Vick will never be charged(merged)

[DCCardsFan]

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.

[Jason in LA]

I didn't know the Vick case was a race issue.

Seeing that you brought up race, I'll comment on it. I find it interesting that the justice system is out of wack because white guys got screwed over (even though they never went to trial) while black guys got off.

Throughout the history of this country it has been the other way around.

[DCCardsFan]

You are absolutely right. Until recently, it has been that way.

I guess it is a sign of progress that it works the other way sometimes.

However, it also gives white racists real traction. That is, there actually is injustice they can point to, and it makes their arguments more appealing to impressionable youth.

That is not a good thing.

And one doesn't have to read more than about two of your posts before you find out that it is ALL ABOUT RACE for you, Jason.

If I were a black man, I would be a lot more appalled by this than I am as a white man.

[Killericon]

Yeah, right, because if a white franchise NFL QB were in his situation, he'd be prosecuted to the fullest, right?

It's about Pro Athletes. Race has nothing to do with it.

Of course, maybe the dogs weren't that badly hurt. The media tends to exxagerate, you know.

Don't misunderstand me, though. If Vick is guilty, I say he gets 10-15. However, I stand by the concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty".

[fuzzy]

Well that intervew definately came across as weird.

"someone needs to be held accountable for this, right"

"for what!?"

"for fighting dogs.."

"heh"

...uhhh?

[Moon§hiner]

If the commish. does nothing to Vick for conduct detrimental to the league then PacMan will have a better case and Goodall will be shown to be a toothless guard dog. Nothing more.

[ludo21]

if I was black, I bet I could dunk......

[Jason in LA]

if I was black, I bet I could dunk......

Well, I was able to dunk in the 10th grade. ;D

[ludo21]

Well, I was able to dunk in the 10th grade. ;D

;D

I got the net in 10th grade.......

and btw.... its caz you "types" have that extra ligament, I SWEAR!!! :~ohyah!:

[theAPAOps5]

That damn extra ligament. If I had that extra ligament I would have been able to touch the net in the 10th grade.:~ohyah!:

[Jason in LA]

You are absolutely right. Until recently, it has been that way.

I guess it is a sign of progress that it works the other way sometimes.

However, it also gives white racists real traction. That is, there actually is injustice they can point to, and it makes their arguments more appealing to impressionable youth.

That is not a good thing.

And one doesn't have to read more than about two of your posts before you find out that it is ALL ABOUT RACE for you, Jason.

If I were a black man, I would be a lot more appalled by this than I am as a white man.

Until recently? Nothing much has changed. You are using a few high profile cases and trying to say that things have changed.

As for it being all about race with me, I didn't bring up the race issue. You did. I questioned if this was even a race issue, and then commented on your race comment. In most cases I comment to somebody else's race comment.

You made your statement like I comment on race in threads that have nothing to do with race. I only comment about race in threads that are about race. Again, you brought up the race issue, not me.

Just because Vick is black doesn't mean that I should be appalled. Vick does not represent me, or the race on a whole. This is not a race case. Why are you trying to make it one?

[Moon§hiner]

I look at it like Vick is an american....if he is involved then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law like the average joe american would be.

[footstepsfrom#27]

You are absolutely right. Until recently, it has been that way.

I guess it is a sign of progress that it works the other way sometimes.

However, it also gives white racists real traction. That is, there actually is injustice they can point to, and it makes their arguments more appealing to impressionable youth.

That is not a good thing.

And one doesn't have to read more than about two of your posts before you find out that it is ALL ABOUT RACE for you, Jason.

If I were a black man, I would be a lot more appalled by this than I am as a white man.
Dude please...if you think Michael freaking Vick walking on a dog fighting charge makes a fat rat's crap worth of difference to the 230 year history of racial injustice in the judicial system you must be partying with Mock.

[cutthemdown]

I didn't know the Vick case was a race issue.

Seeing that you brought up race, I'll comment on it. I find it interesting that the justice system is out of wack because white guys got screwed over (even though they never went to trial) while black guys got off.

Throughout the history of this country it has been the other way around.

The reason more blacks are convicted and put in prison is because blacks commit more crimes. Until you start realizing that you will keep being an apologist and a defender of thugs.

[loborugger]

I didn't know the Vick case was a race issue.

Seeing that you brought up race, I'll comment on it. I find it interesting that the justice system is out of wack because white guys got screwed over (even though they never went to trial) while black guys got off.

Throughout the history of this country it has been the other way around.


Two wrongs dont make a right.

Only in this case, I dont see it so much as a black/white issue but a wealthy well defended guy/poor public defendant guy issue.

[p7superfly]

Justice for the wealthy.

[REB]

FOXSports Radio's Chris Landry claims ex-Falcons DB Ray Buchanan told him at last month's draft that "Michael (Vick) has been into this dog fighting for so long that...he not only knew about, he is behind all of it."

"He's paying for all of it," Landry said, using Buchanan as his source. "Apparently, he's into it big time." Buchanon and Vick were teammates in Atlanta for two seasons.

rotoworld.com

[Popps]

I didn't know the Vick case was a race issue.


Hilarious!

[Atwater His Ass]

The reason more blacks are convicted and put in prison is because blacks commit more crimes. Until you start realizing that you will keep being an apologist and a defender of thugs.

It's amazing how many people out there can't comprehend this simple fact.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It's amazing how many people out there can't comprehend this simple fact.
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.

[DCCardsFan]

Dude please...if you think Michael freaking Vick walking on a dog fighting charge makes a fat rat's crap worth of difference to the 230 year history of racial injustice in the judicial system you must be partying with Mock.


It won't change the past injustices no, and it won't ever make up for them.

What I find confusing and irritating as that some black people (apparently you) seem to think that OJ-style injustices are a good thing, as they are "making up for the past" injustices against blacks.

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not a good thing, and if you want to be practical, you should understand that it also provokes a reaction from white folk. Not the kind of reaction that is quantifiable, but don't think there are no consequences: this kind of stuff perpetuates old stereotypes, and will cause some white people to not want to have black folks in their neighborhood, not be OK with their daughters marrying a black guy, etc. That's why I said this stuff is setting back race relations. AND THESE THINGS ARE SETTING BACK RACE RELATIONS.

As for whether the Vick case has a racial element to it, it clearly does.

It bothers ME, as a white man, a whole lot more when a white guy drags a black guy behind a car in a racially motivated incident than when it is the other way around. Why? The same reason Koreans are a little ashamed about Cho. Sure, it doesn't mean all Koreans are that way, or that all whites are racist, but it reflects badly on me in some way when a white guy commits a crime against black people.

Plenty of black people feel this way about OJ and that chick who accused the lacrosse players, but it seems a large majority do not. Many are also embarrassed by the example guys like Vick is setting, but Jason in LA and Footsteps are obviously not one of them.

Vick is an embarrassment, and to a certain extent, he DOES represent inner-city black people, as he is one of the biggest names in football, and represents hip-hop culture to a certain degree. If you don't think there are hundreds of thousands of black teen-agers who look up to him, and applaud him for "keeping it real," you're crazy. And it is NOT GOOD, when what he is showing is that smoking weed is cool, fighting dogs is cool, blowing off school is cool. If you're an athlete/rapper, VICK HAS SHOWN, you can walk on water.

Sure, white athletes are protected to a certain extent, but I do not think they are in the same degree. Believe me, I'm not jealous. No more jealous than I am of the parents that give their 4 year old kids candy all the time, when I do not.

I think this kind of "protection" is what is creating the problem, and it starts in high school and extends into college. And the system seems happy to protect black kids more than white kids. Why, I don't know. But I would blame it on stereotypes and racism regarding black folks. It's almost like white racists WANT the black superstars to act like Vick. And he happily obliges them....... Whereas, white kids who are far less smart than Mike Vick seem to have people take a real interest in them actually getting an education. The interest the admin showed Mike Vick in college was shown when they gave him a pimped-out SUV.

I don't think there's any question it is racism that causes this (not reverse racism). A "good white kid" is corrected more by the high school admin., coaches, etc, and it teaches them to at least pay lip-service to the system. White athletes smoke weed, beat their wives, and probably fight dogs, too. But they don't bring it on the plane, and they're not personally involved in actually raising huge amounts of fighting dogs. They keep it on the down-low. They don't act like they're completely ABOVE THE LAW. And the reason they don't do this, is because more often than the black kids coming from the hood, they are shown that there are consequences for GETTING CAUGHT. A lot of great 15 year old inner-city black athletes are taught that if they're caught, people will protect them, and all they have to do is say they won't do it again. I know this is a stereo-type, but some stereotypes are valid.

And I really think both black people (who celebrate it) AND white people (who look the other direction) are allowing the caricature that is Mike Vick (and Pacman Jones), and many others to exist. Really, the only people who cry out are black men like Bill Cosby and Jason Whitlock, and of course, they are generally shouted down by guys like Jason and called UNcle Toms.

It's BS, but it is what it is.

[Broncojef]

It won't change the past injustices no, and it won't ever make up for them.

What I find confusing and irritating as that some black people (apparently you) seem to think that OJ-style injustices are a good thing, as they are "making up for the past" injustices against blacks.

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not a good thing, and if you want to be practical, you should understand that it also provokes a reaction from white folk. Not the kind of reaction that is quantifiable, but don't think there are no consequences: this kind of stuff perpetuates old stereotypes, and will cause some white people to not want to have black folks in their neighborhood, not be OK with their daughters marrying a black guy, etc. That's why I said this stuff is setting back race relations. AND THESE THINGS ARE SETTING BACK RACE RELATIONS.

As for whether the Vick case has a racial element to it, it clearly does.

It bothers ME, as a white man, a whole lot more when a white guy drags a black guy behind a car in a racially motivated incident than when it is the other way around. Why? The same reason Koreans are a little ashamed about Cho. Sure, it doesn't mean all Koreans are that way, or that all whites are racist, but it reflects badly on me in some way when a white guy commits a crime against black people.

Plenty of black people feel this way about OJ and that chick who accused the lacrosse players, but it seems a large majority do not. Many are also embarrassed by the example guys like Vick is setting, but Jason in LA and Footsteps are obviously not one of them.

Vick is an embarrassment, and to a certain extent, he DOES represent inner-city black people, as he is one of the biggest names in football, and represents hip-hop culture to a certain degree. If you don't think there are hundreds of thousands of black teen-agers who look up to him, and applaud him for "keeping it real," you're crazy. And it is NOT GOOD, when what he is showing is that smoking weed is cool, fighting dogs is cool, blowing off school is cool. If you're an athlete/rapper, VICK HAS SHOWN, you can walk on water.

Sure, white athletes are protected to a certain extent, but I do not think they are in the same degree. Believe me, I'm not jealous. No more jealous than I am of the parents that give their 4 year old kids candy all the time, when I do not.

I think this kind of "protection" is what is creating the problem, and it starts in high school and extends into college. And the system seems happy to protect black kids more than white kids. Why, I don't know. But I would blame it on stereotypes and racism regarding black folks. It's almost like white racists WANT the black superstars to act like Vick. And he happily obliges them....... Whereas, white kids who are far less smart than Mike Vick seem to have people take a real interest in them actually getting an education. The interest the admin showed Mike Vick in college was shown when they gave him a pimped-out SUV.

I don't think there's any question it is racism that causes this (not reverse racism). A "good white kid" is corrected more by the high school admin., coaches, etc, and it teaches them to at least pay lip-service to the system. White athletes smoke weed, beat their wives, and probably fight dogs, too. But they don't bring it on the plane, and they're not personally involved in actually raising huge amounts of fighting dogs. They keep it on the down-low. They don't act like they're completely ABOVE THE LAW. And the reason they don't do this, is because more often than the black kids coming from the hood, they are shown that there are consequences for GETTING CAUGHT. A lot of great 15 year old inner-city black athletes are taught that if they're caught, people will protect them, and all they have to do is say they won't do it again. I know this is a stereo-type, but some stereotypes are valid.

And I really think both black people (who celebrate it) AND white people (who look the other direction) are allowing the caricature that is Mike Vick (and Pacman Jones), and many others to exist. Really, the only people who cry out are black men like Bill Cosby and Jason Whitlock, and of course, they are generally shouted down by guys like Jason and called UNcle Toms.

It's BS, but it is what it is.

Apparently the black community finds injustice for black people commiting crimes important in equalling out past injustices...they care nothing at all for equality or for justice, its all about having things their way for years so that in some way they feel equal. A greater percentage of the black race commits crimes and deserves jail time. I view Vicks circumstance just as OJs, they have $$ and are above the law. Black or white if anyone had done this without money or fame they'd be up on charges. They system protects those who have.

[footstepsfrom#27]

What I find confusing and irritating as that some black people (apparently you) seem to think that OJ-style injustices are a good thing, as they are "making up for the past" injustices against blacks.
I'm white dude...and OJ should have got the chair. Where'd you get this interesting leap of logic that I think OJ should have got off?
It is not a good thing, and if you want to be practical, you should understand that it also provokes a reaction from white folk. Not the kind of reaction that is quantifiable, but don't think there are no consequences: this kind of stuff perpetuates old stereotypes, and will cause some white people to not want to have black folks in their neighborhood, not be OK with their daughters marrying a black guy, etc. That's why I said this stuff is setting back race relations. AND THESE THINGS ARE SETTING BACK RACE RELATIONS.
Right...because racists need an excuse to find justification for hatred...pffftt...gimme a break. You think everyone on this board is upset over Vick hurting dogs? I promise you that a good percentage of people whining about this could care less if it wasn't a black player. In the grand scheme of things Michael Vick's crimes, assuming he's committed them...don't make a drop in the bucket compared to what goes on every day around the country that skews the justice system in favor of whites and people with means.
Many are also embarrassed by the example guys like Vick is setting, but Jason in LA and Footsteps are obviously not one of them.
Is there some reason I should feel personally embarrassed by the example a millionaire jock sets?
Vick is an embarrassment, and to a certain extent, he DOES represent inner-city black people...
Bull****.
...he is one of the biggest names in football, and represents hip-hop culture to a certain degree.
He represents Michael Vick.

The rest of that crap isn't worth responding to.

[DCCardsFan]

I'm white dude...and OJ should have got the chair. Where'd you get this interesting leap of logic that I think OJ should have got off?

Right...because racists need an excuse to find justification for hatred...pffftt...gimme a break. You think everyone on this board is upset over Vick hurting dogs? I promise you that a good percentage of people whining about this could care less if it wasn't a black player. In the grand scheme of things Michael Vick's crimes, assuming he's committed them...don't make a drop in the bucket compared to what goes on every day around the country that skews the justice system in favor of whites and people with means.

Is there some reason I should feel personally embarrassed by the example a millionaire jock sets?

Bull****.

He represents Michael Vick.

The rest of that crap isn't worth responding to.

I'm confusing you with someone else, obviously. I thought I remembered you saying you were black.

Owning, raising, and fighting dogs for entertainment? If Vick were white, I would think (and hope) there would be near unanimity that he deserves immediate punishment and is morally bankrupt.

Vick represents inner-city black folk, there's no question. There are people emulating him, and he is not a pariah in the community, by any means. If anything, he's gained in stature because of this incident and the water-bottle incident.

He absolutely speaks FOR a certain segment of the population that does not feel like it gets a real voice from their politicians or on TV. They feel their real mouthpieces are tha athletes and entertainers who "keep it real" (i.e. - a total rejection of everything "white" and "suburban").

To think he simply represents himself is beyond naive.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Vick represents inner-city black folk, there's no question.
He absolutely speaks FOR a certain segment of the population that does not feel like it gets a real voice from their politicians or on TV. They feel their real mouthpieces are tha athletes and entertainers who "keep it real" (i.e. - a total rejection of everything "white" and "suburban").

To think he simply represents himself is beyond naive.
Right...blacks are so ignorant and stupid they think Michael Vick is their new civil rights savior and the answer to their problems. Thanks for letting me know.

You must be a flaming liberal who thinks people are responsible for other people's actions. I prefer to believe we're all responsible for our OWN actions.

Vick is as much a spokesman for blacks as Byron De La Beckwith represents whites.

[Lev Vyvanse]

The reason more blacks are convicted and put in prison is because blacks commit more crimes. Until you start realizing that you will keep being an apologist and a defender of thugs.

It's been some time since I was current in this type of stat but when I was it looked something like this:

Percentage of non violent crimes committed by African Americans: 15%

Percentage of non violent crimes gone to trial in case involving African Americans: 50%

Percentage of non violent crimes were African Americans go to a correctional facility: 75%

African American population: 13%

[DCCardsFan]

Right...blacks are so ignorant and stupid they think Michael Vick is their new civil rights savior and the answer to their problems. Thanks for letting me know.

You must be a flaming liberal who thinks people are responsible for other people's actions. I prefer to believe we're all responsible for our OWN actions.

Vick is as much a spokesman for blacks as Byron De La Beckwith represents whites.


Nope, not a liberal. Not by a longshot.

I didn't say he represents ALL blacks, but he does represent a LOT of black people. That is, a lot of black people see what he does and says and agree with it, and want to "be like Mike." He is a role model. That is all I meant. He certainly represents more black people in the inner-city community than Barack Obama, and probably even Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Everyone knows, including the black folks who would vote for Al and Jesse in a second, that they're out for themselves and are a bit full of it.

I have no idea who Byron De La Beckwith is, and I am generally a knowledgable guy, so obviously he does not represent MANY whites. I take it he's KKK or something? I'm sure he does represent some. That is, there are people who like what he has to say. So when he says it, they are getting a voice without having to say it themselves.

Mike Vick carries a lot of weight in the lower-class black communities, especially among the young.

But keep believing that there is no such thing as individuals effecting social change. Keep believing that everyone makes their own mind up about everything, and does not allow bias or heroes or stars to aid their decision-making. Keep believing that Mike Vick smoking weed and blowing off school makes no difference to anyone. Keep believing that when Mike Vick says or does something, there's NO ONE out there nodding their heads in approval.

It may not be fair that he's a role model, but he is. And he has a lot of fans who like him for more than just his football skills - they love that he's "keeping it real."

[KillerBronco#76]

Sorry didn't bother reading some of the other posts about race as it doesnt seem like much of an issue in this case.

But yea really what makes america run, $$$$$. if you have $ then you can commit the exact same crime as someone who doesnt have the $ to pay their way thru the court system and get off easier. The court system feeds off of $ and the more $ you have to pay the courts the more you can get off with its a simple fact. Our court system is biased towards not blacks or whites or latinos but $.

It just so happens that alot of minorities tend to be in the lower classes so its a form of racism but not a form put in place on purpose . Because people who have less $ get longer sentances. When you commit a crime your gonna pay with time and $. And since "time is $" the court system decides if you have enough $ you can shave off some of that time.

At least this is my oppinion from my experiences and of experiences many people i know have had with the courts.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Nope, not a liberal. Not by a longshot.

I didn't say he represents ALL blacks, but he does represent a LOT of black people. That is, a lot of black people see what he does and says and agree with it, and want to "be like Mike." He is a role model. That is all I meant. He certainly represents more black people in the inner-city community than Barack Obama, and probably even Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Everyone knows, including the black folks who would vote for Al and Jesse in a second, that they're out for themselves and are a bit full of it.

I have no idea who Byron De La Beckwith is, and I am generally a knowledgable guy, so obviously he does not represent MANY whites. I take it he's KKK or something? I'm sure he does represent some. That is, there are people who like what he has to say. So when he says it, they are getting a voice without having to say it themselves.

Mike Vick carries a lot of weight in the lower-class black communities, especially among the young.

But keep believing that there is no such thing as individuals effecting social change. Keep believing that everyone makes their own mind up about everything, and does not allow bias or heroes or stars to aid their decision-making. Keep believing that Mike Vick smoking weed and blowing off school makes no difference to anyone. Keep believing that when Mike Vick says or does something, there's NO ONE out there nodding their heads in approval.

It may not be fair that he's a role model, but he is. And he has a lot of fans who like him for more than just his football skills - they love that he's "keeping it real."
How would you know what black people think of Michael Vick?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Sorry didn't bother reading some of the other posts about race as it doesnt seem like much of an issue in this case.

But yea really what makes america run, $$$$$. if you have $ then you can commit the exact same crime as someone who doesnt have the $ to pay their way thru the court system and get off easier. The court system feeds off of $ and the more $ you have to pay the courts the more you can get off with its a simple fact. Our court system is biased towards not blacks or whites or latinos but $.

It just so happens that alot of minorities tend to be in the lower classes so its a form of racism but not a form put in place on purpose . Because people who have less $ get longer sentances. When you commit a crime your gonna pay with time and $. And since "time is $" the court system decides if you have enough $ you can shave off some of that time.

At least this is my oppinion from my experiences and of experiences many people i know have had with the courts.
The Dallas County District Attorney's office openly maintained a handbook on how to keep blacks off juries until the early 90's. Insiders said it was being used behind the scenes up till 4 years ago when it was exposed in the media.

Anybody who thinks the US judicial system is not radically biased towards blacks has no idea what has been going on. It's true that money is a major part of the problem, but it's only part of the problem.

[DCCardsFan]

How would you know what black people think of Michael Vick?

So do you not believe that many, many young black kids emulate and see MV as a hero?

Or are you just saying I can't make a judgment about it because I'm white?

It doesn't take a genius, or dark skin, to look at hip-hop culture and see what is going on, and that Mike Vick's and Pacman Jones' behavior is celebrated by a lot of people.

Sounds like you need some waking up to do. Might want to start by laying the pipe down.

[Popps]

It doesn't matter what color he is. He's a ****ing idiot. It just happens that black people are stuck with him in their race. I suppose having fewer representatives in the spotlight, if I were black... I'd be ashamed of this dumbf#ck. I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?

Pro football has idiots of all flavors. But, higher percentage of blacks statistically leads to a higher percentage of idiots. Vick is right up there near the top.

Race isn't the issue here, outside of the minds of a few message board dwellers. The issue is the college and pro systems that farm these kinds of morons, and the continual pardoning of the behavior by those systems, the media and the fans.

[footstepsfrom#27]

So do you not believe that many, many young black kids emulate and see MV as a hero?
I don't know...do you have evidence that a high percentage of them do? If so produce it. Role models come in all forms...your selectively choosing Vick as your iconic representative of blacks in America speaks volumes.
Or are you just saying I can't make a judgment about it because I'm white?
How many black people have you asked what their opinion of Michael Vick is...one or two?
It doesn't take a genius, or dark skin, to look at hip-hop culture and see what is going on, and that Mike Vick's and Pacman Jones' behavior is celebrated by a lot of people.
Most hip hop music is purchased by white kids.
Sounds like you need some waking up to do. Might want to start by laying the pipe down.
You sound just like most of the other simpletons on this board who don't seem capable of getting past skin color any time a pro athlete gets in trouble. It's the 21st century dude...you're the one who needs to wake up. Michael Vick is probably a complete douche bag...doesn't mean he's going to burglarize your house or jack your car. It doesn't even mean he's going to be marrying your daughter...though it might be funny if he did.

[Northman]

It doesn't matter what color he is. He's a ****ing idiot. It just happens that black people are stuck with him in their race. I suppose having fewer representatives in the spotlight, if I were black... I'd be ashamed of this dumbf#ck. I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?

Pro football has idiots of all flavors. But, higher percentage of blacks statistically leads to a higher percentage of idiots. Vick is right up there near the top.

Race isn't the issue here, outside of the minds of a few message board dwellers. The issue is the college and pro systems that farm these kinds of morons, and the continual pardoning of the behavior by those systems, the media and the fans.

Amen.

[-Slap-]

Yeah, right, because if a white franchise NFL QB were in his situation, he'd be prosecuted to the fullest, right?

It's about Pro Athletes. Race has nothing to do with it.

Of course, maybe the dogs weren't that badly hurt. The media tends to exxagerate, you know.

Don't misunderstand me, though. If Vick is guilty, I say he gets 10-15. However, I stand by the concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty".

That badly hurt dogs get shot in the head and dumped like so much garbage. That's how dogfighting works.

[theAPAOps5]

It doesn't matter what color he is. He's a ****ing idiot. It just happens that black people are stuck with him in their race. I suppose having fewer representatives in the spotlight, if I were black... I'd be ashamed of this dumbf#ck. I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?

Pro football has idiots of all flavors. But, higher percentage of blacks statistically leads to a higher percentage of idiots. Vick is right up there near the top.

Race isn't the issue here, outside of the minds of a few message board dwellers. The issue is the college and pro systems that farm these kinds of morons, and the continual pardoning of the behavior by those systems, the media and the fans.


Very wise stuff Popps. Vick is an idiot plane and simple. If he was purple it wouldn't change the fact that he is a complete moron for getting involved in anything questionable. Common sense transcends color, religion, or class status. Thats one thing we all have in common either you have common sense or you don't. Vick, well based on his past he seems to lack common sense.

[DCCardsFan]

The Dallas County District Attorney's office openly maintained a handbook on how to keep blacks off juries until the early 90's. Insiders said it was being used behind the scenes up till 4 years ago when it was exposed in the media.

Anybody who thinks the US judicial system is not radically biased towards blacks has no idea what has been going on. It's true that money is a major part of the problem, but it's only part of the problem.

You are misrepresenting what that handbook actually said. I'll attempt to explain it to you, but I doubt you would understand. 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.

The theory is white people are more likely to convict a black guy than black people. When you get the defendant's mom on the stand talking about how great a kid he is, it generally resonates more in people who have something in common with the kid. Therefore, the theory is that black juries tend to acquit black defendants more than majority white juries. I would say the theory is true, although I disagree with doing that as a general practice. As a prosecutor, it should not only be about WINNING - you are trying to get justice done.

In virtually every state, both the prosecution and the defense get a certain number of strikes, in which they can get rid of a certain number of Jurors for basically any old reason (although you are not allowed to STATE that it is because of the color of their skin - however, if the jury pool is 40% black, and you use all 5 strikes on black people, it is obvious what you're doing, even if you say stuff like "I didn't like that he was in the insurance industry," "he looked at me funny," etc.). However, using a pretextual excuse is good enough for the Supreme Court of the United States.

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.

Most prosecutors I have seen/known in serious cases only ask the judge to strike people for cause (i.e. - a good reason - for instance, if a juror says they have personally been beaten by a police officer, and can not trust cops, you HAVE ask for that juror to be struck for cause). Many of them do not use any of their "discretionary" strikes. The theory is that the rest of the jurors might wonder if the prosecution is trying to "stack" the jury, and it can end up giving the jury a bad taste in their mouths. Prosecutors depend on the jury generally believing what they have to say.

However, the defense attorneys will strike 100% white people virtually 100% of the time in a case of a black defendant and white victim. And they will use ALL of their discretionary strikes. At least in my city. Why? Because if they can get a majority black jury, they know they will have a better chance of an acquittal or a hung jury. All it takes is ONE PERSON who refuses to tender a guilty vote, and the jury is hung.

Trust me, in Baltimore City, you have a much better chance of getting off for the same crime if you are black than if you are white. Assuming you have equivalent representation, of course.

Of course, in a backwoods county in Alabama that is 97% white, it is a lot better to be a white defendant than a black defendant.

In jury trials, there's only so much even a super-racist judge can do to affect the outcome. The jury and the lawyers hold the cards.

So in the end, the juries

Now, it is also true that having great representation will do you wonders. The tactic is generally to bombard the prosecution with paperwork and postponement requests. Basically, they will cut a significantly better plea bargain to get rid of the pain-in-the-ass factor.

And if you want to take it to trial, the best-paid lawyers are generally VERY GOOD, and VERY CONVINCING. Whereas, a public defender often hears about the case for the first time 10 minutes before trial in the lock-up. Oftentimes, the public defenders REAL job is to convince their client to accept whatever crappy offer the prosecutor throws their way. They don't have the time or the resources to try 3-day jury trials.

So my basic opinions are: 1) the legal system itself is not (at least, no longer) fundamentally prejudiced in any way. 2) Prejudice can arise when the key players are prejudiced, and the jury is the most important player. 3) For whatever reason (probably because historically, blacks were kept off juries, and were screwed over by the system), it is apparent to me that black jurors are more likely to practice jury-nullification than white jurors (that is, tender a judgment that is inconsistent with what they really believe happened).

[-Slap-]

That was very informative, DCCardsFan. In your opinion, could a system using professional jurors be employed fairly and effectively or do you reject the very idea on principle?

[DCCardsFan]

It doesn't matter what color he is. He's a ****ing idiot. It just happens that black people are stuck with him in their race. I suppose having fewer representatives in the spotlight, if I were black... I'd be ashamed of this dumbf#ck. I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?

Pro football has idiots of all flavors. But, higher percentage of blacks statistically leads to a higher percentage of idiots. Vick is right up there near the top.

Race isn't the issue here, outside of the minds of a few message board dwellers. The issue is the college and pro systems that farm these kinds of morons, and the continual pardoning of the behavior by those systems, the media and the fans.

Race is not THE issue, but it certainly is AN issue.

"I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?"

And this is where the racial component of this issue lies. Same thing with OJ. You can't help but get the feeling that some black people don't care about what he's done, it's "he's on my team, so I will back him no matter what."

The problem with this type of thinking is that it also creates a reactionary white racism, or at least frustration.

There is no question that under the surface of what Michael Vick is doing and getting away with is a cauldron of history and undercurrents of racial issues. I do not believe the following statement is completely accurate: "he is a jackass athlete getting away with stuff, and the white players get away with just as much, and there is no difference."

Sure, he SHOULD be judged without reference to the color of his skin. However, from both sides of the issue, there are plenty (I'm not willing to hazard a guess as to percentages) of people who have clearly allowed the color of his skin to affect their judgement.

[DCCardsFan]

That was very informative, DCCardsFan. In your opinion, could a system using professional jurors be employed fairly and effectively or do you reject the very idea on principle?

No, I do not believe that would be fair. It would only make it worse. I mean, think about it: professional jurors. The whole idea that they get paid for their service makes it almost inevitable that some, if not many, would get paid OFF for their services. Obviously, it couldn't be a high paying job, and like every other job, it's hard to take stuff as seriously once you've been doing it for a while. The professional jurors would inevitably get to know the attorneys (it's a small world in legal circles), and even if they weren't actually getting bought off, these relationships would end up affecting their judgment.

Whereas, I truly believe that 98% or more of actual jurors from the community at large (both black and white) take their job very seriously, would NEVER be swayed by improper reasons or bought off, and do the best they can.

The system is only as good as the people who work it. That is a fundamental truth of life.

Unfortunately, even though most people try their best, we have a whole lot of REALLY stupid people in this country. We also have a whole lot of really STUBBORN people.

So the way to make things better is to better inform the common man.

The more racial tension there is in society at large, the more racial tension there will be in decisions by the jury and Judges.

[Atlas]

They said from the very beginning it was going to be hard to get Vick. As long as you got guys taking a fall for you and protecting you, it's very hard to get convicted. If the cousin says that Vick had nothing to do with it and it was him alone.... In a court of law you're not going to get a conviction.

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.

[footstepsfrom#27]

You are misrepresenting what that handbook actually said.
No I'm not. Have you seen it? It's been all over the news here in Dallas...where I live and you don't.
In jury trials, there's only so much even a super-racist judge can do to affect the outcome. The jury and the lawyers hold the cards.
Wrong...total nonsense. This sentence tells me that there's no way you are a lawyer. Judges have the ability to overturn verdicts by juries, control objections by attorneys, rule out evidence on the strength or lack thereof of legal arguments, refuse to admit witnesses on procedural grounds, etc...anybody who thinks juries and lawyers control the legal system knows jack about the law....and they certainly never passed the bar.

[Atlas]

It doesn't matter what color he is. He's a ****ing idiot. It just happens that black people are stuck with him in their race. I suppose having fewer representatives in the spotlight, if I were black... I'd be ashamed of this dumbf#ck. I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?

Pro football has idiots of all flavors. But, higher percentage of blacks statistically leads to a higher percentage of idiots. Vick is right up there near the top.

Race isn't the issue here, outside of the minds of a few message board dwellers. The issue is the college and pro systems that farm these kinds of morons, and the continual pardoning of the behavior by those systems, the media and the fans.


Race is an issue everywhere. Race shouldn't have been an issue at the OJ trial either but it was. As long as there are different colors, creeds and biases there will be race issues.

[footstepsfrom#27]

And this is where the racial component of this issue lies. Same thing with OJ. You can't help but get the feeling that some black people don't care about what he's done, it's "he's on my team, so I will back him no matter what."
I must have missed it...who said this?

[cutthemdown]

It's been some time since I was current in this type of stat but when I was it looked something like this:

Percentage of non violent crimes committed by African Americans: 15%

Percentage of non violent crimes gone to trial in case involving African Americans: 50%

Percentage of non violent crimes were African Americans go to a correctional facility: 75%

African American population: 13%

15 percent of violent crime by blacks. Come on not even you think that is true. Besides no one gets away with citing stats they can't back up.

[DCCardsFan]

No I'm not. Have you seen it? It's been all over the news here in Dallas...where I live and you don't.

Wrong...total nonsense. This sentence tells me that there's no way you are a lawyer. Judges have the ability to overturn verdicts by juries, control objections by attorneys, rule out evidence on the strength or lack thereof of legal arguments, refuse to admit witnesses on procedural grounds, etc...anybody who thinks juries and lawyers control the legal system knows jack about the law....and they certainly never passed the bar.

I have seen it, yes. But I will defer to your expertise and second-hand information gathered from the Dallas news. Ha ha.

I have passed three different state bars, and my practice extends to all three. I do 100% litigation.

While it is true that Judges control objections and evidence, letting in questionable evidence that could convict a defendant (which rarely would ACTUALLY make a difference) will only give the defense a good ground for appeal. Also, when the prosecution objects to something a defense witness is trying to say and the Court grants the objection (for whatever reason), the jury tends to think they might have something to hide. Same thing with the defense attorney.

As for confessions, searches, and weapons, most of those evidentiary issues have to do with coercion, probable cause, and/or chain of custody. The case law only gives the Judge so much leeway. And believe me, the deck is stacked against the prosecution. In MOST cases if not all, the police screw up some evidence that ends up getting excluded. The police are not lawyers, and therefore screw stuff up an incredible amount of the time. The defendant, on the other hand, generally doesn't put on a whole lot of evidence, and prosecutors don't really try to exclude most of it (except blatant hearsay), as it makes them look like they're hiding something. More often than not, the defendant will not even testify, the defense will put on an alibi witness or two, and perhaps some character witnesses (if the defendant doesn't have a checkered past) and the rest of their case will be won or lost on cross-examination.

I personally don't even object to hearsay if I know it's not going to hurt my client, because I believe it makes the jury think you're hiding something, and by being pretty laid back, I feel like I can get the jury to trust me and believe in me. I like the jury to feel like they're hearing everything.

Sure, I'm not preserving the record as well as some lawyers, but if somebody says something really bad, I'd object for the record after the fact. It's never happened, though.

If the judge lets something real prejudicial in or keeps something important out improperly, they WILL get flipped on appeal in a criminal case. In a civil case, the burden is much stronger - the appellant has to show that the admission or exception of that evidence actually made a difference on the case.

While evidentiary issues often decide civil trials one way or the other, they don't often decide criminal trials (at least not rulings that are close, and could go one way or the other).

If I were a judge that was hellbent on helping send a defendant to jail, I would actually be very tough on the prosecution, and make sure nothing improper is seen by the jury. That way, if the defendant is convicted, they will have nothing on appeal.

While it is true that a judge can overturn a decision by the jury, there is going to be serious scrutiny by the appeals court if he does. Basically, he better have a damn good reason. It is extremely rare.

Every good lawyer knows that a case comes down to 1) the facts, 2) your preparation, and 3) the unbelievably inconsistent entity that is the jury. I would say criminal cases are more dependent on #3 than civil cases.

And there are many checks and balances in criminal courts that often give defendants more protection than they deserve. But as the saying goes, better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man.

If the prosecutor, trial judge and appeals court are all racists who want to indiscriminately convict black people, they could probably get away with it. Now, I only know what I've seen, and I guess I have a more rosy outlook on life than you, but I just don't believe that's really happening in this day and age. At least not where I practice.

And if you'd ever seen a jury trial (with all the bench conferences), you'd know that most Judges stay out of the way, and a lot of times their biggest concern is providing a good record so they don't get flipped on appeal and get embarrassed in their local lawyer's rag. There are obnoxious judges who want to run the show, but do they make a huge difference on what the jury decides? I don't think so.

Why I wasted this much time doing the equivalent of explaining calculus to my basset hound, I have no idea. Obviously footsteps isn't going to be enlightened anytime soon. But for the rest of you, perhaps this will give you a better view of the judicial system.

Jury duty is perhaps your most important civic duty in this day and age. Do NOT find an excuse to miss it.

[Northman]

I must have missed it...who said this?

Plenty of african americans were screaming " The Juice is Loose " after the verdict was read. It didnt matter if he committed the crime or not, the fact that a African American got off was reason for celebration.

[Northman]

I have seen it, yes. But I will defer to your expertise and second-hand information gathered from the Dallas news. Ha ha.

I have passed three different state bars, and my practice extends to all three. I do 100% litigation.

While it is true that Judges control objections and evidence, letting in questionable evidence that could convict a defendant (which rarely would ACTUALLY make a difference) will only give the defense a good ground for appeal. Also, when the prosecution objects to something a defense witness is trying to say and the Court grants the objection (for whatever reason), the jury tends to think they might have something to hide. Same thing with the defense attorney.

As for confessions, searches, and weapons, most of those evidentiary issues have to do with coercion, probable cause, and/or chain of custody. The case law only gives the Judge so much leeway. And believe me, the deck is stacked against the prosecution. In MOST cases if not all, the police screw up some evidence that ends up getting excluded. The police are not lawyers, and therefore screw stuff up an incredible amount of the time. The defendant, on the other hand, generally doesn't put on a whole lot of evidence, and prosecutors don't really try to exclude most of it (except blatant hearsay), as it makes them look like they're hiding something. More often than not, the defendant will not even testify, the defense will put on an alibi witness or two, and perhaps some character witnesses (if the defendant doesn't have a checkered past) and the rest of their case will be won or lost on cross-examination.

I personally don't even object to hearsay if I know it's not going to hurt my client, because I believe it makes the jury think you're hiding something, and by being pretty laid back, I feel like I can get the jury to trust me and believe in me. I like the jury to feel like they're hearing everything.

Sure, I'm not preserving the record as well as some lawyers, but if somebody says something really bad, I'd object for the record after the fact. It's never happened, though.

If the judge lets something real prejudicial in or keeps something important out improperly, they WILL get flipped on appeal in a criminal case. In a civil case, the burden is much stronger - the appellant has to show that the admission or exception of that evidence actually made a difference on the case.

While evidentiary issues often decide civil trials one way or the other, they don't often decide criminal trials (at least not rulings that are close, and could go one way or the other).

If I were a judge that was hellbent on helping send a defendant to jail, I would actually be very tough on the prosecution, and make sure nothing improper is seen by the jury. That way, if the defendant is convicted, they will have nothing on appeal.

While it is true that a judge can overturn a decision by the jury, there is going to be serious scrutiny by the appeals court if he does. Basically, he better have a damn good reason. It is extremely rare.

Every good lawyer knows that a case comes down to 1) the facts, 2) your preparation, and 3) the unbelievably inconsistent entity that is the jury. I would say criminal cases are more dependent on #3 than civil cases.

And there are many checks and balances in criminal courts that often give defendants more protection than they deserve. But as the saying goes, better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man.

If the prosecutor, trial judge and appeals court are all racists who want to indiscriminately convict black people, they could probably get away with it. Now, I only know what I've seen, and I guess I have a more rosy outlook on life than you, but I just don't believe that's really happening in this day and age. At least not where I practice.

And if you'd ever seen a jury trial (with all the bench conferences), you'd know that most Judges stay out of the way, and a lot of times their biggest concern is providing a good record so they don't get flipped on appeal and get embarrassed in their local lawyer's rag. There are obnoxious judges who want to run the show, but do they make a huge difference on what the jury decides? I don't think so.

Why I wasted this much time doing the equivalent of explaining calculus to my basset hound, I have no idea. Obviously footsteps isn't going to be enlightened anytime soon. But for the rest of you, perhaps this will give you a better view of the judicial system.

Jury duty is perhaps your most important civic duty in this day and age. Do NOT find an excuse to miss it.


I would give you more REP but im all out for you. I think Foot can now go and crawl back into his hole as he was yet owned again. Ha!

[watermock]

I'm just counting my blessings that DC didn't make a 400 page PDF. Ha!

[DCCardsFan]

They said from the very beginning it was going to be hard to get Vick. As long as you got guys taking a fall for you and protecting you, it's very hard to get convicted. If the cousin says that Vick had nothing to do with it and it was him alone.... In a court of law you're not going to get a conviction.

They'd get a conviction if they brought it to trial. The VA statute only requires ownership and knowledge of what was going on. I don't think ownership is in question.

Vick only made one statement (that he's "never" down there), and it was a lie. His neighbors have already stated that they see him down there a lot, and then there's the pet store owner who sold him the syringes. His cousin would not be able to explain where he got the money for this stuff, and I guarantee you can trace something back to Michael.

They've already shut Vick up, and he would clearly take the 5th if it went to trial. So, you can't ask him about the dogfights. The prosecution could not call witnesses to place him at dogfights (which would undoubtedly be very easy to get, because when MV walks in the house, EVERYONE notices), unless Vick testified (the way you would do it is ask Vick if he's ever been to a dogfight, he says no, and then you call your rebuttal witnesses), as it would be too prejudicial.

However, the cages were built when the house was and have been there for years. His lawyers would concede he knew about the breeding of the dogs, and his defense will be he didn't know his cousin was using them for fighting. The thing is that there's just no way he's been real careful about this. He thinks he's invincible, and he's not even being sneaky about what he does. I'd bet good sums of money that some of this dog fighting equipment was purchased directly from his bank accounts or credit cards. I also bet he's made hundreds of phone calls from his cell phone to this cousin of his. While MV doesn't have to talk, his cousin does. I have no doubt he would try to stonewall, but a half-decent attorney would get something out of him. The great thing about stupid people is they all think they're smart, and it is easy to trick them into things. They also thing they can pull the Ronald Reagan defense ("I don't remember"), which ends up making them look terrible to a jury.

Secondly, Surry County ain't the city of Newport News or Hampton. It is predominantly white, and Vick and his family hasn't made too many friends of the general law-abiding public in Hampton Roads over the years. I think the circumstantial evidence will be WAY more than enough, and then when he takes the 5th, the jury would be sold that Vick knew about it. If he doesn't take the fifth, even a 29 year old assistant Commonwealth's attorney will tear him apart asking him about dogfights, money transfers, plane tickets, credit cards, and times he was at the house, etc.

They won't get a conviction because the Surry prosecutor will never file charges. If they do (which I consider to be very unlikely, and will only happen if there is a huge public uproar), it will get pled out to something small before it ever goes to trial. The Surry County DA doesn't have the resources to pursue this. I'm starting to question if the DA even owns a suit and tie. He knows it will only triple his work to bring the charges, so he'll do everything in his power to never let it happen.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I have seen it, yes. But I will defer to your expertise and second-hand information gathered from the Dallas news. Ha ha.

I have passed three different state bars, and my practice extends to all three. I do 100% litigation.

While it is true that Judges control objections and evidence, letting in questionable evidence that could convict a defendant (which rarely would ACTUALLY make a difference) will only give the defense a good ground for appeal. Also, when the prosecution objects to something a defense witness is trying to say and the Court grants the objection (for whatever reason), the jury tends to think they might have something to hide. Same thing with the defense attorney.

As for confessions, searches, and weapons, most of those evidentiary issues have to do with coercion, probable cause, and/or chain of custody. The case law only gives the Judge so much leeway. And believe me, the deck is stacked against the prosecution. In MOST cases if not all, the police screw up some evidence that ends up getting excluded. The police are not lawyers, and therefore screw stuff up an incredible amount of the time. The defendant, on the other hand, generally doesn't put on a whole lot of evidence, and prosecutors don't really try to exclude most of it (except blatant hearsay), as it makes them look like they're hiding something. More often than not, the defendant will not even testify, the defense will put on an alibi witness or two, and perhaps some character witnesses (if the defendant doesn't have a checkered past) and the rest of their case will be won or lost on cross-examination.

I personally don't even object to hearsay if I know it's not going to hurt my client, because I believe it makes the jury think you're hiding something, and by being pretty laid back, I feel like I can get the jury to trust me and believe in me. I like the jury to feel like they're hearing everything.

Sure, I'm not preserving the record as well as some lawyers, but if somebody says something really bad, I'd object for the record after the fact. It's never happened, though.

If the judge lets something real prejudicial in or keeps something important out improperly, they WILL get flipped on appeal in a criminal case. In a civil case, the burden is much stronger - the appellant has to show that the admission or exception of that evidence actually made a difference on the case.

While evidentiary issues often decide civil trials one way or the other, they don't often decide criminal trials (at least not rulings that are close, and could go one way or the other).

If I were a judge that was hellbent on helping send a defendant to jail, I would actually be very tough on the prosecution, and make sure nothing improper is seen by the jury. That way, if the defendant is convicted, they will have nothing on appeal.

While it is true that a judge can overturn a decision by the jury, there is going to be serious scrutiny by the appeals court if he does. Basically, he better have a damn good reason. It is extremely rare.

Every good lawyer knows that a case comes down to 1) the facts, 2) your preparation, and 3) the unbelievably inconsistent entity that is the jury. I would say criminal cases are more dependent on #3 than civil cases.

And there are many checks and balances in criminal courts that often give defendants more protection than they deserve. But as the saying goes, better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man.

If the prosecutor, trial judge and appeals court are all racists who want to indiscriminately convict black people, they could probably get away with it. Now, I only know what I've seen, and I guess I have a more rosy outlook on life than you, but I just don't believe that's really happening in this day and age. At least not where I practice.

And if you'd ever seen a jury trial (with all the bench conferences), you'd know that most Judges stay out of the way, and a lot of times their biggest concern is providing a good record so they don't get flipped on appeal and get embarrassed in their local lawyer's rag. There are obnoxious judges who want to run the show, but do they make a huge difference on what the jury decides? I don't think so.

Why I wasted this much time doing the equivalent of explaining calculus to my basset hound, I have no idea. Obviously footsteps isn't going to be enlightened anytime soon. But for the rest of you, perhaps this will give you a better view of the judicial system.

Jury duty is perhaps your most important civic duty in this day and age. Do NOT find an excuse to miss it.
Calculus? BAAAHAAA!!! Funny...Dude...you're a nitwit...there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that you are a flat out liar and a poser and I believe nothing you say. Anybody who makes the statement that juries and lawyers run the legal system has ZERO credibility. And incidentally paralegal boy...I have 14 years worth of experience as a legal research provider contracting with both private and public sector clients so I know a considerable amount about both the law and the courts, which is why I know you are full of crap. I've worked as both a patient's rights advocate and a trained mediation specialist in the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Mental Health system which is as demanding as any legal specialty short of tax law, designed over 60 corporate finance plans for labor relations boards, corporations, foundations, NPO's and private equity firms seeking everything from venture capital and mezzanine funding to prelim work for mergers and acquisitions, and my client list includes Fortune 100 representatives and foreign corporations in 14 countries. I've done legal research on over 400 civil rights and corporate law cases and work daily in the finance community with both bankers and attorneys.

Take that and shove it up your Basset Hound's butt Jeremy.

[theAPAOps5]

Calculus? BAAAHAAA!!! Funny...Dude...you're a nitwit...there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that you are a flat out liar and a poser and I believe nothing you say. Anybody who makes the statement that juries and lawyers run the legal system has ZERO credibility. And incidentally paralegal boy...I have 14 years worth of experience as a legal researcher provider contracting with both private and public sector clients so I know a considerable amount about both the law and the courts, which is why I know you are full of crap. I've worked as both a patient's rights advocate and a trained mediation specialist in the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Mental Health system which is as demanding as any legal specialty short of tax law, designed over 60 corporate finance plans for labor relations boards, corporations, foundations, NPO's and private equity firms seeking everything from venture capital and mezzanine funding to prelim work for mergers and acquisitions, and my client list includes Fortune 100 representatives and foreign corporations in 14 countries. I've done legal research on over 400 civil rights and corporate law cases and work daily in the finance community with both bankers and attorneys.

Take that and shove it up your Basset Hound's butt Jeremy.

Yeah but did you stay at a Holiday Inn?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Plenty of african americans were screaming " The Juice is Loose " after the verdict was read. It didnt matter if he committed the crime or not, the fact that a African American got off was reason for celebration.
I'm talking about Vick.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I have no idea who Byron De La Beckwith is, and I am generally a knowledgable guy, so obviously he does not represent MANY whites. I take it he's KKK or something?
There's not an attorney anywhere in America who doesn't know who Byron De La Beckwith is. Probably any first year law students knows who he is.

You're probably a house painter.:~ohyah!:

[theAPAOps5]

His 1994 trial is what the movie Ghosts of Mississippi is about.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I would give you more REP but im all out for you. I think Foot can now go and crawl back into his hole as he was yet owned again. Ha!
Good night poser...now go Google Byron De La Beckwith so you won't look like an absolute moron on the next bulletin board you decide to visit.

[DCCardsFan]

Good night poser...now go Google Byron De La Beckwith so you won't look like an absolute moron on the next bulletin board you decide to visit.

KKK - I was right without going to google.

I never saw the movie, know a little bit about Medgar Evers, but still doubt I ever heard the name of his killer. It appears you are quite deferential to the legal profession, but why would you think all lawyers would know about that?

You know, sometimes we all need to admit we're wrong. It really is the only way to learn. You have a nice resume, but it doesn't mean anything. I mean "legal research provider"? Seriously, I know you're not actually doing legal research, as that would be practicing law without a license.

Do you work for westlaw or lexis? A company that pulls court documents? I can't even tell from that long resume of yours.

In any event, no one who didn't at least go to law school could write what I wrote off the top of my head. Any first year law student could validate me.

And most lawyers aren't litigators, either. I don't work for a big firm, so I'm not stuck doing grunt-work on huge multi-district toxic torts and the like, and I do no transactional work. I'm in the courtrooms a lot, and I know what I'm talking about. I could give you a link to my webpage, but I don't really feel like people making fun of my picture or filling up my email.

If you really want to call my bluff, I could easily provide lock-down proof to an unbiased third party, like a moderator. Basically, I'd just show them the website, a copy of my driver's license, my three bar cards, and send an email from my work address as confirmation. Easy.

But in order to do that, I'd have to bet something valuable in your world like a couple month long ban. You game?

[DCCardsFan]

There's not an attorney anywhere in America who doesn't know who Byron De La Beckwith is. Probably any first year law students knows who he is.

You're probably a house painter.:~ohyah!:

You're actually right! I painted for Student Painters one summer in college, and continue to paint my house when it needs it (and my sister-in-law's once) or my wife demands a new color for the kitchen.

You see, if you make enough accusations, eventually you'll be right about something.

[Los Broncos]

Famous people seem to get off easy. Paris might pay money to go to a better prison, unreal.

[Popps]

Good night poser...now go Google Byron De La Beckwith so you won't look like an absolute moron on the next bulletin board you decide to visit.

You seem like a confident guy.

Just sayin'.

[watermock]

Your a liar Footsteps.

[Jason in LA]

The reason more blacks are convicted and put in prison is because blacks commit more crimes. Until you start realizing that you will keep being an apologist and a defender of thugs.

I haven't defended or apologized for any thugs. I've defended all of the good guys in the NFL, which make a much larger group than the thugs.

[Killericon]

This thread is great.

[Jason in LA]

It won't change the past injustices no, and it won't ever make up for them.

What I find confusing and irritating as that some black people (apparently you) seem to think that OJ-style injustices are a good thing, as they are "making up for the past" injustices against blacks.

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not a good thing, and if you want to be practical, you should understand that it also provokes a reaction from white folk. Not the kind of reaction that is quantifiable, but don't think there are no consequences: this kind of stuff perpetuates old stereotypes, and will cause some white people to not want to have black folks in their neighborhood, not be OK with their daughters marrying a black guy, etc. That's why I said this stuff is setting back race relations. AND THESE THINGS ARE SETTING BACK RACE RELATIONS.

As for whether the Vick case has a racial element to it, it clearly does.

It bothers ME, as a white man, a whole lot more when a white guy drags a black guy behind a car in a racially motivated incident than when it is the other way around. Why? The same reason Koreans are a little ashamed about Cho. Sure, it doesn't mean all Koreans are that way, or that all whites are racist, but it reflects badly on me in some way when a white guy commits a crime against black people.

Plenty of black people feel this way about OJ and that chick who accused the lacrosse players, but it seems a large majority do not. Many are also embarrassed by the example guys like Vick is setting, but Jason in LA and Footsteps are obviously not one of them.

Vick is an embarrassment, and to a certain extent, he DOES represent inner-city black people, as he is one of the biggest names in football, and represents hip-hop culture to a certain degree. If you don't think there are hundreds of thousands of black teen-agers who look up to him, and applaud him for "keeping it real," you're crazy. And it is NOT GOOD, when what he is showing is that smoking weed is cool, fighting dogs is cool, blowing off school is cool. If you're an athlete/rapper, VICK HAS SHOWN, you can walk on water.

Sure, white athletes are protected to a certain extent, but I do not think they are in the same degree. Believe me, I'm not jealous. No more jealous than I am of the parents that give their 4 year old kids candy all the time, when I do not.

I think this kind of "protection" is what is creating the problem, and it starts in high school and extends into college. And the system seems happy to protect black kids more than white kids. Why, I don't know. But I would blame it on stereotypes and racism regarding black folks. It's almost like white racists WANT the black superstars to act like Vick. And he happily obliges them....... Whereas, white kids who are far less smart than Mike Vick seem to have people take a real interest in them actually getting an education. The interest the admin showed Mike Vick in college was shown when they gave him a pimped-out SUV.

I don't think there's any question it is racism that causes this (not reverse racism). A "good white kid" is corrected more by the high school admin., coaches, etc, and it teaches them to at least pay lip-service to the system. White athletes smoke weed, beat their wives, and probably fight dogs, too. But they don't bring it on the plane, and they're not personally involved in actually raising huge amounts of fighting dogs. They keep it on the down-low. They don't act like they're completely ABOVE THE LAW. And the reason they don't do this, is because more often than the black kids coming from the hood, they are shown that there are consequences for GETTING CAUGHT. A lot of great 15 year old inner-city black athletes are taught that if they're caught, people will protect them, and all they have to do is say they won't do it again. I know this is a stereo-type, but some stereotypes are valid.

And I really think both black people (who celebrate it) AND white people (who look the other direction) are allowing the caricature that is Mike Vick (and Pacman Jones), and many others to exist. Really, the only people who cry out are black men like Bill Cosby and Jason Whitlock, and of course, they are generally shouted down by guys like Jason and called UNcle Toms.

It's BS, but it is what it is.


So a white guy wouldn't want me to live in his neighborhood because of what a small percentage of NFL athletes do? That's BS. Why do a number of white people (I'm not saying all) define the black race by it's negative aspects? Puts us all in the same boat.

Should I not want to live around a white person because hockey players fight all the time? How about all the trouble the Hollywood crowd gets into? There are a number of white folks there who get DUIs, do drugs, and do all kind of crazy stuff. Should I define the white race by those people? I don't.


Black people, in general, are not in favor of the OJ style injustices. When do not like to see crooks go free. But we do find it amusing that many whites finally saw how screwed up the justice system was after a black man got away with murder. There didn't seem to be much of a problem when white people were getting away with killing blacks.

Most black people that I know think OJ did it, and should have gone to jail for it.

I don't know why you started in with race in this case. This is not a race issue. Tihs is a Vick issue. To me it sounds like the race issue is with you. You are upset that it looks like a black guy is getting off while white kids had their name smeared all over the place. There are countless cases that are happening today where blacks are getting a raw deal, but you want to act like blacks are now getting off in court. When did that start happening?

As for black athletes getting a free pass in high school, you are nuts if you think that big time white athletes don't get the same pass. Any big time athlete is going to be able to get away with a lot.

As for Bill Cosby and Jason Whitlock, don't put those two guys in the same sentince. Cosby talked about a specific group of black people as the problem. He told the truth. Whitlock is no Cosby. Whitlock tells white America what they want to hear. That's why white folks love his so much. He bashes his own people to make a name for himself. Most of his points are way off base. He lumps us all into the same group, which is wrong. Cosby did it the right way. Whitlock is just trying to make the man happy.

[Jason in LA]

Apparently the black community finds injustice for black people commiting crimes important in equalling out past injustices...they care nothing at all for equality or for justice, its all about having things their way for years so that in some way they feel equal. A greater percentage of the black race commits crimes and deserves jail time. I view Vicks circumstance just as OJs, they have $$ and are above the law. Black or white if anyone had done this without money or fame they'd be up on charges. They system protects those who have.


You are wrong about black wanting black crooks to get off. That is not the case. If a black guy commits a crime, then I want him to go to jail. That is where OJ belongs.

You miss the point that most black people are making. We are pissed off because many white people finally saw that the criminal system was a joke when a black man got away with a crime. Where were all the out cries when white people were getting away with killing blacks? Where are all the out cries when a black person gets a stiffer sentince than a white person for the same crime?

One case got some run here on the Mane. A black girl was sentinced to seven years in jail for pushing a hall monitor. Didn't cause any injuries, and she didn't have a prior record. The same judge sentinced a white girl to probation for burning down her parents house. That type of injustice happens a lot, but a lot of white people only complain when a black guy gets off, especially if the crime was against a white person.

[Jason in LA]

I'm confusing you with someone else, obviously. I thought I remembered you saying you were black.

Owning, raising, and fighting dogs for entertainment? If Vick were white, I would think (and hope) there would be near unanimity that he deserves immediate punishment and is morally bankrupt.

Vick represents inner-city black folk, there's no question. There are people emulating him, and he is not a pariah in the community, by any means. If anything, he's gained in stature because of this incident and the water-bottle incident.

He absolutely speaks FOR a certain segment of the population that does not feel like it gets a real voice from their politicians or on TV. They feel their real mouthpieces are tha athletes and entertainers who "keep it real" (i.e. - a total rejection of everything "white" and "suburban").

To think he simply represents himself is beyond naive.

So Vick represents us. So does Alec Baldwin represent white fathers? Should I feel that all of you guys shout down your kids? Does Paris Hilton represent all white women? It seems like serial killers tend to be white males. So should I fear white men because of that?

The point is that you shouldn't generalize a group because of certain individuals. That seems to happen to black people much more than any other race. It's too often that black people are defined by the negative aspects of the race. It's not right.

[Jason in LA]

Nope, not a liberal. Not by a longshot.

I didn't say he represents ALL blacks, but he does represent a LOT of black people. That is, a lot of black people see what he does and says and agree with it, and want to "be like Mike." He is a role model. That is all I meant. He certainly represents more black people in the inner-city community than Barack Obama, and probably even Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Everyone knows, including the black folks who would vote for Al and Jesse in a second, that they're out for themselves and are a bit full of it.

I have no idea who Byron De La Beckwith is, and I am generally a knowledgable guy, so obviously he does not represent MANY whites. I take it he's KKK or something? I'm sure he does represent some. That is, there are people who like what he has to say. So when he says it, they are getting a voice without having to say it themselves.

Mike Vick carries a lot of weight in the lower-class black communities, especially among the young.

But keep believing that there is no such thing as individuals effecting social change. Keep believing that everyone makes their own mind up about everything, and does not allow bias or heroes or stars to aid their decision-making. Keep believing that Mike Vick smoking weed and blowing off school makes no difference to anyone. Keep believing that when Mike Vick says or does something, there's NO ONE out there nodding their heads in approval.

It may not be fair that he's a role model, but he is. And he has a lot of fans who like him for more than just his football skills - they love that he's "keeping it real."


It's not that black people choose Vick to represent us, or want to be like Vick. It's people like you who view us as Vick types. That's not right.

[Jason in LA]

Race is not THE issue, but it certainly is AN issue.

"I guess that's what's particularly funny about anyone of (dark) color defending this goof. It's sort of like.... really? That's where you want to hang your hat, huh? You want to go to war for THIS guy?"

And this is where the racial component of this issue lies. Same thing with OJ. You can't help but get the feeling that some black people don't care about what he's done, it's "he's on my team, so I will back him no matter what."

The problem with this type of thinking is that it also creates a reactionary white racism, or at least frustration.

There is no question that under the surface of what Michael Vick is doing and getting away with is a cauldron of history and undercurrents of racial issues. I do not believe the following statement is completely accurate: "he is a jackass athlete getting away with stuff, and the white players get away with just as much, and there is no difference."

Sure, he SHOULD be judged without reference to the color of his skin. However, from both sides of the issue, there are plenty (I'm not willing to hazard a guess as to percentages) of people who have clearly allowed the color of his skin to affect their judgement.


No, this was not a race issue. You made it into one. The OJ and Duke cases have nothing to do with this this case.

You would be surprised to find out what black people think about OJ. Most of us actually think he committed the crimes, and should have gone to prison. It's rare that I hear a black person say that OJ didn't do it.

The issues that black people have is that a lot of white people were crying over OJ getting off. WTF was that? Why weren't they crying when black people were getting killed, or getting screwed over by the courts? That's the issue. Many black people have disowned that guy as a black person.

[Popps]

So Vick represents us. So does Alec Baldwin represent white fathers?

Alec Baldwin doesn't represent me.

Then again, I don't go around calling whites... "my people," either.

[-Slap-]

KKK - I was right without going to google.

I never saw the movie, know a little bit about Medgar Evers, but still doubt I ever heard the name of his killer. It appears you are quite deferential to the legal profession, but why would you think all lawyers would know about that?

You know, sometimes we all need to admit we're wrong. It really is the only way to learn. You have a nice resume, but it doesn't mean anything. I mean "legal research provider"? Seriously, I know you're not actually doing legal research, as that would be practicing law without a license.

Do you work for westlaw or lexis? A company that pulls court documents? I can't even tell from that long resume of yours.

In any event, no one who didn't at least go to law school could write what I wrote off the top of my head. Any first year law student could validate me.

And most lawyers aren't litigators, either. I don't work for a big firm, so I'm not stuck doing grunt-work on huge multi-district toxic torts and the like, and I do no transactional work. I'm in the courtrooms a lot, and I know what I'm talking about. I could give you a link to my webpage, but I don't really feel like people making fun of my picture or filling up my email.

If you really want to call my bluff, I could easily provide lock-down proof to an unbiased third party, like a moderator. Basically, I'd just show them the website, a copy of my driver's license, my three bar cards, and send an email from my work address as confirmation. Easy.

But in order to do that, I'd have to bet something valuable in your world like a couple month long ban. You game?

If this guy gets FootstepsfromTatumscolon banned for any period of time, he's number one with a bullet on my favorite posters list.

[Jason in LA]

15 percent of violent crime by blacks. Come on not even you think that is true. Besides no one gets away with citing stats they can't back up.


I would like to see where he got that stat from (just to make sure it is valid), but I'm not shocked that you don't believe it.

[Jason in LA]

Alec Baldwin doesn't represent me.



And Vick doesn't represent me.

[Popps]

And Vick doesn't represent me.

He's not part of "your people?"

"That's why white folks love his so much. He bashes his own people to make a name for himself."

Your words... right?

First off, let me thank you on behalf of all white folks for being our spokesperson.

Second... isn't Vick part of Whitlock's "own people?"

Which is it?

See, I don't refer to whites as "my people," no matter what they do... good or bad. You seem to refer to blacks as Whitlock's "people," and hence I'd assume yours, too?

I wonder if referring to an entire race as "your people" makes other races more likely to associate you with what "your people" do?


Hmmmm.

[Jason in LA]

You're nitpicking on words.

[Northman]

If this guy gets FootstepsfromTatumscolon banned for any period of time, he's number one with a bullet on my favorite posters list.


I was thinking the same thing. But Foot doesnt have enough balls to actually take on the bet. GUARANTEED.

[Northman]

KKK - I was right without going to google.

I never saw the movie, know a little bit about Medgar Evers, but still doubt I ever heard the name of his killer. It appears you are quite deferential to the legal profession, but why would you think all lawyers would know about that?

You know, sometimes we all need to admit we're wrong. It really is the only way to learn. You have a nice resume, but it doesn't mean anything. I mean "legal research provider"? Seriously, I know you're not actually doing legal research, as that would be practicing law without a license.

Do you work for westlaw or lexis? A company that pulls court documents? I can't even tell from that long resume of yours.

In any event, no one who didn't at least go to law school could write what I wrote off the top of my head. Any first year law student could validate me.

And most lawyers aren't litigators, either. I don't work for a big firm, so I'm not stuck doing grunt-work on huge multi-district toxic torts and the like, and I do no transactional work. I'm in the courtrooms a lot, and I know what I'm talking about. I could give you a link to my webpage, but I don't really feel like people making fun of my picture or filling up my email.

If you really want to call my bluff, I could easily provide lock-down proof to an unbiased third party, like a moderator. Basically, I'd just show them the website, a copy of my driver's license, my three bar cards, and send an email from my work address as confirmation. Easy.

But in order to do that, I'd have to bet something valuable in your world like a couple month long ban. You game?


Boom. Right on the money. My best friend is a Corporate Lawyer but he is still far down on the totem pole so therefore he gets stuck doing a lot of his own research. Ironically, he is so busy that i dont get to talk to him much ( also because he has a young kid with the wife ) but even with that he is just much to busy to do hardly anything as he puts in a lot of hours. If Foot really was a provider as he claims, he wouldnt have all the time in the world to post his novels on here. As you can see most people on this board know Foot has a big bark but little bite. His self proclaimed " genius " is just a myth in his own mind. He's like a sideshow freak that maners just poke at with a stick through the cage he resides in. Its quite amusing watching him go down in flames in every thread.

[fontaine]

Who the hell cares about race?

If people think this is about race maybe that's what you want to see.

As far as I'm concerned the only issue here is Vick's celebrity that's focusing attention away from all the rest of scumbags dog fighting.

If Vick is guilty and there's clear evidence then he'll be targetted by the authorities and Goodell. But, personally, I'm more concerned about the a$$holes who were dogfighting there regularly and lived there, like his cousin scum, instead of Vick who might have gone there off and on.

As it is, Ray Buchanon's statements and Don Bank's article hints that Vick wasn't just involved but recruited other NFL players. In light of this, if the prosecutor doesn't want to target or charge Vick then he's just an a$$hole protecting another a$$hole and the last time I checked you don't have to be of a particular race to be one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If you really want to call my bluff, I could easily provide lock-down proof to an unbiased third party, like a moderator. Basically, I'd just show them the website, a copy of my driver's license, my three bar cards, and send an email from my work address as confirmation. Easy.

But in order to do that, I'd have to bet something valuable in your world like a couple month long ban. You game?

Well well, let's see if footsteps wants to back up his mouth running over.

[theAPAOps5]

Ladies and gentleman of the mane we have a challenge. One party putting his money where his mouth is, will the other sack up?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I never saw the movie, know a little bit about Medgar Evers, but still doubt I ever heard the name of his killer. It appears you are quite deferential to the legal profession, but why would you think all lawyers would know about that?
Hmmmm....lemme think...could it be because knowing the name of the DEFENDANT in one of the highest profile civil rights era murder cases in US history might be something a lawyer would know? You know who defended OJ...right?
Seriously, I know you're not actually doing legal research, as that would be practicing law without a license.
Eh...no dude...it's not. Paralegals do legal research all the time...in fact ANYONE can do legal research. You cross the line into practicing law without a license when you give legal ADVICE, attempt to represent someone else in court proceedings, estate planning, etc...don't know where you got the idea that doing legal research requires a law license but that's sheer nonsense.
If you really want to call my bluff, I could easily provide lock-down proof to an unbiased third party, like a moderator. Basically, I'd just show them the website, a copy of my driver's license, my three bar cards, and send an email from my work address as confirmation. Easy.
BAAAHAAA! Now you're just being silly Jeremy...how bout rock/paper/scissors instead? My 4th grade cub scout merit badge against your GI Joe action figures? You sound like Bob or somebody...dude I know this will come as a shock, but I could give a crap, OK? If you're a lawyer you're the worst one I've ever encountered. Anybody who thinks juries and lawyers tell judges what to do, doesn't know who the defendant was in the Medgar Evers trial, and thinks doing legal research constitutes the illegal practice of law...well frankly I wouldn't have you fix a traffic ticket for me.

Incidently, thanks for the little treatise on the Dallas DA's office. Nice to know you view the racist tactics of the 1960's era Texas "justice" system so kindly. BTW...here's a quote from the document you think I missrepresented:

"Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated."

Nice huh? This is the document you claim to have seen...and the one you defended...before you accused ME of missrepresenting it. If you did see it...you're a race hater...if you didn't...you're lying. Which is it?

Unfortunately in your rant on how fair and unbiased the US Justice system is you left out one teeny little detail in your Google review of the document in question...namely the fact that the US SUPREME COURT says you're full of it. The Supremes issued certiorari not once but TWICE in ruling that the US 5th Circuit revisit the case of MILLER-EL v. DRETKE after they found that the 5th Circuit erred in ruling no racial bias existed when the Dallas DA's office when they struck 10 of 11 black jurors unfairly on the basis of race. The Supreme Court then OVERTURNED the 5th circuit's ruling in 2005, ruling that the 5th Circuit violated Baston v. Kentucky's prohibition on using race to discriminate in jury selection. Here's a breakdown...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? ::)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=38&did=270

On June 28, 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court granted Thomas Miller-El certiorari a second time (MILLER-EL v. DRETKE, No. 03-9659), in order to address whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit again erred in reviewing Miller-El's claim that the posecution purposefully excluded African Americans from his capital jury, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky. Arguments were heard in November 2004 and the case was decided on June 13, 2005 in Miller-El's favor. Prosecutors announced in July 2005 that they would seek a new trial. A summary of the Court's opinion follows:

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Thomas Miller-El, a Texas death row inmate, is entitled to a new trial in light of strong evidence of racial bias during jury selection at his original trial. In choosing a jury to try Miller-El, a black defendant, prosecutors struck 10 of the 11 qualified black panelists. The Supreme Court said the prosecutors' chosen race-neutral reasons for the strikes do not hold up and are so far at odds with the evidence that pretext is the fair conclusion. The selection process was replete with evidence that prosecutors were selecting and rejecting potential jurors because of race. And the prosecutors took their cues from a manual on jury selection with an emphasis on race.

Justice Souter, writing for the majority, set out the evidence that race governed who was allowed on the jury, including: disparate questioning of white and black jurors, jury shuffling, a culture of bias within the prosecutor's office, and the fact that the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for the strikes were so far at odds with the evidence that the explanations themselves indicate discriminatory intent.

In 2002, Miller-El had previously petitioned the federal courts to enforce the rule of Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges in jury selection. The federal District Court denied him habeas relief and the Fifth Circuit ruled that there were no appealable issues, and denied a certificate of appealability.

In 2003, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that reasonable jurists could differ on whether Miller-El had appealable issues and ordered that the Fifth Circuit to grant a certificate of appealability to further review the case (Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U. S. 322 (2003)). The Court, in an 8-1 opinion, criticized the Fifth Circuit's "dismissive and strained interpretation" of critical facts and ruled that the lower court's refusal to consider Miller-El's Batson claim was based upon a standard of review that was too demanding. On remand, the Fifth Circuit held that Miller-El failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the state court's finding of no discrimination was wrong, whether his evidence was viewed collectively or separately.

The Supreme Court reversed again. Because this was a habeas corpus proceeding, the Court needed to find that the state court's interpretation of the facts was unreasonable under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Court stated that the Texas courts finding of no discrimination "blinks reality," and was both unreasonable and erroneous, reversing the Fifth Circuit, and granting Miller-El habeas relief and a new trial. (See Associated Press, June 13, 2005). Read the complete decision. See also Race. To view a video (need RealPlayer) about the Miller-El case, click here.


Earlier Miller-El Case

On February 25, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in favor of Thomas Miller-El, a Texas death row inmate who claimed that Dallas County prosecutors engaged in racially biased jury selection at the time of his trial in 1986. The Court ruled in Miller-El v. Cockrell that Miller-El should have been given an opportunity to present evidence of racial bias during his federal appeal. The Court sent the case back to a lower court, where Miller-El could be granted a new hearing on his claims. "Irrespective of whether the evidence could prove sufficient to support a charge of systematic exclusion of African-Americans, it reveals that the culture of the district attorney's office in the past was suffused with bias against African-Americans in jury selections," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. (Associated Press, February 25, 2003) Read the opinon.

Miller-El asserts that Dallas County prosecutors systematically excluded African-American jurors during his trial. Ten of the 11 potential black jurors were eliminated by the prosecution. In their final analysis, the lower courts discounted evidence that, until at least the mid-1980s, prosecutors employed a policy of removing as many black jurors as possible from trials of black defendants.

In its 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional to strike jurors solely on the basis of race and put a greater burden on the state to show that it was not engaging in such behavior. Prior to this decision, prosecutors did not have to provide a reason for striking potential jurors. This opinion was issued one month after Thomas Miller-El was convicted and sentenced to death, but applied retroactively to his case because his sentence was still on direct appeal. In Miller-El v. Cockrell, the Justices will examine whether the lower courts' failure to examine Dallas County's history of racial discrimination in conjunction with the prosecutorial strikes in Miller-El's case was proper.
You're not exactly Perry Mason are ya chum?

Now I'm off to traffic court to plead no contest to a red light...$200 fine...hopefully I won't be charged with practicing law without a license since I'm representing myself in court...;D

I'm done with you Jeremy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm done with you Jeremy.Heh heh, no sac eh footsteps?

[bendog]

Ladies and gentleman of the mane we have a challenge. One party putting his money where his mouth is, will the other sack up?

Ah, that would be a negative.

[theAPAOps5]

Well that is a little dissapointing. Whats the big deal if you want to call him out why not go full bore and take up the challenge. Or is it the fact that he is a lawyer that makes this little challenge scary.

[shakenbake]

Heh heh, no sac eh footsteps?

Since I knew footsteps is full of crap and a liar, I knew he wouldn't take the bet.

[Atwater His Ass]

All that and at the end of the day foot is a pussy. All bark and no bite. But I do like his continued use of BAAAHAAA! It really gives his posts that extra edge you know? Like when you don't have anything relevant to say, you know, small stuff like that.

Maybe DC can go work on gonzo now too.

[Popps]

You're nitpicking on words.

Yes and no. I AM talking about the language you choose to use, but there's a very specific point in there... one I didn't expect you to see, or at least admit to seeing.

[Northman]

Heh heh, no sac eh footsteps?

Like i said, all bark no bite. ROFL!

[Garcia Bronco]

Because he's innocent.

[footstepsfrom#27]

If Foot really was a provider as he claims, he wouldnt have all the time in the world to post his novels on here.
BAAAHAAA!!....I see the reading comprehension issue is poking its head up again...not suprising that the usual collection of rubes with a psychological need for Alpha Male experiences are weighing in...fact is dude...I did not say I DO legal research...as in present tense...I said I DID legal research...past tense. If you aren't to lazy to search this board you'll bump into an occassional reference to this obscure little factoid if it really means that much to you. I post on here a lot because I work for myself and spend 90% of my time in my business either digging up stuff on the web or staring at numbers...which means I bounce over to this little corner of the web now and then to take a break...sorry if you don't get that, but more to the point, what exactly am I "lying" about?...that grave doubts exist on our resident "lawyer" and his bold proclamations about race, the criminal justice system, his wealth of trial experience, etc...? Hmmm...I guess you can feel free to swallow that and wack off to the "challenge" of another silly bet in trying to determine who does and does not have credibility here if you want to...not really my concern either way.

I think I'll just let the US Supreme Court speak for me instead...mmmkay? Let me see now...Supreme Court decision...juvenile bet with internet football fans on the OM...Supreme Court decision...OM bet..........???...Supremes...OM bet...?

Eh...Supreme Court decision it is. :thumbsup:

Jeremy may be a lawyer...cause I've known some crapy ones...but if he is he's a really BAD one...or maybe just intellectually dishonest if you like that better...LOL I mean come one dude...anybody who thinks doing legal research equates to "practicing law without a license"...doesn't recognize the central figue in one of the highest profile criminal cases in US history...confidently spews out crap that the Supreme Court has already stated as bogus...???...well let's just say we're not talking Alan Dershowitz here...

No surprise that you think so however... :rofl:

[Northman]

BAAAHAAA!!....I see the reading comprehension issue is poking its head up again...not suprising that the usual collection of rubes with a psychological need for Alpha Male experiences are weighing in...fact is dude...I did not say I DO legal research...as in present tense...I said I DID legal research...past tense. If you aren't to lazy to search this board you'll bump into an occassional reference to this obscure little factoid if it really means that much to you. I post on here a lot because I work for myself and spend 90% of my time in my business either digging up stuff on the web or staring at numbers...which means I bounce over to this little corner of the web now and then to take a break...sorry if you don't get that, but more to the point, what exactly am I "lying" about?...that grave doubts exist on our resident "lawyer" and his bold proclamations about race, the criminal justice system, his wealth of trial experience, etc...? Hmmm...I guess you can feel free to swallow that and wack off to the "challenge" of another silly bet in trying to determine who does and does not have credibility here if you want to...not really my concern either way.

I think I'll just let the US Supreme Court speak for me instead...mmmkay? Let me see now...Supreme Court decision...juvenile bet with internet football fans on the OM...Supreme Court decision...OM bet..........???...Supremes...OM bet...?

Eh...Supreme Court decision it is. :thumbsup:

Jeremy may be a lawyer...cause I've known some crapy ones...but if he is he's a really BAD one...or maybe just intellectually dishonest if you like that better...LOL I mean come one dude...anybody who thinks doing legal research equates to "practicing law without a license"...doesn't recognize the central figue in one of the highest profile criminal cases in US history...confidently spews out crap that the Supreme Court has already stated as bogus...???...well let's just say we're not talking Alan Dershowitz here...

No surprise that you think so however... :rofl:



LOL LOL

I smell a coward of the high order. Its ok Foot, you can tuck your tail between your legs and go put your head in the sand. But for some reason with all the **** you talk i thought you had more balls than that. But, i knew you didnt. Hilarious!

[orange 4 life]

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.

we'll see.
this is one guy, and this is also a guy that doesnt want to talk about it right now. the investigation is still ongoing, and that lawyer must at least have the appearance of being impartial.

based on everything ive seen and heard, vick is gonna pay for this. to what extent is a concern, but i really doubt he just walks away.
if so, its not a race issue, but it would be a HUGE black eye for the NFL who has already been made out to be a league of "thugs". guys like vick getting away with this kind of stuff is what overshadows the many GOOD things that are done by many other NFL players.

time to read the rest of this thread. i hope the focus is on vick instead of race.

[-Slap-]

buc buc buc

[azbroncfan]

we'll see.
this is one guy, and this is also a guy that doesnt want to talk about it right now. the investigation is still ongoing, and that lawyer must at least have the appearance of being impartial.

based on everything ive seen and heard, vick is gonna pay for this. to what extent is a concern, but i really doubt he just walks away.
if so, its not a race issue, but it would be a HUGE black eye for the NFL who has already been made out to be a league of "thugs". guys like vick getting away with this kind of stuff is what overshadows the many GOOD things that are done by many other NFL players.

time to read the rest of this thread. i hope the focus is on vick instead of race.

Jake you only post in this thread now, lets talk football.

[orange 4 life]

They won't get a conviction because the Surry prosecutor will never file charges. If they do (which I consider to be very unlikely, and will only happen if there is a huge public uproar), it will get pled out to something small before it ever goes to trial. The Surry County DA doesn't have the resources to pursue this. I'm starting to question if the DA even owns a suit and tie. He knows it will only triple his work to bring the charges, so he'll do everything in his power to never let it happen.

...and this is why its so important to keep talking about this. to get as many people as possible to see "the truth about dogfighting" or some other similar information.

people should be VERY angry about this, and the public should DEMAND that vick be charged.
with enough pressure, theyll at least charge him, and if that pressure continues, they may even get a reasonable punishment simply with the threat of a trial.

[ØrangeÇrush]

I prefer Chocolate Donuts over white Powered ones...

First they taste better, now obviously this is all due to preference, however, I think the chocolate donut doesn't need anything to go down with, although a glass of milk with my donut is awesome..

Second, the powered white donut is messy dry tasting and definitely needs washing down...however, there isn't anything good to was it down with....


Overall, even though I prefer chocolate donuts to the white powered ones, I feel that neither are capable of touching the glazed donut..

[theAPAOps5]

I prefer Chocolate Donuts over white Powered ones...

First they taste better, now obviously this is all due to preference, however, I think the chocolate donut doesn't need anything to go down with, although a glass of milk with my donut is awesome..

Second, the powered white donut is messy dry tasting and definitely needs washing down...however, there isn't anything good to was it down with....


Overall, even though I prefer chocolate donuts to the white powered ones, I feel that neither are capable of touching the glazed donut..

See based on your donut commentary I know you aren't a donut maker. Bhaaawaaaaaaaahaaahaaaaaa

[-Slap-]

Its deplorable how many donut shops don't make crullers anymore. Too labor intensive my ass.

[BroncoInSkinland]

I prefer Chocolate Donuts over white Powered ones...

First they taste better, now obviously this is all due to preference, however, I think the chocolate donut doesn't need anything to go down with, although a glass of milk with my donut is awesome..

Second, the powered white donut is messy dry tasting and definitely needs washing down...however, there isn't anything good to was it down with....


Overall, even though I prefer chocolate donuts to the white powered ones, I feel that neither are capable of touching the glazed donut..

Your take on donuts is fascinating, however I feel that statistically your data is flawed. Based off the three similar data sets of police, truck drivers, and more police that consume 99.95% of all donuts, we can see that coffee is obviously the beverage of choice with donuts. Obviously since 99.95% of donut consumption involves coffee, your view of milk with donuts bears no weight and your take on chocolate vs. white is irrelevant. Further it can thereby be assumed that there is no thug culture in the NFL.

Also I believe there may be some race issues involved in your donut statement. Since Chocolate donuts have recieved a bad treatment throughout history, we must be very selective in any criticism aimed their way and must be especially careful not to single out any donut for special treatment. Even if the donut in question contains a cockroach, or gains ammusement through the torture of helpless dogs, it would be wrong to single that donut out. We must instead take it as part of a whole group of donuts, and thus it becomes clear that M.V. is obviously innocent and a swell guy to hang out with as well.

[Northman]

Your take on donuts is fascinating, however I feel that statistically your data is flawed. Based off the three similar data sets of police, truck drivers, and more police that consume 99.95% of all donuts, we can see that coffee is obviously the beverage of choice with donuts. Obviously since 99.95% of donut consumption involves coffee, your view of milk with donuts bears no weight and your take on chocolate vs. white is irrelevant. Further it can thereby be assumed that there is no thug culture in the NFL.

Also I believe there may be some race issues involved in your donut statement. Since Chocolate donuts have recieved a bad treatment throughout history, we must be very selective in any criticism aimed their way and must be especially careful not to single out any donut for special treatment. Even if the donut in question contains a cockroach, or gains ammusement through the torture of helpless dogs, it would be wrong to single that donut out. We must instead take it as part of a whole group of donuts, and thus it becomes clear that M.V. is obviously innocent and a swell guy to hang out with as well.



Yea, but you dont live in Texas so your take is irrelevant. LOL

[orange 4 life]

Because he's innocent.

Jesus i hope youre kidding.

youre absent from the NUMEROUS threads that show all the evidence piling up, but voila!!
here you are on the ONE thread (its not even a story if you click the link. the attorney just doesnt want to show his hand) that proposes charges wont be filed.

if you actually believe he is innocent then youre not the person i thought you were.
only a person of EXTREMELY shady character would be defending vick right now.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Yea,

It is obvious from this statement that you are a flaming liberal and a liar.

but you dont live in Texas

By disecting your response and replying to only small parts of it at a time I will make you seem simple. This has the added benefit of making me seem more intellegent which is handy as I frequently loses arguments to rocks I trip on in the street.

so your take is irrelevant.

Now that I have spent quiet some time writting what amounts to actually nothing, I will claim complete and total victory in this argument, and wait for the people of earth to elect me supreme ruler and commander. At that point I will politely request some choclate donuts, as they are delicious. Particularly with milk. BWAAAHAAAA!

[orange 4 life]

Jake you only post in this thread now, lets talk football.

sounds good buddy. that wont give me near as much of a headache.

on another note, is it me, or is there alot more bronco fan on bronco fan crime on this board than ever before?

[Inkana7]

sounds good buddy. that wont give me near as much of a headache.

on another note, is it me, or is there alot more bronco fan on bronco fan crime on this board than ever before?

http://images.askmen.com/men/sports_60/pictures/donovan_mcnabb/donovan_mcnabb_150b.jpg
Someone mention Black on Black crime?

[theAPAOps5]

supposedly there is some handbook floating around about chocolate and powdered sugar donuts. But I haven't really gotten my hands on it.

[footstepsfrom#27]

LOL LOL

I smell a coward of the high order. Its ok Foot, you can tuck your tail between your legs and go put your head in the sand. But for some reason with all the **** you talk i thought you had more balls than that. But, i knew you didnt. Hilarious!
Ha ha..."cowardice" defined as not falling for a child's game of chicken...whatevvvverrrrrrr man!

So what's in it for me dude? I mean, let's see how this little playground game stacks up and whether I get any benefit from this or not...

1) I don't trust any of you clowns not to cook up some little scheme to skew the results to any potential "challenge" to your liking...Duh. Why is that? Simple...because you have a horse in the race...and any time RACE issues are mentioned on this board...well whadayaknow?...SHOCKING!...it's the same folks showing up each and every time to mud wrestle with me...which explains your bizarre and vitriolic obsession with this little game. The usual suspects...and you all share a common denominator here...pretty pathetic actrually.

2) Where's the payoff for me here? Funny...I don't see one. Since I could care less about seeing somebody get banned in here that means nothing to me one way or the other. I don't even care about seeing Bob getting banned...why should I? He's comedic relief. My point from the beginning was to demonstrate that what was stated was simply flat out wrong. Well that part's already a done deal...it's no longer open for debate, and since I've already done that...what do I gain from this deal should I win? Eh...that would be...NOTHING.

3) Hey...I might lose! LOL I mean there is "some" chance the dude is a real lawyer...albeit a really poor one...meaning I leave the Mane for two months? Riiiiiiggghhhtttt......I don't think so kids....it's to much fun poking all you fools in the eyes now and then and watching you run like chickens with your heads cut off in 14 directions at once...quite entertaining I think. And if you're silly enough to think this has something to do with "having balls"..."sackin' up"...etc...LOL...well I guess that just pretty much makes you...what?...about 12 years old maybe?

Add it all up...it means something to YOU...not to ME...I already made my point and have nothing to gain here so only an idiot would risk something for nothing in return...got it? I mean a win at this point would be like hangin' a 48-0 *** kickin' on somebody and then running a flea flicker in the 4th quarter...

Anticlimactic...

Now what happened to the lawyer? Anybody? ??? Wouldn't he want to come back in here and defend his prior statements? Any of YOU want to dispute something I said...maybe in post 80 perhaps?

Naw...why bother to answer real questions when you can hide behind your own private circle jerk and act like you did something? :thumbs:

[DCCardsFan]

So a white guy wouldn't want me to live in his neighborhood because of what a small percentage of NFL athletes do? That's BS. Why do a number of white people (I'm not saying all) define the black race by it's negative aspects? Puts us all in the same boat.

Should I not want to live around a white person because hockey players fight all the time? How about all the trouble the Hollywood crowd gets into? There are a number of white folks there who get DUIs, do drugs, and do all kind of crazy stuff. Should I define the white race by those people? I don't.


Black people, in general, are not in favor of the OJ style injustices. When do not like to see crooks go free. But we do find it amusing that many whites finally saw how screwed up the justice system was after a black man got away with murder. There didn't seem to be much of a problem when white people were getting away with killing blacks.

Most black people that I know think OJ did it, and should have gone to jail for it.

I don't know why you started in with race in this case. This is not a race issue. Tihs is a Vick issue. To me it sounds like the race issue is with you. You are upset that it looks like a black guy is getting off while white kids had their name smeared all over the place. There are countless cases that are happening today where blacks are getting a raw deal, but you want to act like blacks are now getting off in court. When did that start happening?

As for black athletes getting a free pass in high school, you are nuts if you think that big time white athletes don't get the same pass. Any big time athlete is going to be able to get away with a lot.

As for Bill Cosby and Jason Whitlock, don't put those two guys in the same sentince. Cosby talked about a specific group of black people as the problem. He told the truth. Whitlock is no Cosby. Whitlock tells white America what they want to hear. That's why white folks love his so much. He bashes his own people to make a name for himself. Most of his points are way off base. He lumps us all into the same group, which is wrong. Cosby did it the right way. Whitlock is just trying to make the man happy.

Vick is one of millions of inner-city black folk who have a general disdain for white folk and society in general. Vick is simply a high-profile symbol of what is really a class culture war. It's not that it is fair or right that a white guy wouldn't want you living in his neighborhood because of what Vick does. But, eventually, unfortunately, because of the color of your skin, you will get lumped into it. Not by the majority, but even one person who becomes more racist because of OJ or Pacman Jones or Vick is too many.

Jason, you are clearly not part of the black lower class, just as I am not white-trash. We are both college-educated, relatively well-rounded people who are interested in complexities of life.

While you may not understand what Michael Vick is about yet, you HAVE to have bumped into black guys like Vick.

I never said all black people are one way, or anything like that. Neither did Whitlock. I simply said there are a lot of black people who celebrate what Vick and Pacman are doing. There aren't a whole lot of white people who celebrate and defend white athletes' criminal activity.

Whitlock CAN be lumped in with Bill Cosby, because he does the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thing, and there has been a significant backlash from the urban, lower-class black community against both. I'm not saying that those two guys have the same opinions. Everybody is different, and I can't even begin to say I understand either of them. I've never met either. But the comparison is at least superficially valid.

As I am college-educated and have a certain fungible income, the black guys I know are also college educated and in similar industries, and have attitudes similar to Bill Cosby and Whitlock. It's not that I sought these guys out, it just kind of happened. After all, I meet people who live in my neighborhood, work with me, played on my sports teams in high school and college, or went to school with me. Admittedly, I am not getting a good cross-section of society. I just haven't been exposed very much to poor white people (what people commonly refer to as "trailer trash"), or poor black people.

Back to my black friends - every last one of them has had experiences with other black people who for whatever reason (jealousy, a feeling of betrayal, who knows) have branded them oreos, or traitors to their own race, or whatever. Why? Because they don't speak ebonics, they don't have cornrows, they don't wear hip-hip fashion, etc.

Now, the rednecks I have been exposed to in my life, don't really respect me, the "college boy," any more than those "thug-life" guys respect my black friends. These things are class things more than racial things. But just like I see a problem with my own culture, one that fosters pretentiousness, laziness, corporate malfeasance, elitism, I also see a problem with the culture that Larry the Cable Guy represents (even though he actually did not grow up in the redneck/trailer-park atmosphere), and YES, shocker, I see problems with the urban, hip-hop culture.

That is what I'm talking about. No one would EVER call Vick an Oreo. He represents a certain segment of population that is NOT defined by the color of the people's skin. Eminem is as pale as they come, and he is part of it. Plenty of white, asian, hispanic, italian, etc, are in the culture. And this culture is defined by "being different," not caring about school, not listening to teachers, parents, or bosses, pushing the envelope in fashion, music, and the arts, glorifying misogyny, drugs, guns, violence, and generally showing a total disrespect for everything perceived to be white, or "square." Filing a false police report? No big deal. Lying to a grand jury? NO big deal. Exaggerating an insurance claim (or even completely making it up)? No big deal. It is a cultural thing. I am not a racist to see that is is there. It is the elephant in the room that most people do not feel comfortable talking about, but it still is there.

You make a very good point that whites complain about the OJ verdict but you didn't hear them complaining loudly about all the past injustices before that. For years, when white people were standing around complaining about OJ, I would say that for every OJ, there has been 100 instances of a white person getting off for murdering a black person. It usually would shut them up.

However, I never used that as justification for what black people seemed to do, in rubbing people's noses in it. Jason says his friends believe OJ did it. Well, maybe so. But are they glad he got off? If not, I would bet they are middle/upper class. Middle class black people NEVER rubbed white folks noses in the OJ verdict. But the lower class clearly did. Either that or the pollsters lied after the OJ verdict. Or the black people wildly cheering the verdict in virtually every city in America were just a highly-publicized minority of black folk who were exaggerated by the media in a plot to fuel "reverse-racism" complaints by whites.

Palestinians have been badly mistreated over the years (much worse than any african-american age-group still alive today), but that does not excuse those who wildly cheered when the world trade center was attacked. And it does not excuse suicide-bombings and other forms of terrorism. Explains it, maybe, but does not justify it. And all it does is provoke a response from the other side, and drive people apart. The point is, it DOES NOT HELP THE PALESTINIANS. Just like OJ and Duke lacrosse does not help black folks.

My black friends are thoroughly embarrassed by what happened with OJ, duke lacrosse, and yes, guys like Vick flaunting their untouchableness. They believe that Vick is a modern day minstrel, and don't like that he is a high-profile black "hero" to so many.

And the real racists, on both sides of the equation, are Vick's apologists, and critics of my friends for "not keeping it real." A real white racist WANTS black people to be like Dave Chappelle in that MTV cribs parody comedy sketch: "and this here. White Panda. Hulk Hogan choked one out for me on my birfday". It allows black folk to be ridiculed, segregated, and dismissed.

Jason, just think about that for a second. Think about whether I'm complaining about the treatment Vick gets because I'm jealous (or somehow wish white kids got similar treatment), or because it makes me sad that he is actually pushed down the road he is on by both blacks and whites. That he has been led down the primrose path. Trust me, this is not something I am envious of, or angry aboput because he is getting "advantages." Like a 8 year old movie star, he is surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. And it is not good for him. The fact that what he is is still CELEBRATED is even worse. I think "white suburban society" does celebrate the Mickey Mantle bad-boy image of a womanizing hard-partier to a certain extent (Paris Hilton, et al), but not to the extent that guys like Vick are celebrated in his community. Mickey Mantle is always an example of WHAT NOT TO DO. Vick seems to be an example of WHAT TO DO.

For all the "keeping it real" and attempts to be "different," Vick really has ended up being very predictable.

[REB]

Vick will be putting offers in for this dog...

http://www.toxicjunction.com/get.asp?i=V2572

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ha ha..."cowardice" defined as not falling for a child's game of chicken...whatevvvverrrrrrr man!

So what's in it for me dude? I mean, let's see how this little playground game stacks up and whether I get any benefit from this or not...

1) I don't trust any of you clowns not to cook up some little scheme to skew the results to any potential "challenge" to your liking...Duh. Why is that? Simple...because you have a horse in the race...and any time RACE issues are mentioned on this board...well whadayaknow?...SHOCKING!...it's the same folks showing up each and every time to mud wrestle with me...which explains your bizarre and vitriolic obsession with this little game. The usual suspects...and you all share a common denominator here...pretty pathetic actrually.

2) Where's the payoff for me here? Funny...I don't see one. Since I could care less about seeing somebody get banned in here that means nothing to me one way or the other. I don't even care about seeing Bob getting banned...why should I? He's comedic relief. My point from the beginning was to demonstrate that what was stated was simply flat out wrong. Well that part's already a done deal...it's no longer open for debate, and since I've already done that...what do I gain from this deal should I win? Eh...that would be...NOTHING.

3) Hey...I might lose! LOL I mean there is "some" chance the dude is a real lawyer...albeit a really poor one...meaning I leave the Mane for two months? Riiiiiiggghhhtttt......I don't think so kids....it's to much fun poking all you fools in the eyes now and then and watching you run like chickens with your heads cut off in 14 directions at once...quite entertaining I think. And if you're silly enough to think this has something to do with "having balls"..."sackin' up"...etc...LOL...well I guess that just pretty much makes you...what?...about 12 years old maybe?

Add it all up...it means something to YOU...not to ME...I already made my point and have nothing to gain here so only an idiot would risk something for nothing in return...got it? I mean a win at this point would be like hangin' a 48-0 *** kickin' on somebody and then running a flea flicker in the 4th quarter...

Anticlimactic...

Now what happened to the lawyer? Anybody? ??? Wouldn't he want to come back in here and defend his prior statements? Any of YOU want to dispute something I said...maybe in post 80 perhaps?

Naw...why bother to answer real questions when you can hide behind your own private circle jerk and act like you did something? :thumbs:All the ranting just to say I'm not going to back up my words? You take yourself WAY too seriously!

[footstepsfrom#27]

All the ranting just to say I'm not going to back up my words? You take yourself WAY too seriously!
Dude...get a clue...I PROVED my point and didn't need your kindergarden double dare to do so.

YOU take me pretty seriously too...you inevitably answer don't you? ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Dude...get a clue...I PROVED my point You did? I thought you called him out and said he was lying about being an attorney. You didn't do that?

[footstepsfrom#27]

You did? I thought you called him out and said he was lying about being an attorney. You didn't do that?
Sure I did...but THE POINT...which you would like to ignore...was that attorney or not (I say probably not)...his characterization of several things any lawyer ought to know was pure unadulterated BS.

That's obviously no longer in doubt. Oddly...if he IS an attorney...it looks MUCH worse than if he's not.

[jossjeff]

Gotta say that this thread was outstanding.

I don't have a clue who DC Cards fan is but dude was on freaking fire in this thread.

Wow.

Entertaining read all around.

[DCCardsFan]

BAAAHAAA!!....I see the reading comprehension issue is poking its head up again...not suprising that the usual collection of rubes with a psychological need for Alpha Male experiences are weighing in...fact is dude...I did not say I DO legal research...as in present tense...I said I DID legal research...past tense. If you aren't to lazy to search this board you'll bump into an occassional reference to this obscure little factoid if it really means that much to you. I post on here a lot because I work for myself and spend 90% of my time in my business either digging up stuff on the web or staring at numbers...which means I bounce over to this little corner of the web now and then to take a break...sorry if you don't get that, but more to the point, what exactly am I "lying" about?...that grave doubts exist on our resident "lawyer" and his bold proclamations about race, the criminal justice system, his wealth of trial experience, etc...? Hmmm...I guess you can feel free to swallow that and wack off to the "challenge" of another silly bet in trying to determine who does and does not have credibility here if you want to...not really my concern either way.

I think I'll just let the US Supreme Court speak for me instead...mmmkay? Let me see now...Supreme Court decision...juvenile bet with internet football fans on the OM...Supreme Court decision...OM bet..........???...Supremes...OM bet...?

Eh...Supreme Court decision it is. :thumbsup:

Jeremy may be a lawyer...cause I've known some crapy ones...but if he is he's a really BAD one...or maybe just intellectually dishonest if you like that better...LOL I mean come one dude...anybody who thinks doing legal research equates to "practicing law without a license"...doesn't recognize the central figue in one of the highest profile criminal cases in US history...confidently spews out crap that the Supreme Court has already stated as bogus...???...well let's just say we're not talking Alan Dershowitz here...

No surprise that you think so however... :rofl:


As for you, my eloquent friend. I always have been prejudiced against Texans. I guess it was when I was a ski bum in Steamboat, when Texans with money would come in and act like they owned the place, all the while asking stupid questions everywhere they went. I apologize to those Texans out there who just happen to live in Texas, and are not stereotypical Texans. But, footsteps falls right into the stereotype. Are you from Dallas?

The huge Ego, the axe to grind, the Don't Mess With Texas shirts, the shameless self-promotion, and general superiority complex that you people have. To most of the other states, in places where people actually innovated rather than simply pumping black gold from the ground, you just look like indulgent children.

Hmmmm. let's see, where should we start.

""Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated.""

No, this was not in the handout I read in law school about what not to do and prosecutorial misconduct.

This actually was from a "memo" sent out in 1963, according to the only google article I could find that mentioned it.

It certainly was not part of any handbook that was used "into the early 90's," and even until "four years ago" as you claimed earlier in this thread.

Texas is a very backwards place, I realize, but even Texas is not that backwards.

And as for "legal research," I guess it depends on our definitions of legal research. Any time you research law and apply it to a set of facts, you are essentially giving legal advice. Sure, paralegals in my firm research legal topics, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ATTORNEY. They also draft pleadings, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ATTORNEY. But if they did it by themselves, for a client (whether or not they get paid), they would be practicing law without a license.

If your "legal research" was compiling cases that were of a certain type of case, without actually APPLYING them to fit a set of facts, you would not be doing anything unethical. But there is a legitimate reason why attorneys do the overwhelming majority of legal research in any firm (a paralegal's legal research in my firm, for instance, generally consists of finding out how to file stuff, organizing deadlines, drafting boilerplate pleadings, etc), and why "legal research" is a large part of many a young associate's job description. Because it is truly LEGAL WORK. If you are a law clerk, or a recent law school graduate who has not yet passed the bar, you can do legal research, but it then goes to a real licensed attorney, who REVIEWS it. If a non-attorney presents any kind of legal research memorandum to a client, he is doing something illegal.

The following is the "National Association of Legal Assistants" Model Standards. http://www.nala.org/98model.htm Legal assistants are essentially synonymous to paralegals, I believe. Although I think "paralegal" is a term of art that denotes you have passed some kind of course.

It is quite instructive. Go to "IV GUIDELINES," and read comment 3 and comment 5.

I'll cut and paste for those who don't feel like following the link:

**************************************************
"Legal assistants may perform services for an attorney in the representation of a client, provided:

The services performed by the legal assistant do not require the exercise of independent professional legal judgment;

The attorney maintains a direct relationship with the client and maintains control of all client matters;

The attorney supervises the legal assistant;

The attorney remains professionally responsible for all work on behalf of the client, including any actions taken or not taken by the legal assistant in connection therewith; and

The services performed supplement, merge with and become the attorney's work product.

Except as otherwise provided by statute, court rule or decision, administrative rule or regulation, or the attorney's rules of professional responsibility, and within the preceding parameters and proscriptions, a legal assistant may perform any function delegated by an attorney, including, but not limited to the following:

Conduct client interviews and maintain general contact with the client after the establishment of the attorney-client relationship, so long as the client is aware of the status and function of the legal assistant, and the client contact is under the supervision of the attorney.

Locate and interview witnesses, so long as the witnesses are aware of the status and function of the legal assistant.

Conduct investigations and statistical and documentary research for review by the attorney.

Conduct legal research for review by the attorney.

Draft legal documents for review by the attorney.

Draft correspondence and pleadings for review by and signature of the attorney.

Summarize depositions, interrogatories and testimony for review by the attorney.

Attend executions of wills, real estate closings, depositions, court or administrative hearings and trials with the attorney.

Author and sign letters providing the legal assistant's status is clearly indicated and the correspondence does not contain independent legal opinions or legal advice.

************************************************** *

You still have not clarified what you did as a "legal research provider." Please enlighten us. Use simple language that all of us less intelligent than yourself can understand. Use concrete examples of stuff that you did for your clients. The fact remains, if you researched cases, in order to apply them to a client's fact pattern (and thus give them advice), then you were practicing law. Just generally researching cases without any application is pointless, right? Unless you work for a newspaper, or or doing a term paper?

Even the people who do the case summaries for lexis and westlaw are attorneys. So what EXACTLY did you do? Whatever it was that you did, how any of that would give you any knowledge of jury trials or the rules of evidence, I have not a clue.

As for your Batson case. The Supreme Court did not overrule Batson, which is what I was referring to. They found, as a FACT, that in that particular Texas case, the prosecutor struck those jurors because of the color of their skin., which is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. In Batson, the SC held that a prosecutor may not use the color of someone's skin, or their gender, etc., as a reason to strike them. However, as long as the prosecutor maintains a "neutral explanation for challenging black jurors" (which in many cases, is just a pretext, as I explained), it passes constitutional muster. If anything, I was demonstrating that a prosecutor CAN, if he wants, generally strike black people in a case where he feels it helps him. I also explained that in my experience, prosecutors, while they CAN do that and get away with it, generally don't do that. It is true that every prosecutor's office is different, and I have intimate knowledge with only a very small sample size. Perhaps in Texas they regularly strike blacks without cause. WHo knows. But again, if that is the case, it is because of the malfeasance of one of the players in the system, not the system itself. There is no system that can force everybody to be fair. It is unrealistic. Yet you will continue to complain vaguely about the "racist system." Racist prosecutors, by the way, are going to make a whole lot more difference than racist judges. But neither of them make as much of a difference as the jury, or the skill of the lawyers who present the evidence to the jury, in the end.

I never said what I did is brain surgery. In fact, I don't do much legal research these days. I find drafting legal research memoranda or actually doing the grunt-work behind a Motion for Summary Judgment dull, repetitive, and boring. I begrudingly do it, but at heart I am a trial lawyer. Trying a case in front of a judge or jury requires instinct, spontaneity, an ability to read people, an ability to communicate a story, and most importantly, experience on how to phrase questions and where to pick your battles. There are other critical parts of litigation like depositions and a lot of phone calls and emails sent. A lot of work goes into every trial, and more cases settle than not (although a lot of my cases go to trial - probably 1 in 4 - maybe one in 3 of those is a jury trial). There is also a lot of reading and paperwork. I do not do appeals work, which is generally more for the eggheads. I like the trial level, and the competitive aspect of it all, and that's why I ended up where I ended up.

Nonetheless, I will even extend the bet to you. I will donate $1000 to the charity of your choice, if I am not able to sufficiently prove to an unbiased moderator that ITEMS 1-4 are absolutely true (5-7 are true, but I don't want to have to them, as it just SAYS those things on my bio on my firm's website, but items 1-4 I can easily definitively prove):

1) I am an attorney.
2) I am barred in three jurisdictions (VA, DC and MD), and passed two different bar exams at different times
3) I went to a top-20 law school (according to US News and World Reports)
4) I made the law review at that law school
5) I now practice 100% litigation (mostly civil work, admittedly)
6) I interned for a federal judge in US District Court, where I witnessed 2 federal criminal jury trials.
7) After law school, I was the sole law clerk for a year for a state trial court judge that handled almost exclusively criminal trials and pleas in a very busy criminal jurisdiction. We had a criminal docket 90% of the days I worked there. I saw countless jury trials, and witnessed all the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't hear, and is not on the record.


All you have to do is just be your regular jerk self and agree to submit to the jurisdiction of Taco John, or whomever. And agree to give up your posting privileges for a year once I show them the goods.

And stop calling me Jeremy. It hurts my feelings really bad to be called "Jeremy," whatever that means.

[shakenbake]

Once again ****steps doesn't know when to shut his mouth and ends up looking stupid. Nice work DC.

[Jason in LA]

Vick is one of millions of inner-city black folk who have a general disdain for white folk and society in general. Vick is simply a high-profile symbol of what is really a class culture war. It's not that it is fair or right that a white guy wouldn't want you living in his neighborhood because of what Vick does. But, eventually, unfortunately, because of the color of your skin, you will get lumped into it. Not by the majority, but even one person who becomes more racist because of OJ or Pacman Jones or Vick is too many.

Jason, you are clearly not part of the black lower class, just as I am not white-trash. We are both college-educated, relatively well-rounded people who are interested in complexities of life.

While you may not understand what Michael Vick is about yet, you HAVE to have bumped into black guys like Vick.

I never said all black people are one way, or anything like that. Neither did Whitlock. I simply said there are a lot of black people who celebrate what Vick and Pacman are doing. There aren't a whole lot of white people who celebrate and defend white athletes' criminal activity.

Whitlock CAN be lumped in with Bill Cosby, because he does the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thing, and there has been a significant backlash from the urban, lower-class black community against both. I'm not saying that those two guys have the same opinions. Everybody is different, and I can't even begin to say I understand either of them. I've never met either. But the comparison is at least superficially valid.

As I am college-educated and have a certain fungible income, the black guys I know are also college educated and in similar industries, and have attitudes similar to Bill Cosby and Whitlock. It's not that I sought these guys out, it just kind of happened. After all, I meet people who live in my neighborhood, work with me, played on my sports teams in high school and college, or went to school with me. Admittedly, I am not getting a good cross-section of society. I just haven't been exposed very much to poor white people (what people commonly refer to as "trailer trash"), or poor black people.

Back to my black friends - every last one of them has had experiences with other black people who for whatever reason (jealousy, a feeling of betrayal, who knows) have branded them oreos, or traitors to their own race, or whatever. Why? Because they don't speak ebonics, they don't have cornrows, they don't wear hip-hip fashion, etc.

Now, the rednecks I have been exposed to in my life, don't really respect me, the "college boy," any more than those "thug-life" guys respect my black friends. These things are class things more than racial things. But just like I see a problem with my own culture, one that fosters pretentiousness, laziness, corporate malfeasance, elitism, I also see a problem with the culture that Larry the Cable Guy represents (even though he actually did not grow up in the redneck/trailer-park atmosphere), and YES, shocker, I see problems with the urban, hip-hop culture.

That is what I'm talking about. No one would EVER call Vick an Oreo. He represents a certain segment of population that is NOT defined by the color of the people's skin. Eminem is as pale as they come, and he is part of it. Plenty of white, asian, hispanic, italian, etc, are in the culture. And this culture is defined by "being different," not caring about school, not listening to teachers, parents, or bosses, pushing the envelope in fashion, music, and the arts, glorifying misogyny, drugs, guns, violence, and generally showing a total disrespect for everything perceived to be white, or "square." Filing a false police report? No big deal. Lying to a grand jury? NO big deal. Exaggerating an insurance claim (or even completely making it up)? No big deal. It is a cultural thing. I am not a racist to see that is is there. It is the elephant in the room that most people do not feel comfortable talking about, but it still is there.

You make a very good point that whites complain about the OJ verdict but you didn't hear them complaining loudly about all the past injustices before that. For years, when white people were standing around complaining about OJ, I would say that for every OJ, there has been 100 instances of a white person getting off for murdering a black person. It usually would shut them up.

However, I never used that as justification for what black people seemed to do, in rubbing people's noses in it. Jason says his friends believe OJ did it. Well, maybe so. But are they glad he got off? If not, I would bet they are middle/upper class. Middle class black people NEVER rubbed white folks noses in the OJ verdict. But the lower class clearly did. Either that or the pollsters lied after the OJ verdict. Or the black people wildly cheering the verdict in virtually every city in America were just a highly-publicized minority of black folk who were exaggerated by the media in a plot to fuel "reverse-racism" complaints by whites.

Palestinians have been badly mistreated over the years (much worse than any african-american age-group still alive today), but that does not excuse those who wildly cheered when the world trade center was attacked. And it does not excuse suicide-bombings and other forms of terrorism. Explains it, maybe, but does not justify it. And all it does is provoke a response from the other side, and drive people apart. The point is, it DOES NOT HELP THE PALESTINIANS. Just like OJ and Duke lacrosse does not help black folks.

My black friends are thoroughly embarrassed by what happened with OJ, duke lacrosse, and yes, guys like Vick flaunting their untouchableness. They believe that Vick is a modern day minstrel, and don't like that he is a high-profile black "hero" to so many.

And the real racists, on both sides of the equation, are Vick's apologists, and critics of my friends for "not keeping it real." A real white racist WANTS black people to be like Dave Chappelle in that MTV cribs parody comedy sketch: "and this here. White Panda. Hulk Hogan choked one out for me on my birfday". It allows black folk to be ridiculed, segregated, and dismissed.

Jason, just think about that for a second. Think about whether I'm complaining about the treatment Vick gets because I'm jealous (or somehow wish white kids got similar treatment), or because it makes me sad that he is actually pushed down the road he is on by both blacks and whites. That he has been led down the primrose path. Trust me, this is not something I am envious of, or angry aboput because he is getting "advantages." Like a 8 year old movie star, he is surrounded by sycophants and yes-men. And it is not good for him. The fact that what he is is still CELEBRATED is even worse. I think "white suburban society" does celebrate the Mickey Mantle bad-boy image of a womanizing hard-partier to a certain extent (Paris Hilton, et al), but not to the extent that guys like Vick are celebrated in his community. Mickey Mantle is always an example of WHAT NOT TO DO. Vick seems to be an example of WHAT TO DO.

For all the "keeping it real" and attempts to be "different," Vick really has ended up being very predictable.


Vick has some issues, but I didn't know that he had a disdain for white people. I don't know where you came up with that from.

Whitlock said that black people can't come together in largue numbers without problems. He didn't talk about a specific group. He lumped us all into the same group, and he was wrong in his statement. There are many events where a lot of black people show up without a single problem. Those events don't make the news, but when there is a problem, it's all over the news, and people act like every black event is like that.

Whitlock is wrong about a lot of other points too. I'm no fan of Al Sharpton, but I will say that one point Whitlock made about Sharpton is wrong. He bashed Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for never protesting rappers. About a week before Whitlock made that statement Sharpton held a protest against 50 Cents' G Unit. It didn't make any of the news outlets...well, at least I didn't see it. I read about the protest on a hip hop website. Why didn't Whitlock know about it? Why does he run his mouth without knowing the facts? How often is he going to make blanket statements about blacks that are flat out wrong?

As for other black events, I attend Alpha conventions every year, where thousands of blacks converge in one city. Alpha Phi Alpha is the first black fraternity. The local businesses love it. Never any problem, and a lot of money is spent. Whitlock must not know about those conventions. Or conventions of the other black fraternities and sororities.

Here in LA there is a big jazz festival, where there are a large number of blacks. No problem. I guess Whitlock doesn't hear about events like those.

As a writer for a black newspaper I'm sent to cover a number of events, some in bad areas. Normally there aren't any problems. But ask Whitlock and black people can't get together without there being a problem. Maybe he needs to stop hanging out with Jeff George and start hanging out with some black people so he knows what is really going on.

Whitlock, like many people, lump the entire race into one catogory. That would be the catogory of the 15-30 year old thug. Most of us are not like that.

When ever there is a problem with an all black crowd it is usually a very young crowd. But that is true with other races as well. Look at Spring break, and all the rowdy white kids that locals complained about. When ever a large group of young people get together there will be a problem.

There is a big difference between what Cosby did and what Whitlock does. Whitlock tells white America what they want to hear. He says things that white America wishes they can say. He pretty much has a white person's argument. That is why he is hated by black people. Cosby is different. He talked about a specific group within the black community. His message was to a black audience. Whitlock is speaking to a mostly white audience.

At work, I jokingly told my editor that we should do like Whitlock does, and we'd be rich. We should stop targetting blacks, and target a white audience. Then we should change our content, and just bash black people. Distribute the paper in a white area, tell them what they wish they could say, and it would be the most popular black paper ever. That's pretty much what Whitlock is doing. Whitlock has a strong voice, so he could do some good. But he does more damage blacks than good because he makes us all look bad.

[cutthemdown]

Jason Jazz is one of the best things America has ever evented. People who love Jazz feel a bond with other Jazz lovers. You are right that you can go to any Jazz Club in LA and even if you are white you will be fine and have a great time. Now would I step foot at a Snoop Dogg concert at the LBC convention center? It is my hometown!!! No I wouldn't even thing about it because I know the crowd that rolls from that area of long beach. The main problem is just all the gangs roving the inner cities not regular black folks that make up the cast majority of the race.

[theAPAOps5]

Sure I did...but THE POINT...which you would like to ignore...was that attorney or not (I say probably not)...

Once again take up his challenge and put your money where your mouth is. Its not that big a deal if you are right it just proves your point. If you are so confident I say take him up on his little challenge.

[-Slap-]

Once again take up his challenge and put your money where your mouth is. Its not that big a deal if you are right it just proves your point. If you are so confident I say take him up on his little challenge.

After thinking about it, the last thing I want is for FootstepsfromTatum to leave. Its far more entertaining to watch DCCardsFan casually destroy him in thread after thread. If this were fight, it would have been stopped a long time ago.

[Northman]

It is obvious from this statement that you are a flaming liberal and a liar.



By disecting your response and replying to only small parts of it at a time I will make you seem simple. This has the added benefit of making me seem more intellegent which is handy as I frequently loses arguments to rocks I trip on in the street.



Now that I have spent quiet some time writting what amounts to actually nothing, I will claim complete and total victory in this argument, and wait for the people of earth to elect me supreme ruler and commander. At that point I will politely request some choclate donuts, as they are delicious. Particularly with milk. BWAAAHAAAA!



REP. i was PWNED. Ha!

[Northman]

After thinking about it, the last thing I want is for FootstepsfromTatum to leave. Its far more entertaining to watch DCCardsFan casually destroy him in thread after thread. If this were fight, it would have been stopped a long time ago.


Indeed. Ha!

[DCCardsFan]

Jason Jazz is one of the best things America has ever evented. People who love Jazz feel a bond with other Jazz lovers. You are right that you can go to any Jazz Club in LA and even if you are white you will be fine and have a great time. Now would I step foot at a Snoop Dogg concert at the LBC convention center? It is my hometown!!! No I wouldn't even thing about it because I know the crowd that rolls from that area of long beach. The main problem is just all the gangs roving the inner cities not regular black folks that make up the cast majority of the race.

Very true. I agree almost completely.

However, it's not just gangs vs. everybody else.

There has been a rejection of jazz among inner-city black youth, and an enjoyment of jazz is generally associated with educated and older black people (and of course, whites). A lot of the people I'm talking about AREN'T in gangs, but still have a disdain for white culture, and jazz. I think they believe that jazz used to be a black thing, but has been ruined by pretentious whites. I can kind of understand it. I used to like Phish until I witnessed all the obnoxious trustafarians following the band. Sometimes the fans of something can turn you off of the whole thing.

There ABSOLUTELY HAS BEEN a reaction and war going on within black society at large. The older generation, which generally has attitudes somewhat similar to Bill Cosby (and certainly there are young black people who feel this way, and old black people who don't), are disgusted with the work ethic and general attitude of the young-punk hip-hop sect. On the other hand, the hip-hop sect thinks that the older generation is too mollifying to "the Man," and would never lower themselves to shine shoes, be a doorman, or some other traditionally subservient job. If they work at McDonalds, they don't see it as an opportunity; they show up late, give the customers attitude, and probably spit on burgers every now and then.

The thing is, the older generation is generally much quieter, less obnoxious, and much less likely to command the spotlight and make it onto television. After all, television has always been, and will always continue to be (as long as advertising is a factor, at least), AIMED AT YOUNG PEOPLE.

Of course Jason is right that large numbers of black people can congregate without getting into trouble.

But if there's an NBA all-star game, an urban-chic rapper's concert, a clubby-club, there's a dogfight at Michael Vick's place, or it's Friday night in the courtyard of a project in the Baltimore hood, certain elements are SURE to come out, and there is going to be at least a little bit of trouble.

I haven't read what JasoninLA is referring to, and if he is characterizing Whitlock correctly, then I agree that Whitlock is wrong. I suspect Whitlock is only really guilty of one thing, however. Hyperbole and exaggeration. He has the "all or nothing" kinds of opinions that ESPN wants from all their analysts. I don't believe he really believes that "black people can't get together without violence," but he doesn't have time to explain in depth the REALITY in the 20 seconds he gets to talk about each issue on the air, or the 1000 words he gets in a short article he writes. I also don't think he is intentionally throwing black people in general under the bus to appeal to whites, either.

[Atwater His Ass]

So....did foot take the bet yet, or is he still throwing out accusations at every corner but refusing to back them up? I don't know what's worse, bobo welching on his bets, or foot making obnoxious claims and then trying to vainly defend why he doesn't have to back it up.

[bendog]

The Car Guys on NPR had a show once, where the caller was an academic type who had purchased a used volvo. TWICE he had parked his volvo and gone into his local donut shop. He said he'd be sitting at a table enjoying his coffee and donuts, and would see his volvo "turn on." He'd go running out and make sure he'd turned it off, locked it, and had the keys in his pocket. He said, one time, maybe I just goofed up, but TWICE?

The answer. He lived somewhere up in the NE where it snows and stuff, a previous owner had put in one of those remote car starter things, so he could warm the car up without going outside. And, since the new owner/caller was frequenting a place where police "malinger/loiter" with all their radio stuff, some cop was "unwittingly" using the same radio frequency that the remote was set to.

[bendog]

So....did foot take the bet yet, or is he still throwing out accusations at every corner but refusing to back them up? I don't know what's worse, bobo welching on his bets, or foot making obnoxious claims and then trying to vainly defend why he doesn't have to back it up.

He's bleeding worse than any of the Quarry brothers ever did.

RIP guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Quarry

[Garcia Bronco]

Vick is one of millions of inner-city black folk who have a general disdain for white folk and society in general. .

Vick didn't growup in an inner city...and you don't know what or what he doesn't have disdain for...

[theAPAOps5]

He's bleeding worse than any of the Quarry brothers ever did.

Down goes Footsteps, Down goes Footsteps...

[bendog]

Seriously, before Ali got his license back, Jerry had Frazier nearly beat, but Frazier cut him.

I still can't believe that Jerry beat Ron Lyle. But, then, Lyle was a sucker for Quarry the counter-puncher who had a strong jaw.

Cards, I'm not sure Whitlock ever said there was no segment of black folks who cannot gather without violence.

Why is that? White athletes go to nightclubs, drink and chase women as much as black athletes. But somehow white athletes tend to make it home without drawing a weapon or getting shot.

The difference isn’t skin color. It’s culture.

At one time, white culture embraced and promoted the concept of randomly lynching, beating and intimidating black men. Black people and organizations tired of the violence stood up and waged a civil-rights war to combat the culture of violence and other injustices.

Have black people not embraced/tolerated a culture of random violence against black men? The metal detector/screening process at most black-patronized nightclubs is more strenuous than airport security. We expect gun violence when we gather to allegedly have a good time.

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/nfl/_a/black-community-must-combat-gun-violence/20070104102809990001

[DCCardsFan]

Vick didn't growup in an inner city...and you don't know what or what he doesn't have disdain for...

Touche'. Garcia is actually right.

I don't know exactly what street Vick grew up on, but I grew up about a half hour away from his high school. While Warwick probably isn't technically in the "inner" city, and there are definitely worse school districts in Hampton and Newport News, there are plenty of projects nearby, and it is certainly "urban."

It's not south central LA or downtown Baltimore, but it's not suburbia either.

As for what I know about your boy Vick, I do know he doesn't have a disdain for dog-fighting.

And he has made it apparent that while he will pay lip-service to the many white people who help line his pockets, and while I'm sure he has *some* white friends, he doesn't appear to have any respect for the majority of whites, and certainly does not want to ever give the appearance of having yielded to whites or having "sold out." I'm sure he doesn't think of himself as racist - that's not what I meant.

I wonder if you would be so protective of him if he went to UVa?

[Garcia Bronco]

I wonder if you would be so protective of him if he went to UVa?


I don't know...but he did play for my school and you know the rest. I grew up down the way in Virginia Beach...but I was born in Portsmouth. When you say inner city...there is certain imagery that goes along with it...that's not Hampton.

I feel confident that Vick doesn't care what color people might be.

[DCCardsFan]

Seriously, before Ali got his license back, Jerry had Frazier nearly beat, but Frazier cut him.

I still can't believe that Jerry beat Ron Lyle. But, then, Lyle was a sucker for Quarry the counter-puncher who had a strong jaw.

Cards, I'm not sure Whitlock ever said there was no segment of black folks who cannot gather without violence.

Why is that? White athletes go to nightclubs, drink and chase women as much as black athletes. But somehow white athletes tend to make it home without drawing a weapon or getting shot.

The difference isn’t skin color. It’s culture.

At one time, white culture embraced and promoted the concept of randomly lynching, beating and intimidating black men. Black people and organizations tired of the violence stood up and waged a civil-rights war to combat the culture of violence and other injustices.

Have black people not embraced/tolerated a culture of random violence against black men? The metal detector/screening process at most black-patronized nightclubs is more strenuous than airport security. We expect gun violence when we gather to allegedly have a good time.

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/nfl/_a/black-community-must-combat-gun-violence/20070104102809990001

I agree with most of what Whitlock wrote in that article, and I'll bet a lot of black people do too.

Although, truthfully, IMO, black-on-black gun violence is almost never "random." It usually results from "beefs" people have with each other.

And neither was the systematic white violence against blacks before and during the civil rights era "random." It was specifically targeted at "troublemakers" who were "upsetting the norm," and was designed to intimidate black people into accepting the status quo.

[DCCardsFan]

I don't know...but he did play for my school and you know the rest. I grew up down the way in Virginia Beach...but I was born in Portsmouth. When you say inner city...there is certain imagery that goes along with it...that's not Hampton.

I feel confident that Vick doesn't care what color people might be.

Hmmmm....Grateful Dead fan, ViBeach, moved from P-Town, probably to get closer to the beach........First Colonial? Cox?

I am positive Vick doesn't really care what color people are, but he does care how people dress, speak, and act. To him, there are "cool white dudes" and the rest. The cool white dudes are the ones that have embraced the culture I previously described. As for the rest, they can f off in his book.

It is not whites that he has a dislike for, it is white culture.

[bendog]

That's true, it's usually not random. And, from what I see, the thing that really gets noticed is when an innocent bystander gets shot. And not just DWill. I've seen it down here when just "normal ordinary" people catch bullets not aimed specifically at them.

[Garcia Bronco]

Hmmmm....Grateful Dead fan, ViBeach, moved from P-Town, probably to get closer to the beach........First Colonial? Cox?

I am positive Vick doesn't really care what color people are, but he does care how people dress, speak, and act. To him, there are "cool white dudes" and the rest. The cool white dudes are the ones that have embraced the culture I previously described. As for the rest, they can f off in his book.

It is not whites that he has a dislike for, it is white culture.

I went to Salem until I went to Fork Union. I was bornin Portsmouth in 75...moved to Virginia Beach in 82....and lived there until 93...then moved to Blacksburg.

[Jason in LA]

Seriously, before Ali got his license back, Jerry had Frazier nearly beat, but Frazier cut him.

I still can't believe that Jerry beat Ron Lyle. But, then, Lyle was a sucker for Quarry the counter-puncher who had a strong jaw.

Cards, I'm not sure Whitlock ever said there was no segment of black folks who cannot gather without violence.

Why is that? White athletes go to nightclubs, drink and chase women as much as black athletes. But somehow white athletes tend to make it home without drawing a weapon or getting shot.

The difference isn’t skin color. It’s culture.

At one time, white culture embraced and promoted the concept of randomly lynching, beating and intimidating black men. Black people and organizations tired of the violence stood up and waged a civil-rights war to combat the culture of violence and other injustices.

Have black people not embraced/tolerated a culture of random violence against black men? The metal detector/screening process at most black-patronized nightclubs is more strenuous than airport security. We expect gun violence when we gather to allegedly have a good time.

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/nfl/_a/black-community-must-combat-gun-violence/20070104102809990001

Whitlock said that blacks have not been able to get together without a problem since the million man march. He did not talk about specific events, or events that attract a specific crowd. He lumped in all black events in with each other.

As for what Whitlock wrote, as usual, he is way off base. I have to wonder if he lives in a black community, or is in touch with what goes on in a black community. He obviously is unaware of the efforts to fight gangs.

There are more efforts to fight gangs in the black community than there is to fight racism. Of course Whitlock does not know that. There are a number of programs and groups who are trying their best. The results may not be great, but the effort is. But Whitlock is unaware of those efforts, and acts like they don't exsist.

Just last week there was a major meeting in LA for a gang truths that was put on by a few groups who are trying to stop the violence. It didn't get any media attention, so guys like Whitlock act like there are no efforts to stop the violence.

Since I work for a black newspaper, that is located in inner-city LA, I hear about a lot of groups and programs that are trying to stop the violence. Maybe somebody needs to inform Whitlock about them so he can get his story straight.

Does black youth accept violence? No. Does a segment of black youth accept the violence? Yes. Again, Whitlock has lumped everybody into one catagory. I don't know what the percentages are, but I'd say the bulk of the black teenagers in LA are kids like any other kids. But listen to Whitlock and they are all gangbangers. A small segment of them have made it seem like the entire group is bad.

The more that I read from Whitlock, the more I know that he doesn't know much about black culture, the black community, and I get the feeling that he doesn't even like black people.

There is a difference between telling people the harsh truth, and totally bashing them. Cosby told the harsh truth, and it was good to hear. He spoke about a specific group, and his audience was the people that needed to hear that message. Whitlock is totally different. He's not telling the truth. He's telling it like he sees it. The problem is that he is uniformed. He's going by perception. He knows who his audience is, and he's just telling you guys what you want to hear. You guys eating it all up because he is backing up the perception that you guys have.

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.

(I will admit that the last paragraph is pure speculation. For all I know he could live in a black community, and he could be a part of the efforts to stop the violence. But judging from his writing, I would be shocked if that was the case.)

[Popps]

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

Traditional black leadership has been corrupted by money. That’s why Al Sharpton has time to help Chris Rock’s mama sue Cracker Barrel because she had to wait 20 minutes to get served during a wait-staff shift change. There’s a paycheck for going after Cracker Barrel and there’s little risk.

Fighting a violent culture, particularly one that is producing major revenue for its promoters in the rap music, video game, TV and movie industries, is as risky as holding a march in the streets of Selma, Alabama in 1960.

Sounds like common sense, to me. Perhaps common sense a lot of people don't want to hear, but common sense.

As for him speaking to a "mostly white" audience. How do you know that, Jason? Looks like's on AOL, to me. Is that a white-only website? Last I checked, black people were free to use the internet. Since when has a black dude writing articles about football on a free website been "speaking to a white audience?"

He's just speaking to an audience..... whoever will listen. Is he supposed to seek out a black-only sports site?

[Jason in LA]

I haven't read what JasoninLA is referring to, and if he is characterizing Whitlock correctly, then I agree that Whitlock is wrong. I suspect Whitlock is only really guilty of one thing, however. Hyperbole and exaggeration. He has the "all or nothing" kinds of opinions that ESPN wants from all their analysts. I don't believe he really believes that "black people can't get together without violence," but he doesn't have time to explain in depth the REALITY in the 20 seconds he gets to talk about each issue on the air, or the 1000 words he gets in a short article he writes. I also don't think he is intentionally throwing black people in general under the bus to appeal to whites, either.

Whitlock is big time. He has more than enough time and space to get his point across. If he wanted to specify the group that he was talking he could. I'm sure his editor gives him as much space as he wants.

I found one of his arguments very interesting, and this was one of the few points that I would say that he was right about. He was talking about the fact that a black comic can make a white joke, but a white comic would get killed if he made a black joke. And Whitlock had a problem with this.

Now, I will say that it is a valid argument, and that white people do have a valid reason to gripe about this.

Here is the interesting thing about this argument. When have you ever heard a black person make this argument? It is a valid argument, but it is not an argument that you would ever hear from a black person. I agree with the argument, but I'm not about to make it. I'm pretty sure that there are some points in my arguments that some of you guys would agree with, but would any of you bring up those points? Probably not. There is nothing wrong with that. Its just not your fight, just like its not Whitlock's fight.

So why is Whitlock constantly bashing black people, and then he makes an argument that is pretty much a white person's argument? Its like he's fighting from a white person's point of view. He is saying things that white people really would love to say, and he is saying it to an audience where the bulk of the people are white.

Its like Whitlock is trying to uphold the greatness of white people, and act like black people are a bunch of thugs who have no direction.

Whitlock really reminds me of Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks. For anybody that didn't watch the Boondocks, Uncle Ruckus is an old black guy who hates everything about black people, but loves white people. Do a youtube search on him and you'll find some videos on him. It is funny that the two even look alike. I brought this up to one of my co-workers, and she said that the character Uncle Ruckus could be based on Whitlock. I wouldn't be shocked if that were true.

[Jason in LA]

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

Traditional black leadership has been corrupted by money. That’s why Al Sharpton has time to help Chris Rock’s mama sue Cracker Barrel because she had to wait 20 minutes to get served during a wait-staff shift change. There’s a paycheck for going after Cracker Barrel and there’s little risk.

Fighting a violent culture, particularly one that is producing major revenue for its promoters in the rap music, video game, TV and movie industries, is as risky as holding a march in the streets of Selma, Alabama in 1960.

Sounds like common sense, to me. Perhaps common sense a lot of people don't want to hear, but common sense.

As for him speaking to a "mostly white" audience. How do you know that, Jason? Looks like's on AOL, to me. Is that a white-only website? Last I checked, black people were free to use the internet. Since when has a black dude writing articles about football on a free website been "speaking to a white audience?"

He's just speaking to an audience..... whoever will listen. Is he supposed to seek out a black-only sports site?


You are nitpicking on words again. Okay, I won't say mostly. How about a "majority" white audience? I don't have any numbers to back up "majority", but I would think it would be fair to use that word, since the majority of this country is white. Well, the last time I heard it was.

Is "majority" more pleasing to you?

[watermock]

Jason, you do understand most people scroll thru your rediculously long and idiotic posts, right?

[Jason in LA]

Mock, do you understand that most people skip over your drunken ranting a ravings? Anybody who actually reads any of them are just waiting for you to finally admit that you have sex with your cats. 66,000+ post, and not one of them good. That's got to be some type of record.

You really shouldn't try to match wit against somebody who is sober. Lay off the Jack for a few hours and then get back to me.

[DCCardsFan]

Whitlock is big time. He has more than enough time and space to get his point across. If he wanted to specify the group that he was talking he could. I'm sure his editor gives him as much space as he wants.

I found one of his arguments very interesting, and this was one of the few points that I would say that he was right about. He was talking about the fact that a black comic can make a white joke, but a white comic would get killed if he made a black joke. And Whitlock had a problem with this.

Now, I will say that it is a valid argument, and that white people do have a valid reason to gripe about this.

Here is the interesting thing about this argument. When have you ever heard a black person make this argument? It is a valid argument, but it is not an argument that you would ever hear from a black person. I agree with the argument, but I'm not about to make it. I'm pretty sure that there are some points in my arguments that some of you guys would agree with, but would any of you bring up those points? Probably not. There is nothing wrong with that. Its just not your fight, just like its not Whitlock's fight.

So why is Whitlock constantly bashing black people, and then he makes an argument that is pretty much a white person's argument? Its like he's fighting from a white person's point of view. He is saying things that white people really would love to say, and he is saying it to an audience where the bulk of the people are white.

Its like Whitlock is trying to uphold the greatness of white people, and act like black people are a bunch of thugs who have no direction.

Whitlock really reminds me of Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks. For anybody that didn't watch the Boondocks, Uncle Ruckus is an old black guy who hates everything about black people, but loves white people. Do a youtube search on him and you'll find some videos on him. It is funny that the two even look alike. I brought this up to one of my co-workers, and she said that the character Uncle Ruckus could be based on Whitlock. I wouldn't be shocked if that were true.


Well, you could be right. There are black people who hate black people. There are white people who hate white people. And there are Americans that hate America and fight for the Taliban. I'm not convinced yet about Whitlock, but it's possible.

Let's just say I've heard the accusation "[Insert black man's name here] doesn't care about black people" thrown around enough about people who DEFINITELY did not deserve it, that I am naturally skeptical everytime I hear it.

A lot of times, UNcle Tom name-calling and the arguments you are making are applied to any black man who elevates himself or makes a name for himself in arenas traditionally known as white. While some people might deserve it to a certain degree (Clarence Thomas comes to mind), most do not, and even Clarence Thomas, while his policies arguably do not positively affect poor black people, is still a positive JUST BY HIM BEING THERE. It should let black kids know that anything is possible. Black parents should NOT be telling kids, "See Clarence Thomas? He's a sell-out, an Uncle Tom. He doesn't care about black people. The only reason he's on the Supreme Court is because he's a token, and will do what the white man wants him to do."

But plenty of black parents are telling their kids exactly that. Even if it's true, it is not a positive to explain it in that way. It only causes young black kids to decide early on that you can't be yourself and make it in a white man's world. And that is totally false.

If the culture in 1949 were the same as it is today, there would be huge numbers of young black Americans criticizing Jackie Robinson's decision to play baseball with whites.

Jason Whitlock may have a different point of view than yours, but his idea is one of taking responsibility. It sounds to me like he is speaking more to blacks than whites. Sure, espn.com has a majority-white audience, and whites like his arguments. But that is only because it is not hard for whites to see young blacks in this country NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY at an alarming rate. You can't help but see drugs, crime, healthy young men on disability, racism complaints getting made every time something goes wrong, etc.

I'm not saying it's only a black problem (there are plenty of white people doing this crap too), but I would say it is more of a black problem than a white problem.

I also totally reject the argument that it is acceptable for you to agree that there is a problem in having a double-standard regarding comedy, but that you would never bring it up. If you believe in something, you should not refuse to discuss it just because of the color of your skin. Perhaps you are afraid that people will question whether YOU are loyal to your race? I wouldn't want that either, and I probably wouldn't bring it up either if I felt I would be made an example of, but it would also alert me to a problem that those OTHER PEOPLE have. They are judging you on whether or not you are a "model black citizen" as opposed to a "model citizen."

I agree a double-standard in terms of comedy is a problem. But again, the reason I have a problem with it is not because I wish white people could make fun of black people (I already do it with my friends). It's because it would be better for the world, or at least be a sign of a better world. You know you're friends and friendly with people when you can bust their balls. When you can't bust balls, and you're on eggshells worried if someone's feelings are going to be hurt, guess what - you don't feel as comfortable around that person.

If a white dude could get away with dressing up like Serena Williams for halloween with dark make-up (I understand the whole idea that dark-face is historically sensitive and indicative of racism, but the prevailing obvious humor involved in the costume is that Serena is a "beast" and "manly"), and black people laughed at it (instead of petitioning the school to expel that student), it would be a sign that things have improved. But black people are very protective of white people making any kind of insult against any black people. If a white person criticizes Vick, you hear a bunch of "they don't criticize Urlacher for having sex with prostitutes" retorts. Where does that come from?

Again, it is a sign of insecurity. And it is reasonable to be insecure, when blacks only 50 years ago were completely segregated and did not have many rights.

I thought the Rutgers ladies' response to Imus was brilliant. Classy, reserved, and eventually they accepted his apology. It lets the world know that it doesn't bother them, even if it did a little bit. It is unfortunate that amidst their progressive and dignified responses, you had their coach and Sharpton and Jesse making a ruckus for their own personal benefit.

And it is people like Bill Cosby (I will no longer use Whitlock as an example, as there's no reason to, if he turns off middle-class blacks) and countless others who don't have as large an exposure as Cosby who are trying to turn these things around. Good for them.

Look in the mirror first. Only when you're POSITIVE that it's not YOUR fault should you try and find fault elsewhere. That is my message to my family. I wish everyone felt that way.

[theAPAOps5]

Jason, you do understand most people scroll thru your rediculously long and idiotic posts, right?

Pot I'd like you to meet Kettle:

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg

[Jason in LA]

Pot I'd like you to meet Kettle:

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg

Why does the pot and kettle have to be black? ;D

[theAPAOps5]

Why does the pot and kettle have to be black? ;D

You know I found a bunch of different variations with this picture one being speech bubbles saying Black. I actually hesitated and ended up not using those because of the thread. ^5

[Garcia Bronco]

Pot I'd like you to meet Kettle:

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg

Notice how the kettle and pot are black surrounded by nothing but white space. :D

[theAPAOps5]

Ah jebus I am just doomed on this one.

[bendog]

Well, Jason, if Whitless did lump "all" black people into one group, he was wrong. And DCCardsfan is right on it being partly a generational thing. But, the guys I lifted with at the YMCA ten years ago are not, and I'd bet never will be, part of thug culture. I don't think Thug's get along with African-American Methodists and law enforcement types who power lift.

But you cannot deny the fact that there's a greater liklihood of violence, gun violence, at a hip hop concert than Toby Keith ... unless you're one of the Chicks . . . or a Chili Peppers, or Kelly Clarkson, or Kenny Barons. And Jesse Jackson and Sharpton have devolved into shake down artists. It's really sort of sad. You see mayors from NOLA to Detroit getting hammered on attempts to cut down on handguns, but they don't get much help from what's left of civil right folks, and right now black on black crime is what is putting young black men in jail and keeping an underclass largely helpless.

[REB]

Has this become a d!ck size or pissing match or I got more testerone then you match? Good Lord Sensible dudes...leave it be. Let dumb ass fall where it may.

[theAPAOps5]

Has this become a d!ck size or pissing match or I got more testerone then you match? Good Lord Sensible dudes...leave it be. Let dumb ass fall where it may.

What are you trying to say REB, I don't like your insinuation here.

[insert long rant here making case above]

:thanku: :wiggle:

[Northman]

Seriously, before Ali got his license back, Jerry had Frazier nearly beat, but Frazier cut him.

I still can't believe that Jerry beat Ron Lyle. But, then, Lyle was a sucker for Quarry the counter-puncher who had a strong jaw.

Cards, I'm not sure Whitlock ever said there was no segment of black folks who cannot gather without violence.

Why is that? White athletes go to nightclubs, drink and chase women as much as black athletes. But somehow white athletes tend to make it home without drawing a weapon or getting shot.

The difference isn’t skin color. It’s culture.

At one time, white culture embraced and promoted the concept of randomly lynching, beating and intimidating black men. Black people and organizations tired of the violence stood up and waged a civil-rights war to combat the culture of violence and other injustices.

Have black people not embraced/tolerated a culture of random violence against black men? The metal detector/screening process at most black-patronized nightclubs is more strenuous than airport security. We expect gun violence when we gather to allegedly have a good time.

It’s sad. But there’s no outrage. There is no resolve to fight this culture of violence. We bow our heads, mourn, pretend it’s inevitable and look for a way to argue that it’s white people’s responsibility to fix it.

No doubt, racism created the mental illness of self-hate crippling many African-Americans. But the solution begins with us.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/nfl/_a/black-community-must-combat-gun-violence/20070104102809990001


Well said. :thumbsup:

[Northman]

Mock, do you understand that most people skip over your drunken ranting a ravings? Anybody who actually reads any of them are just waiting for you to finally admit that you have sex with your cats. 66,000+ post, and not one of them good. That's got to be some type of record.

You really shouldn't try to match wit against somebody who is sober. Lay off the Jack for a few hours and then get back to me.


:rofl: That was pretty funny.

[Northman]

I thought the Rutgers ladies' response to Imus was brilliant. Classy, reserved, and eventually they accepted his apology. It lets the world know that it doesn't bother them, even if it did a little bit. It is unfortunate that amidst their progressive and dignified responses, you had their coach and Sharpton and Jesse making a ruckus for their own personal benefit.




I found that interesting too. The players turned out to be the REAL teachers that day.

[bendog]

:rofl: That was pretty funny.

What scared me was that when I was reading it, I remembered that Mock's cats are declawed.

[Northman]

What scared me was that when I was reading it, I remembered that Mock's cats are declawed.



LOL Hilarious!

[Popps]

You are nitpicking on words again. Okay, I won't say mostly. How about a "majority" white audience? I don't have any numbers to back up "majority", but I would think it would be fair to use that word, since the majority of this country is white. Well, the last time I heard it was.

Is "majority" more pleasing to you?

So, if whites are a majority, what's the point of bringing it up? You're the one that said he's talking to white people. You either have a point or you don't.

The implication was that his points were invalid because he was "speaking to white people." I asked you how you came to that conclusion, and now you're just telling me that there are statistically less black people. '

Well, what's your point, then?

I'm not picking at words... you're just dancing around an awful lot. You imply quite a bit, but when pinned down on your statements, you wiggle out of them.

Do Jesse Jackson's point of views have more validity because he seeks out racially imbalanced audiences to hear them?

Logic is logic. It's either good logic or bad logic, and from what I read of Whitlock, he sounds like a guy with some thoughtful views.

Sounds to me like you're saying he's not black enough to be saying what he's saying. You don't quite want to come out and say it, but that's sure what it sounds like... and I can't imagine anything more ignorant.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Ha! Take a break from this place for a day and all kinds of slimy little vermin and race haters come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches in the night...LOL...no doubt none of you tools actually fathom what this discussion was even about...

Very well...here goes;

As for you, my eloquent friend. I always have been prejudiced against Texans. I guess it was when I was a ski bum in Steamboat, when Texans with money would come in and act like they owned the place, all the while asking stupid questions everywhere they went. I apologize to those Texans out there who just happen to live in Texas, and are not stereotypical Texans. But, footsteps falls right into the stereotype. Are you from Dallas?

The huge Ego, the axe to grind, the Don't Mess With Texas shirts, the shameless self-promotion, and general superiority complex that you people have. To most of the other states, in places where people actually innovated rather than simply pumping black gold from the ground, you just look like indulgent children.
Funny stuff Jeremy…but I’m not a Texan…I was born and raised in Denver. It is pretty amusing though to hear a lawyer describing others as arrogant…LOL…I’m guessing you see Texans as smarmy, backstabbing and two faced as well? In any case, I’m glad you used the word “prejudiced” to describe yourself…we’ll get back to that later OK?…not sure why you’re bagging on Texas as an oil-only economy either…since the state’s has been technology driven for over 20 years now….might want to catch up on things a bit.
"Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated."

No, this was not in the handout I read in law school about what not to do and prosecutorial misconduct. This actually was from a "memo" sent out in 1963, according to the only google article I could find that mentioned it.

It certainly was not part of any handbook that was used "into the early 90's," and even until "four years ago" as you claimed earlier in this thread.
Well Jeremy I must say you are beginning to win me over to the idea that you are indeed an attorney, not so much with your vast knowledge of the law, but more with your slippery underhanded methods of twisting facts, ignoring evidence and tap dancing around an issue. You say you found only one Google reference? That’s odd…by varying my search terms, I found several…INCLUDING THE ONE I PROVIDED YOU WITH. Is that the one you cited as evidence that no handbook existed? I certainly hope not since the reference to a manual (handbook) IS CONTAINED IN THE SAME SENTENCE where it speaks of the memo…I mean that would be extremely dishonest of you to hide that wouldn’t it? Observe:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1078368931456
One of the most inflammatory pieces of evidence the 5th Circuit examined was a 1963 "circular" from the Dallas district attorney's office that instructed prosecutors to exercise their peremptory strikes against minorities. Henry Wade was the Dallas district attorney from 1950 to 1986. The circular was later adopted in a 1968 training manual titled "Jury Selection in a Criminal Case" that was still in use by the district attorney's office as late as 1976, according to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion.

So the manual (I called it a handbook) was 1) first produced as a memo (circular) and then 2) incorporated into a manual 4 years later. All this happened on Dallas DA Henry Wades watch…which lasted till 1986. This doesn’t seem that tough to understand. Then we have the reference to the manual (handbook) by the US Supreme Court decision in Miller-Els. You're an attorney right? Did you even bother to check the Supreme Court ruling? Here it is:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-7662.pdf
A Dallas County district judge testified that, when he had served in the District Attorney’s Office from the late-1950’s to early-1960’s, his superior warned him that he would be fired if he permitted any African-Americans to serve on a jury. Similarly, another Dallas County district judge and former assistant district attorney from 1976 to 1978 testi¬fied that he believed the office had a systematic policy of excluding African-Americans from juries.

Of more importance, the defense presented evidence that the District Attorney’s Office had adopted a formal policy to exclude minorities from jury service. A 1963 circular by the District Attorney’s Office instructed its prosecutors to exercise peremptory strikes against minori-ties: “‘Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated.’” App. 710. A manual entitled “Jury Selection in a Criminal Case” was distributed to prosecutors. It contained an article authored by a former prosecutor (and later a judge) under the direction of his superiors in the District Attorney’s Office, outlining the reasoning for excluding minorities from jury service. Although the manual was written in 1968, it remained in circulation until 1976, if not later, and was available at least to one of the prosecutors in Miller-El’s trial. Id., at 749, 774, 783.

Some testimony casts doubt on the State’s claim that these practices had been discontinued before petitioner’s trial. For example, a judge testified that, in 1985, he had to exclude a prosecutor from trying cases in his courtroom for race-based discrimination in jury selection. Other testimony indicated that the State, by its own admission, once requested a jury shuffle in order to reduce the num-ber of African-Americans in the venire. Id., at 788. Con-cerns over the exclusion of African-Americans by the District Attorney’s Office were echoed by Dallas County’s Chief Public Defender.
Do we really need to continue to belabor this point? The manual was created in 1968 and contained the same material from the earlier circular, was distributed by Henry Wade, who held the office of Dallas DA until 1986, and it was available to the prosecutors in the Miller-Els case that the high court remanded and ultimately overturned with a finding that significant cause existed to accept the petitioner's complaint that racial bias existed in the DA's office over the jury proceedings. An investigate news piece done on this by Dallas media last year conducted interviews with several individuals, some of them white, who were on the inside of the DA’s office who said this policy was still being practiced as late as 2002.
Texas is a very backwards place, I realize, but even Texas is not that backwards.
Sadly Jeremy…it frequently is.

[footstepsfrom#27]

And as for "legal research," I guess it depends on our definitions of legal research. Any time you research law and apply it to a set of facts, you are essentially giving legal advice.
Obviously information gathered FOR attorneys is also applied BY attorneys…what’s your point? I don’t know what you mean by “apply it to a set of facts”…that’s a rather vague and murky phrase you’re using…but if you’re somehow saying it’s illegal for paralegals and legal assistants or others doing legal research to outsource themselves independently to law firms and legal departments inside corporations, financial institutions, etc…you’re wrong. Outsourcing solutions for legal services, including paralegal services and legal research services for law firms and corporate legal departments have been around for a long time. Some people call them "free-lancers" or independents. Martindale-Hubbell alone lists well over 1,000 such firms and there are probably many times that many. Are all of them doing research? No, but a lot of them are. We have at least half a dozen in Dallas that I know do legal research. Their clients are law firms, corporations, sometimes government agencies or NPO's trying to cut costs.
Sure, paralegals in my firm research legal topics, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ATTORNEY. They also draft pleadings, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ATTORNEY. But if they did it by themselves, for a client (whether or not they get paid), they would be practicing law without a license.
No they wouldn’t. The information provided by an outsourcing service BECOMES attorney work product, meaning supervision occurs at the end of the process rather than during it...and is obviously subject to review by the attorney…duh. Did I suggest otherwise? The only difference between “feelancers” working on their own and providing information to firms and legal departments, and paralegals, law clerks, degreed individuals who have not passed the bar, etc…actually employed by the attorneys as salaried staff, is that the information mined in-house by employees is often more expensive to procure than outsourcing to a legal services provider. Obviously legal assistants and paralegals work under attorney supervision, but ultimately WHEN their work is reviewed is not really the issue because the bottom line is that it ultimately all becomes attorney work product anyway.
If your "legal research" was compiling cases that were of a certain type of case, without actually APPLYING them to fit a set of facts, you would not be doing anything unethical.
You continue to use this vague reference to “applying them to fit a set of facts”…whatever that means. Legal research is ALWAYS conducted by applying a set of facts. Those facts are either specific to an individual case or cases, or drawn from discovery that can include anything from interviews with witnesses to researching controlling statutory considerations to case law. You seem to be making the bizarre leap that being aware of what kind of information is needed and finding it constitutes the illegal practice of law. It doesn’t. As I said…there are legal service outsourcing agencies all over the country that contract with firms, corporate legal departments, government agencies, etc…
But there is a legitimate reason why attorneys do the overwhelming majority of legal research in any firm (a paralegal's legal research in my firm, for instance, generally consists of finding out how to file stuff, organizing deadlines, drafting boilerplate pleadings, etc)
You obviously have a pretty low opinion of legal assistants and paralegals given your description that borders on presenting them as glorified secretaries, something indicative of a lot of attorneys I’ve met…as I said I see some things here that do make you look like a lawyer. There are paralegals here in Texas who make over $100,000 a year…some with long experience in specialized fields like oil and gas or patent law make more than some attorneys who work in other areas. More to the point, most of the stuff in the paragraph above is either false or contains shades of misrepresentation.

First of all it’s simply not true that “attorneys do the overwhelming majority of research in any firm". You don’t know what every law firm in America does, much less what every corporate legal department does, so don’t pretend you do. Some law firms have attorney’s doing 100% of the research…others have paralegals doing most of it. I know attorneys who NEVER do their own research, and merely check off on things once they’ve reviewed them. Some attorney’s strictly regulate what paralegals can do and others expect them to produce complete turnkey solutions to research with supervision involving a partner in the firm reviewing the end product. Second, I know of no lawyer who considers “finding out how to file stuff” as “legal research”…let alone “organizing deadlines” or “filing boilerplate pleadings…a pretty insulting view of legal assistants.
…and why "legal research" is a large part of many a young associate's job description. Because it is truly LEGAL WORK. If you are a law clerk, or a recent law school graduate who has not yet passed the bar, you can do legal research, but it then goes to a real licensed attorney, who REVIEWS it. If a non-attorney presents any kind of legal research memorandum to a client, he is doing something illegal.
So paralegals can’t hand over drafts to the firms clients? Right…but who said they could? However your characterization of research as done only by law clerks, etc…is not a consideration of LAW, but one of practice many firms adopt. You’re saying paralegals don’t use the tools of true legal research and that is simple nonsense.
The following is the "National Association of Legal Assistants" Model Standards. http://www.nala.org/98model.htm Legal assistants are essentially synonymous to paralegals,...
Oh cripes Jeremy…you’re making my case for me for Pete’s sake. From the same page you linked to, referencing expectations for billable vs. non billable services…observe:

Tasks performed by legal assistants must contain substantive legal work under the direction or supervision of an attorney, such that if the legal assistant were not present, the work would be performed by the attorney.

In other words, for work done by paralegals or legal assistants to be billable along with attorney hours the work must be “substantive” in the legal sense, (something you deny paralegals can do) and could only be performed by an attorney in lieu of the paralegals absence. Obviously “under the direction of an attorney” is also satisfied by the provisions of work that becomes attorney work product at the end of the day. That doesn’t jibe with your “glorified secretary” model for paralegals to well. Paralegals not only can do legal researach...they're specifically granted that responsibility and others that are "legal work" in order for firms to bill appropriately. Note the following as well...from the same page you linked to...attorney's fees INCLUDING services rendered by legal assistants can be recovered in court under these provisions:

In Taylor v. Chubb, 874 P.2d 806 (Okla. 1994), the Court ruled that attorney fees awarded should include fees for services performed by legal assistants and, further, defined tasks which may be performed by the legal assistant under the supervision of an attorney including, among others: interview clients; draft pleadings and other documents; carry on legal research, both conventional and computer aided; research public records…
You still have not clarified what you did as a "legal research provider."
I used this term to differentiate from working as a salaried employee because I had my own business providing outsourcing research services to corporate legal departments and law firms. I’ve also volunteered as an advocate for at risk kids and represented their parents in disciplinary proceedings with school district administrative officials (which under Texas law includes student offenses intertwined with the Texas Juvenile Justice Code's provisions for both school and district policy rising to the level of misdemeanor or felony behavior...see the Shaquanda Cotton case in Paris Texas), both locally and before the Texas Education Agency.

The Texas Education Code allows parents their choice of representation at these disciplinary proceedings regardless of whether the individual is an attorney or not. I’m also a patient’s rights advocate for victims of abuse by the Texas MHMR system and private psychiatric hospitals and have provided attorneys for these individuals with consulting services based on my knowledge of that field. Very few attorneys in Texas work in either school law or mental health law and attorneys will seek consultation with people who have worked in either field. The largest school law case I've worked on involved 20 months of research on fiscal improprieties stemming from the theft of $10 million in TEA and private funding by the operator of the Irving Texas based Renaissance Charter School in 1998-99 and represented 120 cases of federal civil rights violations with conspiracy to defraud the government and collusion among top TEA officials and one member of the Texas State Board of Education. Ultimately this investigation spread statewide after I was finished with it and found nearly $70 million in fraud at other Texas Charter Schools system-wide. Here's the link to the story: http://www.dallasobserver.com/1999-07-22/news/flunking-out/

In mental health, I provided consulting and research services to four DFW area law firms representing former patients in 1993 while Texas Attorney General Dan Morales launched state and federal investigations into Texas private psychiatric hospitials that resulted in national insurance reform and the National Medical Enterprises Inc. being fined $385 million by the Feds...the largest fine ever levied against a private company at that time. I researched corporate executive level and board connections between 13 DFW area private hospitals that included federal tax evasion through dummy corporations set up as non profits and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
As for your Batson case. The Supreme Court did not overrule Batson…
What are you even talking about? I never said they overturned Batson…I said they overturned Miller-Els, which they did. Read the Supreme Court opinion please.
Nonetheless, I will even extend the bet to you. I will donate $1000 to the charity of your choice, if I am not able to sufficiently prove to an unbiased moderator…All you have to do is just be your regular jerk self and agree to submit to the jurisdiction of Taco John, or whomever.
Naw…TJ and I have a “history”…LOL…besides, you’ve “convinced” me now. I’ve worked with both shrinks and lawyers…and both are colossal pricks…I should have recognized you right off the bat! The huge ego, the axe to grind, the shameless self-promotion, and general superiority complex that you people have. My bad…I figured you for uninformed rather than unscrupulous and dishonest...glad we've clared that up. :sunshine:
And stop calling me Jeremy. It hurts my feelings really bad to be called "Jeremy," whatever that means.
Thanks Jeremy…

It’s been fun…;D

[Merlin]

first produced as a memo (circular) and then 2) incorporated into a manual 4 years later. All this happened on Dallas DA Henry Wades watch…which lasted till 1986...
Your own quote makes reference to it being kept in the manual until 1976, there is no reference about 1986. Granted, I have not read anything about the case, so I am making reference to the quote you cite.
You continue to use this vague reference to “applying them to fit a set of facts”…...
Actually, it is not AT ALL vague in law, and any first yr law student should have a reasonable understanding of the concept. If you have worked closely with lawyers as a research assistant, I would be extremely surprised if by now the concept had not been ingrained in your research practices. As you know, CL is based on the precedent doctrine, so when you are doing research the cases being cited either can be directly on point, or somewhat related. However, for a lawyer, what is critical in research is that the precedents being cited are applicable to the facts as presented. That is, the lawyer is trying to figure out how previous cases have treated similar fact scenarios. It is a very straight forward concept in law, and any person with at least a yr's study or a half decent experience in law would be familiar with it. My guess is that your research has been so generic you have little understanding of the process. Your comments about the power of judges and ignorance of the threat of being over turned in appeals seems to further indicate this.

However, you could have made your point more eloquently if you addressed issues of penalties in law, the role of the legislature and the judiciary. Here the argument could be clearly made that racial bias comes into play. All you have to consider is penalties for crack vs cocaine usage, and consider the corresponding users. It is hard to argue race/class is not a factor in defining the penalties. Moreover, judges are far better off expressing their prejudice through the jail terms they give. As long as they remain within the boundaries of the law, and say nothing stupid in their decision, judges can easily treat people of different race/classes differently, since their decision would not be open to be overturned on appeals.

[RhymesayersDU]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6816928?MSNHPHMA

Investigator: Witnesses can put Vick at fights
FOXSports.com
Posted: 2 hours ago

The lead investigator in the dog-fighting investigation at a home that was owned by Michael Vick says there may be evidence that can directly tie him to fights at the property.

Yahoo.com's Jason Cole reports that Kathy Strouse, Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake, says there may be a videotape showing Vick at dogfights and that she has talked with individuals who can "put Vick on the property" during matches.

Vick has said that he rarely visited the house and that relatives living there were responsible for any misdeeds. He put the house up for sale last week and it is currently under contract.

Strouse told Cole she is "very confident" authorities will link Vick directly to the dog fighting and called out the prosecutor for not being more aggressive. "He was at the home and saw the equipment that we seized. When we were there, he said he had enough right there to issue an indictment."

The Falcons say they can't comment on the specifics of the dog-fighting case until officials in Virginia reach a decision on whether to file charges. The prosecutor handling the case and the sheriff who oversaw the raid have not responded to repeated requests for interviews.

Vick's cousin, who lived at the home, was the target of a drug case that led authorities to search the property. Investigators reported finding dozens of dogs - some of them injured and malnourished - along with items associated with organized fighting, such as treadmills for training, jaw-prying sticks, veterinary drugs commonly used to treat wounds and blood-soaked carpeting.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Atwater His Ass]

Naw…TJ and I have a “history"…besides, you’ve “convinced” me now. I’ve worked with both shrinks and lawyers…and both are colossal pricks…I should have recognized you right off the bat! The huge ego, the axe to grind, the shameless self-promotion, and general superiority complex that you people have. My bad…I figured you for uninformed rather than unscrupulous and dishonest...glad we've clared that up.

Can't just be a man and admit you were wrong can you? Why do you feel the need to hide behind your mud slinging?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6816928?MSNHPHMA

The lead investigator in the dog-fighting investigation at a home that was owned by Michael Vick says there may be evidence that can directly tie him to fights at the property.

Yahoo.com's Jason Cole reports that Kathy Strouse, Animal Control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake, says there may be a videotape showing Vick at dogfights and that she has talked with individuals who can "put Vick on the property" during matches.Uh oh, Vick may be history!

[theAPAOps5]

Thanks Jeremy…

It’s been fun…;D

Yeah Jeremy it has been fun.... watchin you own him.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Since the other thread was hijacked. This is pretty damaging news!!

------------------------------------------------------------
Animal control officer confident Vick was at fights (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2871625)
ESPN.com news services
Updated: May 16, 2007, 8:46 AM ET

Michael Vick has said that he was rarely at the Virginia house he owned where officials have found evidence of dog fighting and that he never took part in the practice. Investigators don't agree.


http://espn.starwave.com/i/nfl/profiles/players/65x90/5448.jpg
Michael Vick


Kathy Strouse, the animal control coordinator for the City of Chesapeake in Virginia which is investigating the case at the Smithfield home, told Yahoo.com on Tuesday she has spoken with individuals who can "put Vick on that property" during matches.

Saying she is "very confident" that Vick will be tied directly to the dog fighting on the property, Strouse has challenged Surry County Commonwealth attorney Gerald Poindexter to bring charges.

"He [Poindexter] was at the home and saw the equipment that we seized," Strouse said. "When we were there, he said he had enough right there to issue an indictment. He didn't say who he would indict, but he said he had enough.

"Now, with what he has said, it makes you think, 'What in the world is going on in Surry County?' This certainly doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about the Surry County attorney."

Strouse indicated that the individuals who place the Falcons quarterback at the scene have been reluctant to testify. In Virginia, dogfighting is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison.

According to a report Wednesday on the Atlanta Journal Constitution's Web site, Poindexter will meet with Sheriff Harold Brown and investigators Monday to review evidence in the case.

A grand jury in Surry County is expected to convene Tuesday, but Poindexter told the newspaper it was unlikely a review of the evidence would be completed in time to submit it to the grand jury by Tuesday.

Poindexter has declined to reveal the status of the investigation or whether charges are likely.

"I don't try cases in the press," Poindexter told WVEC-TV, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Va. "Lawyers who do that are despicable.

"I'm not going to be a party to a witch hunt," Poindexter said, according to the Journal Constitution. "This [process] will not be driven by people who hate Michael Vick, love Michael Vick or people who love animals."

Police conducting a drug investigation at the end of April raided the Vick-owned house and reported finding dozens of dogs, some injured and emaciated. Investigators also discovered items associated with dog fighting, including veterinary supplies, blood-soaked carpeting, treadmills used for training and tools used to pry apart a dog's jaws.

When the story broke, Vick told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I'm never at the house. I left the house with my family members and my cousin. They just haven't been doing the right thing."

Since that time, a Web site was discovered that showed Vick's name was being used to promote dog breeding that specialized in rare pit bull terriers and "the highly intelligent and powerful Presa Canario."

Vick has reportedly entered a contract to sell the house, but reports regarding his involvement in the operation keep surfacing.

Sports Illustrated reported on its Web site on Thursday that two friends of Vick said the QB knew about the dog fighting operation at the home. WAVY-TV in Norfolk reported that clerks at a store near the property said Vick bought items such as syringes typically used in dog fighting.

The Humane Society has told the NFL that past and present players say that the league has a serious problem with animal abuse.

Vick has now been advised by his attorney to stop talking publicly about the case.

"It is still under investigation, and once it is over, we will talk about it. As of right now, I cannot talk about the situation," Vick said.

Surry County, meanwhile, is being taxed by the investigation. WVEC reported on Tuesday that boarding the animals confiscated from Vick's property is costing the county $25,000.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

What an A-hole. I hope he gets genital herp... oh wait...

[Odysseus]

What an A-hole. I hope he gets genital herp... oh wait...

What kind of doctor are you again? LOL Do no harm? I bet you'd forget to pop the needle before you plugged in the IV bag. Whoops!

[bendog]

I hope he gives it to that DA Poindexter.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

What kind of doctor are you again? LOL Do no harm? I bet you'd forget to pop the needle before you plugged in the IV bag. Whoops!

You're confusing me for a nurse. Im in ur bellie... cutn out ur gutz..

[Odysseus]

You're confusing me for a nurse. Im in ur bellie... cutn out ur gutz..

The thought of Yavoon being a surgeon is kind of scary. The Roxor have butchered the entire English language. A piece of meat poses no challenge.

If you run into Mike make him a Michelle. It's well within your skill set. He shouldn't be using that diseased thing anyway. You would be helping him. Right?

[Dr. Broncenstein]

The thought of Yavoon being a surgeon is kind of scary. The Roxor have butchered the entire English language. A piece of meat poses no challenge.

If you run into Mike make him a Michelle. It's well within your skill set. He shouldn't be using that diseased thing anyway. You would be helping him. Right?

I can and have amputated a penis or two. Not for herpes... or general asshatery.... yet

[orange 4 life]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6816928?MSNHPHMA

I wouldve liked to see this as a stand alone thread since this one has turned into footsteps vs. dc, but at least its posted.

maybe we can get back to the issue at hand?

the attorney is obviously keeping a lid on this thing and not saying ANYTHING that could screw up the case, and while some take that to mean "vick will never be prosecuted" i take it to mean that theyre not gonna say squat until ALL the evidence is compiled, and that evidence is mounting.

bottom line is that it seems this story ISNT gonna go away (thank God), so the D.A. will be under ENORMOUS pressure to charge vick along with the turds he had living there.
bottom line is that anyone believing that vick "had never been there.....knew nothing about." needs their head examined.

he knew, and he needs to go down.
what a fvkkkin piece of garbage.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wouldve liked to see this as a stand alone thread since this one has turned into footsteps vs. dc, but at least its posted.
maybe we can get back to the issue at hand?
.I did that (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1588237&postcount=162) but a mod merged it with this one.

[Odysseus]

I can and have amputated a penis or two. Not for herpes... or general asshatery.... yet

It's never too late for a man with skills.

Don't put it in a jar and gloat about it. That would be too Dr. House of you. ROFL!

[watermock]

PFT I think, said that the FEDS were NOT involved with the investigation, which is baffling because dog fighting is a federal offense I THINK. I didn't like the po po job of the DA either. Hopefully they are just getting their ducks in a row.

I don't know what to think, other than the Golden Boy has clay feet and may come tumbling down.

Dr. B...you don't fry those when on acid do you?

[watermock]

I can't wait till his endorsement deals jump ship faster than rats off a sinking ship.

[BroncoInSkinland]

"I don't try cases in the press," Poindexter told WVEC-TV, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Va. "Lawyers who do that are despicable.

"I'm not going to be a party to a witch hunt," Poindexter said, according to the Journal Constitution. "This [process] will not be driven by people who hate Michael Vick, love Michael Vick or people who love animals."


That part makes me think the title of this thread is probably accurate (Correction: Even if he is charged, nothing serious will come of it). It is an unfortunate truth that animal cases recieve less attention in courts than they should. Anyone that works in the field (at least in the Maryland/DC area) will confirm this. It was encouraging to hear that the specific violation involved was a felony, but the attitude of the attorney depicted here leads me to believe a fine and a slap on the wrist are the most Vick will get.

[orange 4 life]

That part makes me think the title of this thread is probably accurate (Correction: Even if he is charged, nothing serious will come of it). It is an unfortunate truth that animal cases recieve less attention in courts than they should. Anyone that works in the field (at least in the Maryland/DC area) will confirm this. It was encouraging to hear that the specific violation involved was a felony, but the attitude of the attorney depicted here leads me to believe a fine and a slap on the wrist are the most Vick will get.

i might agree, but with all the publicity the DA will be under enormous pressure to charge vick.
the evidence is compelling, its mounting, and its not going away.
i just dont think this is something they can ignore. God willing the people
wont stand for it. this whole thing is just sick, and its time to put a stop to it.

[BroncoInSkinland]

i might agree, but with all the publicity the DA will be under enormous pressure to charge vick.
the evidence is compelling, its mounting, and its not going away.
i just dont think this is something they can ignore. God willing the people
wont stand for it. this whole thing is just sick, and its time to put a stop to it.

I agree wholeheartedly, and would be one of the first to get in line for a good old fashioned stoning in the interests of justice, but I just don't see it in the cards. I can honestly say that nothing would make me happier than being wrong in this particular case.

[-Slap-]

The huge ego, the axe to grind, the shameless self-promotion, and general superiority complex, unscrupulous and dishonest.

Hey, FootstepsfromTatumscolon, is this a press release from your autobiography?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Your own quote makes reference to it being kept in the manual until 1976, there is no reference about 1986. Granted, I have not read anything about the case, so I am making reference to the quote you cite.
The Supreme Court opinion referenced "it" (the manual) being in existence till 1976. But the guy who produced it (Henry Wade) was Dallas DA untill 1986. Insiders from the DA's office in two investigative news stories done here since the Supreme Court opinion have revealed that the practices endorsed in the manual (the one that Jeremy thinks didn't exist at all) were still being used up untill only 4-5 years ago. If you only look at one piece of evidence you get a less than perfect picture of what went on here.
Actually, it is not AT ALL vague in law, and any first yr law student should have a reasonable understanding of the concept. If you have worked closely with lawyers as a research assistant, I would be extremely surprised if by now the concept had not been ingrained in your research practices.
Dude...what are you even talking about? My comment was directed to him because his sentence didn't make sense. He seemed to be saying that anyone doing legal research who is not an attorney and applies facts to what they're searching for is somehow practicing law without a license. I'm not sure if that's how he meant it but if so that's total BS. Maybe he meant that applying the facts of the research to assisting a client constituted practice without a license...I'm not sure what he meant becuase he didn't clarify it well so I was asking for him to do so.

Big freaking deal.

[footstepsfrom#27]

That part makes me think the title of this thread is probably accurate (Correction: Even if he is charged, nothing serious will come of it). It is an unfortunate truth that animal cases recieve less attention in courts than they should. Anyone that works in the field (at least in the Maryland/DC area) will confirm this. It was encouraging to hear that the specific violation involved was a felony, but the attitude of the attorney depicted here leads me to believe a fine and a slap on the wrist are the most Vick will get.
So are you saying that he should try the case in the press? That it should be decided by people with a predisposed opinion of Vick one way or the other?

He sounds like a pretty good, and pretty savvy DA who knows what his responsibility is and won't be goaded into anything by pressure from the public. Time will tell so why not wait and see what happens?

[BroncoInSkinland]

So are you saying that he should try the case in the press? That it should be decided by people with a predisposed opinion of Vick one way or the other?

He sounds like a pretty good, and pretty savvy DA who knows what his responsibility is and won't be goaded into anything by pressure from the public. Time will tell so why not wait and see what happens?

Actually, all I am saying that the case will probably not make it to court. I am saying this because the vast majority of similar cases I saw at my previous job, working closely with animal control, never made it to court. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, maybe if you keep "translating" for me eventually people will think I am as cool as they think you are.

[DCCardsFan]

Ha! Take a break from this place for a day and all kinds of slimy little vermin and race haters come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches in the night...LOL...no doubt none of you tools actually fathom what this discussion was even about...

Very well...here goes;


Funny stuff Jeremy…but I’m not a Texan…I was born and raised in Denver. It is pretty amusing though to hear a lawyer describing others as arrogant…LOL…I’m guessing you see Texans as smarmy, backstabbing and two faced as well? In any case, I’m glad you used the word “prejudiced” to describe yourself…we’ll get back to that later OK?…not sure why you’re bagging on Texas as an oil-only economy either…since the state’s has been technology driven for over 20 years now….might want to catch up on things a bit.

Well Jeremy I must say you are beginning to win me over to the idea that you are indeed an attorney, not so much with your vast knowledge of the law, but more with your slippery underhanded methods of twisting facts, ignoring evidence and tap dancing around an issue. You say you found only one Google reference? That’s odd…by varying my search terms, I found several…INCLUDING THE ONE I PROVIDED YOU WITH. Is that the one you cited as evidence that no handbook existed? I certainly hope not since the reference to a manual (handbook) IS CONTAINED IN THE SAME SENTENCE where it speaks of the memo…I mean that would be extremely dishonest of you to hide that wouldn’t it? Observe:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1078368931456
.

So the manual (I called it a handbook) was 1) first produced as a memo (circular) and then 2) incorporated into a manual 4 years later. All this happened on Dallas DA Henry Wades watch…which lasted till 1986. This doesn’t seem that tough to understand. Then we have the reference to the manual (handbook) by the US Supreme Court decision in Miller-Els. You're an attorney right? Did you even bother to check the Supreme Court ruling? Here it is:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-7662.pdf

Do we really need to continue to belabor this point? The manual was created in 1968 and contained the same material from the earlier circular, was distributed by Henry Wade, who held the office of Dallas DA until 1986, and it was available to the prosecutors in the Miller-Els case that the high court remanded and ultimately overturned with a finding that significant cause existed to accept the petitioner's complaint that racial bias existed in the DA's office over the jury proceedings. An investigate news piece done on this by Dallas media last year conducted interviews with several individuals, some of them white, who were on the inside of the DA’s office who said this policy was still being practiced as late as 2002.

Sadly Jeremy…it frequently is.

Hmmmm.....so there were racist prosecutors out there between 1950 and 1986? NOOOOOO WAAAAAYYYY!!!!!

In case you don't pick up the sarcasm, I never argued there wasn't. I never even argued there aren't racist judges and prosecutors right now in 2007. Your original quote that I took issue with reads as follows:

"The Dallas County District Attorney's office openly maintained a handbook on how to keep blacks off juries until the early 90's. Insiders said it was being used behind the scenes up till 4 years ago when it was exposed in the media.

Anybody who thinks the US judicial system is not radically biased towards blacks has no idea what has been going on." [Post 30]

I take issue with both of those statements, for a number of reasons. As to the first statement, the dates are wrong, and I said it was misleading because it does not mention that the handbooks talked about keeping blacks off juries WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS BLACK. Have you read the handbook? I have (or at least I read something from a Texas prosecutor's office - I am assuming it to be the same one you're referring to), although I don't have it in front of me.

I also take issue with your second statement. I do not believe the "system" is racist against blacks - that is, there are no longer any laws that specifically discrminate against blacks. Sure, there are racists who administer the system, and that can yield some bad results. But the system itself is not flawed. But keep writing your anti-America manifestos. Too bad Ted Kaczinski's not still alive for you to share a beer with, although I'm sure you have plenty of loser friends to hang out with and complain about the "system" and the "government," etc, etc, as if that's the reason for your lot in life.

Apparently in the 50s and 60s, Texas was intentionally keeping blacks off juries regardless of the race of the defendant, according to some allegations. I'm sure it happened in many other states as well. However, I never said the US Judicial system has NEVER BEEN "radically biased towards [sic - should be "against"] blacks". I just have a problem with your blanket statement that is is that way now. And then, as evidence, you bring up stuff that happened 50 years ago. Exhibit A on why non-lawyers are not allowed to give legal advice.

Thirdly, prosecutors strike exclusively white jurors when there is a white defendant and black victim, for the same reasons they used to do it the other way around. I don't think either method is proper, but the reason prosecutors do this is arguably not about their own racial prejudices. It is their perception that they have more chance of getting a conviction if the defendant is not the same race as the jury (that is, they are playing off of the JURORS' prejudices). Like I said already, I believe they are probably correct in that it helps them get a conviction, but I strongly disagree with the practice, because their job is supposed to be about JUSTICE. Also, if I'm on the jury, and there's a black defendant, and the prosecution strikes all black jurors (or the other way around), I am automatically going to distrust that prosecutor. That is, I believe, why I have never seen prosecutors actually strike 100% black people from a jury. I have seen them do it with white jurors when there was a white defendant and the jury pool was roughly 50% black.

I also never denied that there is racism in the Courts. Again, Judges and prosecutors (and jurors) are not computers, and they bring their prejudices with them onto the bench. So, my view is simply that the system is fine, and the way to keep racism out of the courts is for society to progress to a point where people are less racist, or at least the people appointing or voting in prosecutors and judges do not appoint or elect racist people.

As for prosecutors, Prosecutor's prejudices come into play mostly in their discretion whether to prosecute the case or not (assuming they're not hiding exculpatory evidence to convict black people and other stuff like that) - that is, they could let white guys off of minor drug offenses, but prosecute every last black guy who gets caught with a small amount of drugs.

As to Judges, when we're taking about serious criminal offenses, however, every state in the country allows for a jury trial. And the JURY'S prejudices are much more important than the Judge's prejudices at that point as to whether or not the Defendant is ultimately convicted. The quality of the lawyers also matters more than whether or not the Judge is prejudiced.

The last two sentences of the previous paragraph are why you attacked me, and accused me of various things, including NOT being a lawyer, etc. Do remember that I never volunteered the information that I was a lawyer. I only made that statement AFTER you said over and over that I don't know what I'm talking about. After reading the preceding 3 paragraphs again, are you sure you still disagree with my characterization of the legal system? Because it seems your arguments for why I am wrong are simply wrong or irrelevant. That is, some of your conclusions are just flat-out wrong, and the facts that are true just don't prove your statement that anyone who doesn't believe that the "system is radically biased against blacks" . . . "has no idea what is going on." Well, I have an idea of what is going on, and I don't believe it. Every one of your "facts" in support of your contention do not actually prove anything.

As for lawyers being slimy, mischaracterizing the facts, etc.: sure, it is important to be able to put a spin on things when you are representing your client. But I have no client I am representing on this board. The MOST IMPORTANT skill a lawyer can have is the ability to make a difficult topic sound more simple. Additionally, when lawyers take to each other, as opposed to non-lawyers who are acting like lawyers like yourself, they generally shoot it pretty straight. I think I have done that here, and I am POSITIVE that all YOU have done, on the other hand, is confuse people, although it appears virtually no one is actually listening to you.

Back to the handbook issue, you haven't provided any evidence to show that they "openly" used this handbook until the early 90s, as you initially stated. If they were "openly" using the handbook, then wouldn't it be documented in that Supreme Court decision, which stated that as far as they knew, the manual/handbook at least went underground in 1976?

Secondly, the handbook I actually read (I'm guessing it was the 1968 handbook, but I don't have it in front of me) strategized about keeping blacks off the jury specifically when a black person was the defendant. At least that is my memory of it. And in the seminar I took, we all talked about how it was probably effective (in terms of getting more convictions), but that it was morally wrong. Believe me, if that quote about the mexicans, degos, etc., were in there, I would remember it. And I can't imagine they would have edited it out.

The real point about the mexican, degos, etc. quote is that it never appeared in the original 1968 manual on how to keep minorities off of juries. It was only in the 1963 "circular" (it was referred to as a "memo" when I read it). By 1968, although the same techniques for keeping minorities off juries were being used, there is absolutely no evidence in anything you ever wrote that that particular inflammatory quote was in there. In fact, anyone would half a brain could figure out that it wasn't. How? Because if that quote were in the 1968 handbook, they never would have mentioned the 1963 memo. White the memo was "adopted" by the 1968 handbook, that does not mean that they did not edit it. Considering that a lot happened re: civil rights between 1963 and 1968, it would almost be insane for them NOT to edit that sentence out, even if their actual policies were to continue to be just as racist.

I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the relevant portions of the manual in a box in my attic. Nonetheless, I could find a copy somewhere, I'm sure. Might take some work, though.

While this really has nothing to do with anything, and wasn't really part of the argument, I am virtually positive that while the quote was in the MEMO, it was NOT included in the 1968 manual. You seem to be equally sure that it WAS in the manual. So I have another bet for you: I will bet you $200 to the other's charity of choice (I'm not willing to do $1000 here, because I'm not positive the manual I read was the exact same one - nonetheless, I am quite sure I am right, for the reasons mentioned above), and if the bet is welched (which with Footsteps, undoubtedly, it will be), a lifetime ban. The bet is simple: was the quote, "Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated" (or any quote that means the same thing, with similar racial slurs) in the manual that was drafted in 1968. Again, it will be an unbiased moderator - doesn't have to be Taco John, can be any of those moderators. If I feel like the moderator is footsteps' friend, and I have been robbed, I will simply post a pdf version of the manual on this thread to show what it says or doesn't say, and refuse to pay. If however, that sentence is in the manual (or something very close to that sentence), I will agree to pay.

Now, obviously, assuming you take the bet, we both now have to find a copy of the manual. I will have no problem finding it - if the full copy of the manual is not in my attic (or it was actually a different document), then it might take some work, but I will be able to find it. You, with your extensive legal research history, should also be able to find it. So I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't accept this bet. You have 48 hours from this post to accept the bet or not. If I give you unlimited time, you can locate the manual before taking the bet, and thus have no risk.

You also have not shown ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that even hints that the system itself is PRESENTLY "radically biased [against] blacks." Sure, there are racists working in all levels of the law, just as there are racists elsewhere. However, that is not what you said. You said the system itself was radically biased. If that's true, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN A HANDBOOK FROM 1968 THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN A TEXAS PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE UNTIL THE MID 80s. Right?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Actually, all I am saying that the case will probably not make it to court. I am saying this because the vast majority of similar cases I saw at my previous job, working closely with animal control, never made it to court.
So in other words the average Joe doesn't get prosecuted either. I guess that means if he gets away with it then that negates any possibility of there being cries of unfair treatment for star athletes or "he got away with it cause he's black" from the Klan mob in here huh?
But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, maybe if you keep "translating" for me eventually people will think I am as cool as they think you are.
Did you notice it was a QUESTION..."so ARE YOU SAYING..."; meaning I was ASKING if that's what you were saying. Got it?

God the reading comprehension level in this place just keeps descending further and futher. Pretty soon we'll be down to Cat 'n the Hat and See Spot Run.

[theAPAOps5]

I bet $20 we get a response like bwaaaahaaaaa, Thanks Jeremy but I know you aren't legit.... or the like thereof.

[DCCardsFan]

Actually, all I am saying that the case will probably not make it to court. I am saying this because the vast majority of similar cases I saw at my previous job, working closely with animal control, never made it to court. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, maybe if you keep "translating" for me eventually people will think I am as cool as they think you are.

And you will be proven correct. As much as I'd love to see Vick do some time for this, or at least get a large fine, I doubt it will happen.

Perhaps he will pay a six-figure fine, but I can tell you right now he ain't doing even one night in jail.

I honestly doubt he will even be charged. Remember, this lady who says this stuff doesn't make the call, it is the Commonwealth's Attorney who does. She is simply one witness, and the CA will say she has an axe to grind. He'll just eventually say there isn't enough evidence, and that will be the end of it. It happens all the time. Prosecutors can get in trouble for bringing cases with virtually no evidence (i.e. Duke lacrosse), but there's not a whole lot of review over the cases they don't take. Maybe he won't get re-elected when the next votes comes up in 10 years or whatever. But people will have forgotten about it by then.

More importantly, he is a high-profile person who has shed light on a dark underworld, which is a positive thing. It will make it harder for those scumbags to stage these fights, and undoubtedly more $$$$ will be thrown at busting up these rings and making arrests. If not in Surry County, at least in other places.

[Garcia Bronco]

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.

[theAPAOps5]

There are witnesses who can place him at the scene but are hesitant to comeout and say so. It all depends on their testimony if there is a conviction.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

DC - Who are you charging all of this time to? ;D j/k

[Bronco_Beerslug]

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.Vick is as innocent as the day is long, right Garcia?

[Garcia Bronco]

There are witnesses who can place him at the scene but are hesitant to comeout and say so. It all depends on their testimony if there is a conviction.

Of course. And their cred as a witness

[Garcia Bronco]

Vick is as innocent as the day is long, right Garcia?

Maybe...maybe not. Who knows.

[BroncoInSkinland]

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.

I agree with innocent until proven guilt, the problem here Garcia is that even in ironclad cases, the vast majority of offenders simply walk away, often with nothing but a small fine, and a notation on thier record. With the resources Vick has at his disposal, once the media storm blows by a bit it will be childs play for him to get everything dropped. I wouldn't be suprised if we see him pay around a $100 fine per dog for not having proper liscencing or some other BS minor violation.

As far as the innocent until proven guilty, I have never seen someone in possession of baiting rags and break sticks that was not involved in dog fighting. There are eyewitnesses putting him at a local vet buying syringes on a regular basis. I have even heard of a video of him actual present at a fight. Does it need to go to court to determine without a doubt wether he is guilty or not? Of course, that is why we have courts. Will it go to court? 95% chance that it won't, which is truely disappointing.

[DCCardsFan]

Your own quote makes reference to it being kept in the manual until 1976, there is no reference about 1986. Granted, I have not read anything about the case, so I am making reference to the quote you cite.

Actually, it is not AT ALL vague in law, and any first yr law student should have a reasonable understanding of the concept. If you have worked closely with lawyers as a research assistant, I would be extremely surprised if by now the concept had not been ingrained in your research practices. As you know, CL is based on the precedent doctrine, so when you are doing research the cases being cited either can be directly on point, or somewhat related. However, for a lawyer, what is critical in research is that the precedents being cited are applicable to the facts as presented. That is, the lawyer is trying to figure out how previous cases have treated similar fact scenarios. It is a very straight forward concept in law, and any person with at least a yr's study or a half decent experience in law would be familiar with it. My guess is that your research has been so generic you have little understanding of the process. Your comments about the power of judges and ignorance of the threat of being over turned in appeals seems to further indicate this.

However, you could have made your point more eloquently if you addressed issues of penalties in law, the role of the legislature and the judiciary. Here the argument could be clearly made that racial bias comes into play. All you have to consider is penalties for crack vs cocaine usage, and consider the corresponding users. It is hard to argue race/class is not a factor in defining the penalties. Moreover, judges are far better off expressing their prejudice through the jail terms they give. As long as they remain within the boundaries of the law, and say nothing stupid in their decision, judges can easily treat people of different race/classes differently, since their decision would not be open to be overturned on appeals.


Merlin makes a very good point about penalties. If Footsteps really wanted to show that racism still exists, he would've done better by talking about sentencing. In Maryland state courts, for instance, while a jury determines whether the defendant is guilty, the Judge determines the sentence. A racist Judge could certainly sentence black people to higher sentences than whites - I would guess some certainly do, although the one I worked for, a rare conservative in a state full of liberals, definitely did not.

There was a study done by a professor at U. of Maryland (Paternoster, or something like that) that showed that prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty for blacks than whites. It's hard to make a science of this, of course, because maybe black people actually have committed worse and more despicable crimes in Maryland. In any event, I don't see the huge deal - in my mind, is life in prison that much better than the death penalty? They have also done studies to try and show that Judges give blacks higher sentences than whites, and I think the evidence in Maryland, at least, pretty much shows they do not - at least not significantly so. Since the Paternoster study, most counties simply began to seek the death penalty on every eligible case, and let the jury decide. Others never seek it. It now looks like the legislature is probably going to get rid of it completely.

However, as to whether or not the defendant is actually deemed guilty or not (which is what Footsteps and I were talking about), the Judge doesn't make much of a difference.

And many argue that crack penalties are higher than cocaine penalties because of racist legislatures. I'm not sure I buy that, because I do believe crack is a different kind of drug. While I do not know first-hand, people say the high is quicker, shorter, and more intense. Basically, it creates more addicts (and therefore criminals) than powder cocaine. That is associated more with blacks than whites it probably true, but not necessarily WHY the legislatures have done what they've done. In any event, the penalties for crack in Virginia and Maryland are probably too high, IMO. Although crack dealers are generally scum, IMO.

In Virginia, the jury determines the sentence.

In federal courts, the sentencing guidelines apply. These were introduced precisely after studies showed blacks got higher sentences than whites from judges on average for the same crimes. Of course, now that Judges don't have much discretion, there are a whole host of problems that have arisen. In fact, the day the sentencing guidelines were imposed, a number of federal courts flew their flags at half-mast, and for good reason. I personally saw an African-American defendant with no apparent ties to any crime get 27 months for "possession of a machine gun", which was basically an ordinary gun that fired two shots with each pull of the trigger. There was no way the jury could acquit the defendant, as he did possess it, and there was a little doubt about whether it fit the definition of a "machine gun," but the standard is pretty low. I don't think the jury would've convicted him if they knew what the sentencing guidlines were. The Judge gave the bottom of the guidlines (27 months). The machine was apparently only ever used at a firing range, and that was it. The Judge (who was a former US Attorney) told his staff that if he had the choice, he would've given probation without jail time. He also was angry at the US Attorney's office for even bringing the charges. When it was time to give out the sentence, he all but apologized to the defendant and his family, and made it very clear he was just following the guidelines. Instead of the judge having discretion, I got to watch the defendant's whole family, except for his two young children who were too young to know what was going on, with tears running down their faces, kiss this young man goodbye for the next 27 months (federal convictions come with no parole).

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. The provider could NOT give it to NON-ATTORNEYS, however, as that would be practicing law without a license. By "supervision", regarding paralegals, that does include a review at the end of it.

However, non-attorneys generally don't know exactly what to research, how to research, and what stuff means in the cases they read. I think Footsteps has proven precisely how non-lawyers just don't understand the legal jargon, and are unable to see the forest through the trees (not that all lawyers are great researchers, or anything).

But, if I hired footsteps to research, say the law on whether a waiver of subrogation in an insurance policy is effective when there is gross negligence, I don't think he'd be able to give me a great answer. And a lot of times, when I'm doing the research, I come up with something I didn't expect - but you need to be TRAINED in order to catch those things.

If footsteps wrote me a memo that I was going to use for an important part of one of my cases, and I did not check up on his work or review the cases myself (as well as looking for cases he missed), it wouldn't be long before I'm getting sued for malpractice. And if I have to review everything, what's the point in paying him to do something that I have to do myself! He wouldn't be saving me much time, and there's no way to know what he left out, so I still have to do the ordinary searches.

The only market for what Footsteps apparently provided (although he still didn't explain exactly what he did, to my satisfaction, nor did he give any simple concrete examples of what he actually did - ***I worked on $350 million dollar cases, and represented parents in adminstrative hearings, blah, blah, blah - I'm sure what you did was VERY important, footy) appears to be lazy and bad attorneys. If they are counting on what Footsteps provides, without doing their own legal research on top of it (and if they are paying him any significant amount of money to research the stuff, I'll bet they DO count on it), then they are really letting a non-lawyer do their work for them. Not a good idea.

I have a lot of respect for the paralegals in my office. Believe it or not, it's not that easy to get handed a complaint for some county in bumf&ck Virginia and figure out how to file it properly without it getting sent back. DC has electronic filing, which is not easy. There's federal courts, state courts, district courts, circuit courts, rent courts, and every one has different rules for where you can get the dockets, which forms to use, when the settlement conferences must be scheduled, who to send postponement requests to, when various things must be filed, etc, etc. If the paralegal screws up a date, I miss a deadline, and we lose the case, I can get sued for malpractice, or more likely just lose my client (even worse). I do not have time to review all of that, I simply have to trust the paralegals are doing their job. It's not easy to have a system that keeps 100s of cases organized, be responsible for serving every defendant, drafting subpoenas in various jurisdictions, reviewing medical records, etc. I don't know how to do much of what they do - see how "division of labor" works? It is NOT secretary's work - secretary's write simple letters, organize exhibits, make tons of copies and faxes, take messages, deal with clients, sign my name on stuff, prepare bills, etc. We only have 5 paralegals, and they all are very smart and very good. However, they DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL, so I don't make them responsible for interpreting cases that they weren't trained to interpret.

And by the way, Footsteps may make more money than our paralegals, but there's no way he could ever do as good a job as them. That much is clear.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree with innocent until proven guilt, the problem here Garcia is that even in ironclad cases, the vast majority of offenders simply walk away, often with nothing but a small fine, and a notation on thier record. With the resources Vick has at his disposal, once the media storm blows by a bit it will be childs play for him to get everything dropped. I wouldn't be suprised if we see him pay around a $100 fine per dog for not having proper liscencing or some other BS minor violation.

Well...those are the breaks I guess if it turns out that way..same if the common wealth sends him to jail.


As far as the innocent until proven guilty, I have never seen someone in possession of baiting rags and break sticks that was not involved in dog fighting. There are eyewitnesses putting him at a local vet buying syringes on a regular basis. I have even heard of a video of him actual present at a fight. Does it need to go to court to determine without a doubt wether he is guilty or not? Of course, that is why we have courts. Will it go to court? 95% chance that it won't, which is truely disappointing.


I personally don't buy the eyewitnesses unless there is proof of sale of the needles...even then...it doesn't conclude what he did with them. I would be surprised if there was video and we haven't seen it yet. Why should it go to court if there isn't any proof?

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

[DCCardsFan]

DC - Who are you charging all of this time to? ;D j/k

Haha. Nobody.

Litigation is an up and down business. I just finished a trial, things are relatively slow, and I am very interested in this issue. This is as good a forum as any to spread what i believe to be the dirty truth.

That said, I could have billed 3 or 4 hours instead of spending that time arguing with a half-wit, but hey, it's actually kind of fun.

[Popps]

There is no proof at this point at all the Vick was involved with this at all..

-A house he owned had over 70 dogs, many injured and emaciated.

-Bloodstained carpets.

-A laundry list of witnesses who claim he's been involved ranging from the HSA to the local pet shop.

-A website for "breeding" with a fake address and phone number. The website was called "Vick's K9". (Or something to that effect.. it had his name in the title.)

-Fighting equipment found at the scene.


So, when you say there's "no proof"... it just hasn't played out in court, yet.
Plenty of people feel that there is plenty of proof. Unless you're privy to some information that the rest of the world is not, you have no basis for making that statement. At best, it's an opinion... and one that lacks foundation.

If there is...then the CWA will bring forth charges if he thinks he can get a conviction. It's that simple.

What does that mean? We're not supposed to talk about it?

O.K. guys... if the Broncos play well, they'll win the Superbowl. Cool? O.K. Taco, shut the board down. That's it.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Well...those are the breaks I guess if it turns out that way..same if the common wealth sends him to jail.




I personally don't buy the eyewitnesses unless there is proof of sale of the needles...even then...it doesn't conclude what he did with them. I would be surprised if there was video and we haven't seen it yet. Why should it go to court if there isn't any proof?

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

I think a fairly substantial case could be made off 60+ animals many in various stages of neglect and abuse, paraphenalia relating to dog fighting, animals with wounds consistant with dogfighting, and eyewitness accounts of Vicks presence in the city buying some of the paraphenalia that was found. The video on top would be nice, as would credit card receipts. But you are absolutely correct, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I simply hope that a judge or jury has the opportunity to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the facts of the matter. It is my fear that regardless of what evidence surfaces, the matter will not see the inside of a court room.

[DCCardsFan]

I think a fairly substantial case could be made off 60+ animals many in various stages of neglect and abuse, paraphenalia relating to dog fighting, animals with wounds consistant with dogfighting, and eyewitness accounts of Vicks presence in the city buying some of the paraphenalia that was found. The video on top would be nice, as would credit card receipts. But you are absolutely correct, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I simply hope that a judge or jury has the opportunity to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the facts of the matter. It is my fear that regardless of what evidence surfaces, the matter will not see the inside of a court room.

If the prosecution produced a signed, videotaped confession, Garcia would still want more proof, or would allege coercion.

I would bet a lot of money that there will be all sorts of credit card receipts that would easily turn up under a subpoena. There's also going to be all sorts of times Vick flew into the area, and he will have to answer questions about where he stayed when he was home, and will need alibis. He also would have to explain all the phone calls he made to his cuz.

The real question is: are the police even looking into it? I'm sure they haven't turned over their findings to the CA, so maybe the CA is really just waiting until he gets the evidence. If there is one thing to learn from Nifong, it's that there is no harm in waiting, if you get it right in the end.

I suspect that the superiors both at the police department and at the CA's office have determined that 1) there's no point in serving those subpoenas, and 2) unless there is a written, signed, videotaped confession that gets played on Inside Edition, they ain't going after Vick.

And if I'm wrong, and they do file charges, it will be postponed twice, and quietly settled for a fine and probation about 1.5 years from now. Vick will say nothing, as there will be a gag order in the plea bargain. His cousin will also come out and say over and over that Vick had nothing to do with the fighting part of it, and that he's sorry for inconveniencing Vick and dirtying his good name.

And the number 1 thing that absolutely will be proven correct.........No matter WHAT happens, lots of people, including many on this board, will believe that Vick is a victim.

[Beantown Bronco]

Garcia would defend those guys they catch on the sex predator shows where the guy shows up at the house hoping to score with the 12 year old girl....he hops in the hot tub and fixes himself a drink while the girl goes back into the house to supposedly change into something more comfortable.

Because the guy doesn't actually grab the girl and have sex with her on camera, he must be there just to talk to her, grab a bite to eat and hang out in the hottub.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If the prosecution produced a signed, videotaped confession, Garcia would still want more proof, or would allege coercion.

I would bet a lot of money that there will be all sorts of credit card receipts that would easily turn up under a subpoena. There's also going to be all sorts of times Vick flew into the area, and he will have to answer questions about where he stayed when he was home, and will need alibis. He also would have to explain all the phone calls he made to his cuz.

The real question is: are the police even looking into it? I'm sure they haven't turned over their findings to the CA, so maybe the CA is really just waiting until he gets the evidence. If there is one thing to learn from Nifong, it's that there is no harm in waiting, if you get it right in the end.

I suspect that the superiors both at the police department and at the CA's office have determined that 1) there's no point in serving those subpoenas, and 2) unless there is a written, signed, videotaped confession that gets played on Inside Edition, they ain't going after Vick.

And if I'm wrong, and they do file charges, it will be postponed twice, and quietly settled for a fine and probation about 1.5 years from now. Vick will say nothing, as there will be a gag order in the plea bargain. His cousin will also come out and say over and over that Vick had nothing to do with the fighting part of it, and that he's sorry for inconveniencing Vick and dirtying his good name.

And the number 1 thing that absolutely will be proven correct.........No matter WHAT happens, lots of people, including many on this board, will believe that Vick is a victim.
You have that right!

One thing that will happen if he's charged is the Goodell will lay the hammer down on him and that will be some measure of satisfaction.

[Garcia Bronco]

-A house he owned had over 70 dogs, many injured and emaciated.

Doesn't mean he was involved

-Bloodstained carpets.

Doesn't mean he was involved

-A laundry list of witnesses who claim he's been involved ranging from the HSA to the local pet shop.

I am skeptical of these "witnesses"

-A website for "breeding" with a fake address and phone number. The website was called "Vick's K9". (Or something to that effect.. it had his name in the title.)

Still doesn't mean he was involved

-Fighting equipment found at the scene.

Still doesn't mean he was involved

"So, when you say there's "no proof"... it just hasn't played out in court, yet.
Plenty of people feel that there is plenty of proof. Unless you're privy to some information that the rest of the world is not, you have no basis for making that statement. At best, it's an opinion... and one that lacks foundation."




Well...that's not the way it works...until people get up on the stand and point the man out in court...they might as well be lies. So no...at this point...there is no proof.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

-A house he owned had over 70 dogs, many injured and emaciated.
Doesn't mean he was involved
-Bloodstained carpets.
Doesn't mean he was involved
-A laundry list of witnesses who claim he's been involved ranging from the HSA to the local pet shop.
I am skeptical of these "witnesses"
-A website for "breeding" with a fake address and phone number. The website was called "Vick's K9". (Or something to that effect.. it had his name in the title.)
Still doesn't mean he was involved
-Fighting equipment found at the scene.
Still doesn't mean he was involved
.

That's one hell of a defense!! ROFL!

[DCCardsFan]

That's one hell of a defense!! ROFL!

I wouldn't want to have to argue that in front of a jury.

I'm a good bullsh&tter, but I don't even think I could bark that out with conviction.

This would all be in a lengthy closing argument after Vick takes the fifth and doesn't testify, of course.

You'd have to be one slick MFer to get any jury, even the OJ jury, to believe that one.

[Beantown Bronco]

So if Garcia walks in on his wife naked in bed with another man, I guess he's ok with it as long as he doesn't actually see the penetration....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wouldn't want to have to argue that in front of a jury.
I'm a good bullsh&tter, but I don't even think I could bark that out with conviction.
This would all be in a lengthy closing argument after Vick takes the fifth and doesn't testify, of course.
You'd have to be one slick MFer to get any jury, even the OJ jury, to believe that one.I'd probably be kicked off the jury at that point if a defense attorney ran that laundry list by me because I'm sure I'd start laughing uncontrollably and not be able to stop.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Well...that's not the way it works...until people get up on the stand and point the man out in court...they might as well be lies. So no...at this point...there is no proof.

The problem is that it probably wont go to court, so there wont be a chance to differentiate the truthful accusations from the lies.

Why should it go to court if there isn't any proof?

Right here you indicated that it shoudln't go to court, which contradicts your later statement.

My issue with the whole thing is that many prosecutors don't want to pursue cases involving animals. It is far too easy for the defense to get up and sell the "We don't want to ruin this mans life over some trivial matters involving dogs" story. I have seen it happen first hand and watched it drive people away from a career involving animal control. I personally left the field over monetary issues, but I know a couple of highly dedicated and intellegent people that left the field due to feeling these matters would never be taken seriously by the judicial system and the public in general.

[Garcia Bronco]

I wouldn't want to have to argue that in front of a jury.

I'm a good bullsh&tter, but I don't even think I could bark that out with conviction.

This would all be in a lengthy closing argument after Vick takes the fifth and doesn't testify, of course.

You'd have to be one slick MFer to get any jury, even the OJ jury, to believe that one.


If there is no physical proof he was involved it all comes down to the cred of the witnessess.

[Garcia Bronco]

The problem is that it probably wont go to court, so there wont be a chance to differentiate the truthful accusations from the lies.



Right here you indicated that it shoudln't go to court, which contradicts your later statement.

My issue with the whole thing is that many prosecutors don't want to pursue cases involving animals. It is far too easy for the defense to get up and sell the "We don't want to ruin this mans life over some trivial matters involving dogs" story. I have seen it happen first hand and watched it drive people away from a career involving animal control. I personally left the field over monetary issues, but I know a couple of highly dedicated and intellegent people that left the field due to feeling these matters would never be taken seriously by the judicial system and the public in general.

It shouldn't go to court if the CWA does not feel he can get a conviction. Right now...I am not seeing anything reported by the media that isn't conjecture or mistaken identity.

I question whether cases involving animals should be in our courts to begin with...but the laws are the laws. If Vick or his cousins broke it, then they should get the treatment.

[Garcia Bronco]

So if Garcia walks in on his wife naked in bed with another man, I guess he's ok with it as long as he doesn't actually see the penetration....

So are we going to fling horrible analogies at each other now.

[bendog]

So are we going to fling horrible analogies at each other now.

God I hate being married.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hmmmm.....so there were racist prosecutors out there between 1950 and 1986? NOOOOOO WAAAAAYYYY!!!!!

In case you don't pick up the sarcasm, I never argued there wasn't. I never even argued there aren't racist judges and prosecutors right now in 2007. Your original quote that I took issue with reads as follows:

"The Dallas County District Attorney's office openly maintained a handbook on how to keep blacks off juries until the early 90's. Insiders said it was being used behind the scenes up till 4 years ago when it was exposed in the media.

Anybody who thinks the US judicial system is not radically biased towards blacks has no idea what has been going on." [Post 30]

I take issue with both of those statements, for a number of reasons. As to the first statement, the dates are wrong, and I said it was misleading because it does not mention that the handbooks talked about keeping blacks off juries WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS BLACK. Have you read the handbook? I have (or at least I read something from a Texas prosecutor's office - I am assuming it to be the same one you're referring to), although I don't have it in front of me.

I also take issue with your second statement. I do not believe the "system" is racist against blacks - that is, there are no longer any laws that specifically discrminate against blacks. Sure, there are racists who administer the system, and that can yield some bad results. But the system itself is not flawed. But keep writing your anti-America manifestos. Too bad Ted Kaczinski's not still alive for you to share a beer with, although I'm sure you have plenty of loser friends to hang out with and complain about the "system" and the "government," etc, etc, as if that's the reason for your lot in life.

Apparently in the 50s and 60s, Texas was intentionally keeping blacks off juries regardless of the race of the defendant, according to some allegations. I'm sure it happened in many other states as well. However, I never said the US Judicial system has NEVER BEEN "radically biased towards [sic - should be "against"] blacks". I just have a problem with your blanket statement that is is that way now. And then, as evidence, you bring up stuff that happened 50 years ago. Exhibit A on why non-lawyers are not allowed to give legal advice.
Uh huh..."justice for all" is an "anti American manifesto"...LOL Nice.

50 years ago...Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhhttttt. The Supreme Court says till '76...AND that the DA had access to it in the 1985 Miller-El trial where Batson was cited to decide the case, AND the DA who produced it was here till '86...inisiders from the DA's office say the policies existed much later. But you're right...that does add up to 50 years ago. My bad...nothing to see here I guess. Who gives a crap whether the actual paper copy of the thing was still sitting in a drawer or laying in the break room? The point is THE RESULTS OF IT'S EXISTENCE WERE STILL BEING SEEN IN THE DALLAS DA'S OFFICE. I call that "openly" being used.
Thirdly, prosecutors strike exclusively white jurors when there is a white defendant and black victim, for the same reasons they used to do it the other way around. I don't think either method is proper, but the reason prosecutors do this is arguably not about their own racial prejudices.
Exhibit A on why you are as dishonest as the day is long;

Here are direct quotes from the Supreme Court decison in Miller-El v Cockrell that specifically states the prosecutors unconstitutionally used race as a determining factor in their jury selection unlike your charactirization that they compliled with acceptable standards for exclusion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-7662.pdf

pages 6-9 On the racial biased manner in which jury members were kept off the jury through the missuse of strikes and biased questions;

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. Of the 108 possible jurors reviewed by the prosecution and defense, 20 were African-American. Nine of them were excused for cause or by agreement of the parties. Of the 11 African-American jurors remaining, however, all but 1 were excluded by peremptory strikes exercised by the prosecutors. On this basis 91% of the eligible black jurors were removed by peremptory strikes. In contrast the prosecutors used their peremptory strikes against just 13% (4 out of 31) of the eligible non black prospective jurors qualified to serve on petitioner’s jury.

These numbers, while relevant, are not petitioner’s whole case. During voir dire, the prosecution questioned venire members as to their views concerning the death penalty and their willingness to serve on a capital case. Responses that disclosed reluctance or hesitation to im-pose capital punishment were cited as a justification for striking a potential juror for cause or by peremptory chal-lenge. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985). The evidence suggests, however, that the manner in which mem-bers of the venire were questioned varied by race. To the extent a divergence in responses can be attributed to the racially disparate mode of examination, it is relevant to our inquiry. Most African-Americans (53%, or 8 out of 15) were first given a detailed description of the mechanics of an execu-tion in Texas:

“f those three [sentencing] questions are an-swered yes, at some point[,] Thomas Joe Miller-El will be taken to Huntsville, Texas. He will be placed on death row and at some time will be taken to the death house where he will be strapped on a gurney, an IV put into his arm and he will be injected with a sub-stance that will cause his death . . . as the result of the verdict in this case if those three questions are answered yes.” App. 215.

Only then were these African-American venire members asked whether they could render a decision leading to a sentence of death. Very few prospective white jurors (6%, or 3 out of 49) were given this preface prior to being asked for their views on capital punishment. Rather, all but three were questioned in vague terms: “Would you share with us . . . your personal feelings, if you could, in your own words how you do feel about the death penalty and capital punishment and secondly, do you feel you could serve on this type of a jury and actually render a decision that would result in the death of the Defendant in this case based on the evidence?” Id., at 506.

There was an even more pronounced difference, on the apparent basis of race, in the manner the prosecutors questioned members of the venire about their willingness to impose the minimum sentence for murder. Under Texas law at the time of petitioner’s trial, an unwilling-ness to do so warranted removal for cause. Huffman v. State, 450 S. W. 2d 858, 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970), va-cated in part, 408 U. S. 936 (1972). This strategy nor-mally is used by the defense to weed out pro-state mem-bers of the venire, but, ironically, the prosecution employed it here. The prosecutors first identified the statutory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment to 34 out of 36 (94%) white venire members, and only then asked: “If you hear a case, to your way of thinking [that] calls for and warrants and justifies five years, you’ll give it?” App. 509. In contrast, only 1 out of 8 (12.5%) African-American prospective jurors were informed of the statu-tory minimum before being asked what minimum sen-tence they would impose.

On the way "jury shuffling" was used to prevent blacks from being on the jury;

Furthermore, petitioner points to the prosecution’s use of a Texas criminal procedure practice known as jury shuffling. This practice permits parties to rearrange the order in which members of the venire are examined so as to increase the likelihood that visually preferable venire members will be moved forward and empaneled. With no information about the prospective jurors other than their appearance, the party requesting the procedure literally shuffles the juror cards, and the venire members are then reseated in the new order. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 35.11 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Shuffling affects jury composition because any prospective jurors not questioned during voir dire are dismissed at the end of the week, and a new panel of jurors appears the following week. So jurors who are shuffled to the back of the panel are less likely to be questioned or to serve.

On at least two occasions the prosecution requested shuffles when there were a predominate number of African-Americans in the front of the panel. On yet an-other occasion the prosecutors complained about the pur-ported inadequacy of the card shuffle by a defense lawyer but lodged a formal objection only after the postshuffle panel composition revealed that African-American pro-spective jurors had been moved forward.
So, my view is simply that the system is fine...
Hilarious! Guess that settles it then...we're fine!
The real point about the mexican, degos, etc. quote is that it never appeared in the original 1968 manual on how to keep minorities off of juries. It was only in the 1963 "circular" (it was referred to as a "memo" when I read it).
Who gives a crap? The point is WHAT the prosecutors were doing at various times not whether their little racist handbook had this specific stupid quote in it or if only the memo had it. That doesn't make a tinker's damn bit of difference and you know that perfectly well dont ya? This is why people hate lawyers...duh.
I'm pretty sure I have a copy of the relevant portions of the manual in a box in my attic. Nonetheless, I could find a copy somewhere, I'm sure. Might take some work, though.
Knock yourself out Jeremy. It's obvious the ONLY reason you're making an issue of this stupid question of whether the note was still in the handbook or stuck in somebody's desk drawer, or whatever...even though THE SAME GUY WHO PUT IT THERE WAS STILL TRYING CASES IN 1986 is becuase you'd like to justify the racist practices of the Dallas DA's office that the Supreme Court says unfairly kept blacks off juries. Is it your contention that this is not true? If so take it up with the Supreme Court. I'm sure they'll be swayed by your stupid arguments that they screwed up since the memo wasn't in the handbook. :thumbs:

Cripes this **** is ridiculous. Why would an attorney go to these lengths to split hairs over this kind of fine print idiocy in order to prove that "the system is fine"?...not in a court of law mind you...but on a freakin' internet discussion board? One reason only...you are the worst kind or racist...you'd never be caught dead using the N word (at least not in public) and you'd smile and say all the right PC crap in front of your cocktail party socialite friends, but down where it counts...where nobody gets to see...

You're just another hater that's part of a huge systemic problem in this country.

This thread's been totally hijacked...so I leave it back to the the Vick discussion that it was intended for in the first place. Maybe Satan...I mean Vick...will wind up getting Jeremy here as a prosecutor and get the electric chair with a jury of 12 KKK members and a Facist Grand Wizard judge with a swastika tatoo on his neck....Christmas comes early to Nutsville! :thumbs:

[BroncoInSkinland]

I question whether cases involving animals should be in our courts to begin with...but the laws are the laws. If Vick or his cousins broke it, then they should get the treatment.

This steps away from the Vick case significantly, but I feel it is worth pointing out anyway. Animal abuse is one of the most reliable indicators of future violent crimes. Effectively prosecuting these cases, and rehabilitating the individuals who commited the crimes could be the biggest step forward in reducing the violent crime rate within the US. By putting them on a lower level than crimes commited against humans, you set up a reactionary system instead of a preventative one. If you or anyone else is curious about the numbers involved regarding animal abuse and the likelihood of future violent crime, I would be happy to look up the stats for you. The connection is well documented and all too frequently overlooked.

[DCCardsFan]

If there is no physical proof he was involved it all comes down to the cred of the witnessess.

All they have to prove is 1) ownership of the property, 2) actual breeding and training of fighting dogs on that property, and 3) Vick knew about it or supported it.

1 and 2 are pretty clearly easy to prove.

Vick already said he is "never" at the house. They already have located numerous eye-witnesses who can disprove that. Why did Vick lie? How would he not know they were training fighting dogs there if he was there all the time? How come Michael Vick needed a syringe? They will obviously have receipts - businesses are required to keep an accounting of everything sold. While Vick will undoubtedly have paid in cash, it will be hard to cross-examine this lady who says she knows who he is, and has receipts to show what he bought. The jury will also want Vick to get on the stand and deny the allegations, which his attorneys would never let him do.

Most cases ARE proved with circumstantial evidence, BTW.

Garcia, it will never get to a jury, but he would lose if it did.

[Garcia Bronco]

This steps away from the Vick case significantly, but I feel it is worth pointing out anyway. Animal abuse is one of the most reliable indicators of future violent crimes. Effectively prosecuting these cases, and rehabilitating the individuals who commited the crimes could be the biggest step forward in reducing the violent crime rate within the US. By putting them on a lower level than crimes commited against humans, you set up a reactionary system instead of a preventative one. If you or anyone else is curious about the numbers involved regarding animal abuse and the likelihood of future violent crime, I would be happy to look up the stats for you. The connection is well documented and all too frequently overlooked.

I hear you...but at best it's a correlation. One of the axioms of research methods is just because there is a cause doesn't mean it's the cause.

[Garcia Bronco]

All they have to prove is 1) ownership of the property, 2) actual breeding and training of fighting dogs on that property, and 3) Vick knew about it or supported it.

1 and 2 are pretty clearly easy to prove.

Vick already said he is "never" at the house. They already have located numerous eye-witnesses who can disprove that. Why did Vick lie? How would he not know they were training fighting dogs there if he was there all the time? How come Michael Vick needed a syringe? They will obviously have receipts - businesses are required to keep an accounting of everything sold. While Vick will undoubtedly have paid in cash, it will be hard to cross-examine this lady who says she knows who he is, and has receipts to show what he bought. The jury will also want Vick to get on the stand and deny the allegations, which his attorneys would never let him do.

Most cases ARE proved with circumstantial evidence, BTW.

Garcia, it will never get to a jury, but he would lose if it did.

I couldn't say one way or another what a jury would find depending on the credibility of the witnesses or the physical evidence implicating Vick. But we really don't know the credibility of the witnesses and we haven't heard about any physical evidence that would convict Vick at this time.

[watermock]

Why do some of you find it nessesary to post thousand word essays? Make your point. I just scroll over that long winded crap.

[BroncoInSkinland]

Why do some of you find it nessesary to post thousand word essays? Make your point. I just scroll over that long winded crap.

Sorry mock, let me sum up my point. Vick is scum and should go to jail. Better?

[Garcia Bronco]

Why do some of you find it nessesary to post thousand word essays? Make your point. I just scroll over that long winded crap.

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

[BroncoInSkinland]

I hope they can find 12 unbiased people, and that he does get the chance to clear his name.

[DCCardsFan]

Uh huh..."justice for all" is an "anti American manifesto"...LOL Nice.

50 years ago...Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhhttttt. The Supreme Court says till '76...AND that the DA had access to it in the 1985 Miller-El trial where Batson was cited to decide the case, AND the DA who produced it was here till '86...inisiders from the DA's office say the policies existed much later. But you're right...that does add up to 50 years ago. My bad...nothing to see here I guess. Who gives a crap whether the actual paper copy of the thing was still sitting in a drawer or laying in the break room? The point is THE RESULTS OF IT'S EXISTENCE WERE STILL BEING SEEN IN THE DALLAS DA'S OFFICE. I call that "openly" being used.

Exhibit A on why you are as dishonest as the day is long;

Here are direct quotes from the Supreme Court decison in Miller-El v Cockrell that specifically states the prosecutors unconstitutionally used race as a determining factor in their jury selection unlike your charactirization that they compliled with acceptable standards for exclusion::

Hmmmm....I never said the prosecutors in Miller-El complied with acceptable standards for exclusion. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I also noted that a prosecutor only need provide a non-racial reason for striking a black juror, and that is deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court. You called me an idiot for this, even though it is absolutely true. You used Miller-El to try and prove me wrong, even though Miller-El is completely consistent with what I said. In Miller-El, the SC found as a FACT that the prosecutors used race as their reason for their strikes, which is impermissible. I have said this no less than 4-5 times. 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 you had half a brain, you would've figured out long ago that I am basically saying there is room for racism in the way the laws are. The problem, of course, is that the SC can't make a rule that always catches racism. It's impossible. Well, I guess they could rule that white prosecutors can never strike black jurors, or could never use more than strikes for black jurors, etc. Such a bright-line rule would be even stupider than the sentencing guidelines, however.

But keep picking on strawmen. It's about all you'll ever be able to beat.

[url]

Hilarious! Guess that settles it then...we're fine!

Who gives a crap? The point is WHAT the prosecutors were doing at various times not whether their little racist handbook had this specific stupid quote in it or if only the memo had it. That doesn't make a tinker's damn bit of difference and you know that perfectly well dont ya? This is why people hate lawyers...duh.

Knock yourself out Jeremy. It's obvious the ONLY reason you're making an issue of this stupid question of whether the note was still in the handbook or stuck in somebody's desk drawer, or whatever...even though THE SAME GUY WHO PUT IT THERE WAS STILL TRYING CASES IN 1986 is becuase you'd like to justify the racist practices of the Dallas DA's office that the Supreme Court says unfairly kept blacks off juries. Is it your contention that this is not true? If so take it up with the Supreme Court. I'm sure they'll be swayed by your stupid arguments that they screwed up since the memo wasn't in the handbook. :thumbs:

Cripes this **** is ridiculous. Why would an attorney go to these lengths to split hairs over this kind of fine print idiocy in order to prove that "the system is fine"?...not in a court of law mind you...but on a freakin' internet discussion board? One reason only...you are the worst kind or racist...you'd never be caught dead using the N word (at least not in public) and you'd smile and say all the right PC crap in front of your cocktail party socialite friends, but down where it counts...where nobody gets to see...

You're just another hater that's part of a huge systemic problem in this country.

This thread's been totally hijacked...so I leave it back to the the Vick discussion that it was intended for in the first place. Maybe Satan...I mean Vick...will wind up getting Jeremy here as a prosecutor and get the electric chair with a jury of 12 KKK members and a Facist Grand Wizard judge with a swastika tatoo on his neck....Christmas comes early to Nutsville! :thumbs:


Uh, I think pretty much everyone who has read this thread besides you (including Jason In LA) realizes I am not a racist by now. I certainly never said anything that would justify the practices of the DA, and in fact, I have spoken out against those practices numerous times. I also have attempted to explain why they are doing what they are doing, and how generally those practices are more likely related to their [I]ambition to WIN the case than it is necessarily because they do not like black people. This is why some prosecutors strike white jurors as a strategy when the defendant is white. Other prosecutors use their strikes on low-income people in drug-cases, and corporate officers in white-collar crime cases. Basically, the prosecutors try and get rid of jurors that will RELATE to the defendant. Nonetheless, I have stated over and over that I find it unacceptable when race is the determining factor. I guess it's just a little over your head.

I recognize racism where is exists, and point to it. Racists don't do that. Racists say to themselves, "That's OK Michael Vick, keep doing what you're doing. We like black men to act just like you." They then go home and complain about n***** this and n***** that to their kids.

You, on the other hand, give vague allegations that impugn the laws of this country, when in reality it is racist individuals that are causing the problems.

And individuals such as yourself only slow or halt the progress we have made. You're no different than Nifong. Scream bloody murder, bang your hands on the table, make wild accusations, and at the end of the day, you've got NOTHING, and everyone knows it.

And you're a yellow-bellied chicken of the first degree. All talk, no walk.

Good day to you.

[Northman]

So if Garcia walks in on his wife naked in bed with another man, I guess he's ok with it as long as he doesn't actually see the penetration....

I disagree. As long as the man was a Hokie he would be fine with it. :welcome:

[DCCardsFan]

I couldn't say one way or another what a jury would find depending on the credibility of the witnesses or the physical evidence implicating Vick. But we really don't know the credibility of the witnesses and we haven't heard about any physical evidence that would convict Vick at this time.

Credibility this, credibility that. If it was one witness, you might be able to make them look bad. But after you've tried to impeach about 6 witnesses, and will not even put the defendant on the stand, the jury just isn't going to buy it.

Why would all these witnesses have a motive to lie?

All the prosecutor has to show is that he knew about it. And circumstantial evidence is enough.

Turns out they might get direct evidence. That is, they were allegedly having dogfights on the property when Vick was there. Only way you'll get a witness to testify about that, though, is to offer someone who's not a great friend of Vick a plea deal in another case (that witness is by nature, questionable). But these other witnesses? How are you going to impeach the owner of the pet shop? His neighbors? Etc.

I know we don't know all the facts, but goddamn. OJ at least had some decent arguments (for the record, until the last couple years, I was only 95% sure he did it), and there were serious doubts about the LA police's handling of that case. OJ was either framed or he did it. How could Vick have been framed for this?

Connect the dots, Garcia.

[BroncoInSkinland]

I hear you...but at best it's a correlation. One of the axioms of research methods is just because there is a cause doesn't mean it's the cause.

Back to one of the earlier tangents... I am not saying animal abuse causes violent behavior against humans. I am saying as you put it there is a correlation. It gives you an indicator, and thus the opportunity to prevent future incidents. By pursuing these types of crimes, you can prevent future crimes against humans. I have no idea what causes violent behavior, not enough love from Mommy and Daddy possibly, but it doesn't really matter. What I do know is that if a guy beats his dog, he is much more likely to beat his wife and kids. Not pursuing issues with animals would be shortsighted to say the least.

[Popps]

If there is no physical proof he was involved it all comes down to the cred of the witnessess.


Dude, you're wrong.

You said:

"There is no proof"

That hasn't been decided in a courtroom. Hence, you're wrong. The evidence MAY be proven insufficient, but there IS evidence or we wouldn't be talking about this. Nonetheless, it hasn't been proven one way or another, so you have no basis to say "there is no proof," just like I can't say "he's definitely guilty," at this stage.

Beyond that, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence building against him. So, if you want to turn a blind eye and live in fantasy land, that's your choice. But, you made an incorrect statement and people have chosen to correct you.

Now... for the record, I think he'll walk. He's got too much money and the NFL has too much at stake. Unless the wrong people have the wrong videos and the right people are going to grease them... the NFL machine will sweep this under the rug.

I also think he's guilty... just like I thought Scott Peterson was guilty... just like I thought O.J. was guilty.

But, $$$ is the key, here... and there's more to be made from Vick beating this than from putting him away.

[Popps]

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

Really? What's your basis for that statement?

A guy giving fake names out, knowingly infecting someone with a disease... creating fake business fronts with fake addresses and phone numbers... renting his house to a guy who's abusing animals (involved or not) .....

What's your BASIS for defense? What's your PROOF that he's NOT scum?

He sells himself as a gangster. He sells himself as a bad boy.

Where's your proof that his self-sold image isn't legitimate? HE promotes this image. How do YOU know that it's just a show, despite already having some PROOF that it's not?

[KipCorrington25]

Why do some of you find it nessesary to post thousand word essays? Make your point. I just scroll over that long winded crap.


:rofl: :giggle: :~ohyah!:

[theAPAOps5]

:rofl: :giggle: :~ohyah!:

Well some are just wrapping BS around fluff so you aren't missing much. ^5

[shakenbake]

At the end of the day, douchesteps isn't willing to back up what he says. That tells me all I need to know.

[-Slap-]

All they have to prove is 1) ownership of the property, 2) actual breeding and training of fighting dogs on that property, and 3) Vick knew about it or supported it.

1 and 2 are pretty clearly easy to prove.

Vick already said he is "never" at the house. They already have located numerous eye-witnesses who can disprove that. Why did Vick lie? How would he not know they were training fighting dogs there if he was there all the time? How come Michael Vick needed a syringe? They will obviously have receipts - businesses are required to keep an accounting of everything sold. While Vick will undoubtedly have paid in cash, it will be hard to cross-examine this lady who says she knows who he is, and has receipts to show what he bought. The jury will also want Vick to get on the stand and deny the allegations, which his attorneys would never let him do.

Most cases ARE proved with circumstantial evidence, BTW.

Garcia, it will never get to a jury, but he would lose if it did.

I think a star struck jury would acquit him.

There has never been anybody more guilty than Jayson Williams and jurors practically asked for his autograph after the trial.

[Malcontent]

He wont ever take the stand Slap...Lawyers will handle all that. He'll get a slap on the wrist, a meager fine, and some community service. Hopefully cleaning up dog sh*t at the local pound!

[Atwater His Ass]

At the end of the day, douchesteps isn't willing to back up what he says. That tells me all I need to know.

And he can't even step back like a man and admit he was wrong. He just continues to flop around like a dieing fish.

[theAPAOps5]

But sadly he calls us all racists because we call him out.

[watermock]

He said he was a white dude.

[Atwater His Ass]

stupid knows no boundaries

[fontaine]

I couldn't say one way or another what a jury would find depending on the credibility of the witnesses or the physical evidence implicating Vick. But we really don't know the credibility of the witnesses and we haven't heard about any physical evidence that would convict Vick at this time.

If it's credibility that is in question here then Vick is already miles behind.

Let's see:

Making up an alias of Ron Mexico.
Knowingly spreading around Herpes.
Water Bottle with hidden compartment in it.
Flipping off fans.
Lying about visiting his property run by his cousin.

That's just a quick list off the top of my head, and not even mentioning the so called credibility of his cousin who was busted for drugs.

And yet the witnesses credibility is what you're fixated on?

:kiddingme

[Atwater His Ass]

but he went to VT. how could he be bad???

[Garcia Bronco]

If it's credibility that is in question here then Vick is already miles behind.

Let's see:

Making up an alias of Ron Mexico.
Knowingly spreading around Herpes.
Water Bottle with hidden compartment in it.
Flipping off fans.
Lying about visiting his property run by his cousin.

That's just a quick list off the top of my head, and not even mentioning the so called credibility of his cousin who was busted for drugs.

And yet the witnesses credibility is what you're fixated on?

:kiddingme

those stories like this one are reported in the media and may or may not be true.

[Garcia Bronco]

Really? What's your basis for that statement?

A guy giving fake names out, knowingly infecting someone with a disease... creating fake business fronts with fake addresses and phone numbers... renting his house to a guy who's abusing animals (involved or not) .....

What's your BASIS for defense? What's your PROOF that he's NOT scum?

He sells himself as a gangster. He sells himself as a bad boy.

Where's your proof that his self-sold image isn't legitimate? HE promotes this image. How do YOU know that it's just a show, despite already having some PROOF that it's not?

He doesn't do any of that. You are just repeating what some one else told you, and nothing you know to be fact.

[DCCardsFan]

If it's credibility that is in question here then Vick is already miles behind.

Let's see:

Making up an alias of Ron Mexico.
Knowingly spreading around Herpes.
Water Bottle with hidden compartment in it.
Flipping off fans.
Lying about visiting his property run by his cousin.

That's just a quick list off the top of my head, and not even mentioning the so called credibility of his cousin who was busted for drugs.

And yet the witnesses credibility is what you're fixated on?

:kiddingme


In fairness to Vick and his chances at trial, none of that would be admissible evidence, except his lies about not visiting the property, which is damning circumstantial evidence.

Of course, the truth is probably that half of the jurors will know those stories (some may not admit it in voir dire, the others will say it has not prejudiced them), and whether Vick likes it or not, his past would precede him in front of a jury.

[Beantown Bronco]

He doesn't do any of that. You are just repeating what some one else told you, and nothing you know to be fact.

Very nice....the old "I've never been to China myself so it must not exist" argument.

Garcia: Many of his past exploits were reported on major news networks. If there was no truth to them, Vick would have sued for libel and won. Seeing as how he hasn't done this, that tells me about all I need to know.

[Garcia Bronco]

Back to one of the earlier tangents... I am not saying animal abuse causes violent behavior against humans. I am saying as you put it there is a correlation. It gives you an indicator, and thus the opportunity to prevent future incidents. By pursuing these types of crimes, you can prevent future crimes against humans. I have no idea what causes violent behavior, not enough love from Mommy and Daddy possibly, but it doesn't really matter. What I do know is that if a guy beats his dog, he is much more likely to beat his wife and kids. Not pursuing issues with animals would be shortsighted to say the least.

Perhaps,perhaps not since there is no direct cause and effect...which is the confound of a correlation.

[Garcia Bronco]

Very nice....the old "I've never been to China myself so it must not exist" argument.



No...China is there.

[Garcia Bronco]

Garcia: Many of his past exploits were reported on major news networks. If there was no truth to them, Vick would have sued for libel and won. Seeing as how he hasn't done this, that tells me about all I need to know.

You can believe that if you want, but that doesn't make it true either. Two words...


Duke Lacrosse

[Atwater His Ass]

so why didn't vick sue if the major media reports were wrong? you've only shown that they could be wrong. i can't imagine a person in vick's position wouldn't take action for slander against his person.

[Beantown Bronco]

You can believe that if you want, but that doesn't make it true either. Two words...


Duke Lacrosse

None of the networks ever said they were guilty. They said the students were being tried for a crime and described the case, but NEVER said they were guilty of anything. Now people that heard the news may have jumped the gun, but the networks didn't.

Networks have, however, explicitly made accusations about Vick (concealing drugs, having herpes, using aliases, etc.) on the air. There's a difference.

[bendog]

None of the networks ever said they were guilty. They said the students were being tried for a crime and described the case, but NEVER said they were guilty of anything. Now people that heard the news may have jumped the gun, but the networks didn't.

Networks have, however, explicitly made accusations about Vick (concealing drugs, having herpes, using aliases, etc.) on the air. There's a difference.

Because VICK'S BLACK!!!!

[Garcia Bronco]

None of the networks ever said they were guilty. They said the students were being tried for a crime and described the case, but NEVER said they were guilty of anything. Now people that heard the news may have jumped the gun, but the networks didn't.

Networks have, however, explicitly made accusations about Vick (concealing drugs, having herpes, using aliases, etc.) on the air. There's a difference.

The news and delivery was crafted in such a way to imply guilt...least we forget the school canceled the season and fired the coach all because of media exposure of a complete lie. They have done the same thing with Vick and Duke...just like they do everything else.

[Garcia Bronco]

so why didn't vick sue if the major media reports were wrong? you've only shown that they could be wrong. i can't imagine a person in vick's position wouldn't take action for slander against his person.

I couldn't tell you why...maybe he feels it's not worth the time, money, energy, and effort. Of course...I don't understand how he would sue a network based off them reporting a woman's erroneous claims, but that's not let that get in the way of a public stoning.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The news and delivery was crafted in such a way to imply guilt...
You did that better than any news outlet I've seen so far in your little defense of Vick post. :welcome:

[Popps]

He doesn't do any of that. You are just repeating what some one else told you, and nothing you know to be fact.

LOL

O.K... you're one of these "we didn't land on the moon" types.

Cool. Have fun with that. (Willful) ignorance is bliss.

[Popps]

They have done the same thing with Vick and Duke...just like they do everything else.

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.