Vick indicted

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

that's a terrible, terrible view. no offense. Everyone deserves equal treatment by the justice system.

It is equal treatment. The mentality of the perpetrator is germane to the punishment in such cases. Vick misused his privileged lifestyle to intentionally flaunt laws. His only gain was the apparent personal pleasure of watching dogs fight and betting on it. That means he committed the crime because he enjoyed committing the crime.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

that's a terrible, terrible view. no offense. Everyone deserves equal treatment by the justice system.

While that's true, the treatment should be much worse all the way around for people convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt. Our prisons are way too nice.

really? i thought people who aren't guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt" shouldn't be convicted.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: Deeko
You still haven't explained how he "got your dog"

He probably sold Vick a weiner from a vending cart.

Edited for hilarity.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

that's a terrible, terrible view. no offense. Everyone deserves equal treatment by the justice system.

While that's true, the treatment should be much worse all the way around for people convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt. Our prisons are way too nice.

really? i thought people who aren't guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt" shouldn't be convicted.

I thought it was "reasonable doubt"?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Haui
Our justice system is wack.

I bet you anything that if we had done these crimes, we would all be held to a higher state than he will be.

Not necessarily. As vile as Vick's crimes may be... they are not the worst out there. Prison space is limited as are the resources needed to convict criminals. Offering a plea deal allows the State to avoid a lengthy trial and utilize resources going after murderes, rapists, etc.

Even though they have him by the balls... imagine the length of this case as it would go through numerouse trials and appeals. Sure he would get more of his deserved time but that court space and prosecuters time could be spent elsewhere.

It sucks and he should at least have his balls shocked using the same equipment he use to electrocute his dogs.... but at least his NFL career is over.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: Deeko
You still haven't explained how he "got your dog"

He probably sold Vick a hotdog from a vending cart.

 

[BornStar]

Anybody else looking forward to a real life "The Longest Yard"?

 

[torpid]

I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: Deeko
what, are you one of those people that planned on boycotting the NFL (which harbors people who have been convicted of killing someone while drunk driving, and then additional DUIs later), because one of the players participating in dogfighting?

I don't think you have a problem with the way the justice system works, you're just one of those that wants to see Vick get the death penalty no matter what.

In this case....your dead on!

While I think what Vick did was horrible, but there's simple no rational justification for the death penalty in this case.

You are very ignorant.

Originally posted by: Haui
Our justice system is wack.

I bet you anything that if we had done these crimes, we would all be held to a higher state than he will be.

how do you like double standards, trying to accuse the govt of a double standard and yet you want the death penalty for vick, something which would NEVER be given to an ordinary person for the crime vick committed.

haui, you are truly being stupid.

 

[Miramonti]

The charges in the not-guilty plea are most likely different as a whole than the plea bargain he's going to plea guilty to. Anyhow, someone can change their plea anytime before trial (and perhaps even anytime before the trial is over).

 

[Haui]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: Deeko
what, are you one of those people that planned on boycotting the NFL (which harbors people who have been convicted of killing someone while drunk driving, and then additional DUIs later), because one of the players participating in dogfighting?

I don't think you have a problem with the way the justice system works, you're just one of those that wants to see Vick get the death penalty no matter what.

In this case....your dead on!

While I think what Vick did was horrible, but there's simple no rational justification for the death penalty in this case.

You are very ignorant.

OK, im not ignorant you retard. I don't think he should be given the death penalty either. However, I think with every action, you should be treated the same way - Drowned (near death), shocked (nead death), hung (near death) and his head bashed in.

 

[dullard]

1) You have to look at the expected outcome. Suppose 100 criminals commit a crime that is punishable by 1 year in jail. Suppose that 20% of them get damn good lawyers and are acquitted and/or convicted of a much lesser offense. Thus, the average criminal gets ~10 months in jail. Sure, some get 12 months, some get 0 months. But on average, they get 10 months. The expected value of the jail time is 10 months, not 12. Thus, as a prosecutor, you'd be damn pleased to get a guaranteed 10 months in jail with a plea deal.

2) It costs a fortune in prosecutor salary, judge salary, court costs, jury costs, and jail costs. Thus, we as a country are better off with a shorter sentence and no costs vs. a longer sentence with massive costs.

3) A not guilty/guilty plea in court is not an admission of guilt or innocence.

 

[Haui]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

Fuck you..just because I dont know it all, doesnt mean I am an ignorant retard. Our justice system is wack, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Haui]

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

Fuck you..

Did I forget to mention that Vick had a dog of mine?

 

[Deeko]

haha wow, you sure aren't open to dissenting opinions, are you?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

Fuck you..

i smell a ban coming up.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

that's a terrible, terrible view. no offense. Everyone deserves equal treatment by the justice system.

While that's true, the treatment should be much worse all the way around for people convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt. Our prisons are way too nice.

really? i thought people who aren't guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt" shouldn't be convicted.

Don't twist my words. You know what I meant.

 

[Deeko]

You still haven't explained how he "got your dog"

 

[Haui]

With all the fuss about when and where Michael Vick wil plead guilty to all charges against him, where does perjury come into affect? Two weeks ago, Vick pleaded not guilty, yet, since our justice system rewards criminals for "giving in", why and how can this be?

Explain to me what happens - will he get more time for "lying" about being guilty? Can the judge give more time that the expected 12-18 months? Once out, could the STATE of Virginia (and possibly Georgia) file more charges on him? I know he is "phucked", but he deserves the worst punishment yet.

Why do we give him so much time to plead? Last Friday was the supposed "last day" to plead, then Monday, now he has until next Monday (probably even longer if he wants).

If a man is guilty, regardless of whether or not he pleads guilty, he should be sentenced the same way. Don't reward a criminal with a lighter sentence just because he pleads guilty.

Your thoughts?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: torpid
I'm old enough to be on a jury and I would lean towards giving the maximum penalty to Vick. Anyone with that amount of money and power should be punished more harshly for these acts than someone who at least could contend that it is the only thing they know how to do and it helps them make a living, or someone who can contend that they had no ability to escape a negative lifestyle.

that's a terrible, terrible view. no offense. Everyone deserves equal treatment by the justice system.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: Haui
Our justice system is wack.

I bet you anything that if we had done these crimes, we would all be held to a higher state than he will be.

Of course, unless to are a famous athlete.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Haui
I all the fuss about when and where Michael Vick wil plead guilty to all charges against him, where does perjury come into affect? Two weeks ago, Vick pleaded not guilty, yet, since our justice system rewards criminals for "giving in", why and how can this be?

Explain to me what happens - will he get more time for "lying" about being guilty? Can the judge give more time that the expected 12-18 months? Once out, could the STATE of Atlanta file more charges on him? I know he is "phucked", but he deserves the worst punishment yet.

Why do we give him so much time to plead? Last Friday was the supposed "last day" to plead, then Monday, now he has until next Monday (probably even longer if he wants).

If a man is guilty, regardless of whether or not he pleads guilty, he should be sentenced the same way. Don't reward a criminal with a lighter sentence just because he pleads guilty.

Your thoughts?

He was not under oath when he pled not guilty.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
They offered him a plea bargain, wherein by admitting guilt it saves them time/effort of presenting all the evidence to a jury. This saves taxpayer money and people's time as well, hence it is worth it for them to offer people plea bargains. It also guarantees a conviction, whereas if a trial gets drawn out all sorts of craziness can happen (happen to remember OJ's case?).

If you've seen how much people hate doing jury duty you'd also understand why that helps them.

My roomate was asking the same thing and even after I explained why he still didn't get it.

Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

Fuck you..

Did I forget to mention that Vick had a dog of mine?

More info please? How did Vick get a dog of yours?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Haui

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Haui
Put me on the jury. I will sit through a year of hearings to convict him and give him more time.

That is another reason why they wouldn't want it to go to a jury. This seems to be a topic that really divides people. You'd get some that would say guilty without even hearing the testimony, and then you'd get people who even after hearing damning evidence would probably say not guilty just because they feel Vick is being picked on and treated unfairly. A year is wasting a lot of time that can be put towards other trials, and would cost who knows how many millions of tax payer money. Are you also willing to foot the bill for this? If you want to gripe about our legal system why don't you spend some time and actually learn about it and why certain things happen the way they do instead of listening to a bunch of idiots in the media who have little to no clue about what they're talking about? Oh wait, you've got the solutions for all our problems, so why don't you just remedy everything.

Sorry that list bit was kinda uncalled for, but you just come off as one of the ignorant people that I hear whining about all the problems when they're woefully uneducated on the subject. Not that I'm an expert, but its just sad to hear stuff like this.

Fuck you..

Why? He's right.

Originally posted by: Haui
Did I forget to mention that Vick had a dog of mine?

Shens.

Originally posted by: dullard
1) You have to look at the expected outcome. Suppose 100 criminals commit a crime that is punishable by 1 year in jail. Suppose that 20% of them get damn good lawyers and are acquitted and/or convicted of a much lesser offense. Thus, the average criminal gets ~10 months in jail. Sure, some get 12 months, some get 0 months. But on average, they get 10 months. The expected value of the jail time is 10 months, not 12. Thus, as a prosecutor, you'd be damn pleased to get a guaranteed 10 months in jail with a plea deal.

2) It costs a fortune in prosecutor salary, judge salary, court costs, jury costs, and jail costs. Thus, we as a country are better off with a shorter sentence and no costs vs. a longer sentence with massive costs.

3) A not guilty/guilty plea in court is not an admission of guilt or innocence.

:thumbsup: Can't put it any simpler than that.