #2 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:45 am

Minimal evidence? I highly doubt that seeing as how it's a FEDERAL indictment and they don't typically indict someone unless they are about 99% positive they have enough evidence to prove the guy is dirty(and is there really any doubt he is).

If he gets off easily on this one than I will be pretty pissed off, the guy is a POS and deserves what's coming to him.

And yes yes, "innocent until proven guilty", but.... :roll:

Also, thanks for giving us Schaub, OOPS?

RaoulDuke79 · Post #3 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:49 am

Just a post on this topic I found interesting, take it for what it's worth:

"I wholeheartedly agree that an indictment is no evidence of guilt, and that Vick is, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, innocent until proven guilty. With that obvious disclaimer, however, I will share with you my experience with federal prosecutors.

In state court, a defendant generally resigns himself to an indictment because the prosecutor has wide latitude to indict and much of the investigation is done post-indictment. Therefore, a defense lawyer doesn't really get to work defending the case and trying to get it disposed of until after the indictment goes down. Federal prosecutors are very different. The United States Attorney does not indict unless he (1) has already done 99% of his investigation and obtained 99% of the evidence he will use at trial, and (2) is convinced that the evidence he has obtained against the defendant will result in a conviction. As a result, in the federal system, the defense lawyer's efforts are largely geared towards preventing an indictment, since once an indictment is obtained the die is cast and your guy is going to federal-pound-you-in-the-ass-prison.

And this indictment (which I pulled down from the Court's website) shows that to be the case here. The indictment identifies four "Cooperating Witness[es]." The first Cooperating Witness (referred to as CW#1 in the indictment) was the guy from whom Vick purchased four pit bulls in early 2002. (Indict at Para. 9.) In February 2002, Vick "rolled" or "tested" some of his pit bulls agaisnt other dogs owned by CW#1 to determine how well the dog fought. It is implied that CW#1 would be able to testify as to the disposal of underperforming dogs.

The second Cooperating Witness ("CW#2") observed Vick at two separate dog fights in June 2002. (Indict. at Para. 47.) At that fight, CW#2 agreed to a fight between his dogs and "Bad Newz Kennels'" (i.e., the outfit co-owned by Vick) dogs. Vick was present at the March 2003 fight between his dog and CW#2's. Vick's dog lost, and after consultation with Vick, Vick's coconspirator "executed the losing dog by wetting the dog down with water and electrocuting the animal." (Indict. at Para. 53.)

The third Cooperating Witness ("CW#3"), had a dog fight against Vick's in Fall 2003. (Indict. at Para. 67.) "During the fight, CW#3 was criticized by a person unknown to the Grand Jury from "Bad Newz Kennels" for CW#3's having yelled out VICK's name in front of the crowd during the dog fight." (Indict. at Para. 68.)

This brings us to Cooperating Witness #4 ("CW#4"), who owned a female pit bull named Trouble against one of Vick's dogs. Vick's dog lost, and Vick personally paid CW#4 the purse money of approximately $7,000. (Indict. at Para. 76.)

That's four witnesses--all of whom can put Vick at the scene of the dog fights and all of whom can testify to his active participation in said fights. And that's only the ones that the US Attorney feels confident enough to put in the Indictment--who knows how many other Cooperating Witnesses may be out there.

Personally, I suspect one of Vick's co-defendants will become CW#5 before the trial is done.

Yes, yes--Vick is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. But for our purposes here, the [censored]'s going down."

Taken from http://forums.hornfans.com/php/wwwthrea ... =0&fpart=3

Monkeyfeng06 · Post #4 » by **Monkeyfeng06** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:59 am

i fully believe that michael vick has ties with dog fighting. i mean it's HIS HOUSE!!! so what if his cousin lives in it... his cousins must be caring his dogs... i mean there's a whole backyard of dogs and fighting rings and vick doesn't know? psh......

JAIL HIM!!

Post #5 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:32 am

Innocent until proven guilty

:dontknow:

Post #6 » by **studcrackers** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:07 am

despite it sounding like he's guilty i doubt given his celebrity status would see jail time at least not during the season

RaoulDuke79 · Post #7 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:14 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:Innocent until proven guilty

writerman · Post #8 » by **writerman** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:29 am

He's sewer scum. If there were any sense of justice and morality among the NFL brass, he'd be banned for life from the league, but of course this is big time sports, and money talks. I hope he has a lifelong run of bad luck and ends up living in some slum and having to swamp filthy public toilets to eak out a living.

El Turco · Post #9 » by **El Turco** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:34 am

^easy there fella, nothing has been proven yet. Lets not make this Duke case #2 where everybody(including myself) basically convicted the accused because they "seem" guilty.

livestrong4ever · Post #10 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:47 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:Innocent until proven guilty

When there was an eye witness at the dog fights who said he seen Mike Vick why wouldn't i belief the undercover cop?

Post #11 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:23 am

livestrong4ever wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

When there was an eye witness at the dog fights who said he seen Mike Vick why wouldn't i belief the undercover cop?

That's your choice, not mine.

I personally don't believe "informants" and eye witnesses, unless they have some real evidence.

Then again, I don't really trust the authorities, and I wouldn't put it past them to set anyone up. :dontknow:

I'm not judging him until I see something a little more concrete, not just some masked voice guy making accusations.

Wizards2Lottery · Post #12 » by **Wizards2Lottery** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:32 am

Mike Vick is teh gone. Hes getting suspended atleast 8 games. Shouldn't have traded Schaub....

livestrong4ever · Post #13 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:34 am

[quote="NO-KG-AI"][/quote]

Your right I am sure the DA wants to indicted vick when they have no concrete evidence knowing there is going to be major media attention on this case and they are just making up evidence.

I would belief some undercover agent then Mike Vick thats for sure. But I am sure the DA has it in for Mike Vick for some personal reason. :roll:

And some of these claims are pretty damn sick. Executing dogs, hanging dogs, who didn't fight well.

livestrong4ever · Post #14 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:35 am

Gilbert0Arenas wrote:Mike Vick is teh gone. Hes getting suspended atleast 8 games. Shouldn't have traded Schaub....

He won't get suspended this season at least.

Post #15 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:43 am

"OMG, I can't believe they raped a stripper, if there was no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be going to trial, they had to do it"

..............

.............

..............

RaoulDuke79 · Post #16 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:00 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:"OMG, I can't believe they raped a stripper, if there was no concrete evidence, they wouldn't be going to trial, they had to do it"

..............

.............

..............

Point taken, and I assume you really like Vick or something so it's nice that you want to believe he's innocent, but did you read my 2nd post or the information regarding the indictment? 4 witnesses(atleast) are all lying and fabricating information because they want to screw Vick over?

Eh, we'll see how it unfolds, but all I am saying is it doesn't look remotely good for him, and my gut feeling is he's guilty as sin(and just so you know, I never once believed that Duke rape case was legit, because the only witness, the "victim", had no credibility whatsoever and changed her story a bunch of times, and had also accused someone else of rape in the past).

This is a completely different situation and I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if he's innocent.

RaoulDuke79 · Post #17 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:01 am

Also that Duke rape case was not a FEDERAL indictment, am I wrong? I could swear that was the local DA in that case, not the Feds.

Again, 2nd post.

High 5 · Post #18 » by **High 5** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:03 am

Gilbert0Arenas wrote:Mike Vick is teh gone. Hes getting suspended atleast 8 games. Shouldn't have traded Schaub....

If he's found guilty, an NFL suspension is the last thing on his mind.

I still don't understand the hype around Schaub. He could be a very good QB, but he could just as easily be terrible. He hasn't proven a thing. Everything he has done is as the back up. The only good game in his career was a game against basically the Patriots practice squad defense that had been game planning for Vick all week.

I feel more comfortable with someone who has won games as our back up. But unless our OL is 5x better, it's not going to matter because Vick and maybe Vince Young are the only QBs that could survive a game behind that line.

Post #19 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:22 am

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

If he's found guilty, an NFL suspension is the last thing on his mind.

I still don't understand the hype around Schaub. He could be a very good QB, but he could just as easily be terrible. He hasn't proven a thing. Everything he has done is as the back up. The only good game in his career was a game against basically the Patriots practice squad defense that had been game planning for Vick all week.

I feel more comfortable with someone who has won games as our back up. But unless our OL is 5x better, it's not going to matter because Vick and maybe Vince Young are the only QBs that could survive a game behind that line.

Agreed, I'd be salivating if I knew we were getting to play Schaub 2x a year.

And to answer Raoulduke79, yes it's clear that I love Vick. :roll:

We all love him in New Orleans, just like Colts fans love Tom Brady.

I think it was the times when he was beating us and humiliating my entire team's defense when I fell for him.

Even if I did like Vick, I'm not going to judge if I think a player is innocent based on how much I like him.

I'd like nothing better than to see the Falcons fall, but again....

Innocent until proven guilty.

High 5 · Post #20 » by **High 5** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:30 am

What sucks is even if Vick is found completely innocent (not saying it's likely), Goodell will still probably suspend him for a good amount of time to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

I wonder how Culpepper would look hobbling around in a Falcons jersey? BRING HIM HOME MCKAY!