Vick will never be charged(merged)

[Popps]

but that's not let that get in the way of a public stoning.

Hilarious!

Jason in LA, meet Garcia.

Let the pity party commence.

[Jason in LA]

Hilarious!

Jason in LA, meet Garcia.

Let the pity party commence.


You just can't handle the truth...or you are too dumb to understand it.

[Popps]

You just can't handle the truth...or you are too dumb to understand it.

Right, and by the truth you mean... your highly slanted and factually misrepresented stances.

I just love a "pile on," right Jason?

!Booya!

[Garcia Bronco]

Yea, you know... I missed the part in the Duke investigation where a completely unbiased third party (American Humane Society) jumped in and accused the Duke players.

In fact, I found the coverage of that story to be pretty straight forward. The girl made claims... had nothing to back them up and the kids eventually got off.

So, once again... a crappy analogy.

The humane society would be no different than the Rainbow Coalition in that context...and both are biased.

[Garcia Bronco]

In fact, I found the coverage of that story to be pretty straight forward. The girl made claims... had nothing to back them up and the kids eventually got off.

So, once again... a crappy analogy.

their lives were ruined as well as their coaches lively hood

[Jason in LA]

Right, and by the truth you mean... your highly slanted and factually misrepresented stances.

I just love a "pile on," right Jason?

!Booya!

I use many valid points and facts to support my arguments. You don't do that...probably because you aren't smart enough to.

[Popps]

their lives were ruined as well as their coaches lively hood

Right. So, you don't like the media.

Great.

That doesn't mean the two situations are remotely similar, because they're not.

ONE person of questionable nature made a false claim... had nothing to substantiate it, and it was eventually dropped.

Conversely, multiple parties, including an unbiased, respected American institution are directly calling for Vick to be investigated.

This, along with a ton of physical evidence that may or may not be tied to Vick, directly.

See.... those are two completely different things. Not remotely the same, and it's a horrible analogy.

[Popps]

I use many valid points and facts to support my arguments. You don't do that...probably because you aren't smart enough to.

Jason, you just keep telling me "I'm not smart."

That's "using valid points?"

Really? Sounds like name-calling.

Outside of that, you've given ZERO evidence to back your "Vick pile-on" theory.

Well, you did say that Whitlock wasn't black enough and couldn't talk about black issues because he didn't live in a black neighborhood. Well, actually... you later admitted that you didn't even know if that was true.

Let's see, what else. Oh yea, you said that property owners can't be held liable for what happens on their property.


Yea, I take it back.... you're just a wealth of factual information.

ROFL!

[Garcia Bronco]

Right. So, you don't like the media.

Great.

That doesn't mean the two situations are remotely similar, because they're not.

ONE person of questionable nature made a false claim... had nothing to substantiate it, and it was eventually dropped.

Conversely, multiple parties, including an unbiased, respected American institution are directly calling for Vick to be investigated.

This, along with a ton of physical evidence that may or may not be tied to Vick, directly.

See.... those are two completely different things. Not remotely the same, and it's a horrible analogy.

The humane society is not unbiased in this situation. Not only that, they are operating on the same potentially false information you are operating on. You have no idea about the credibility of these witnesses, so you can't believe them until that is established. There is not a ton of evidence pointing at Vick either...that's another lie. We aren't talking about where the two are different...we are talking about where they are the same. We are talking about what the media reports and how the run over the truth to report it. Since they cannot be trusted, we must conculde that everything they say is not true...and until this goes to a court of law and Vick is pronouced guilty by a jury of his peers...these might as well be lies because he's innocent until proven guilty.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The humane society is not unbiased in this situation. Not only that, they are operating on the same potentially false information you are operating on.

And just how would you know that? Why isn't that info potentially true?

[Garcia Bronco]

And just how would you know that? Why isn't that info potentially true?

Because anyone is innocent until proven guilty.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Because anyone is innocent until proven guilty.That has nothing to do with the validity of the information shared to this point. That information has more "potential" IMO to show Vick as the arse he is than not.

[Garcia Bronco]

That has nothing to do with the validity of the information shared to this point. That information has more "potential" IMO to show Vick as the arse he is than not.

I disagree.

[Northman]

Because anyone is innocent until proven guilty.


The point of the thread is that there is more and more things coming to light and making it look like Vick is guilty of some sort of involvement with dog fighting. Obviously, we wont know the final verdict until it goes to trial if it ever does. But as of now, it doesnt look promising and that is what people are talking about. Obviously, your biased because your a Vick fan but that doesnt mean he is automatically innocent of these charges because of that fandom.

[Jason in LA]

Jason, you just keep telling me "I'm not smart."

That's "using valid points?"

Really? Sounds like name-calling.

Outside of that, you've given ZERO evidence to back your "Vick pile-on" theory.

Well, you did say that Whitlock wasn't black enough and couldn't talk about black issues because he didn't live in a black neighborhood. Well, actually... you later admitted that you didn't even know if that was true.

Let's see, what else. Oh yea, you said that property owners can't be held liable for what happens on their property.


Yea, I take it back.... you're just a wealth of factual information.

ROFL!

I keep saying it because it's true. You haven't proven me wrong about it yet.

You are back to nitpicking. The point that you are not smart is just one of many points that I have made. It's probably the simpliest of all of the points that I have made, because you are a simple minded person. As for the name calling, are your feelings hurt?

Who cares about the Vick pile on theory? It's not something that needs to be proved or disproved, so I haven't attempted to prove it. What, do you want me to do some research and make a number of points on that? Dude, you are silly. You are nitpicking again. I haven't even made that point in this thread.

You have reading comprehension problems. And now you have misquoted me again.

I never at any point said that Whitlock wasn't black enough or could not speak on black issues because he did not live in a black area. I did question whether he lived in a black area, but I never said that he could not speak on black issues because he did not live in a black issues.

As for me admitting that I didn't know whether he lived in a black neighborhood or not, I was admitting that what I said was speculation. Somebody smart, which excludes you, could have used that as a counter point against my point. So I mentioned it. Leaves the other person with no place to go with it. It's a way to stay a step ahead.

Like I said before, I did not say that a property owner has no responsibility on what happens on his property. Again, you are misquoting me.

If you are going to argue with me atleast quote me properly, and stop nitpicking minor details. You can't see the forest from the trees.

Oh wait, if you did those things, you wouldn't have much of an argument to make.

[Northman]

I keep saying it because it's true. You haven't proven me wrong about it yet.

You are back to nitpicking. The point that you are not smart is just one of many points that I have made. It's probably the simpliest of all of the points that I have made, because you are a simple minded person. As for the name calling, are your feelings hurt?

Who cares about the Vick pile on theory? It's not something that needs to be proved or disproved, so I haven't attempted to prove it. What, do you want me to do some research and make a number of points on that? Dude, you are silly. You are nitpicking again. I haven't even made that point in this thread.

You have reading comprehension problems. And now you have misquoted me again.

I never at any point said that Whitlock wasn't black enough or could not speak on black issues because he did not live in a black area. I did question whether he lived in a black area, but I never said that he could not speak on black issues because he did not live in a black issues.

As for me admitting that I didn't know whether he lived in a black neighborhood or not, I was admitting that what I said was speculation. Somebody smart, which excludes you, could have used that as a counter point against my point. So I mentioned it. Leaves the other person with no place to go with it. It's a way to stay a step ahead.

Like I said before, I did not say that a property owner has no responsibility on what happens on his property. Again, you are misquoting me.

If you are going to argue with me atleast quote me properly, and stop nitpicking minor details. You can't see the forest from the trees.

Oh wait, if you did those things, you wouldn't have much of an argument to make.


You mean like the nit picking you did to Whitlock's article on african american gatherings at sporting events?

[Garcia Bronco]

The point of the thread is that there is more and more things coming to light and making it look like Vick is guilty of some sort of involvement with dog fighting. Obviously, we wont know the final verdict until it goes to trial if it ever does. But as of now, it doesnt look promising and that is what people are talking about. Obviously, your biased because your a Vick fan but that doesnt mean he is automatically innocent of these charges because of that fandom.

He is automatically innocent until proven guilty and me being a okie has nothing to do with it.

[Northman]

He is automatically innocent until proven guilty and me being a okie has nothing to do with it.

No one to my knowledge has claimed that, only that there was evidence piling up on him which will determine his guilt or innocence at a later date. But obviously, some people feel he is guilty and thats their opinion.

[Jason in LA]

You mean like the nit picking you did to Whitlock's article on african american gatherings at sporting events?

When I say nitpicking I mean that he takes a minor detail, or even one single word, and makes an entire argument out of it. He doesn't tackle an issue. He finds the most unimportant aspect of an argument and blows it out of proportion. That is nitpicking.

Whitlock's quote that blacks cannot gather at an event is not a minor detail. That's a major claim. And I refuted that claim quite nicely. Whitlock made a number of points. I did not latch onto single words or minor, unimportant details. I took on his major claims, and agrued against them. How is that nitpicking? In an argument, aren't you supposed to take on another person's major claims?

What popps does, and what I did are totally different.

[bendog]

No one to my knowledge has claimed that, only that there was evidence piling up on him which will determine his guilt or innocence at a later date. But obviously, some people feel he is guilty and thats their opinion.

I just think he's a thug, and I hope they taser him and put him in a cell with a three hundred pound white supremicist.

[Popps]

The humane society is not unbiased in this situation. Not only that, they are operating on the same potentially false information you are operating on. You have no idea about the credibility of these witnesses, so you can't believe them until that is established. There is not a ton of evidence pointing at Vick either...that's another lie. We aren't talking about where the two are different...we are talking about where they are the same. We are talking about what the media reports and how the run over the truth to report it. Since they cannot be trusted, we must conculde that everything they say is not true...and until this goes to a court of law and Vick is pronouced guilty by a jury of his peers...these might as well be lies because he's innocent until proven guilty.

Yea, but you said there was NO proof.... and you're wrong. Jawing about the legal process doesn't change the fact that your statement was wrong.

If you THINK he's innocent, that's great. Choose to ignore the circumstances all you want. Whatever works for you.

But, to say there's "no proof" is not accurate. That's to be determined.... and right now, things don't look good for him.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yea, but you said there was NO proof.... and you're wrong. Jawing about the legal process doesn't change the fact that your statement was wrong.

If you THINK he's innocent, that's great. Choose to ignore the circumstances all you want. Whatever works for you.

But, to say there's "no proof" is not accurate. That's to be determined.... and right now, things don't look good for him.

There is no proof at this time.

[Rock Chalk]

Yea, you know... I missed the part in the Duke investigation where a completely unbiased third party (American Humane Society) jumped in and accused the Duke players.

In fact, I found the coverage of that story to be pretty straight forward. The girl made claims... had nothing to back them up and the kids eventually got off.

So, once again... a crappy analogy.

Not to debate anything with any one here about any topic because Im not big on starting crap over the internet...but I'd hardly call the AHS an unbiased third party.

The American Humane Society is about as unbiased as Al Sharpton, PETA, Jesse Jackson, the NRA and Bronco_Beerslug.

[Popps]

The point that you are not smart is just one of many points that I have made.

Well, when people don't HAVE a point, they generally resort to name-calling.
So, no surprise, there. The "points" you've made so far have been real gems.
(Whitlock isn't black enough... property owners can't be held liable, etc.)

As for the name calling, are your feelings hurt?.

By what? You avoiding subject matter in favor of calling me a big dummy poo-poo head?

Yea, I'm all torn up about that.

Dude, you are silly. You are nitpicking again. .

Every time I pin you to one of your own statements, you claim it's "nitpicking."

Words mean things, Jason. If you want to use them, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise, maybe stick to the playground stuff.

I haven't even made that point in this thread.

Well, this was merged. But, you made it in another. Does that mean you didn't really mean it, since you made it in another thread?

I never at any point said that Whitlock wasn't black enough or could not speak on black issues because he did not live in a black area.

Ummmm......

"If Whitlock had good intentions then he would go into the black community and say this to black people instead of broadcasting this crap to a mostly white audience. He would be a part of the solution. I get the feeling that he doesn't live close to a black community, but he wants to act like he knows what is going on."

Gosh, my bad... I guess I interpreted that wrong.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If you are going to argue with me atleast quote me properly

I just did, as I have been.

Like I said before.... you really don't have anything to say. Well, you DO, but you don't want to come out and say it. So, you tiptoe around until someone nails you to the wall on one of your statements, then you back off and call people names.

Maybe take a few days off... get your thoughts together and try again. That may help you avoid saying things, and then denying saying them in the following post.


O.K... there's your cue, call me a stupid-face again! Wheeeeeee!!!!!

!Booya! !Booya! !Booya!

[Popps]

Not to debate anything with any one here about any topic because Im not big on starting crap over the internet...but I'd hardly call the AHS an unbiased third party.

The American Humane Society is about as unbiased as Al Sharpton, PETA, Jesse Jackson, the NRA and Bronco_Beerslug.

Fair enough. I've never seen them go after a pro athlete for dog-fighting. I've actually never seen them go after anyone.

Having a function doesn't mean you have an agenda. Having a function doesn't mean that you'll abuse that function.

But, point taken... they do exist for a REASON, and the possibility does exist that they could over-pursue something like this because of that function.

That said, to call them as biased as Jesse Jackson or the NRA is just historically silly.

[footstepsfrom#27]

But sadly he calls us all racists because we call him out.
I didn't call you a racist because you "called me out". I called this little pack of posters on this thread...some/most of them anyway, not all...racist because you represent the SAME group of people who pollute every thread you can find looking for an opportunity to hate on black people. It doesn't matter what the discusion is about...you LIVE for the chance to push your agenda. Every thread that mentions an athlete in trouble becomes another golden opportunity for you to spew this crap. Threads about politics...economics...the odds of a long shot NFL prospect on making a team...even D-Will's tragedy...ALL of these things offer you what you crave most, a platform for talking about what's wrong with black people. THAT is why I've called you racists...because the subject dominates you're thinking. If you didn't exist on this board, nobody on this site would even know what my personal views on this topic are. It's the same small group every time...and a number of you have sent me nasty little notes in my reputation box, or PM'd me with your snide comments, so I know EXACTLY who is going to show up any time one of these conversations starts.

Let's rewind here and backtrack a moment to pause and summarize this mess, since the original topic at hand has long since been burried in a blizzard of stuff that is irrelevant. What was the original point to this entire debate? It started because I made the claim that the Dallas District Attorney's office had a long history of racism. THAT and ONLY that was my point. I supported that point with a reference to a handbook produced by the Dallas DA to ensure that black people couldn't serve on juries. Jeremy took exception to this, and obviously to my characterization of the justice system as racially biased towards blacks, which is odd, given the fact that in post #3 on this thread he affirmed exactly what I was saying when Jason stated the history of race-bias in this country's judicial system also and he commented as follows:
You are absolutely right. Until recently, it has been that way.
Jeremy affirmed in his 3rd post that there is a long history of racism in the justice system in the US existing "until recently"...and then spent the rest of this entire thread denying it exists...I guess I'm the only one who finds that strange.

But moving on...but let's look at what he stated in the VERY FIRST POST on this thread, because it's what pissed me off enough to respond in the first place. Observe:
http://wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6498964 Play the "Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney speaks to WAVY TV" video. The prosecutor sounds like Vick's advocate.

"Scarred? Come on, did you see the dogs?"

It really is laughably bad. Vick is a joke, and the criminal justice system in this country is a joke.

Those Duke lacrosse players lose a year of their lives and their parents go in debt paying their attorney's fees over an obvious lie, and Vick gets off again and again and again and again when the evidence is overwhelming.

These things are setting race relations farther back than the OJ verdict.
To begin with I find it bizarre that an attorney would immediately presume guilt without the benefit of trial, something I would expect of less intelligent people, but let's set that aside since this isn't a court room. What's more interesting, and what I found simply AMAZING is that he would focus on three singular examples of apparent injustice ALL AGAINST WHITESor in favor of black defendants to make a point about how messed up the criminal justice system is when there is almost universal recognition that blacks are far more likely to be subjected to bias. But don't overlook the other statement here...because Jeremy stated from his first introductory post on this thread that "the criminal justice system in this country is a joke". Those are HIS WORDS...yet later in this thread he accused me of an "anti-American manifesto" and went into laborious detail to prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he first said...that there is nothing wrong with the system. Note post #181 whre he stated:
But the system itself is not flawed. But keep writing your anti-America manifestos.
How are we to reconcile these two statements...separated as they are by 180 posts? First..."the criminal justice system in this country is a joke", and then "the system itself is not flawed". Obviously his original intention was to prove that bias existed...IN FAVOR OF BLACKS...but when confronted with the idea of evidence of the reverse, his opinion changes to "the system itself is not flawed". Is it flawed or isn't it? It seems to be fine to suggest bias in favor of whites that equates to "the system is a joke" based on 2 extreme examples...OJ and the Duke Lacrosse team (though the Duke kids were never charged or convicted so that is a poor example) and one case (Vick) that hasn't even come to court yet so the outcome is unknown...leaving us with only OJ now...but it's NOT OK to see the flaws based on mountains of evidence that there is racial bias towards blacks?

Does this make a shred of sense?

This obvious and direct contradiction is only one of several sprinkled throughout this thread by Jeremy that gave me reason to doubt his claim that he's an attorney, though obviously I can't "prove" that. I will however, point out that this has not been "proven" the other way either, merely because I don't feel obligated to engage in a risky bet to show otherwise...as if somehow it was incumbant on me to do so, which it is not. I found it strange that an attorney would fail to recognize the name of the defendant in one of the highest profile murder cases in US history, strange that he would claim that lawyers and juries are more powerful than judges, particuarly in light of the obvious and recent high profile case of Shaquanda Cotton and the huge injustice she recieved here in Texas with direct evidence of extreme racial bias on the part of the judge, and weird that he would directly state things that are untrue, despite having an obvious familiarity with the practice of law. Take the legal research issue for example...in post #57 he specifically stated:
I mean "legal research provider"? Seriously, I know you're not actually doing legal research, as that would be practicing law without a license.
He followed this with a torturous explanation complete with a missleading NALA reference on why nobody but an attorney or somebody under direct supervison of an attorney could ever do legal research, and I was essentially then called a liar for saying I had done this kind of work in the past...(it seems turnaround is NOT fair play here). This continued until he was confronted with the fact that thousands of companies exist as outsourcing solutions for legal research and other types of legal services in the form of secondary market providers which many law firms and corporate legal departments utilize to cut costs. Note his response when I called attention to the fact that Marindale-Hubbell's database lists well over 1,000 firms that offer this kind of service:
As for the legal research issue. Sure, I could buy legal research from a non-attorney provider, and a provider can give it to attorneys.
He follows with a diatribe about the wisdom of selecting such services and obvious points about not offering legal advice to clients of firms...something any idiot already knows...but the point here is that he initially derisively denied even the possibility that this kind of work is done at all...only to admit othewise (with lengthy "explanations") when shown to be wrong.

Nobody called him on this however since the primary purpose many of you are on this thread observing this pissing match from the sidelines istead of engaging in it yourself is because you dislike me for my stand on this issue but several of you have already been shown to be wrong when you've confronted me before on this stuff. I think a tiny percentage of you even grasp what this argument is about since you've sat on the sidelines, yet you somehow think you know who prevailed. Interesting...

These issues are part of the overall pattern of inconsistencies by Jeremy on this thread. Throughout this entire discussion, I can find only one significant error in fact that I've stated, (unless you think anyone gives a damn whether the racist quotes from the DA's circular making it into the handbook trumps the fact that the DA who produced it ran the Dallas office for 25 years.) I did overlook his statement on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Miller-El because he did state that the case was consistent with how black jurors could be struck from consideration, so I will gladly concede he was correct on that. I did so however because his admission of this evidence is directly contradictory to what he initially said about this issue almost everywhere else, that there was no real evidence of racial bias either in the system as a whole or in Dallas. In fact he further confused this issue here in post #219, when speaking of the Supreme Court decision in Miller-El:
I'll bet the conviction WOULDN'T have been overturned, however, if the only facts they had were that the prosecution struck all but one black juror and didn't strike many whites. THAT IS MY POINT.
If that's his point...I'm not sure WHAT point he's making here, since it's irrelevant to the actual case. This is like saying a guy who was killed while driving drunk would have been fine if he wasn't drunk...???...so what?

If you read the decison you'll see that the SC made reference to other factors that make this technically plausible...(they refer to a 3 step process for passing the considerations merited by Miller-El and reference a prior decision in another case (Swain)...etc)...all well and good. But the fact is there WAS other evidence that the Supreme Court found relevant, and they said so with this statement; "These numbers, while relevant, are not petitioner’s whole case." ...so while the SC said point blank that this issue was significant, and that there was additional evidence...he seems to imply that this particular fact was not particuarly damaging in and of itself, which is entirely false. The SC decision directly states that racial bias existed to the point where 91% of eligible black jurors were struck and only 13% of whites, and that; "A comparative analysis of the venire members demon-strates that African-Americans were excluded from peti-tioner’s jury in a ratio significantly higher than Cauca-sians were."

While the Miller-El decision itself directly stated that this fact was significant it further noted that it was the WAY that the prosecution used it's strikes, not merely WHO was struck. The DA engaged in various furtive attempts to circumvent the law in order to illegally keep blacks off the jury panel. That's why the case was overturned, not because they simply didn't have enough blacks on the jury or made honest mistakes in failing to do so. Jeremy's recognition of this Supreme Court decision late in this discussion as an example demonstrating a procedure consistent with how a DA should use it's power to exclude jurors is wildly inconsistent with his initial remarks when this subject was first approached. Note his statement in post #37, long before I cited Miller-El where he appears to whole heartedly endorse the Dallas DA's office;
Essentially, there is no secret way to keep blacks off juries. The Dallas DA's office just simply made it their policy to use their discretionary "strikes" on black people when the defendant was black. They also argued to the Judge strikes for cause when the juror was black more often than for whites, intentionally, of course.
No secret way to keep blacks off juries?

The Miller-El decision goes into great detail describing EXACTLY such a secretive way of doing this...which one could conclude was also highly successful given that the 5th circuit appeals court DID NOT rule in the defendant's favor...everything from jury shuffling, to highly biased questions about both the death penalty and minimum sentencing that were phrased differently to blacks than they were to whites, examples of the extreme inbalance in the ratio of whites vs blacks struck from consdieration...and even concludes that a long history of racial bias existed as far back as 1963 in the form of written and highly offensive material that DA Henry Wade produced...the SAME Henry Wade who was Dallas DA all the way until 1986.

How can the fact that a racist DA like Henry Wade, who the Supreme Court ruled was deliberately using racial bias (he used racial slurs in his communications...this was NOT just a legal tactic to gain convictions as Jeremy suggests)...to keep blacks off juries...NOT be considered to be using "secretive" ways to do this? Was he open with this information in the press? Did he inform black jurors of this process? Or did he hope to hide these facts and sneak around fine points of law while deliberately stacking juries because he himself was a race hater? The very fact that Jeremy points out that the "memo", or circular using racist terminology to describe minorities apparently was kept from the "handbook" or manual that came out 5 years later suggests that "secrecy" was EXACTLY what Henry Wade was looking for. Yet Jeremy attempts to cast doubt on why the prosecutor did what he did...suggesting it was all about merely getting convictions rather than race motiated.

It's obvious why he did it.

Finally...I'll close with this...he makes the amazing statement...never caught in here or even questioned...one that directly contradicted an earlier statement...about prosecutorial decision making for juries in post #37;
It is a rare prosecutor's office that systematically strikes black people these days in cases where the defendant is black and the victim is white (when striking black people is clearly the "smart" thing to do). I've never seen it, and I have significant criminal trial experience.

Many prosecutor's offices still will strike 100% white people when the defendant is white and the victim is black. Why? Because there's no stigma attached to that conduct, and a higher percentage black jury is more likely to lead to a conviction.
This are absolutely extraordinary statements; the meanings of which are undeniably earth shattering. I do not believe either of those two statements, and I would love to see some evidence in the form of national statistics to prove this. Does anyone really believe that white defendants with black victims are more likely to face an all black jury? I would venture the number of times in US history that white defendants have faced all black juries for crimes against blacks is extremely small.

This is my last word on this subject. Feel free now to ignore anything I've stated and simply come back with the usual response that has zero to do with whether I'm stating things that are true or not. That's been the typical response from this group almost every time these issues have been raised.

I've just posted a story on here about a white man who horribly burned his baby girl in a microwave oven because he was "stressed out". Personally I find this far more horrifying than anything Michael Vick has been accused of, though I have no sympathy for Vick if he's found guilty. It will be interesting now to see whether this thread about a baby bening cooked in a microwve oven by her own father draws anywhere near the response that a story about Vick abusing dogs does.

[bendog]

Vick's a thug, who most likely abuses dogs. Your post was about a man who appears to be mentally ill. He needs to be locked up forever, but if he really thinks God told him to do it, he's not in Vick's league.

I do, however, know for a fact that for SOME crimes, in SOME counties, in Miss, blacks are struck from juries by the State to help get a conviction of a black defendant, but in other crimes in other counties, it makes no difference.

ps, the unemployed preacher put the kid in the microwave for 10-20 secs, and the burn was described as a sunburn. It's a bad thing. Guy needs to be away from all children. But your post was she was "horribly burned."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I didn't call you a racist because you "called me out". I called this little pack of posters on this thread...some/most of them anyway, not all...racist because you represent the SAME group of people who pollute every thread you can find looking for an opportunity to hate on black people. It doesn't matter what the discusion is about...you LIVE for the chance to push your agenda. Every thread that mentions an athlete in trouble becomes another golden opportunity for you to spew this crap.



3 hrs. later............................................. ......
.
You're turning into quite the piece of work here. Now everyone (well most everyone) who posted in this thread is a racist.

How does approaching board clown status sit with you?

[Northman]

I just think he's a thug, and I hope they taser him and put him in a cell with a three hundred pound white supremicist.


That is just wrong, but funny. LOL

[Northman]

It doesn't matter what the discusion is about...you LIVE for the chance to push your agenda. Every thread that mentions an athlete in trouble becomes another golden opportunity for you to spew this crap.

LOL LOL Ha! ROFL! Hilarious! Man, is that hypocrisy or what. Ha!

[Northman]

You're turning into quite the piece of work here. Now everyone (well most everyone) who posted in this thread is a racist.

How does approaching board clown status sit with you?



Clown doesnt even suit him, Footstool on the other hand.

[shakenbake]

I've just posted a story on here about a white man who horribly burned his baby girl in a microwave oven because he was "stressed out". Personally I find this far more horrifying than anything Michael Vick has been accused of, though I have no sympathy for Vick if he's found guilty. It will be interesting now to see whether this thread about a baby bening cooked in a microwve oven by her own father draws anywhere near the response that a story about Vick abusing dogs does.

I don't if you've checked recently but this is a football forum, so the topics that usually get the most discussion deal with football and football players. I am sure if the white man was Payton Manning that it would get plenty of discussion and no one would be making excuses his actions. Hell if Payton Manning was allegedly involved in dog fighting don't you think everyone one on this board would be all over him for it. I could care less what color a persons skin is. If they are involved in crimes there are no excuses and they should be punished for them.

At this point who knows if Mike Vick is guilty, hopefully we will all find out soon enough.

[BroncoInSkinland]

I've just posted a story on here about a white man who horribly burned his baby girl in a microwave oven because he was "stressed out". Personally I find this far more horrifying than anything Michael Vick has been accused of, though I have no sympathy for Vick if he's found guilty. It will be interesting now to see whether this thread about a baby bening cooked in a microwve oven by her own father draws anywhere near the response that a story about Vick abusing dogs does.

Man...there was a lot of stuff to delete there. Anyway, is this guy with the microwave a proffesional football player? After all this IS a football BB. I bet the burn story gets a lot more play on the GE bulletin board, or on bulletin boards about deranged psychos. Is Vick anywhere near as sick as this guy? Of course not. But I don't pay money to go be entertained by Mr. two-minutes for the burrito.

I do pay money (in NFL product among other things) to be entertained by Vick, and recently, I am not entertained. It has nothing to do with race, it has nothing to do with fighting the "culture of violence" in the NFL, it has to do with my hard earned cash lining the pockets of a guy who I wouldn't stop to piss on if he were on fire. Clear now?

[Northman]

I don't if you've checked recently but this is a football forum, so the topics that usually get the most discussion deal with football and football players. I am sure if the white man was Payton Manning that it would get plenty of discussion and no one would be making excuses his actions. Hell if Payton Manning was allegedly involved in dog fighting don't you think everyone one on this board would be all over him for it. I could care less what color a persons skin is. If they are involved in crimes there are no excuses and they should be punished for them.

At this point who knows if Mike Vick is guilty, hopefully we will all find out soon enough.


Not only that, but the guy from the Baby thread is already guilty and will get punished. Its a no brainer as far as he is concerned. He isnt a guy who is in the limelight either, people dont look up to this baby killer. Vick is ten times the news that this idiot is for obvious reasons. Foot evidently struggles with that particular reality.

[Popps]

I am sure if the white man was Payton Manning that it would get plenty of discussion and no one would be making excuses his actions..

Scott Peterson was roasted alive on this board before he was ever charged.... and last I checked, he isn't an almighty ballplayer, either.

There will always be a few in every crowed who attack or defend, solely based on race. Luckily, the average person has more sense than that.

[Rock Chalk]

Fair enough. I've never seen them go after a pro athlete for dog-fighting. I've actually never seen them go after anyone.

Having a function doesn't mean you have an agenda. Having a function doesn't mean that you'll abuse that function.

But, point taken... they do exist for a REASON, and the possibility does exist that they could over-pursue something like this because of that function.

That said, to call them as biased as Jesse Jackson or the NRA is just historically silly.

Tell you what, when the AHS decides that saving a piece of **** who murdered several people because its "inhumane" to put someone to death is biased and has an agenda.

Essentially, anyone who forms a group to promote their ideaology is not unbiased. That was my point.

[Rock Chalk]

Honestly, knowing the attention span of internet users, do you really believe anyon got past "I didn't" in your post?
I didn't call you a racist because you "called me out". I called this little pack of posters on this thread...some/most of them anyway, not all...racist because you represent the SAME group of people who pollute every thread you can find looking for an opportunity to hate on black people. It doesn't matter what the discusion is about...you LIVE for the chance to push your agenda. Every thread that mentions an athlete in trouble becomes another golden opportunity for you to spew this crap. Threads about politics...economics...the odds of a long shot NFL prospect on making a team...even D-Will's tragedy...ALL of these things offer you what you crave most, a platform for talking about what's wrong with black people. THAT is why I've called you racists...because the subject dominates you're thinking. If you didn't exist on this board, nobody on this site would even know what my personal views on this topic are. It's the same small group every time...and a number of you have sent me nasty little notes in my reputation box, or PM'd me with your snide comments, so I know EXACTLY who is going to show up any time one of these conversations starts.

Let's rewind here and backtrack a moment to pause and summarize this mess, since the original topic at hand has long since been burried in a blizzard of stuff that is irrelevant. What was the original point to this entire debate? It started because I made the claim that the Dallas District Attorney's office had a long history of racism. THAT and ONLY that was my point. I supported that point with a reference to a handbook produced by the Dallas DA to ensure that black people couldn't serve on juries. Jeremy took exception to this, and obviously to my characterization of the justice system as racially biased towards blacks, which is odd, given the fact that in post #3 on this thread he affirmed exactly what I was saying when Jason stated the history of race-bias in this country's judicial system also and he commented as follows:

Jeremy affirmed in his 3rd post that there is a long history of racism in the justice system in the US existing "until recently"...and then spent the rest of this entire thread denying it exists...I guess I'm the only one who finds that strange.

But moving on...but let's look at what he stated in the VERY FIRST POST on this thread, because it's what pissed me off enough to respond in the first place. Observe:

To begin with I find it bizarre that an attorney would immediately presume guilt without the benefit of trial, something I would expect of less intelligent people, but let's set that aside since this isn't a court room. What's more interesting, and what I found simply AMAZING is that he would focus on three singular examples of apparent injustice ALL AGAINST WHITESor in favor of black defendants to make a point about how messed up the criminal justice system is when there is almost universal recognition that blacks are far more likely to be subjected to bias. But don't overlook the other statement here...because Jeremy stated from his first introductory post on this thread that "the criminal justice system in this country is a joke". Those are HIS WORDS...yet later in this thread he accused me of an "anti-American manifesto" and went into laborious detail to prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he first said...that there is nothing wrong with the system. Note post #181 whre he stated:

How are we to reconcile these two statements...separated as they are by 180 posts? First..."the criminal justice system in this country is a joke", and then "the system itself is not flawed". Obviously his original intention was to prove that bias existed...IN FAVOR OF BLACKS...but when confronted with the idea of evidence of the reverse, his opinion changes to "the system itself is not flawed". Is it flawed or isn't it? It seems to be fine to suggest bias in favor of whites that equates to "the system is a joke" based on 2 extreme examples...OJ and the Duke Lacrosse team (though the Duke kids were never charged or convicted so that is a poor example) and one case (Vick) that hasn't even come to court yet so the outcome is unknown...leaving us with only OJ now...but it's NOT OK to see the flaws based on mountains of evidence that there is racial bias towards blacks?

Does this make a shred of sense?

This obvious and direct contradiction is only one of several sprinkled throughout this thread by Jeremy that gave me reason to doubt his claim that he's an attorney, though obviously I can't "prove" that. I will however, point out that this has not been "proven" the other way either, merely because I don't feel obligated to engage in a risky bet to show otherwise...as if somehow it was incumbant on me to do so, which it is not. I found it strange that an attorney would fail to recognize the name of the defendant in one of the highest profile murder cases in US history, strange that he would claim that lawyers and juries are more powerful than judges, particuarly in light of the obvious and recent high profile case of Shaquanda Cotton and the huge injustice she recieved here in Texas with direct evidence of extreme racial bias on the part of the judge, and weird that he would directly state things that are untrue, despite having an obvious familiarity with the practice of law. Take the legal research issue for example...in post #57 he specifically stated:

He followed this with a torturous explanation complete with a missleading NALA reference on why nobody but an attorney or somebody under direct supervison of an attorney could ever do legal research, and I was essentially then called a liar for saying I had done this kind of work in the past...(it seems turnaround is NOT fair play here). This continued until he was confronted with the fact that thousands of companies exist as outsourcing solutions for legal research and other types of legal services in the form of secondary market providers which many law firms and corporate legal departments utilize to cut costs. Note his response when I called attention to the fact that Marindale-Hubbell's database lists well over 1,000 firms that offer this kind of service:

He follows with a diatribe about the wisdom of selecting such services and obvious points about not offering legal advice to clients of firms...something any idiot already knows...but the point here is that he initially derisively denied even the possibility that this kind of work is done at all...only to admit othewise (with lengthy "explanations") when shown to be wrong.

Nobody called him on this however since the primary purpose many of you are on this thread observing this pissing match from the sidelines istead of engaging in it yourself is because you dislike me for my stand on this issue but several of you have already been shown to be wrong when you've confronted me before on this stuff. I think a tiny percentage of you even grasp what this argument is about since you've sat on the sidelines, yet you somehow think you know who prevailed. Interesting...

These issues are part of the overall pattern of inconsistencies by Jeremy on this thread. Throughout this entire discussion, I can find only one significant error in fact that I've stated, (unless you think anyone gives a damn whether the racist quotes from the DA's circular making it into the handbook trumps the fact that the DA who produced it ran the Dallas office for 25 years.) I did overlook his statement on the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Miller-El because he did state that the case was consistent with how black jurors could be struck from consideration, so I will gladly concede he was correct on that. I did so however because his admission of this evidence is directly contradictory to what he initially said about this issue almost everywhere else, that there was no real evidence of racial bias either in the system as a whole or in Dallas. In fact he further confused this issue here in post #219, when speaking of the Supreme Court decision in Miller-El:

If that's his point...I'm not sure WHAT point he's making here, since it's irrelevant to the actual case. This is like saying a guy who was killed while driving drunk would have been fine if he wasn't drunk...???...so what?

If you read the decison you'll see that the SC made reference to other factors that make this technically plausible...(they refer to a 3 step process for passing the considerations merited by Miller-El and reference a prior decision in another case (Swain)...etc)...all well and good. But the fact is there WAS other evidence that the Supreme Court found relevant, and they said so with this statement; "These numbers, while relevant, are not petitioner’s whole case." ...so while the SC said point blank that this issue was significant, and that there was additional evidence...he seems to imply that this particular fact was not particuarly damaging in and of itself, which is entirely false. The SC decision directly states that racial bias existed to the point where 91% of eligible black jurors were struck and only 13% of whites, and that; "A comparative analysis of the venire members demon-strates that African-Americans were excluded from peti-tioner’s jury in a ratio significantly higher than Cauca-sians were."

While the Miller-El decision itself directly stated that this fact was significant it further noted that it was the WAY that the prosecution used it's strikes, not merely WHO was struck. The DA engaged in various furtive attempts to circumvent the law in order to illegally keep blacks off the jury panel. That's why the case was overturned, not because they simply didn't have enough blacks on the jury or made honest mistakes in failing to do so. Jeremy's recognition of this Supreme Court decision late in this discussion as an example demonstrating a procedure consistent with how a DA should use it's power to exclude jurors is wildly inconsistent with his initial remarks when this subject was first approached. Note his statement in post #37, long before I cited Miller-El where he appears to whole heartedly endorse the Dallas DA's office;

No secret way to keep blacks off juries?

The Miller-El decision goes into great detail describing EXACTLY such a secretive way of doing this...which one could conclude was also highly successful given that the 5th circuit appeals court DID NOT rule in the defendant's favor...everything from jury shuffling, to highly biased questions about both the death penalty and minimum sentencing that were phrased differently to blacks than they were to whites, examples of the extreme inbalance in the ratio of whites vs blacks struck from consdieration...and even concludes that a long history of racial bias existed as far back as 1963 in the form of written and highly offensive material that DA Henry Wade produced...the SAME Henry Wade who was Dallas DA all the way until 1986.

How can the fact that a racist DA like Henry Wade, who the Supreme Court ruled was deliberately using racial bias (he used racial slurs in his communications...this was NOT just a legal tactic to gain convictions as Jeremy suggests)...to keep blacks off juries...NOT be considered to be using "secretive" ways to do this? Was he open with this information in the press? Did he inform black jurors of this process? Or did he hope to hide these facts and sneak around fine points of law while deliberately stacking juries because he himself was a race hater? The very fact that Jeremy points out that the "memo", or circular using racist terminology to describe minorities apparently was kept from the "handbook" or manual that came out 5 years later suggests that "secrecy" was EXACTLY what Henry Wade was looking for. Yet Jeremy attempts to cast doubt on why the prosecutor did what he did...suggesting it was all about merely getting convictions rather than race motiated.

It's obvious why he did it.

Finally...I'll close with this...he makes the amazing statement...never caught in here or even questioned...one that directly contradicted an earlier statement...about prosecutorial decision making for juries in post #37;

This are absolutely extraordinary statements; the meanings of which are undeniably earth shattering. I do not believe either of those two statements, and I would love to see some evidence in the form of national statistics to prove this. Does anyone really believe that white defendants with black victims are more likely to face an all black jury? I would venture the number of times in US history that white defendants have faced all black juries for crimes against blacks is extremely small.

This is my last word on this subject. Feel free now to ignore anything I've stated and simply come back with the usual response that has zero to do with whether I'm stating things that are true or not. That's been the typical response from this group almost every time these issues have been raised.

I've just posted a story on here about a white man who horribly burned his baby girl in a microwave oven because he was "stressed out". Personally I find this far more horrifying than anything Michael Vick has been accused of, though I have no sympathy for Vick if he's found guilty. It will be interesting now to see whether this thread about a baby bening cooked in a microwve oven by her own father draws anywhere near the response that a story about Vick abusing dogs does.

[shakenbake]

There will always be a few in every crowed who attack or defend, solely based on race. Luckily, the average person has more sense than that.

Exactly, do you think Jason in LA, and Footsteps would be defending Payton Manning or Tom Brady if they were allegedly involved in the same types of crime?

[-Slap-]

I've just posted a story on here about a white man who horribly burned his baby girl in a microwave oven because he was "stressed out". Personally I find this far more horrifying than anything Michael Vick has been accused of, though I have no sympathy for Vick if he's found guilty. It will be interesting now to see whether this thread about a baby bening cooked in a microwve oven by her own father draws anywhere near the response that a story about Vick abusing dogs does.

This guy is a ****ing nut.

[theAPAOps5]

I love this thread

[footstepsfrom#27]

the unemployed preacher put the kid in the microwave for 10-20 secs, and the burn was described as a sunburn. It's a bad thing. Guy needs to be away from all children. But your post was she was "horribly burned."
3rd degree burns and internal injuries...she's in critical condition.

[Atwater His Ass]

I love this thread

yar

[BroncoInSkinland]

Tell you what, when the AHS decides that saving a piece of **** who murdered several people because its "inhumane" to put someone to death is biased and has an agenda.

Essentially, anyone who forms a group to promote their ideaology is not unbiased. That was my point.

I agree wholeheartedly, and particularly in this field. Many of the people who work with animals tend to be very enthusiastic about thier work...the term zealot comes to mind. In some cases the "enthusiasm" even shows at the organizational level, with badly slanted mission statements etc.

I am not familiar with the AHS, so I couldn't tell you positively about the level of thier bias. I would say of the three major organizations I am familiar with PETA is the most baised, the ASPCA is second, and the HSUS is the least biased. The HSUS is fairly impartial, though as you pointed out every group that promotes an ideaology is biased in one way or another.

[BroncoInSkinland]

This guy is a ****ing nut.

The poster, the subject of the post, or both?

[-Slap-]

The poster, the subject of the post, or both?

Well, it goes without saying the guy who injured the child is completely insane.

I guess in Footsteps twisted mind, an obviously insane white man is a valid comparison to a black man like Michael Vick. I've always known Foot**** held black people up to a very low standard, but that analogy reveals just how little he thinks about them.

[NaptownChief]

Blacks don't commit more crimes. They commit a higher percentage of crimes relevant to their numbers. How does that explain why they are more likely to be prosecuted after arrest, more likely to be given tougher sentences for the same crime or more likely to be denied appeals from higher courts?

It's amazing how many people out there can't comprehend these simple facts.



It is also amazing how some folks are quick to take said facts and quick to draw conclusions that the indifference is racially motivated.

Reality is highly likely that the indifference in sentences for the same crimes and appeal denials have much more to do with the immediate and family resources available to those involved. Ray Lewis, OJ Simpson and many more have proven that regardless of your skin color you can get more than a fair trail if you have the money to pay for high end representation.

Stats might be irrefutable but the conclusions drawn off stats can and will vary wildly.

[Jason in LA]

Exactly, do you think Jason in LA, and Footsteps would be defending Payton Manning or Tom Brady if they were allegedly involved in the same types of crime?

Go back and read this thread and you will see that I have not defended Vick. In the first Vick thread, I never said that he did nothing wrong.

[Popps]

Go back and read this thread and you will see that I have not defended Vick. In the first Vick thread, I never said that he did nothing wrong.

Well, but let's be honest... you never SAY anything.

You just imply it. Hey, everyone loves a "pile-on," right?

Actually, I take that back... you DO say things, you just deny saying them a few posts later.

[bendog]

Did I read this right, that Payaton Manning is also into dog fights? I know he's money mad, and a lousy teammate, and probably a pedophile, but dog fighting would be new low even for him.

[watermock]

Didn't we have a thread where the guy was vilified and called to pay for his crime? How did that wind up on the Vick thread, and why does Footsteps feel compelled to make 1000 word essays.

Babysteps, you generally get scrolled over if you haven't been allready put on ignore.

If you start out with a moronic pretense, it doesn't matter how you try by flooding the board with long comments.

make your point and move on. If you can't express an opinion in a few paragraphs, you haven't formulated it properly. Some of your posts have literally owned the monitor they are so long. I just scroll over this idiot.

A white deranged individual cooks his child? WTF does that have to do with Vick? God your a long winded idiot.

[watermock]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=54&dateline=1173995920

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black Bendog. That dog is obviously a fighter. Look how terrified Yellow cat is! Ha!

[Northman]

Didn't we have a thread where the guy was vilified and called to pay for his crime? How did that wind up on the Vick thread, and why does Footsteps feel compelled to make 1000 word essays.

Babysteps, you generally get scrolled over if you haven't been allready put on ignore.

If you start out with a moronic pretense, it doesn't matter how you try by flooding the board with long comments.

make your point and move on. If you can't express an opinion in a few paragraphs, you haven't formulated it properly. Some of your posts have literally owned the monitor they are so long. I just scroll over this idiot.

A white deranged individual cooks his child? WTF does that have to do with Vick? God your a long winded idiot.



Ive found out that if you put Foot on ignore, it saves bandwidth. No lie, if he is on ignore the site runs faster and isnt slowed down by his useless drivel.

[bendog]

Ive found out that if you put Foot on ignore, it saves bandwidth. No lie, if he is on ignore the site runs faster and isnt slowed down by his useless drivel.

Steps is actually starting to convince me that Vick will not be able to get a fair trial, and the DA will prolly file charges even if there's little proof.

(OJ got a bad rap too).

[Beantown Bronco]

and why does Footsteps feel compelled to make 1000 word essays.

When did he start cutting back on his post length?

[footstepsfrom#27]

...and why does Footsteps feel compelled to make 1000 word essays.
Says the guy with 40,000 posts about his cat. Hilarious!
Babysteps, you generally get scrolled over if you haven't been allready put on ignore.
You should do that. I post for 1) people who can read, and 2) people who can think. You qualify on neither count.
If you can't express an opinion in a few paragraphs, you haven't formulated it properly. Some of your posts have literally owned the monitor they are so long. I just scroll over this idiot.
Thanks...from now on I'll try to break up a single paragraph into 10 or 15 four word posts, one right after the other, so I can pad my post count like you do.

[watermock]

Don't deflect. First my posts are generally short...generally...and I was here long before your sorry ass.

I had a 12th grade reading skill by age 12 dimwit.

Let me give you example of long winded morons. Some Governeor stood up for two hours pontificating be fore Lincoln gave his address at Gettysburg which lasted less than 3 minutes and was originally written on a napkin on a train.

If you want to convince yourself your super smart, then make comments that are relatively consice.

[watermock]

post for 1) people who can read, and 2) people who can think. You qualify on neither count.


I guess that 98th percentile on Iowa basic skills, double Iowa debate championships, and scholarships for academics and my skill at drumming make me a functional idoit.

I'm also running 3 LLC's with millions on the line. Your a sardine.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I had an age 12 reading skill by 12th grade dimwit.
Fixed it for ya. ;D
If you want to convince yourself your super smart, then make comments that are relatively consice.
Fine. You're an old drunk.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I guess that 98th percentile on Iowa basic skills, double Iowa debate championships, and scholarships for academics and my skill at drumming make me a functional idoit.

I'm also running 3 LLC's with millions on the line. Your a sardine.
Booze is bad for you.

[SureShot]

I guess that 98th percentile on Iowa basic skills, double Iowa debate championships, and scholarships for academics and my skill at drumming make me a functional idoit.

I'm also running 3 LLC's with millions on the line. Your a sardine.


Mock. Your brother says get back to work. Oh and he wants to know why the new cell phone plan is so expensive.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Mock. Your brother says get back to work. Oh and he wants to know why the new cell phone plan is so expensive.Damn man, is that a Steelhead in your avatar pic?




http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=5564&dateline=1179208620

[SureShot]

Damn man, is that a Steelhead in your avatar pic?




http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=5564&dateline=1179208620



Rainbow trout. (thats not me in the picture, by the way)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Rainbow trout. (thats not me in the picture, by the way)Where is that at, Alaska?

[orange 4 life]

Do some time for what? There is no proof at this point at all the Vick was involved with this at all. If there is...then the CWA will bring forth charges if he thinks he can get a conviction. It's that simple.

your defense of vick at this point just sounds like a 12 year old kid that cant accept his hero could possibly do anything wrong.
its comical and pathetic.
love ya bro but thats how i see it.

[orange 4 life]

The good of it is...whether Vick was involved or not...at least the place was shut down.

thank God for the little things in life i guess.

thats the 1st post you made that wasnt an out and out defense of vick with (apparent) disregard for the situation at hand.
i was starting to wonder where the nice guy i know went.

[orange 4 life]

Vick is not scum, and he should get the respect of innocent until proven guilty.

okay, lets change it.

there's a 99% chance that he's scum, and you know it as well as the rest of us.
fair enough?

good God man. this is getting ridiculous.

[watermock]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=5564&dateline=1179208620

That isn't a rainbow...looks like a lake trout to me, and the arent really trout.

[SouthStndJunkie]

Rainbow trout. (thats not me in the picture, by the way)

Steelhead and rainbows are essentially the same species. A steelhead is just an anadromous rainbow trout that grows larger because they reside in larger bodies of water for most of their life spans.

[Malcontent]

Cool!~ Fishin' talk!

[SouthStndJunkie]

Mike Vick raised fish for fighting!

They found a fighting pond and 70 tanks!

[theAPAOps5]

and my skill at drumming make me a functional idoit.

:rofl: Don't mess with Mock he has drumming skills!

[SouthStndJunkie]

From PFT:

PORTIS SUPPORTS VICK

Redskins running back Clinton Portis and left tackle Chris Samuels have spoken out in support of Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, who currently is caught up in a dog-fighting investigation.

But they're not saying that Vick is innocent. Per Portis, it's no big deal if Vick is guilty.

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

As Portis spoke, Samuels started laughing, and at one point raised his eyebrows with (as we interpret it) an "oh sh-t I can't believe he's saying this" look on his face.

"I think people should mind their business," Portis added.

In response to questions of whether dog-fighting is prevalent in the NFL and the NBA, Portis said, "I mean it's prevalent in life. . . . I'm from Laurel, Mississippi. I know a lot of back roads that got the dog fight if you want to go see it."

Um, we're not licensed to practice law in Virginia, but we don't think that the Commonwealth has formally recognized the defenses of "everybody does it" or "if it's behind closed doors, it's okay."

If we didn't know better (and, actually, we don't), we'd be inclined to wonder whether Portis has been to a few of those dog fights in Laurel, Mississippi.

Or in Surry County, Virginia.

And Clinton's comments provide even more reason to believe that Ray Buchanan said what Chris Landry said he said about Vick and dog fighting. The lesson here is that current and former NFL players look out for each other, no matter how ridiculous they look or sound when doing so.

Need more evidence that Portis should be ignored on this point? He refers to Vick as a "positive role model." We need to know whether Clinton gave Mike this label for giving the middle finger to the home fans (including kids) or giving an STD to the ex-girlfriend. Or maybe he's referring to the water bottle thing. There are just so many positive things from which to choose.

[Popps]

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

As Portis spoke, Samuels started laughing, and at one point raised his eyebrows with (as we interpret it) an "oh sh-t I can't believe he's saying this" look on his face.

"I think people should mind their business," Portis added.




What a piece of ****.

[Northman]

From PFT:

PORTIS SUPPORTS VICK

Redskins running back Clinton Portis and left tackle Chris Samuels have spoken out in support of Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, who currently is caught up in a dog-fighting investigation.

But they're not saying that Vick is innocent. Per Portis, it's no big deal if Vick is guilty.

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

As Portis spoke, Samuels started laughing, and at one point raised his eyebrows with (as we interpret it) an "oh sh-t I can't believe he's saying this" look on his face.

"I think people should mind their business," Portis added.

In response to questions of whether dog-fighting is prevalent in the NFL and the NBA, Portis said, "I mean it's prevalent in life. . . . I'm from Laurel, Mississippi. I know a lot of back roads that got the dog fight if you want to go see it."

Um, we're not licensed to practice law in Virginia, but we don't think that the Commonwealth has formally recognized the defenses of "everybody does it" or "if it's behind closed doors, it's okay."

If we didn't know better (and, actually, we don't), we'd be inclined to wonder whether Portis has been to a few of those dog fights in Laurel, Mississippi.

Or in Surry County, Virginia.

And Clinton's comments provide even more reason to believe that Ray Buchanan said what Chris Landry said he said about Vick and dog fighting. The lesson here is that current and former NFL players look out for each other, no matter how ridiculous they look or sound when doing so.

Need more evidence that Portis should be ignored on this point? He refers to Vick as a "positive role model." We need to know whether Clinton gave Mike this label for giving the middle finger to the home fans (including kids) or giving an STD to the ex-girlfriend. Or maybe he's referring to the water bottle thing. There are just so many positive things from which to choose.


Unfortuantely for a moron like Portis mistreating animals is everyone's business.

[SureShot]

Where is that at, Alaska?

It was caught in colorado. Its what happens when you feed trout dog food. Unfortunately that type of diet doesn't bring out the rainbows natural color.

[Popps]

Unfortuantely for a moron like Portis mistreating animals is everyone's business.

It speaks to a prevalent attitude among athletes. Portis believes he's above the law... that ballplayers are above the law. Just listen to him.

Hey, they can beat their women, fight dogs, carry unregistered firearms... it's THEIR business, not ours.

[Northman]

It speaks to a prevalent attitude among athletes. Portis believes he's above the law... that ballplayers are above the law. Just listen to him.

Hey, they can beat their women, fight dogs, carry unregistered firearms... it's THEIR business, not ours.


Well, careful how you say that Popps cause Footstool will be in here any minute to tell you how racist you are being for pointing that out. lol

[footstepsfrom#27]

Well, careful how you say that Popps cause Footstool will be in here any minute to tell you how racist you are being for pointing that out. lol
Find a place on this board where I...

1) defended any player convicted of a crime, or;
2) said that any player engaging in criminal behavior should be given a pass because of his race.

Nitwit

[Northman]

Its not about you defending them, its about you whining that somehow we have a agenda or are picking on them. We dont print the news dip****, we just comment on it. Its not our fault that black athletes dominant the NBA or NFL.


Post #276

I didn't call you a racist because you "called me out". I called this little pack of posters on this thread...some/most of them anyway, not all...racist because you represent the SAME group of people who pollute every thread you can find looking for an opportunity to hate on black people. It doesn't matter what the discusion is about...you LIVE for the chance to push your agenda. Every thread that mentions an athlete in trouble becomes another golden opportunity for you to spew this crap.


Ironically, this speaks more about you as it does everyone else. The only guy with a agenda i know of is you.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Ironically, this speaks more about you as it does everyone else. The only guy with a agenda i know of is you.
Right. That's why we have all these hundreds of posts about a group of people arrested half as much as the average Joe on the street...because you're agenda free! :thumbs:

[orange 4 life]

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," Portis told WAVY-TV. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."


well, its official. portis is a complete idiot.

"its his property, its his dog"

uhhh, okay portis. whatever you say.

i wonder if he realizes he sounds like a white supremacist circa 1850 talking about slavery?

sure, dogs arent humans, and sure, dogs are considered a FORM of "property", but theyre still a living breathing creature that feels pain. if he thinks torturing them is okay then he's a first rate piece of garbage.
just one more piece of circumstantial evidence that dog fighting IS prevalent in the NFL. God i hope someone puts a stop to this.

"mans best friend"
its amazing dogs actually look at us with love and TRUST.

[orange 4 life]

Right. That's why we have all these hundreds of posts about a group of people arrested half as much as the average Joe on the street...because you're agenda free! :thumbs:

it has NOTHING to do with the percentage of ballplayers that get arrested (overall or relative to the general population) and EVERYTHING to do with what happens afterwards.
if vick walks away from this, it will make ALOT of people angry, and then nearsighted people will transfer the anger towards ONE guy to the league as a whole.

i agree that its only a small percentage of guys making them all look bad, but part of that is the "above the law" attitude that portis expressed.
if these guys were PUNISHED the same as the general public then im guessing we wouldnt hear anywhere NEAR the number of complains about a "league of thugs".

appropriately punish the small percentage of guys that are making the league look bad, and the public image of the league turns around.

[Atwater His Ass]

Right. That's why we have all these hundreds of posts about a group of people arrested half as much as the average Joe on the street...because you're agenda free! :thumbs:

this proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just don't get it.

so why don't you just run along and try your tough guy act somewhere else that you haven't been exposed as a poser yet.

[cutthemdown]

Like Portis ever came off as intelligent or sophisticated. Portis actually seems quite ignorant. I doubt he knows much other the football. When he speaks you can really tell he is ignorant, this is another example. Highest paid rb in NFL huh portis? Man I'm glad Shanny didn't fall for that.

[Atwater His Ass]

but he's a world class athelete, so just mind your own business

[Northman]

Right. That's why we have all these hundreds of posts about a group of people arrested half as much as the average Joe on the street...because you're agenda free! :thumbs:


We have all these posts because they are SPORTS related. :~ohyah!:

[Popps]

Hey, let's check the headlines over at CBS Sportsline...

Fins likely done with Ricky | Daunte throws

Favre: I didn't criticize Packers teammates

Congressman wants swift action for Vick

McNabb says relationship with Reid good

Keyshawn visits Titans, says no timetable

Bengals' Nicholson charged with assault

Ahman gets No. 30 with Texans -- at cost

Vikings sign 7th-round choice, QB Thigpen

Hey, not bad. Only three headlines about players involved in legal trouble today. An average day will put it at around half, sometimes.

Just like your office or place of work, right? Hell... they're just dragging them out of my office..... dogfighting, woman-beating. You know, just the normal stuff that goes on at any professional place of business.

[footstepsfrom#27]

...appropriately punish the small percentage of guys that are making the league look bad, and the public image of the league turns around.
I have absolutley no problem with that. If Vick is guilty I hope he gets whatever penalty the law says he should. However, I've heard some in here saying he should basically get the death penalty, which is absurd. I look at these legal issues with athletes the same way I do with anyone else. I wait till they have their day in court and all the facts come out before forming an opinion either way.

Lynch mobs and vigilantes 50 years ago didn't have the internet, but if they did you can bet they'd be in full agreement with many of the sentiments expressed here before a single actual FACT has been established in court.

[footstepsfrom#27]

this proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just don't get it.

so why don't you just run along and try your tough guy act somewhere else that you haven't been exposed as a poser yet.
Having an opinion you don't agree with="tough guy act"

Pfffttt...please.

[Atwater His Ass]

it's not necessarily your opinon. it's the way you choose to represent yourself and present said opinion.

your schtick relys heavily on your inflated self worth and self importance. you preach from a holier than thou attitude. but then when someone calls you out face to face to challenge your representation of the "facts" you can do nothing but crawl away.

i would think even those that agreed with you don't value your opinons or posts more than a steaming pile of dog crap after the continued beat downs you took in this thread. you could neither man up and admit that you were wrong or man up and take the bet. how can you pretend you have any credibility after that?

[NaptownChief]

it's not necessarily your opinon. it's the way you choose to represent yourself and present said opinion.

your schtick relys heavily on your inflated self worth and self importance. you preach from a holier than thou attitude. but then when someone calls you out face to face to challenge your representation of the "facts" you can do nothing but crawl away.

i would think even those that agreed with you don't value your opinons or posts more than a steaming pile of dog crap after the continued beat downs you took in this thread. you could neither man up and admit that you were wrong or man up and take the bet. how can you pretend you have any credibility after that?




You obviously missed the part where babysteps opinion is irrefutable fact and if you aren't careful he will declare victory on you.

I'm very impressed by how he showed everyone they are a bigot because they don't commit as much time to some unknown wacko putting a kid in a microwave as they do for a football player and his illegal activities on a football board. This guy's kung fu is entirely too strong for us mortals. Be careful....very careful.

[footstepsfrom#27]

it's not necessarily your opinon. it's the way you choose to represent yourself and present said opinion.
Interesting that my posting style has never changed in the two plus years I've been in here, but the response to my views took on this accusation once my views on race became known in here.
your schtick relys heavily on your inflated self worth and self importance. you preach from a holier than thou attitude. but then when someone calls you out face to face to challenge your representation of the "facts" you can do nothing but crawl away.
Have we met? You know NOTHING whatsoever about me, or my idea of self worth, and your presumption that you do is just foolish and laughable. What you call "preaching", I call standing up for what I believe in and if you don't like it...to freaking bad for you. And I have been challenged dozens of times in here on multiple threads about my views and consistently backed up everything I've said, usually to a bunch of people who did NOT have answers in return...see the Shaquanda Cotton thread for exhibit A. This idiotic challenge thing has ZERO to do with establishing a case based on facts, and if you think I did not back up my position it's only beause you either didn't read anything I wrote with an open mind because yours is closed, or else you didn't understand what you were reading, so you simply sat on the fence and nodded your head up and down.
i would think even those that agreed with you don't value your opinons or posts more than a steaming pile of dog crap after the continued beat downs you took in this thread. you could neither man up and admit that you were wrong or man up and take the bet. how can you pretend you have any credibility after that?
Beat downs? You have it in reverse dude. There are approximately 12-15 posters on this board who continuously attack my views on race out of the hundreds who post on here...so you are in the minority who 1) cares enough to continuously address the issue, and 2) obviously hates what I believe with a lot of passion. I have plenty of evidence in the rep box of people who agree with me so your point is duly noted and discarded. Second, what is it you think I was supposed to admit to being wrong about? This thread that started out about Vick, turned into something about the criminal justice system, especially in Dalas...being racially biased. If you think I didn't demonstrate significant evidence proving that fact, you're either incredibly biased or utterly clueless. As for this stupid bet...what gives you the right to tell me what I need to do or not do? I already stated it was "possible" that Jeremy was a lawyer...he obviously has familiarity with the legal system...but me not risking a ban in here over being wrong does not mean he IS a lawyer...it only means I refused the bet because I'm not stupid enough to be goaded into something. The issue of the "bet" (it's only a bet if both parties agree...duh) has NOTHING to do with whether I stated my case and supported it well. You don't understand that? Seems pretty simple to me. I posted numerous things in here that neither him or any of his supporters ever provided answers for, yet that equates to "crawling away" in your world.

I know you hate it...but I won't be going anywhere...so get over it.

[watermock]

First, I never jumped on the hate Portis bandwagon but that had true foot in mouth diease Clinton.

Babysteps, I don't recall anyone calling for Vick to be executed, but you managed a small qualifier in there. We are calling for a fine and possible stint in the joint. AFTER at fair trial.

The fact that dog fighting still exists doesn't excuse it.

[footstepsfrom#27]

You obviously missed the part where babysteps opinion is irrefutable fact and if you aren't careful he will declare victory on you.

I'm very impressed by how he showed everyone they are a bigot because they don't commit as much time to some unknown wacko putting a kid in a microwave as they do for a football player and his illegal activities on a football board. This guy's kung fu is entirely too strong for us mortals. Be careful....very careful.
It really pisses you off big time doesn't it troll boy? Wonder why?...LOL

[footstepsfrom#27]

First, I never jumped on the hate Portis bandwagon but that had true foot in mouth diease Clinton.

Babysteps, I don't recall anyone calling for Vick to be executed, but you managed a small qualifier in there. We are calling for a fine and possible stint in the joint. AFTER at fair trial.
You want a trial? What for? 90% of the posters on this thread have already decided he's guilty. Even the DA's been bought off because he didnt' bow to pressure to convict the guy in the press. Guess a kangaroo court would be OK though eh?

100% certainty that if this was Cutler people would be screaming to let the justice system have it's day before making any assumptions at all. But since it's VICK...and we know that VICK=SATAN in here...well why bother with trying to wait till all the facts are in.

[NaptownChief]

It really pisses you off big time doesn't it troll boy? Wonder why?...LOL



Pisses me off that you are a moron? No, not at all. I feel sorry for your old lady but I can't feel too sorry as we all have to pay for our poor choices....

[Northman]

I have absolutley no problem with that. If Vick is guilty I hope he gets whatever penalty the law says he should. However, I've heard some in here saying he should basically get the death penalty, which is absurd. I look at these legal issues with athletes the same way I do with anyone else. I wait till they have their day in court and all the facts come out before forming an opinion either way.

Lynch mobs and vigilantes 50 years ago didn't have the internet, but if they did you can bet they'd be in full agreement with many of the sentiments expressed here before a single actual FACT has been established in court.


I see, so no one should be able to comment on any news bit dealing with players like Vick because nothing has been proven or not proven yet correct?

[Northman]

You want a trial? What for? 90% of the posters on this thread have already decided he's guilty. Even the DA's been bought off because he didnt' bow to pressure to convict the guy in the press. Guess a kangaroo court would be OK though eh?

100% certainty that if this was Cutler people would be screaming to let the justice system have it's day before making any assumptions at all. But since it's VICK...and we know that VICK=SATAN in here...well why bother with trying to wait till all the facts are in.


Oh yea, Cutler sure is a lightening rod for bad behavior. Nice comparison there dip****. Ha!

[footstepsfrom#27]

I see, so no one should be able to comment on any news bit dealing with players like Vick because nothing has been proven or not proven yet correct?
It's a free country. But it's usually smart to wait on this stuff....so feel free not to.

Looks like the editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution is saying that some of the information that's come out on Vick is not verified after all...heresay and rumor that hasn't been confirmed yet. She wishes they hadn't run the story now on how Ray Buchanan said Vick was fighting dogs...Buchanan says he didn't say that. Apparentlly the existence of a tape with Vick on it is also premature.

Feel free to ignore this however...

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/19/0519edinside.html

Rumors about Vick, dogfight require dose of caution

Published on: 05/19/07
Michael Vick and the Atlanta Falcons brass are saying very little about allegations that the team's star quarterback may be involved with dogfighting.

The stories — which are circulating widely in the media — are not baseless but they do include more rumor and speculation than I'm comfortable with.

<!--endtext--><!--endclickprintinclude--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=175 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=170 bgColor=#cccccc border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=9 width=168 bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=body>ANGELA TUCK
PUBLIC EDITOR
http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/20/16/image_1416204.jpg
• E-mail Tuck (insideajc@ajc.com) Recent columns:

Rumors about Vick, dogfight require dose of caution (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/19/0519edinside.html)
Online photo galleries connect communities (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/11/0512edinside.html)
AJC readers can expect change, not lack of coverage (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/04/0505edinside.html)
Research, persistence were crucial in Johnston case (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/04/28/042807edinside.html)
A fine line between news, sensationalism (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/04/21/042107adinside.html)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--startclickprintinclude--><!--begintext-->
Ever since Virginia police raided a property owned by Vick and found 70 dogs and evidence of dogfighting, reporters questioned Vick's involvement. They are right to do so. This is the latest in a string of questionable incidents Vick has found himself at the center of. Dogfighting is a felony in Virginia and authorities are meeting next week to review evidence in the case.
But two reports this newspaper carried in print and online this week gave me pause. The first appeared on ajc.com Sunday and quoted former Falcons teammate Ray Buchanan as having told Fox Sports analyst Chris Landry that Vick was deeply involved in dogfighting. Landry made the comments on a Tampa radio program two days earlier, and they quickly took on a life of their own. Given this information was second hand, and AJC reporters weren't able to reach Buchanan himself, we shouldn't have reported it.
In Tuesday's print edition, Falcons reporter Steve Wyche wrote a story quoting Buchanan, who denied making the statements to Landry. Wyche wrote that Buchanan told him Landry "spoke out of line and was using him to legitimize rumors and innuendo that have circulated about the dogfighting investigation."
According to Wyche's story, Buchanan acknowledged talking to Landry and telling him that Vick loves dogs, but that's as far his comments went. Landry maintains that he quoted Buchanan accurately.
Buchanan certainly isn't the first person to deny making controversial comments to a reporter.
When someone says they were misquoted, we take the matter seriously, sometimes going as far as asking for the reporter's notes or a tape of the interview if one exists. When the reporter doesn't work for us, that level of double checking isn't possible.
AJC pro sports editor Chris Vivlamore said Wyche and AJC sports reporter D. Orlando Ledbetter tried unsuccessfully to reach Buchanan and Landry on Saturday. Vivlamore decided the story should hold a day in the hopes of reaching one or both of the men.
When the story began to pick up steam nationally, there was more urgency for the AJC to report it. Vivlamore contacted sports editor Ronnie Ramos and they agreed the item should run inside Monday's paper. "I was very careful that our story made clear that this was one person relating what another had said to him," said Vivlamore. "It was also important to me that Vick and Buchanan were once teammates. This wasn't just somebody who could have heard from someone that Vick was possibly involved."
On Wednesday, ajc.com weighed in with a story quoting a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force, which helps with dogfighting investigations, that informants have indicated there is a tape of Vick at a dogfight. The story, which ran inside Thursday's sports section, went on to say that the task force hasn't confirmed the tape's existence.
Until such time as the alleged tape surfaces and can be authenticated, I don't see this as news. When Jennifer Toole read our story online, she asked in an e-mail what I think is a fair question: "Are you publishing rumors now?"
Ramos and Vivlamore say they are careful with these reports and chose to run this story to make it clear that investigators do not have a video — a fact that other Internet stories downplayed.
"A lot depends on the source," said Ramos. "You have to evaluate it. There's a lot of stuff about Vick that we've looked at that we haven't put in the paper. It's a very tough road right now. Vick's not talking and none of the Falcons are talking, making it more arduous to confirm the information. When it's on ESPN and local talk radio and everybody's discussing it, it makes it difficult for us to pretend it doesn't exist."
I certainly respect the need for AJC reporters to stay on top of this story. Vick is the team's most visible player and he hasn't used the best judgment in dealing with personal matters. But if having bad judgment were illegal, many of us would be behind bars.
When the newspaper runs unsubstantiated reports, we do our readers a disservice and do little to distinguish ourselves from less reputable sources. Yes, we should continue to ask questions — we just need to exercise more restraint when we don't have the answers.

• Contact Angela Tuck by e-mail at insideajc@ajc.com, by phone at 404-526-5819 by fax at 404-526-5610 or by writing

P.O. Box 4689, Atlanta, GA 30302.

[watermock]

Vick: "I'm not a roll model.."

Cutler: "I'm willing to accept being a role model by example..."

Gee babysteps...Cutler allready has a foundation...does Vick other than the one for his dogfighting empire he knows nothing about?

He just got done selling the property for less than half it's appraised value to get it cleaned up. On the market for about 10 minutes and I'd like to know who the new owner is too.

Vick has allready been caught in outright lies. It's not persecution, it's a fact.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's a free country. But it's usually smart to wait on this stuff....so feel free not to.

Looks like the editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution is saying that some of the information that's come out on Vick is not verified after all...heresay and rumor that hasn't been confirmed yet. She wishes they hadn't run the story now on how Ray Buchanan said Vick was fighting dogs...Buchanan says he didn't say that. Apparentlly the existence of a tape with Vick on it is also premature.

Feel free to ignore this however...

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/19/0519edinside.html

Rumors about Vick, dogfight require dose of caution

Published on: 05/19/07
Michael Vick and the Atlanta Falcons brass are saying very little about allegations that the team's star quarterback may be involved with dogfighting.

The stories — which are circulating widely in the media — are not baseless but they do include more rumor and speculation than I'm comfortable with.

<!--endtext--><!--endclickprintinclude--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=175 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=170 bgColor=#cccccc border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=9 width=168 bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=body>ANGELA TUCK
PUBLIC EDITOR
http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/20/16/image_1416204.jpg
• E-mail Tuck (insideajc@ajc.com) Recent columns:

Rumors about Vick, dogfight require dose of caution (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/19/0519edinside.html)
Online photo galleries connect communities (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/11/0512edinside.html)
AJC readers can expect change, not lack of coverage (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/05/04/0505edinside.html)
Research, persistence were crucial in Johnston case (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/04/28/042807edinside.html)
A fine line between news, sensationalism (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/04/21/042107adinside.html)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--startclickprintinclude--><!--begintext-->
Ever since Virginia police raided a property owned by Vick and found 70 dogs and evidence of dogfighting, reporters questioned Vick's involvement. They are right to do so. This is the latest in a string of questionable incidents Vick has found himself at the center of. Dogfighting is a felony in Virginia and authorities are meeting next week to review evidence in the case.
But two reports this newspaper carried in print and online this week gave me pause. The first appeared on ajc.com Sunday and quoted former Falcons teammate Ray Buchanan as having told Fox Sports analyst Chris Landry that Vick was deeply involved in dogfighting. Landry made the comments on a Tampa radio program two days earlier, and they quickly took on a life of their own. Given this information was second hand, and AJC reporters weren't able to reach Buchanan himself, we shouldn't have reported it.
In Tuesday's print edition, Falcons reporter Steve Wyche wrote a story quoting Buchanan, who denied making the statements to Landry. Wyche wrote that Buchanan told him Landry "spoke out of line and was using him to legitimize rumors and innuendo that have circulated about the dogfighting investigation."
According to Wyche's story, Buchanan acknowledged talking to Landry and telling him that Vick loves dogs, but that's as far his comments went. Landry maintains that he quoted Buchanan accurately.
Buchanan certainly isn't the first person to deny making controversial comments to a reporter.
When someone says they were misquoted, we take the matter seriously, sometimes going as far as asking for the reporter's notes or a tape of the interview if one exists. When the reporter doesn't work for us, that level of double checking isn't possible.
AJC pro sports editor Chris Vivlamore said Wyche and AJC sports reporter D. Orlando Ledbetter tried unsuccessfully to reach Buchanan and Landry on Saturday. Vivlamore decided the story should hold a day in the hopes of reaching one or both of the men.
When the story began to pick up steam nationally, there was more urgency for the AJC to report it. Vivlamore contacted sports editor Ronnie Ramos and they agreed the item should run inside Monday's paper. "I was very careful that our story made clear that this was one person relating what another had said to him," said Vivlamore. "It was also important to me that Vick and Buchanan were once teammates. This wasn't just somebody who could have heard from someone that Vick was possibly involved."
On Wednesday, ajc.com weighed in with a story quoting a member of the Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force, which helps with dogfighting investigations, that informants have indicated there is a tape of Vick at a dogfight. The story, which ran inside Thursday's sports section, went on to say that the task force hasn't confirmed the tape's existence.
Until such time as the alleged tape surfaces and can be authenticated, I don't see this as news. When Jennifer Toole read our story online, she asked in an e-mail what I think is a fair question: "Are you publishing rumors now?"
Ramos and Vivlamore say they are careful with these reports and chose to run this story to make it clear that investigators do not have a video — a fact that other Internet stories downplayed.
"A lot depends on the source," said Ramos. "You have to evaluate it. There's a lot of stuff about Vick that we've looked at that we haven't put in the paper. It's a very tough road right now. Vick's not talking and none of the Falcons are talking, making it more arduous to confirm the information. When it's on ESPN and local talk radio and everybody's discussing it, it makes it difficult for us to pretend it doesn't exist."
I certainly respect the need for AJC reporters to stay on top of this story. Vick is the team's most visible player and he hasn't used the best judgment in dealing with personal matters. But if having bad judgment were illegal, many of us would be behind bars.
When the newspaper runs unsubstantiated reports, we do our readers a disservice and do little to distinguish ourselves from less reputable sources. Yes, we should continue to ask questions — we just need to exercise more restraint when we don't have the answers.

• Contact Angela Tuck by e-mail at insideajc@ajc.com, by phone at 404-526-5819 by fax at 404-526-5610 or by writing

P.O. Box 4689, Atlanta, GA 30302.

You mean things in the media can be false?

[-Slap-]

Really classy of Ms Tuck not to back up her reporter because Ray Buchanan (the dumbass who wore a dog coller to media week @ XXXIII) decided to backtrack on his comments about Vick. I'm sure the other reporters who work under her took note of the way she all but accused Wyche of misquoting Buchanan, if not outright fabrication.

Basically, here's a coward who's been getting a bunch of Falcons fans screaming at her, so she's trying to make a public statement showing she really doesn't agree with it. Nice of her to hang a subordinate in the wind in the process.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Vick: "I'm not a roll model.."

Cutler: "I'm willing to accept being a role model by example..."

Gee babysteps...Cutler allready has a foundation...does Vick other than the one for his dogfighting empire he knows nothing about?
The word IF is a toughie for you isn't it?
He just got done selling the property for less than half it's appraised value to get it cleaned up. On the market for about 10 minutes and I'd like to know who the new owner is too.

Vick has allready been caught in outright lies. It's not persecution, it's a fact.
Anything been done in court yet? No? Well don't worry about that minor detail.

[watermock]

Gee Whiz! Who would of thought that article came out of Atlanta?

[footstepsfrom#27]

You mean things in the media can be false?
Probably MOST of what you read in the media is false. Of course some idiots believe anything they read of course...later they'll claim they were one of the few that weren't deceived.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Gee Whiz! Who would of thought that article came out of Atlanta?
So you agree then that it's good journalism to accept heresay and rumor and publish it...right?

[watermock]

The word IF is a toughie for you isn't it?

Anything been done in court yet? No? Well don't worry about that minor detail.

There was nothing needing an IF in my comments. The investigation is ongoing. I haven't heard anyone saying that Vick doesn't deserve a fair trial if a Grand Jury does indict him. Your so full of sh!t it's pathetic.

[footstepsfrom#27]

There was nothing needing an IF in my comments.
More reading issues...the "if" was in MY post cement head.
100% certainty that if this was Cutler people would be screaming to let the justice system have it's day before making any assumptions at all. But since it's VICK...and we know that VICK=SATAN in here...well why bother with trying to wait till all the facts are in.

[orange 4 life]

100% certainty that if this was Cutler people would be screaming to let the justice system have it's day before making any assumptions at all. But since it's VICK...and we know that VICK=SATAN in here...well why bother with trying to wait till all the facts are in.

thats bullsh!t and you know it.
anyone that knows me AT ALL knows i dont give a rip if its vick, plummer, or cutler.
if theyre fighting dogs (fine, fine. LIKELY fighting dogs) then i want 'em to go down.

you ACTUALLY think my stance would be different if this guy was a bronco?
what am i, 12?

team allegiance means nothing here. nothing.

[Northman]

Probably MOST of what you read in the media is false. Of course some idiots believe anything they read of course...later they'll claim they were one of the few that weren't deceived.

So, there's a very good possibility that Mrs. Tucks article is false then correct? I mean, she is part of the media. Ha!

[Northman]

It's a free country. But it's usually smart to wait on this stuff....so feel free not to.




This is the only thing that is relevant to this conversation. This is a forum for discussion and people will weigh in on a topic anyway they choose. Just because you may be sad for what is being posted about a said player doesnt mean people need to stop voicing their opinions on the matter. What we say here has no impact on Vick's future so you shouldnt be concerned about that.

[theAPAOps5]

So, there's a very good possibility that Mrs. Tucks article is false then correct? I mean, she is part of the media. Ha!

Wait, I am confused as all hell then. So all those Broncos wins and losses I read about in the news were wrong. **** can someone tell me what the record was last year as the news reported it wrong. And I read an article about Shefler breaking his foot. Is there anyone in the organization that can clear this up as it must be wrong it was printed in the media. Hilarious!

[orange 4 life]

Probably MOST of what you read in the media is false. Of course some idiots believe anything they read of course...later they'll claim they were one of the few that weren't deceived.

that article doesnt mean squat.
it says buchanon backed out of his statements.
if you read it carefully, it ALSO says that there are "alot" of OTHER rumors about vick that HAVENT been published.
sounds like there is MORE circumstantial evidence than we even know about yet.

again, if anyone actually believes that vick had no idea what was going on then they need their heads examined.

.....that or they need to take off their size kids L va tech vick jersey.

[Garcia Bronco]

.....that or they need to take off their size kids L va tech vick jersey.

Woohooo GO HOKIES!!!

[shakenbake]

Probably MOST of what you read in the media is false. Of course some idiots believe anything they read of course...later they'll claim they were one of the few that weren't deceived.

You mean like that article that had crime stats in it ?

[Northman]

You mean like that article that had crime stats in it ?

Yea, foot really put his foot in his mouth yet again. His ship is sinking and sinking fast. LOL

[orange 4 life]

"There's a lot of stuff about Vick that we've looked at that we haven't put in the paper."

yeah, ill bet there is.

you think that article makes vick look better? wow. grasp at straws much?

[orange 4 life]

Woohooo GO HOKIES!!!

at least youre honest.

jaw dropping that something as disgusting as dog fighting is defended (if you REALLY dont think he did it then i have some beach front property in arizona for sale) because the guy was a hokie, but at least youre honest about it.

loyalty to ones team only goes so far. SHOUD only go so far anyway.

[shakenbake]

Yea, foot really put his foot in his mouth yet again. His ship is sinking and sinking fast. LOL

I had to laugh when I read that. Pretty funny stuff from a guy who's "research" consists of searching on google. I'm sure all the legal "research" he does was done on google as well.

[yavoon]

I refuse to believe ron mexico would do anything unethical.

[Garcia Bronco]

at least youre honest.

jaw dropping that something as disgusting as dog fighting is defended (if you REALLY dont think he did it then i have some beach front property in arizona for sale) because the guy was a hokie, but at least youre honest about it.

loyalty to ones team only goes so far. SHOUD only go so far anyway.

I am not going to hang they guy until he's found guilty in a court of law.

[orange 4 life]

I am not going to hang they guy until he's found guilty in a court of law.

fair enough......but you CAN start to get the noose ready. :approve:

[footstepsfrom#27]

thats bullsh!t and you know it.
anyone that knows me AT ALL knows i dont give a rip if its vick, plummer, or cutler.
if theyre fighting dogs (fine, fine. LIKELY fighting dogs) then i want 'em to go down.

you ACTUALLY think my stance would be different if this guy was a bronco?
what am i, 12?

team allegiance means nothing here. nothing.
Maybe it doesn't for YOU, but go back and check out all the threads in support of MoC that supported him right till the end. In fact my very first posts on this board were right after the '05 draft, and when I expressed missgivings over drafting this dude, TJ and others piled all over me telling me I was an idiot for knocking this guy, and people missunderstood him, his contract ensured he not get paid if he screwed up so it was a good idea...etc...think anyone would have thought this if he was a Titan or Cardinal instead? No.

You'll find equal numbers of supporters for Ricky Williams and TO when people thought they were coming here. Fact is...lots of NFL fans in Atlanta still support Vick since he's a Falcon...would they if he played in Carolina? No way. The same would hold true if he were in Denver; you'd have tons of fans on this board saying it was a vendetta against him, or people should wait till all the facts were in. Cripes some people in here still support Romo after his nonsense and I don't know how many times I read that House wasn't such a bad guy for beating on women, cause we've all made mistakes. Are you seriously telling me something is different now that wasn't true when this other stuff has gone on?...or fans here are so different than they are around the rest of the league?

[footstepsfrom#27]

...doesnt mean people need to stop voicing their opinions on the matter.
Somebody say you did?

[footstepsfrom#27]

that article doesnt mean squat.
it says buchanon backed out of his statements.
So the editor saying that they published heresay without confirming it with the orginal source...who also denies he said it...means nothing? I guess if your standard for what should get published means publishing rumors is OK then yeah...you're right.
if you read it carefully, it ALSO says that there are "alot" of OTHER rumors about vick that HAVENT been published.
sounds like there is MORE circumstantial evidence than we even know about yet.
No it sounds like there are a lot of RUMORS they checked and decided there was no basis in fact from which to publish them...in other words they violated their own acceptable standards for what gets printed in this instance. But what would she know?...she's just the editor.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I had to laugh when I read that. Pretty funny stuff from a guy who's "research" consists of searching on google. I'm sure all the legal "research" he does was done on google as well.
pfffttt...Never a doubt that you'll be on one of these threads is there? And I guess you missed it...the point I made about legal research was never answered Tweedledumb.

[shakenbake]

pfffttt...Never a doubt that you'll be on one of these threads is there? And I guess you missed it...the point I made about legal research was never answered Tweedledumb.

So where did you do your "legal research" ? How did you go about gathering your information?

[footstepsfrom#27]

So where did you do your "legal research" ? How did you go about gathering your information?
Westlaw...this is no longer about legal research...move on...we're talking about Vick again now.

[shakenbake]

I hope I won't be prosecuted for "practicing law" by doing legal research but since I used Google instead of Westlaw I guess I'm safe on that count huh? ::)

Hmm no idea of where I thought you would have just used google.

As for Vick, I think he has had a disturbing pattern of behavior. It is possible he has just made some really poor choices on who to hang out with and give help to. We will find the truth out soon enough.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hmm no idea of where I thought you would have just used google.
I was being a smart ass and talking about NOW doofus. What were you talking about? I already said I no longer do this kind of work so what's your point?

Do you have one?

[shakenbake]

I was being a smart ass and talking about NOW doofus. What were you talking about? I already said I no longer do this kind of work so what's your point.

Do you have one?

Not really, I just get enjoyment out of poking you in the ribs, and showing your inconsistencies.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Not really, I just get enjoyment out of poking you in the ribs, and showing your inconsistencies.
What inconsistency do you think you found here?

[shakenbake]

What inconsistency do you think you found here?
Bwahhhhaaaa
Lets see just a few post ago you claim that MOST of what you read in the media is false. But you use that same media when it fits in with what you believe to be true (see the thread on crime stats in the NFL).

[footstepsfrom#27]

Bwahhhhaaaa
Lets see just a few post ago you claim that MOST of what you read in the media is false. But you use that same media when it fits in with what you believe to be true (see the thread on crime stats in the NFL).
Have you ever had the experience of trying to give news people a story, then read what they wrote two days later? I have...and it's bizarre to say the least. You wind up wondering why they even asked you questions to begin with. Yes...a great deal of what we get in the media is not accurate...information left out, information chosen selectively over other facts without good reason...reporters being to lazy to check facts...sometimes a conflict with the editorial views of the paper...to say nothing of the job the electronic news media does in giving us a skewed perspective that fits whatever political views they have...is this a big shock?

There's a considerable difference between garden variety run of the mill press coverage done by reporters under a nightly deadline and an investigative news piece that cites sources that can be easily checked. Second, you must have missed this...the authors of the original book on NFL crime statistics later admitted that they used faulty data, and they now admit that the true figures are basically in line with what the paper reported.

What's any of that got to do with Westlaw or Google?

[Garcia Bronco]

Have you ever had the experience of trying to give news people a story, then read what they wrote two days later? I have...and it's bizarre to say the least. You wind up wondering why they even asked you questions to begin with. Yes...a great deal of what we get in the media is not accurate...information left out, information chosen selectively over other facts without good reason...reporters being to lazy to check facts...sometimes a conflict with the editorial views of the paper...to say nothing of the job the electronic news media does in giving us a skewed perspective that fits whatever political views they have...is this a big shock?

There's a considerable difference between garden variety run of the mill press coverage done by reporters under a nightly deadline and an investigative news piece that cites sources that can be easily checked. Second, you must have missed this...the authors of the original book on NFL crime statistics later admitted that they used faulty data, and they now admit that the true figures are basically in line with what the paper reported.

What's any of that got to do with Westlaw or Google?

QFT

[Tredici]

Here is the recent article in which a Congressman advises action in this investigation.

National Football LeaguePol asks for strong action against Vick
By PAUL NEWBERRY, AP Sports Writer
Sun May 20, 9:32 AM


Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick stands on the sidelines ...
A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter Friday that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to ``act swiftly and forcefully'' if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

``I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise,'' Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raided a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

``The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling,'' Lantos said. ``I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity.''

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Reached Friday, Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animals rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

``As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully,'' the congressman wrote. ``Your strong rebuke of dog fighting - and those who promote it - will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society.''

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

``I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again,'' Lantos wrote. ``It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes.''


I suppose there are some who will see this as an issue simply because Vick is black. But it will be the Animal Rights Activists who keep this issue in the forefront. This is about cruelty to animals, people. Personally I doubt charges will be brought. Selling a property for less than half of it's worth will tend to mess up the chain of evidence.

For the record I'm willing to bet charges have been filed on the lunatic who tried to kill his infant daughter in the microwave. All though I still do not have the ability to draw any type of connection between the two activities.

[Garcia Bronco]

Here is the recent article in which a Congressman advises action in this investigation.

National Football LeaguePol asks for strong action against Vick
By PAUL NEWBERRY, AP Sports Writer
Sun May 20, 9:32 AM


Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick stands on the sidelines ...
A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter Friday that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to ``act swiftly and forcefully'' if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

``I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise,'' Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raided a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

``The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling,'' Lantos said. ``I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity.''

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Reached Friday, Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animals rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

``As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully,'' the congressman wrote. ``Your strong rebuke of dog fighting - and those who promote it - will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society.''

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

``I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again,'' Lantos wrote. ``It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes.''


I suppose there are some who will see this as an issue simply because Vick is black. But it will be the Animal Rights Activists who keep this issue in the forefront. This is about cruelty to animals, people. Personally I doubt charges will be brought. Selling a property for less than half of it's worth will tend to mess up the chain of evidence.

For the record I'm willing to bet charges have been filed on the lunatic who tried to kill his infant daughter in the microwave. All though I still do not have the ability to draw any type of connection between the two activities.


Lantos should worry about his own state and keep his nose out of things that are none of his business...same with Bloomberg out of NY.

[NaptownChief]

Have you ever had the experience of trying to give news people a story, then read what they wrote two days later? I have...and it's bizarre to say the least.




We don't agree on much but I certainly agree on this. I've been interviewed for a few stories by some finanical magazines such as Money, Forbes and NY Times and regardless of how clear I make certain points it is amazing how the final article reads virtually nothing like what I told them. It is pretty much like their story is already written in advance with what they want to say and they just use your name to give it credibility.

[NaptownChief]

Lantos should worry about his own state and keep his nose out of things that are none of his business...same with Bloomberg out of NY.



Any state that has given or will be giving public funds to support NFL stadiums has a reasonable interest in how the NFL runs it's ship. The day the NFL stops holding states and cities hostage for public funds will be the day I agree with you.

[rbackfactory80]

What really made me laugh is that idiot Portis saying people need to mind their own business and its no big deal. What a moron.

[Garcia Bronco]

Any state that has given or will be giving public funds to support NFL stadiums has a reasonable interest in how the NFL runs it's ship. The day the NFL stops holding states and cities hostage for public funds will be the day I agree with you.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[NaptownChief]

One has nothing to do with the other.



Sure it does...Cities and states are making multi-million dollar investments into a sports league and the continued success and proper management of that sports league is imperative on them getting proper return on their investment.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sure it does...Cities and states are making multi-million dollar investments into a sports league and the continued success and proper management of that sports league is imperative on them getting proper return on their investment.

that's stretch into the realm of concern...it's not like it's a risky venture. NFL teams will make money. Lantos is trying to make headlines to remain relevent...no more...and no less.

[NaptownChief]

that's stretch into the realm of concern...it's not like it's a risky venture. NFL teams will make money. Lantos is trying to make headlines to remain relevent...no more...and no less.


NFL teams "should" continue to make a lot of money however the road to the outhouse starts with one step. We here in Indy just got put on the hook for many millions for this new stadium and for us not to get raped it requires the stadium to keep filling up for the next 15-20 years. Turning the public on the league because of really poor management and public relationship decisions is important. How they handle this sitation will not impact next season but how they handle this and other situations like it could certainly impact whether they stay on top for the next 10-20 years that is needed for the state of Indiana to get proper return on our investment.

Just look at the NBA and NHL....poor management decisions sent them fairly quickly in the wrong direction. Most people can't even stand to watch the NBA playoffs....in the 80's and 90's everyone was watching.

[Garcia Bronco]

NFL teams "should" continue to make a lot of money however the road to the outhouse starts with one step. We here in Indy just got put on the hook for many millions for this new stadium and for us not to get raped it requires the stadium to keep filling up for the next 15-20 years. Turning the public on the league because of really poor management and public relationship decisions is important. How they handle this sitation will not impact next season but how they handle this and other situations like it could certainly impact whether they stay on top for the next 10-20 years that is needed for the state of Indiana to get proper return on our investment.

Just look at the NBA and NHL....poor management decisions sent them fairly quickly in the wrong direction. Most people can't even stand to watch the NBA playoffs....in the 80's and 90's everyone was watching.

"Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick."

If you can't see this is politcal grandstanding...I don't know what to tell you.

[-Slap-]

Here is the recent article in which a Congressman advises action in this investigation.

National Football LeaguePol asks for strong action against Vick
By PAUL NEWBERRY, AP Sports Writer
Sun May 20, 9:32 AM


Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick stands on the sidelines ...
A California congressman has joined the cause against Michael Vick, firing off a letter Friday that urged NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to ``act swiftly and forcefully'' if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback was involved in dog fighting on his former property.

U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) pointed out that he's a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which two years ago held highly publicized hearings on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick.

``I am outraged that one of the National Football League's superstars is affiliated with such a heinous enterprise,'' Lantos wrote.

Last month, police raided a Virginia home owned by Vick and allegedly found evidence of a major dog-fighting operation, including dozens off malnourished and injured dogs. The quarterback has denied any wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against him.

Vick has since sold the home.

``The level of cruelty involved in exploiting animals to the point that 60 malnourished and injured dogs were removed from Mr. Vick's property is mind boggling,'' Lantos said. ``I will view anything less than the strongest repudiation of Mr. Vick's involvement as tacit support for this atrocious activity.''

The NFL has said repeatedly it is investigating the case to determine if Vick violated the commissioner's tougher standards for players who run afoul of the law. Reached Friday, Falcons spokesman Reggie Roberts reiterated the team's policy of not commenting until the investigation is completed.

Calling himself a longtime advocate of animal welfare, Lantos joined two prominent animals rights groups that have called on Goodell to suspend or ban any players involved in dog fighting.

``As evidence of Mr. Vick's involvement mounts, I implore you to act swiftly and forcefully,'' the congressman wrote. ``Your strong rebuke of dog fighting - and those who promote it - will send the message that this all-too-prevalent practice has no place in a civilized society.''

In a not-so-subtle threat of possible congressional action, Lantos reminded the commissioner of his committee's efforts to weed out those who use performance-enhancing drugs.

``I also suggest you educate your players on the illegality and cruelty of dog fighting to prevent this from happening again,'' Lantos wrote. ``It is my hope that the issue of animal fighting will not require us to further investigate the behavior of your athletes.''


I suppose there are some who will see this as an issue simply because Vick is black. But it will be the Animal Rights Activists who keep this issue in the forefront. This is about cruelty to animals, people. Personally I doubt charges will be brought. Selling a property for less than half of it's worth will tend to mess up the chain of evidence.

For the record I'm willing to bet charges have been filed on the lunatic who tried to kill his infant daughter in the microwave. All though I still do not have the ability to draw any type of connection between the two activities.

I'll be e-mailing the congressman this afternoon to thank him for his attention on this matter.

[NaptownChief]

I'll be e-mailing the congressman this afternoon to thank him for his attention on this matter.



As will I.

[NaptownChief]

"Lantos raised the prospect of government intervention if the NFL fails to discipline Vick."

If you can't see this is politcal grandstanding...I don't know what to tell you.



I see it as protecting the investment I am having to make here in Indy and the investment of all those around the country having to do the same. Grandstanding or not the end result is the correct one.

[Garcia Bronco]

I see it as protecting the investment I am having to make here in Indy and the investment of all those around the country having to do the same. Grandstanding or not the end result is the correct one.

I disagree. Lantos should worry about his own state...that's the scope of his job.

[NaptownChief]

I disagree. Lantos should worry about his own state...that's the scope of his job.



His own state has a big interest in the continued success of the NFL. California badly needs the continued success for tax revenue as much as any state in the union. Currently have 3 teams and looking to add a 4th...Nobody should be more concerned than them.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I disagree. Lantos should worry about his own state...that's the scope of his job.I suggest you don't know the "scope of his job".

[Garcia Bronco]

I suggest you don't know the "scope of his job".

I do...It's called less government. His job is not the goings on of the NFL or the business of Virginia Law enforcement and you know it.

[Garcia Bronco]

His own state has a big interest in the continued success of the NFL. California badly needs the continued success for tax revenue as much as any state in the union. Currently have 3 teams and looking to add a 4th...Nobody should be more concerned than them.

Still has nothing to do with his state. Atlanta while it used to be in the NFC west...is not in the borders of his state.

[rbackfactory80]

If he is from Va Tech he must be innocent.

[-Slap-]

I do...It's called less government. His job is not the goings on of the NFL or the business of Virginia Law enforcement and you know it.

Dogfighting, stupid.

[orange 4 life]

If he is from Va Tech he must be innocent.

its PAINFULLY obvious that he knew what was going on.
literally EVERYTHING points to his knowledge.

some people wont be convinced.

[watermock]

Jesus Garcia, it's a FEDERAL CRIME. He guy is in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the state government. Even tho he's a California Rep, his job is in WASHINGTON.

[bendog]

These damn LIEbral DimoRats from CALIFORNIA picking on Vick ..... it turns my stomach.

[Garcia Bronco]

Jesus Garcia, it's a FEDERAL CRIME. He guy is in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the state government. Even tho he's a California Rep, his job is in WASHINGTON.

Doesn't matter. He's need to let the paid professionals handle and stick to what he knows...which is probably taking bribes.

[NaptownChief]

If there is any justice in the world this stupid son of a bitch will get thrown in prison and the Falcons are able to recover a big chunk of that signing bonus. I hate to see Arthur Blank get any of that money back cause anyone dumb enough to give that much money to a bad QB and an even worse person doesn't deserve a do over.....however at least with that money back in his hands it won't be in the Vick family hands supporting drugs, dog fighting, spreading herpes, stomping defenders after plays and gawd knows what else those morons do...

[Hotrod]

If there is any justice in the world this stupid son of a bitch will get thrown in prison and the Falcons are able to recover a big chunk of that signing bonus. I hate to see Arthur Blank get any of that money back cause anyone dumb enough to give that much money to a bad QB and an even worse person doesn't deserve a do over.....however at least with that money back in his hands it won't be in the Vick family hands supporting drugs, dog fighting, spreading herpes, stomping defenders after plays and gawd knows what else those morons do...

I could not agree more.

[Garcia Bronco]

If there is any justice in the world this stupid son of a bitch will get thrown in prison and the Falcons are able to recover a big chunk of that signing bonus. I hate to see Arthur Blank get any of that money back cause anyone dumb enough to give that much money to a bad QB and an even worse person doesn't deserve a do over.....however at least with that money back in his hands it won't be in the Vick family hands supporting drugs, dog fighting, spreading herpes, stomping defenders after plays and gawd knows what else those morons do...

Why does his mother have to be a bitch? You don't know what's going on...but you'll pass judgement on the guy with out knowing any of the facts because you just hate the guy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I do...It's called less government. His job is not the goings on of the NFL or the business of Virginia Law enforcement and you know it.Like I said, I doubt if you do. He's a United States Congressman, the only holocaust survivor in Congress, belongs to several sub committees, one which is the government Oversight and Reform Committee.

As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter. In 1998, Rep. Waxman formed the Special Investigations Division to conduct investigations into issues that are important to members of the Oversight Committee and other members of Congress.

Now you know "the scope of his job".

[NaptownChief]

Why does his mother have to be a b****? You don't know what's going on...but you'll pass judgement on the guy with out knowing any of the facts because you just hate the guy.



Everything I just stated is true....I said I hate to see that money supporting the "Vick family"....whether Ron Mexico was directly involved in the dog figthing or not it was his money supporting the Vick family doing this crap. However, only a fool would believe he wasn't in the know given everything that has turned up so far.

Whether I hate the guy or not doesn't change the facts.....nor does the fact you have serious man love for him.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Jesus Garcia, it's a FEDERAL CRIME. He guy is in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not the state government. Even tho he's a California Rep, his job is in WASHINGTON.
It's not a federal crime...though efforts are underway to make it one:

http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/13505.html

Politicians always like being ahead of the curve when it comes to voter opinion.

[Tredici]

Why does his mother have to be a b****? You don't know what's going on...but you'll pass judgement on the guy with out knowing any of the facts because you just hate the guy.

Even though I tried to make it clear, you are still missing the point. It's the suggestion of cruelty to animals that people dislike. Granted, the Congressman is using his political position, but the platform is the cruelty to animals. You can say people have already convicted him but the pressure is on for the same type of investigation anoyone abusing animals would be subjected to. If Vick has broken the law then there should be consequences. Any one else up and sells a property for half of what it's worth before an investigation has been completed would probably be hit for obstruction too. If he wasn't involved he needs to stop making all the moves which make it appear he is.

I don't hate Michael Vick. I've always said he wasn't too bright, but hell if that was a crime about 85% of us would be locked up.

Never underestimate the animal rights people. A few years ago a Mountain Lion took a young child off a trail and he ended up dying. The Lion was killed. There were funds started for both the orphaned lion cub and to cover expenses for the death of the child. I think the cub's fund ended up with 10 times more money. Whether anyone wants to understand the depth of caring people have for animals or not, it exists. And those folks don't discriminate. The question was raised if they would go after Payton Manning or Tom Brady. I think without a doubt the answer is you bet your ass.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

ESPN reported today heads are going to turn when it's announced who Vick is trying to sell his house to.

[NaptownChief]

ESPN reported today heads are going to turn when it's announced who Vick is trying to sell his house to.


Really......did they allude as to who it was?

[Hotrod]

Garcia Bronco maybe ;)

[NaptownChief]

Garcia Bronco maybe ;)




Hilarious!

[NaptownChief]

My guess was Clinton Portis so they could keep the dog ring alive and well given the comments of that moron. His comments were so stupid I think they might be related.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's not a federal crime...though efforts are underway to make it one:
http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/13505.html
Politicians always like being ahead of the curve when it comes to voter opinion.Fighting animals is a felony under federal law.

Really......did they allude as to who it was?No but they said that and some other information was probably coming out this week.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Any one else up and sells a property for half of what it's worth before an investigation has been completed would probably be hit for obstruction too. If he wasn't involved he needs to stop making all the moves which make it appear he is.
Unless the prosecutor is secretly involved in some kind of duplicitous entanglement on behalf of Vick, it's a virtual certainty that they have already completed any investigation necessary for access to the physical property. That was probably done within the first few hours. There's no way Vick would be allowed to sell the property out from under an ongoing investigation that required physical evidence not be tampered with on a crime scene. His sale of the property might be his way of distancing himself from the occupants, or some questionable strategy aimed at PR, but it's highly unlikely he was able to make evidence dissapear by dumping the house.

[Clockwork Orange]

My guess was Clinton Portis so they could keep the dog ring alive and well given the comments of that moron. His comments were so stupid I think they might be related.

I was just about to post on that subject. Here's a link to the video of Portis' comments.

http://www.wavy.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1449454&h1=Two

With each passing year, I'm happier and happier that this mental midget was traded.

[NaptownChief]

I hope he ends up in prison however it will certainly be enjoyable watching that mildly functioning retard struggle when he is relentlessly booed at home and on the road. Given his ungawdly large number of INT’s, fumbles and sacks taken they will have an endless parade of ammunition.

He hasn't been able to handle the pressure of everyone talking about how he passes like crap so there is no way he will be able to handle everyone but Garcia hating him.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Fighting animals is a felony under federal law.
Hmmm...it looks like SB 261 passed the Senate, so you're right. Now it's a question of when it takes effect though...usually it takes several months. SB 261 passed in April. The bill itself probably states when it takes effect.

Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act
Last night, at 8:06 p.m, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act! The House of Representatives passed the same bill, H.R. 137, late last month by a vote of 368 to 39.

**EDIT: Bush still has to sign it into law. Has he? If not that seems like a slam dunk.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hmmm...it looks like SB 261 passed the Senate, so you're right. Now it's a question of when it takes effect though...usually it takes several months. SB 261 passed in April. The bill itself probably states when it takes effect.

Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act
Last night, at 8:06 p.m, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act! The House of Representatives passed the same bill, H.R. 137, late last month by a vote of 368 to 39.Bush signed it into law immediately after the Senate vote.

[Northman]

Garcia Bronco maybe ;)


Garcia would come up a couple million pennies short.

[Garcia Bronco]

Garcia would come up a couple million pennies short.

Plus I wouldn't live in Surry...or any where around it. My family is from Smithfield though and one of my family names is....tada.....Vick.

[Northman]

Plus I wouldn't live in Surry...or any where around it. My family is from Smithfield though and one of my family names is....tada.....Vick.


How far is that from Gainesville? I was up delivering that way today.

[Tredici]

Unless the prosecutor is secretly involved in some kind of duplicitous entanglement on behalf of Vick, it's a virtual certainty that they have already completed any investigation necessary for access to the physical property. That was probably done within the first few hours. There's no way Vick would be allowed to sell the property out from under an ongoing investigation that required physical evidence not be tampered with on a crime scene. His sale of the property might be his way of distancing himself from the occupants, or some questionable strategy aimed at PR, but it's highly unlikely he was able to make evidence dissapear by dumping the house.

It's likely to muddy up chain of evidence though. That's all which is needed in these CSI days.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It's likely to muddy up chain of evidence though.
How so?

[Tredici]

Depends on if there is actually a quick sale. If the locals have not done their homework and collected all evidence - as far as I know it hasn't been officially designated a crime scene yet, then whats to stop a defense attorney of questioning when something happened on that property? Old owner or new owner?

Like I said, I don't think he is ever charged regardless of how much pressure is brought to bear from animal rights activists. Apparently this type of activity is all to common throughout many of the southern states. I simply can't imagine anyone getting off on watching animals maul each other. In one word - repulsive.

[Popps]

IF video exists of Vick at the property (and I have no doubt it does).... there are negotiations in progress to acquire said video.... don't worry about that.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Depends on if there is actually a quick sale. If the locals have not done their homework and collected all evidence - as far as I know it hasn't been officially designated a crime scene yet, then whats to stop a defense attorney of questioning when something happened on that property? Old owner or new owner?
I can't imagine any scenario apart from the rankest possible incompetence that would lead to local investigators not logging all their available evidence before even allowing Vick or anyone else back on the property. They've had ample opportunity to gather all the evidence available long ago.

[Beantown Bronco]

I can't imagine any scenario apart from the rankest possible incompetence that would lead to local investigators not logging all their available evidence before even allowing Vick or anyone else back on the property. They've had ample opportunity to gather all the evidence available long ago.

Not quite. What about the area around the house? How many acres does he have? And is it wooded area? Anything could be buried out there....

[Hotrod]

Plus I wouldn't live in Surry...or any where around it. My family is from Smithfield though and one of my family names is....tada.....Vick.

Thats no reason to be ok with dog fighting.

[NaptownChief]

I can't imagine any scenario apart from the rankest possible incompetence that would lead to local investigators not logging all their available evidence before even allowing Vick or anyone else back on the property. They've had ample opportunity to gather all the evidence available long ago.



You are giving far too much credit to the authorities...especially local authorities. Even now in the 2000's we still hear regularly of slam dunk cases getting blown by incompetence and mishandling by police departments especially when it is a type of case like this that they don't deal with on a regular basis.

[fontaine]

It speaks to a prevalent attitude among athletes. Portis believes he's above the law... that ballplayers are above the law. Just listen to him.

Hey, they can beat their women, fight dogs, carry unregistered firearms... it's THEIR business, not ours.

While I agree on the sentiment of your post in regards to Portis lets not be so hasty in making sweeping statements generalizing pro athletes in general.

How do you know this attitude is prevalent among players like John Lynch, Bailey etc? Especially in light of how guys like Troy Vincent, Domonique Foxworth etc have come out and pretty much asked for the league to be strict with repeat offenders since it's not something they want tarnishing their image?

[footstepsfrom#27]

You are giving far too much credit to the authorities...especially local authorities. Even now in the 2000's we still hear regularly of slam dunk cases getting blown by incompetence and mishandling by police departments especially when it is a type of case like this that they don't deal with on a regular basis.
Hence, my use of the phrase, "rankest possible incompetence"...

[Garcia Bronco]

How far is that from Gainesville? I was up delivering that way today.

about 2 1/2 to 3 hours

[footstepsfrom#27]

Not quite. What about the area around the house? How many acres does he have? And is it wooded area? Anything could be buried out there....
If there is half as much evidence as we've been led to believe...bloody carpet, dog fighting instruments, receipts for syringes, dozens of scarred and malnourished dogs, half the state of Virginia eager to testify of their personal knowledge of his nefarious deeds...it would hardly make much difference if something were burried deep in the woods.

The point is, the cops have easily had enough time to do their homework.

[NaptownChief]

The point is, the cops have easily had enough time to do their homework.



Now it is just a matter if the prosecutor is willing to do their job or if they will decide to look the other way kinda like with a "jewelry compartment" that smelled like weed. My guess is Arthur Blank and his folks were able to get the first prosecutor in Atlanta to look the other way, hopefully they don't have the same influence in Virginia.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Now it is just a matter if the prosecutor is willing to do their job or if they will decide to look the other way kinda like with a "jewelry compartment" that smelled like weed. My guess is Arthur Blank and his folks were able to get the first prosecutor in Atlanta to look the other way, hopefully they don't have the same influence in Virginia.
Even if I buy the idea that Arthur Blank is able to buy off cops and prosecutors at will, how would giving the cops an endless loop of access to the property change that? Additional time changes neither corruption nor incompetence.

[NaptownChief]

how would giving the cops an endless loop of access to the property change that? Additional time changes neither corruption nor incompetence.


I agree....who is saying otherwise?

[Garcia Bronco]

Now it is just a matter if the prosecutor is willing to do their job or if they will decide to look the other way kinda like with a "jewelry compartment" that smelled like weed. My guess is Arthur Blank and his folks were able to get the first prosecutor in Atlanta to look the other way, hopefully they don't have the same influence in Virginia.

I hear George Bush has fixed it so Vick will not be implicated. So I guess the corruption goes to highest level of government.

[NaptownChief]

I hear George Bush has fixed it so Vick will not be implicated. So I guess the corruption goes to highest level of government.



Very possible....giving amnesty to criminals seems to be his thing lately.

[Garcia Bronco]

Very possible....giving amnesty to criminals seems to be his thing lately.

I heard the DA was paid in cash....all in nickels and dimes...so it can't be traced

[Tredici]

If there is half as much evidence as we've been led to believe...bloody carpet, dog fighting instruments, receipts for syringes, dozens of scarred and malnourished dogs, half the state of Virginia eager to testify of their personal knowledge of his nefarious deeds...it would hardly make much difference if something were burried deep in the woods.

The point is, the cops have easily had enough time to do their homework.

What has been mentioned in the media outlets and what has been properly bagged and tagged are two different things. None of us know what the stage of investigation is at this point, what access has been granted via warrant, what has been determined off limits. You seem to be a bit more optimistic in the abilities of the authorities to have gotten things right. The abrupt sale of that property for less than half it's worth is a bizarre element in the entire process.

Then again, the whole thing is bizarre.

[NaptownChief]

I heard the DA was paid in cash....all in nickels and dimes...so it can't be traced


probably nickel and dime bags given Mexico and his family.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What has been mentioned in the media outlets and what has been properly bagged and tagged are two different things. None of us know what the stage of investigation is at this point, what access has been granted via warrant, what has been determined off limits. You seem to be a bit more optimistic in the abilities of the authorities to have gotten things right. The abrupt sale of that property for less than half it's worth is a bizarre element in the entire process.

Then again, the whole thing is bizarre.I have a feeling this is going to turn into a real problem for Vick.

[NaptownChief]

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a real problem for Vick.



It definitely adds a lot of extra stench to the case.

[footstepsfrom#27]

What has been mentioned in the media outlets and what has been properly bagged and tagged are two different things. None of us know what the stage of investigation is at this point, what access has been granted via warrant, what has been determined off limits. You seem to be a bit more optimistic in the abilities of the authorities to have gotten things right. The abrupt sale of that property for less than half it's worth is a bizarre element in the entire process.

Then again, the whole thing is bizarre.
Let's put it this way; it the cops can't find the evidence they're looking for in the WEEKS that they've had to fine tooth comb this property, especially given the fact that there was supposedly evidence lying everywhere in plain sight...and if the DA's office is to stupid to file a motion in court to halt the sale of the property, if in fact they felt they needed to do so in order to protect evidence, then they deserve to lose the case anyway. I fail to understand how providing incompetents endless access to the property will change them from being incompetents.

Bottom line...at some point the property owner has the right to return back on the property, and if selling it is what he wants to do, I don't see how that could possibly impact a case that has been prepared with even a smidgen of care.

[Tredici]

Let's put it this way; it the cops can't find the evidence they're looking for in the WEEKS that they've had to fine tooth comb this property, especially given the fact that there was supposedly evidence lying everywhere in plain sight...and if the DA's office is to stupid to file a motion in court to halt the sale of the property, if in fact they felt they needed to do so in order to protect evidence, then they deserve to lose the case anyway. I fail to understand how providing incompetents endless access to the property will change them from being incompetents.

Bottom line...at some point the property owner has the right to return back on the property, and if selling it is what he wants to do, I don't see how that could possibly impact a case that has been prepared with even a smidgen of care.

First of all it hasn't been WEEKS. Second of all you can't fine tooth comb anything without the proper warrants. Third of all a lot of stuff can be covered up or disappear while said warrants are being obtained. A sale of the property will further obsfucate said evidence. It isn't simply a matter of competence but also following the rules. Generally speaking the law is pretty stacked towards the defendents in this country. Not saying it shouldn't be, just that prosecuting isn't a slam dunk or the people doing that job necessarily deemed as incompetent.

[-Slap-]

I hear George Bush has fixed it so Vick will not be implicated. So I guess the corruption goes to highest level of government.

Its not fair to keep saying the highest level of government. W gave up coke more than five years ago.

[footstepsfrom#27]

First of all it hasn't been WEEKS. Second of all you can't fine tooth comb anything without the proper warrants. Third of all a lot of stuff can be covered up or disappear while said warrants are being obtained. A sale of the property will further obsfucate said evidence. It isn't simply a matter of competence but also following the rules. Generally speaking the law is pretty stacked towards the defendents in this country. Not saying it shouldn't be, just that prosecuting isn't a slam dunk or the people doing that job necessarily deemed as incompetent.
I'm betting the DA could have gotten any warrant needed within an hour of the time they entered the property and knew what they were looking at. It's already been reported that evidence was all over the place. How many examples of the same piece of evidence could possibly be needed? Vick may or may not get off...but if he does I'm pretty sure it won't have anything to do with the DA not having adequate opportunity to collect evidence. And any destruction of evidence that he had an opportunity to perpetrate, he would have had more than enough time to accomplish long ago.

[Tredici]

I'm betting the DA could have gotten any warrant needed within an hour of the time they entered the property and knew what they were looking at. It's already been reported that evidence was all over the place. How many examples of the same piece of evidence could possibly be needed? Vick may or may not get off...but if he does I'm pretty sure it won't have anything to do with the DA not having adequate opportunity to collect evidence. And any destruction of evidence that he had an opportunity to perpetrate, he would have had more than enough time to accomplish long ago.


Well there's no need to destroy evidence until you think you might get caught. And most people don't think they are going to get caught. And then their remorse is usually over getting caught - not for the criminal behavior. Whether Vick is charged or not, and whether Portis recants or not I suspect neither of them quite realized the wrath to be faced by the dog lovers in this country. Won't surprise me to hear boos when either of them are introduced in any stadium announcing their name in the future. And maybe for guys with egos as big as all outdoors that is going to be more apt punishment than actually being convicted of the crime.

[Popps]

Pit bulls in Vick case likely to be euthanized

Associated Press
Posted: 3 hours ago

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (AP) - Dozens of dogs seized in an investigation into possible dogfighting on land owned by Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick likely would be euthanized if investigators determine they are fighting dogs, the Humane Society said.
"Almost 100 percent" of animals seized in dogfighting investigations are euthanized because they have a level of aggression that makes them dangerous pets and neighbors, said John Goodwin, a spokesman for the Humane Society of the United States.
BlogJam ...
It's hard to believe many of you out there would support Clinton Portis' whole "it's his property" defense of Michael Vick. But then, it was hard to believe anyone in the NFL would come forward in defense of dog fighting in the first place. So here goes: What do you think?

Also...
Hench: Biting back at Portis
Vick investigation continues
Video: Portis defends Vick
Poll: What do you think?
Congressman blasts Vick
Falcons owner 'stern' with Vick

"It's simply not fair to someone who has a black lab or a Yorkie to have a fighting dog next door because if that dog gets loose, he's going to ... kill that person's pet," Goodwin said, making it clear he was speaking in generic terms only.

[watermock]

What do you expect from someone with the surname of Poindexter?

I agree with PFT on this. I haven't heard anything about even naming the buyer of the property for half value or it it was impoundeed pending a complete investigation.

I'm no huge PFT fan, but he brings crap to the table rather effectively. I think he's on the mark the DA just wants this to go away. He hasn't even released who bought the property. I haven't seen such a mopup since Pulp Fiction. And who can really blame him? The OJ trial proved that oil is stronger than water, and he likely would be left with a jury pool of idiots as well, either one way or the other, it would of been messy.

All they needed in the south was another Marcia romance with a fellow prosecutor. This is such obvious cowardice it's incredible.

He knows this trial would cost millions and wants to run away and be an Osterich. This would be a very very long trial, and he doesn't have a taste for it.

Oh well...they are just dogs that will mostly be euthenized at the pound right? What's the big deal here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever. This local yokel DA isn't going to go against a dream team of lawyers and appears to be bowing out.

IS POINDEXTER POISED (AGAIN) TO GIVE VICK A PASS?

Surry County prosecutor Gerald Poindexter has gone back-and-forth over the past few weeks in his comments regarding the Mike Vick dog fighting investigation.

First, Poindexter said publicly that Vick's claim that he never comes to the Virginia property he owned (until abruptly dumping it two weeks ago) is bogus. Because the ability to refute such a clearly self-serving claim could go a long way toward allowing a reasonable person to believe that Vick lied because he has something to hide, we assumed that Poindexter would aggressively comb through the evidence and, if appropriate, file charges against Vick.

But then Poindexter appeared to go soft, suggesting that he saw no evidence of dog fighting at Vick's property and disputing media reports from sources involved in the investigation.

Next, apparently in response to the perception that Poindexter was plotting to stick his head in the sand, he conceded that Vick's property hosted dog fighting.

"I'm convinced from what I saw that dog fighting has occurred down there, but who was involved in it I don't know at this point," Poindexter said last week. "We're going to find out."

Now, Poindexter is heading again in the other direction. After meeting with investigators on Monday to review the information collected to date, Poindexter says that there isn't enough evidence to link anyone to dog fighting on the Vick property.

"I know everybody is saying, 'When are those fools in Surry County going to get up off their butts and do something?'" Poindexter said, according to the Virginian-Pilot. "But what are we going to do?"

Actually, Mr. Poindexter, that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is, "Why in the world is Poindexter so damn wishy-washy and who is in place to investigate whether he has some other motivation that is causing him to behave so erratically?"

Poindexter's only explanation for his current position is that he's being careful because he blew a dog-fighting case several years ago. "We lost that one because of an illegal search, a Fourth Amendment violation," Poindexter said.

Fine. But there's no illegal search issue here. The documents recently obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution spell out in detail the steps taken by police to secure an appropriate warrant after authorities arrived at the house last month to conduct a search based only on suspicion of drug activity, and then discovered evidence of a possible dog-fighting operation.

The possibility that Vick's millions will buy him a post-O.J. dream team of lawyers who'll overrun Poindexter and his staff with motions and briefs and legal technicalities shouldn't be a factor in the determination of whether charges will be pursued. The decision should be based on the evidence.

And the evidence apparently is there. Mark Kumpf, a dog-fighting expert who is assisting the present investigation, told the Virginian-Pilot in response to Poindexter's most recent remarks: "There is more evidence there than has been used to convict several other people in Virginia."

But those "several other people" weren't represented by the latest aspiring Johnnie Cochran. Maybe Poindexter is afraid of losing, or maybe he is simply too lazy to try to win. The guy is receiving a salary, after all. He gets no bonus or overtime or other extra compensation if he takes on a case that will result in hundreds of hours of work, much of which will occur with national legal pundits scrutinizing his every move.

The "real" media would be wise to take a look at the cases Poindexter has tried as prosecutor. How many has he won? How many has he lost? Did he lose any that were particularly embarrassing to him personally? There are plenty of lawyers who get gun shy after losing their shirts in court, and thereafter become very reluctant to dive back into the fray.

So while some are speculating (key word: speculating) that Poindexter could be on the take or (even worse) possibly has been at the Vick property a time or two to partake in the entertainment, we think that a very basic aspect of human nature is at work here.

Poindexter, in our opinion, simply doesn't want the headaches that will go along with pursuing from cradle to grave criminal charges against a superstar athlete.

[Northman]

On a brighter note for Mr. Vick i heard on the radio the other day the Prosecutor still doesnt have any solid evidence to put Vick at the house. But, the investigation continues.

[Popps]

Immediately dumping the property in a fire-sale is a pretty good sign that Vick feels he's done nothing wrong.

Wait...

[-Slap-]

Looks like the NFL is offering its security services to aid in the investigation of the case against Vick. I wonder how Michael feels about that. Maybe Goodall didn't appreciate that little prick lying through his teeth to him last month.

NFL enters probe of Vick (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/05/24/0525nflvick.html)

By STEVE WYCHE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

05/25/07

Flowery Branch — NFL security has contacted investigators in Surry County, Va., to offer its services in the investigation of illegal dogfighting at a property owned by Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, a person with knowledge of the situation told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

NFL security personnel visited Surry County offices Thursday unannounced, the person told the AJC. They also had made calls to local officials.

Also, Surry County investigators have spoken to, or plan to speak with, persons who claim to have information regarding dogfighting at the property, the person said.

The NFL declined specific comment on involvement in the investigation. League spokesman Greg Aiello said it is routine for NFL security to get involved in legal matters with players and other league personnel.

Investigators have not interviewed Vick, according to Commonwealth Attorney Gerald Poindexter, the prosecutor in the region.

"Not to my knowledge," Poindexter said Thursday.

Vick flew to Virginia after completing the third session of offseason team workouts Thursday at Falcons headquarters in Flowery Branch.

Investigators met Monday to examine evidence in the case. Charges have not yet been filed. Vick has denied knowledge of dogfighting at the rural property.

At least six people lived or worked at the property, Poindexter said. Vick's primary residence is in Duluth, but he did occasionally visit the Virginia property, which is near his hometown of Newport News.

Poindexter has said there was evidence of dogfighting in a two-story house on the property — 66 dogs, mainly pit bulls, were seized — but there might not be enough to file charges at this point. Poindexter emphasized that the investigation is far from over.

Eyewitness testimony has not been needed to gain convictions in dogfighting cases, but "it would help" in this investigation, Poindexter said.

There is no timetable in making a decision to bring charges, Poindexter said.

Based on other recent dogfighting investigations, Vick could play through the season before finding out if he will be cleared.

In a recent federal dogfighting case in Ohio, it took investigators 14 months to file charges. It took 11 months for investigators to gain the conviction of Stacey A. Miller of Richmond, Va., for dogfighting and animal-cruelty.

Under the league's new player-conduct policy, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and/or the Falcons could take disciplinary action if Vick is suspected of being involved in dogfighting.

The presence of NFL security shows Goodell is closely watching the situation.

Poindexter, Surry County Sheriff Harold Brown and other state and local investigators reviewed evidence seized from Vick's property in a two-hour meeting Monday. A representative from the U.S. Department of Agriculture also attended.

The USDA was involved in the investigation that led to charges in the Ohio dogfighting case.

"We don't comment on, confirm or deny whether we've got any investigative activity ongoing pertaining to a particular situation or incident," said Paul M. Feeney, Deputy Counsel for the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[JCMElway]

I just saw a great editorial on the brutality of dog fighting. This is a story I hope does not get brushed to the back pages of the sports section as it gets older. Vick should get at least a year suspension for this. (I emailed the author and comended her for the fabulous article.)

Oh, and I hope a dog-loving linebacker takes a well placed shot at Portis' knees when he's blocking somebody.


Brutality is brutality, whether it's against a human or animal
By NANCY ARMOUR, AP Sports Columnist
May 23, 2007

Before Clinton Portis opens his mouth again to make light of dog fighting, maybe he should know something about what he's defending.

Two dogs, bred to be hyperaggressive toward other dogs, nip and bite each other until one gets a firm hold. With its jaws firmly clamped, it will shake its head violently, ripping the other dog's flesh and tissue apart. This can go on for as long as two hours, the fight only ending when one dog is either dead or has quit. There's little difference, because a dog that quits is useless to its owner and is as good as dead, anyway.

ADVERTISEMENT
The "winner," meanwhile, doesn't escape unscathed. Gaping, bloody wounds, shredded muzzles and broken front legs are just a few of the usual battle scars.

"This isn't like when you're at the dog park and a couple of Labrador retrievers get into a quick tiff over a stick," John Goodwin, of the Humane Society of the United States, said during a telephone interview Wednesday. "This is something organized, with dogs that are bred for this specific purpose, that just tear each other to pieces."

According to Portis, though, there's "no reason" to go after Michael Vick for dog fighting. They're Vick's dogs and Vick's property, the Washington Redskins running back said. The man should be able to do what he wants.

Portis' comments were as offensive as dog fighting itself. They're the epitome of the permissive arrogance that turns people off to pro athletes. Spinning it, the way agent Drew Rosenhaus tried to do Wednesday, only makes it worse.

Let's leave Vick aside for the moment. Authorities are still trying to figure out exactly what happened at his former home in Virginia, and he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is finished.

But Portis is a different story.

During a TV interview Monday, Portis said if Vick winds up being punished, authorities would be "putting him behind bars for no reason -- over a dog fight." He added that dog fighting is everywhere, as if that somehow made it OK.

"I know a lot of back roads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it," he said.

There are a lot of things that are available in a lot of places. It doesn't legitimize them or make them any more palatable.

There's a reason dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states and a felony in 48 of them. It's a blood sport, and it's a death sentence for thousands of dogs each year. In Los Angeles alone, more than 2,800 pit bulls and pit bull mixes were euthanized last year, according to LA Animal Services. Even dogs that are "rescued" during raids often wind up being killed because they've been bred to be so aggressive.

Dog fighting is barbaric, reprehensible and cruel.

Some excuse it by saying it's similar to boxing. There's one big difference: Anyone who steps in a ring has made a conscious choice to do it.

"We're talking about live animals here," Goodwin said. "If we're going to have animals in our home as our family members, we have an obligation to treat them right. I don't know if I can get that across, though, to someone who doesn't have a problem with dogs fighting each other to the death."

As soon as his comments got some air time, Portis backpedaled at warp speed. In a statement Monday night, he said he would never condone dog fighting. Sure, just erase everything he said a couple of hours earlier.

The Redskins apologized on his behalf Tuesday. On Wednesday, it was Rosenhaus' turn.

"I like the fact that Clinton stood up for another athlete, but I want to clarify that he in no way, shape or form condones dog fighting or any type of illegal activity," Rosenhaus said. "I spent the last day or so with Clinton trying to get that message out."

Here's a thought: Maybe that time would have been better spent making sure Portis doesn't say something stupid in the first place.

There's no excuse for what Portis said, and he and Rosenhaus are making it worse by trying to find one. Some things are simply indefensible, and anything that spills blood in a vicious, violent manner falls under that category.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp. Senseless brutality is senseless brutality. Whether it's against a dog or a person is beside the point.

Nancy Armour is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. Write to her at narmour@ap.org

[orange 4 life]

can someone repost that link to "the truth about dog fighting"?

all those late to the party should see it.
it needs to come with a warning label as its REALLY hard to get
through the article with the horrifying pictures, but it shows how
barbaric and cruel dog fighting really is, and God willing it will make
people angry.
maybe with enough people seeing it angry enough to do something about it.
thanks,

jake

[fontaine]

can someone repost that link to "the truth about dog fighting"?

all those late to the party should see it.
it needs to come with a warning label as its REALLY hard to get
through the article with the horrifying pictures, but it shows how
barbaric and cruel dog fighting really is, and God willing it will make
people angry.
maybe with enough people seeing it angry enough to do something about it.
thanks,

jake

Why do you want people to be angry over this issue? This isn't a witch hunt or thirst for instant justice.

Like it said in a previous article it has taken up to a year for authorities to gather enough evidence to make charges or get a conviction.

Are you prepared to be angry for the next 11 to 14 months?

I hope they take their time over this and arrest everyone involved, not just Vick (if he is guilty) so that they make sure idiots like Portis don't just flap their gums casually the next time he's confronted with an issue like this.

[Popps]

Why do you want people to be angry over this issue?


He's a dog lover... like a lot of us.

[orange 4 life]

Are you prepared to be angry for the next 11 to 14 months?


yes

[Northman]

Why do you want people to be angry over this issue?

When is it a good time?