Vick goes to court today....

[MJZiggy]

It's ok, there's a whole other trial that could end up happening at the state level for him to find justice in...

[Rastak]

It's ok, there's a whole other trial that could end up happening at the state level for him to find justice in...

Yea, albiet a short trial if he signs a statement monday admitting animal cruelty. Actually, he'll have to plead guilty there too unless he wants to admit lying in the federal guilty plea. I'm guessing these signed statements of fact during a plea are under oath.


Rock

Vick

Hard Place

[Harlan Huckleby]

Free Michael!

[RashanGary]

I'm OK with protecting animal rights. I have a respect for life that extends past human life and I'm OK with law that enforces that belief. At some point, all law is a morality judgement. If someone rapes your wife, should you be able to kill them? That person might be acting on the drive and instinct to reproduce. Who am I to decide right and wrong? I'm not god.

I think most are OK with punishing rape under our law (even though he might be acting on a natural instict to reproduce). I think most would agree that a revenge killing should be punished as well. However, some might say "rape my wife and I have every right, under god, to kill you" We have to make these laws based on morality. At some point there is some subjectivity to it all. That said, I'm OK with punishing killers (even ones that almost seem just) and rapists. The animal life line is a little more gray and I tend to lean toward less laws instead of more but in this case, my morality aligns iwth it being OK with punishing people who torture and kill animals.

Vick breaking the law is the bottom line as far as the way things are set up and enforced. He will be punished according to the standards of that law. However, the arguement of "is the law right" is a little more subjective. I agree with the law and I feel good about Vick being imprisioned and even better about how much he is losing from the NFL. I think he deserves suffering for what he did.

[MJZiggy]

I'm OK with protecting animal rights. I have a respect for life that extends past human life and I'm OK with law that enforces that belief. At some point, all law is a morality judgement. If someone rapes your wife, should you be able to kill them? That person might be acting on the drive and instinct to reproduce. Who am I to decide right and wrong? I'm not god.

I think most are OK with punishing rape under our law (even though he might be acting on a natural instict to reproduce). I think most would agree that a revenge killing should be punished as well. However, some might say "rape my wife and I have every right, under god, to kill you" We have to make these laws based on morality. At some point there is some subjectivity to it all. That said, I'm OK with punishing killers (even ones that almost seem just) and rapists. The animal life line is a little more gray and I tend to lean toward less laws instead of more but in this case, my morality aligns iwth it being OK with punishing people who torture and kill animals.

Vick breaking the law is the bottom line as far as the way things are set up and enforced. He will be punished according to the standards of that law. However, the arguement of "is the law right" is a little more subjective. I agree with the law and I feel good about Vick being imprisioned and even better about how much he is losing from the NFL. I think he deserves suffering for what he did.

You really need to get out of the engineering department and take a class on human psych and motivation...rapists are NOT pressed by the natural instict to reproduce. People who get laid are. Rape is violence, dominance. And maybe it's not the husband, but the wife who deserves to be the one doing the revenge killing??

[RashanGary]

I think the need and drive to reproduce can be twisted and harmfull. I think people need ot be put away where they can't continue the action, but I'm not god. I can't decide what is an animalistic drive to screw and what is just evil. The morality will be judged if there is a god and he has to face him. As far as law goes, I'm happy to be a part of a society that punishes such things because I "THINK" it's wrong and I "WANT" them off the streets and I feel confidnet enough about my opinions and wants to support the law. I'm not entirely sure of my opinions though, it's subjective. Ultimately we have to draw some lines through the gray area and some might be more clear than others but nothing is black and white in the world of right and wrong. Nobody can say what is right and wrong. I'm not even sure right and wrong exist or if we just evolved an extra intellectual sense while being a part of a cycle of life (as I understand it) on some miniscule planet within a never-ending world. Who the hell knows (right now, I'm hoping a god exists becuase not knowing is uncomfortable). The best we can do is construct a society that has laws based on the majority. I'm happy with that. I'm not always the majority but I guesss I just have to go with the flow sometimes.

Some of our culture (seems to be the black culture) is OK with treating dogs like shit. Unfortunately for them, they are not the majority. They are going with the flow right to jail.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Until Michael is free, none of us are truly free.

[MJZiggy]

I think the need and drive to reproduce can be twisted and harmfull. I think people need ot be put away where they can't continue the action, but I'm not god. I can't decide what is an animalistic drive to screw and what is just evil. The morality will be judged if there is a god and he has to face him. As far as law goes, I'm happy to be a part of a society that punishes such things because I "THINK" it's wrong and I "WANT" them off the streets and I feel confidnet enough about my opinions and wants to support the law. I'm not entirely sure of my opinions though, it's subjective. Ultimately we have to draw some lines through the gray area and some might be more clear than others but nothing is black and white in the world of right and wrong. Nobody can say what is right and wrong. I'm not even sure right and wrong exist or if we just evolved an extra intellectual sense while being a part of a cycle of life (as I understand it). Who the hell knows. The best we can do is construct a society that has laws based on the majority. I'm happy with that. I'm not always the majority but I guesss I just have to go with the flow sometimes.

Some of our culture (seems to be the black culture) is OK with treating dogs like shit. Unfortunately for them, they are not the majority. They are going with the flow right to jail.

Oh, quit getting all existential. If there's one thing that strives not to be subjective it's the law and whether you "want" the law to be doesn't matter--it is and if you break it you go to jail, like if you break the law against dogfighting and interstate gambling...

[RashanGary]

Oh, quit getting all existential. If there's one thing that strives not to be subjective it's the law and whether you "want" the law to be doesn't matter--it is and if you break it you go to jail, like if you break the law against dogfighting and interstate gambling...

haha, talkign about how the law will be enforced has a much more rigid feel to it. He broke the law, he'll be punished in accordance with the sentencing guidelines that go with that law. The real question or contraversy isn't whether or not he will be punished, it's even starting to shift away from whether or not he is guilty as most see guilt within the purview of the crimes he is charged. The only legitimate question now is whether or not the law is right and just. People who may not be able to back up their belief system in a way that is conducive to this debate might say "It's the law, he broke it, he belongs in jail" as if to say "I think he should be in jail and the all powerfull, no mistake law backs me up so I'm right and you are wrong". The root of this conversation lies deeper than whether or not there is a law against it. Also, whether or not a law is in place really has nothing to do with whether it should be except that we might trust the law makers judgement more than our own. I tend to have confidence in my ability to think most things through, so I don't just follow laws like they are somehow gods will and therefor my reasoning has more to do with the roots to why a law might be created instead of stopping at "the law is here"

[Freak Out]

If someone rapes your wife, should you be able to kill them? That person might be acting on the drive and instinct to reproduce. Who am I to decide right and wrong? I'm not god.

I think most are OK with punishing rape under our law (even though he might be acting on a natural instict to reproduce).

WTF? Go back to talking football dude.

[MJZiggy]

I don't trust lawmakers judgment more than my own...if they start passing stupid laws, they hear from me and lose my vote and if they're really stupid, I am vocal in stating that to others who might vote for that person. And if you don't agree with the right or wrong of the law on the books, you can question it, but it's still the law until you do something to get said law changed.

[RashanGary]

He lives in our country and everyone who lives here has no choice but follow the laws that are in place or suffer the concequences if he chooses to break them. Vick broke a law. He's guilty as charged (maybe he could have found a loophole but the prosecution used their own loophole to force him into pleaing guilty). Now he faces the sentences that go along with the crimes he commited and was found guilty of by his own admission. There isn't much to argue.

The only thing left to argue is whether or not the law should be in place and what we want from the governing laws in OUR country. Should dogs be protected under the government? Should peoples lives be protected under the govnernment. Are there religous reasons that make killing OK? Are there revenge reasons that make killing OK like taking out the rapist of your daughter or son (if michael jackson is involved). People generally have a feel for right and wrong. When you break it down, how we got here creation or just by chance matters. If there is a god who sent us here to be good stuards of the land and we construct our laws based on that god then we have the right and obligation to make laws as such. If you don't make your laws based on god then it becomes a little foggy. I don't want government based on god, but how else can you get morals if you don't believe in god or some form of rightous power? Exisitance would be meaningless (in absense of god) and therefor individual life meaningless. Who knows. . . All I'm saying is it's subjective whether or no the law should be around. I like it and want it (the law) but I don't confuse my wants with gods word like some. Some might want anarchy. Some want a state of islamic control. Who's to say who's right or wrong? Not me. I just give my vote of the way I want it and don't confuse the way I want it with the way it should be if that makes any sense.

[MJZiggy]

For the love of pete, the laws, though probably originally based on religion, are based on the concept of protecting the weak from the oppressive and to keep us from harming one another or society as a whole (excepting, of course, the laws predicated on making sure that the government gets theirs) You don't need religion to realize that kids need to be protected from predatory adults and that the elderly need to be protected from abusive caretakers and scam artists. Or that dogs need to be protected from people who drown or hang them if they don't happen to be fierce enough. And remember that in the Federal case, the animal abuse is the least of the charges. They just happen to be the ones that everyone wants to see him go down for because the victim is so obvious.

[BallHawk]

And the saga continues.....

Vick won't admit to gambling or killing dogs

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick will not admit to killing dogs or gambling on dog fights, as detailed in his indictment, when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, Va., federal court Monday, a source close to the case has told ESPN. Instead, the one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting.

Vick will admit that he was present when dogs were killed, but will maintain that he did not personally kill any of the dogs.

The allegations of killing dogs and gambling were part of the picture painted by Vick's three co-defendants, all of whom have pleaded guilty.

The source told ESPN that Vick's defense team met with federal attorneys Thursday afternoon to determine the "summary of facts" to which Vick will plead. But the source says Vick maintains that he never killed dogs and never gambled on a dog fight.

Vick, 27, is scheduled to enter his plea agreement Monday and could face up to five years in prison.

Vick's co-defendants said Vick provided virtually all the gambling and operating funds for the Bad Newz Kennels enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs by various means, including drowning and hanging.

[digitaldean]

And the saga continues.....

Vick won't admit to gambling or killing dogs

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick will not admit to killing dogs or gambling on dog fights, as detailed in his indictment, when he enters a guilty plea in a Richmond, Va., federal court Monday, a source close to the case has told ESPN. Instead, the one count of conspiracy that Vick will plead to will admit guilt to the charge of interstate commerce for the purpose of dogfighting.

Vick will admit that he was present when dogs were killed, but will maintain that he did not personally kill any of the dogs.

The allegations of killing dogs and gambling were part of the picture painted by Vick's three co-defendants, all of whom have pleaded guilty.

The source told ESPN that Vick's defense team met with federal attorneys Thursday afternoon to determine the "summary of facts" to which Vick will plead. But the source says Vick maintains that he never killed dogs and never gambled on a dog fight.

Vick, 27, is scheduled to enter his plea agreement Monday and could face up to five years in prison.

Vick's co-defendants said Vick provided virtually all the gambling and operating funds for the Bad Newz Kennels enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs by various means, including drowning and hanging.

Vick is skating on thin ice if his lawyers think they can juke the feds out of the gambling rap. I can understand why he is not admitting to the gambling, he knows it will snuff out the microscopic chance he has to play. If he admits to being the bankroll for the gambling, the NFL won't let him back in.

Unfortunately, he is deluded to think that he can tell the gov't. what type of plea deal he can have. Looks like he may want to roll the dice and let it go to trial, because the feds aren't going to let him dance out of it.

He severely cut any leverage he had by copping the deal in the first place. Now he flat out looks desperate.