Federal Agents Converge On Vick Property (1 Viewer)

[mad sweeney]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

 

[3C's]

After watching Mort on NFL Sunday Countdown the last several years get a lot of football specific stuff wrong, I put zero weight in his sources on what is a criminal justice matter.

and :bump:

I feel like typing that Pasquarelli and Mort should be fired. But I suspect they may have been offering up the company line for ESPN. I would quit if I were either of them. They look very very stupid. Almost as stupid as a few posters here that will remain nameless (at least in this post...).

Actually, Len is good friends with Vick's agent. It's pretty well known that Lenny gets most of his NFL information from player agents and spins things for his friends all the time. Just last offseason he was telling us how great Todd Pinkston still was and assuring us that he'd be a valuable contributor to some team. He also happens to be good friends with Pinkston's agent. I may be wrong, but I believe that he is actually the lead editor of the NFL side of things for ESPN.Len Pasquarelli is one of the most worthless sports sources on the internet. Why ESPN continues to employ him is beyond me.

I remember Pastabelly getting pissed at Cowherd for calling Pinkston Stinkston.

 

[BoulderBob]

Time to see how big Goodell's balls really are...

I see Vick in the CFL in the very near future...

 

[roadkill1292]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

 

[ceo3west]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

Really? So if he's found guilty, when little Bobby in the stands sees a guy who executed dogs as the poster boy for the NFL, you don't have a problem with that? By your logic, why not let OJ back on the sidelines as a roving reporter? Sorry bud, I have a problem with that. And with your "logic".

 

[DLeo]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

only a TOTAL SCUMBAG would ever want to see this maggot back in any uniform other than a prison jumpsuit. Like i said in the other thread if Vick wever plays even one more down in the NFL again I will never spend a cent on there product ever again. I don't even care ie he gets OJ luck and get off either. This is clear as day now he did everything that is said and its brutally obvious to me.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

I find that to be wholly repugnant. The NFL is a privelege and I see absolutely no reason to allow a thug with a checkered past and a conviction of heinous nature to be allowed the money and fame that goes along with being an NFL superstar. Whether you agree with it or notm NFL players ARE role models and what they do ff the field affects their playing status. You may think that having talented thugs in the game makes it more exciting and the NFL should allow any criminal with skills to play,but they have the absolte right to employ anyone they want and they have chosen not to employ a certain type of individual. The easy thing here is for the guy making 130 million to not bet and breed dogs that gain him a 10K profit. He makes more than that a day in interest. I also realize I am not going to change your mind, but players like Vick (assuming he;s convicted), Little, Henry and Jones and many others don't deserve the millions of dollars they get if they can't keep their petty street thug mentality under control. There are hundreds of guys with tons of talent who keep their noses clean so it can'tbe that hard.

 

[roadkill1292]

Somehow I'm able to make the disconnect but over the past few days in here I've come to realize that I'm in the distinct minority from that perspective. I hope everyone won't think I'm a bad person for it. I've really come to resent the NFL's heavy handed approach to discipline because the players' off-field activities don't affect my appreciation for the competition in any way.

 

[ceo3west]

Somehow I'm able to make the disconnect but over the past few days in here I've come to realize that I'm in the distinct minority from that perspective. I hope everyone won't think I'm a bad person for it. I've really come to resent the NFL's heavy handed approach to discipline because the players' off-field activities don't affect my appreciation for the competition in any way.

Sure, why not teach kids that it's ok to act like a thug? In our society you'll be glorified for it, as long as you can entertain.

 

[mad sweeney]

Somehow I'm able to make the disconnect but over the past few days in here I've come to realize that I'm in the distinct minority from that perspective. I hope everyone won't think I'm a bad person for it. I've really come to resent the NFL's heavy handed approach to discipline because the players' off-field activities don't affect my appreciation for the competition in any way.

Nobody wants to see an inferior product and when players of high caliber are affected perhaps in some ways the game in and of itself may suffer a bit. But along with our enjoyment of their physical prowess* they also receive tons and tons of money, prestige and fame. And I'm afraid that, even after serving a debt to society, not all of those trappings should be rewarded to people after they did what they did. I certainly don't advocate kicking people out of the league for any but the most vile of offenses or for complete and totlal recedivists. But there are some things that after which I could never, ever root for a team with a certain player on it. Ray Lewis was on the borderline. Covering for your friends who committed murder is abhorrent. Leonard Little drunkenly mowed down a mother and he's still making millions. In fact his high priced attorney got him off another DUI charge that should've landed his ### back in jail and permanently revoked his license, and in Goodell's NFL his whole season. It's ridiculous he's still playing. This is America and people should be able to do what they want. But the fact is that the players sign into an agreement which has a conduct policy attached to it. Their union negotiated it with the owners to achieve a marketable probuct that is profitable for all. In return for giving up their rights to freely break the law with no regard for their employment status, they are recompensed with more money than most of us will ever sniff. The rules are there, they know them and if they break them they take their punishments just as they cashed the checks. I personally habe zero problem with weed, but owners don't want their players stunting their mental growth with it and so it's against the rules. even if it were legal, I still think the owners have the right to ban it. If Ricky can't give up weed for millions of dollars, that's his deal, he knew the rules and if he wants to keep failing tests then he'll stop plying, as per the contract he signed.* I've never personally liked Vick. I'm glad the Chargers traded him away. He's damn exciting to watch and I enjoy that but I have never believed in him as a championship QB. And he's proven poor character repeatedly, especially hiding herpes from at least one woman before infecting her for life. The NFL will lose highlights with hin gone, but people come and go every year and there may not be another Vick, but there will never be a lack of amazing plays. The league survived the sudden retirement of Barry Sanders and it was still the best entertainment around, it will survive without the few maderchods that can't keep their noses out of bad trouble.

 

[roadkill1292]

Somehow I'm able to make the disconnect but over the past few days in here I've come to realize that I'm in the distinct minority from that perspective. I hope everyone won't think I'm a bad person for it. I've really come to resent the NFL's heavy handed approach to discipline because the players' off-field activities don't affect my appreciation for the competition in any way.

Sure, why not teach kids that it's ok to act like a thug? In our society you'll be glorified for it, as long as you can entertain.

You could teach your kids that people can still do their jobs after they've paid their debts to society. And you could teach them that the guys on the field are just people, with very human shortcomings, and not someone to be venerated just because they play an exciting game.I don't really think very much of NFL players, one way or the other. Maybe that's why it's way easier for me than most to separate the man from the player. I didn't have a very high opinion of them to begin with; therefore I'm not very disappointed when they fail at life.

 

[cobalt_27]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

Perhaps, you as a fan should stop telling the rest of us fans what we should and shouldn't care about. I root for the whole package, and when skills on the field merge with good character, that's when my enjoyment as a fan is at its greatest. So, don't tell me what the hell I should be rooting for.

 

[roadkill1292]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

Perhaps, you as a fan should stop telling the rest of us fans what we should and shouldn't care about. I root for the whole package, and when skills on the field merge with good character, that's when my enjoyment as a fan is at its greatest. So, don't tell me what the hell I should be rooting for.

I thought we were welcoming opinions here. :( Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.

 

[cobalt_27]

Ain't over yet. But I wonder if those of us advocating not rushing to judgement are still considered idiots.

Answer: Yes.

This is a very interesting message board. Waiting until the facts are known before rendering an opinion is "idiotic."

I think you're missing the point. There will never be a time that any one of us knows all the facts. We could go on forever not forming an opinion about the majority of things because we don't know all the facts, if that's your standard. But, we did know some important facts. One was that dog fighting was taking place on a property owned by Vick. Second, we knew from multiple sources that Vick had connections with people involved in this arena. Third, there were some folks who directly pointed the finger and said that he was intimately involved.

Now, you and I will never learn the full scope of what goes on in these investigations or court cases. Yet, given the available evidence at hand, it's reasonable to make an informed opinion. Whether we want to give benefit of the doubt or attribute guilt is an individual choice. But, it was pretty obvious what was going on, and you clearly had to reach to accommodate a fantasy scenario whereby he was not involved in this.

I'll just lift from Lester Munson's piece on ESPN:

The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts "tested" pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the indictment says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted.

Clearly, you, LHUCKS and ILUVBEER99 had a strong, vested interest in standing by Vick despite all that we did know. Does that make it idiotic? Given all the circumstances surrounding this, and that we are not the court of law (and, thus, have a more liberal standard of guilt assessment), I say yes.

Lost, perhaps understandably, in the hubbub of this thread is the fact that I have advocated neither Vick's guilt or innocence in this or any of the ongoing threads. What's interesting is that those of us assuming that stance have been criticized for it. If advocating waiting for more facts before rendering an opinion is unsatisfactory, then a new frontier in debating guidelines has been crossed and I have some catching up to do.

There are those that advocated waiting for the point at which the feds laid down indictments, and then there are those like Iluvbeer99 (now renamed ILuvBackPedalling99) and Keith Lewis who took the position of unequivocal innocence and witch huntery against all those who even advocated that evidence looked bad against Vick. Moderates, no matter what they believed, are being lumped in with the few guys who were just way over the top in their defense of Vick. Keith Lewis and ILuvBackpedalling in particular. Curiously enough, I hiave seen no oversized banner headlines or supercilious rebuttals and conclucion jumping from Keith Lewis since this new news broke. Guess it takes an even bigger man than he to admit he jumped the gun himself even as he accused others of doing the same. ILuvBacpedalling has admitted his being wrong, but is trying to mitigate his stances. Reminds me of a TO apology.

That's a fair answer. Now let me muddle things up a little more.1. If guilty, Ookie should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. The accusations are heinous.

2. After the civil authorities are done with him, I want him back in uniform. We, as fans, really need to stop worrying about what these guys do off the field. And the NFL should butt the #### out.

Perhaps, you as a fan should stop telling the rest of us fans what we should and shouldn't care about. I root for the whole package, and when skills on the field merge with good character, that's when my enjoyment as a fan is at its greatest. So, don't tell me what the hell I should be rooting for.

I thought we were welcoming opinions here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.

You should know by now there's no unconditional love here.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Why do people assume that if they find something that Vick is guilty? He didn't live there and if they can't tie him directly to it he likely won't be charged.

It doesn't look like they will find anything at all conclusive about dog fighting anyway, but even if they do don't assume Mike Vick will be the one charged with it.

These Vick threads just get more pathetic every day. Enjoy the witch hunt boys.

They might find all kind of #### in the back yards but if they cant tie him directly to this he wont be charged.

What happened to the witnesses that were ready to testify they saw him there , anyone still believing he will be charged are just FK racist Vick haters.

Huh?What?

I couldn't make out that crap you were spewing?

How does your boy look now?