Crazysight

Vick is all done

Recommended Posts

So Poindexter was in the process of executing a correctly worded warrant, at least according to his statements. I'm more than a little shocked at the extremely lengthy amount of time this went on. It does not take days or weeks to write a properly worded warrant. One also does not allow evanescent evidence to be under the control of the suspect while one seeks such a warrant. Yes one crosses ones "t's" and dots ones "i's", but not to the extent of allowing evidence to disappear. One relies on one's best efforts, the imprimatuer of the court who authorizes the warrant, and the officers good faith in executing the same to both secure the evidence and to give one a solid legal argument if an exclusionary hearing arises.

 

As to what was siezed under the first warrant I have concerns. The first warrant did not authorize the police to look for evidence of dog fighting. When they saw animals in distress they were not required to ignore that. They were free to secure those animals, but then their obligation was to go no further in their search in that regard. They could complete their search for matters related to drug dealing or manufacturing, but then they needed to leave, secure the premises, and seek another warrant related to their then existing probable cause to believe that a separate illegal activity was taking place on the property. I have real concerns that the tread mills, carpets, and other items will get excluded.

 

As for arguing the semantics of calling an item a rape stand verses a breeding stand I take this as what it is, an off point argument meant to distract. A rose by any other name springs to mind. So does you say potato I say you're a dumb ass.

 

As to what their forensic people were prepared to look for I know our crime lab people go out with fully equiped trucks. I also know that they are instructed to limit themselves to the scope of the warrant before going in, though obviously they take caution to not contaminate other potential evidence. In a drug raid absent allegations that violent crime took place this means that collecting and testing for blood would exceed the scope of the initial warrant. My guys would have, in accord with their training, secured the premises and sought a new warrant before proceeding.

 

As for my bona fides as a prosecutor you have no real idea. Your analysis of this matter thus far does, however, give me an idea as to your bona fides.

 

Lastly when it conmes to throwing a fellow prosecutor under the bus I agree I may have knocked Poindexter there in my rush to save the prosecutors he threw under the bus by suggesting racial animus in their pursuit of the truth. I have no trouble damaging the rep of someone who struck the first such blow. Poindexter's behavior in this matter has been nothing short of outrageous and I will not stand in solidarity with him. If you choose to do so that is your choice.

 

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

:D

Edited by Menudo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.ajc.com

 

Interesting!

 

So the incompetent & possibly corrupt Poindexter (at least according to our resident prosecutor DW) has brought one of our nations top forensic vets & one of the nations top animal crime scene investigators to assist with his investigation, the Feds (Dept of Ag) has not even made cursoury contact with this expert.

 

 

 

A good, but ultimately incredibly untimely move by Poindexter. This is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped. One wonders what this top forensic expert will examine since the crime scene was not secured, since evidence was lost to theft.

 

Yes she may be able to give him valuable insight from the items they did secure during the initial siezure. Unfortunately those items may get tossed in an exclusionary hearing, which hearing will then, of course, seek to limit her testimony as being fruit of that oh so poisonous tree.

 

While she is there the feds may want to secure her services to analysis the evidence they secured under their warrant. I think it possible she may have insight if her credentials are as presented, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's cut to the chase. Why do blacks like pitbulls and want to see them fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the most exciting player in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Poindexter was in the process of executing a correctly worded warrant, at least according to his statements. I'm more than a little shocked at the extremely lengthy amount of time this went on. It does not take days or weeks to write a properly worded warrant. One also does not allow evanescent evidence to be under the control of the suspect while one seeks such a warrant. Yes one crosses ones "t's" and dots ones "i's", but not to the extent of allowing evidence to disappear. One relies on one's best efforts, the imprimatuer of the court who authorizes the warrant, and the officers good faith in executing the same to both secure the evidence and to give one a solid legal argument if an exclusionary hearing arises.

 

As to what was siezed under the first warrant I have concerns. The first warrant did not authorize the police to look for evidence of dog fighting. When they saw animals in distress they were not required to ignore that. They were free to secure those animals, but then their obligation was to go no further in their search in that regard. They could complete their search for matters related to drug dealing or manufacturing, but then they needed to leave, secure the premises, and seek another warrant related to their then existing probable cause to believe that a separate illegal activity was taking place on the property. I have real concerns that the tread mills, carpets, and other items will get excluded.

 

As for arguing the semantics of calling an item a rape stand verses a breeding stand I take this as what it is, an off point argument meant to distract. A rose by any other name springs to mind. So does you say potato I say you're a dumb ass.

 

As to what their forensic people were prepared to look for I know our crime lab people go out with fully equiped trucks. I also know that they are instructed to limit themselves to the scope of the warrant before going in, though obviously they take caution to not contaminate other potential evidence. In a drug raid absent allegations that violent crime took place this means that collecting and testing for blood would exceed the scope of the initial warrant. My guys would have, in accord with their training, secured the premises and sought a new warrant before proceeding.

 

As for my bona fides as a prosecutor you have no real idea. Your analysis of this matter thus far does, however, give me an idea as to your bona fides.

 

Lastly when it conmes to throwing a fellow prosecutor under the bus I agree I may have knocked Poindexter there in my rush to save the prosecutors he threw under the bus by suggesting racial animus in their pursuit of the truth. I have no trouble damaging the rep of someone who struck the first such blow. Poindexter's behavior in this matter has been nothing short of outrageous and I will not stand in solidarity with him. If you choose to do so that is your choice.

 

 

:D

 

I warned you, BS. Instead you got yourself bent over a table & anally probed, and didn't even get a reach around.

 

I supposed you're used to that, though. Maybe even learrned to enjoy it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked with our people who handle animal matters. Dr. Merck was consulted by our office in regards to a string of cat mutalations a few years back, and was also consulted in regard to defense of an ordinance seeking to ban pit bulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dog fighting has its roots in ancient Rome in the days of the Roman Coliseum. Centuries later the activity was alleged to have reappeared in medieval Europe, particularly England. Dog fighting was not confined to Europe. The activity is documented in Japan during the Kamakura Period (1185-1333).

 

Today dog fighting still occurs in some parts of England and in pockets throughout Europe. However, dog fighting is especially popular in Latin America. This reporter has seen dog fighting pits alongside cock-fighting pits in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala, and been invited to cock and dog fights in both Belize and Guatemala.

 

In the every state in the United States dog fighting is a crime, but the punishments vary. It is a felony in all but two states, Idaho and Wyoming. Yet dog fighting does occur and is popular in rural areas and in all Southern states."

 

Oh, so this "brilliant" man has actually attended these Mensa-meetings himself?

 

"The result of the above is that the Michael Vick-dog fight story reeks on several fronts. It reeks of racism, imperialistic worldviews, cultural insensitivity, and jingoism."

 

So he's not only going to play the race card (bologni), but he's going to play the "culture-card" too? Maybe we should just allow these "cultural meetings" to continue unabated in that case. We surely don't want our take on dog-fighting to appear to be "imperialistic," nor do we want to risk disrupting such an obviously advanced cultural practice.

 

Maybe we should just bring back the ancient Aztec culture while we're at it so we can sacrifice this guy to the Gods.

Edited by Crazysight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Poindexter was in the process of executing a correctly worded warrant, at least according to his statements. I'm more than a little shocked at the extremely lengthy amount of time this went on. It does not take days or weeks to write a properly worded warrant. One also does not allow evanescent evidence to be under the control of the suspect while one seeks such a warrant. Yes one crosses ones "t's" and dots ones "i's", but not to the extent of allowing evidence to disappear. One relies on one's best efforts, the imprimatuer of the court who authorizes the warrant, and the officers good faith in executing the same to both secure the evidence and to give one a solid legal argument if an exclusionary hearing arises.

 

As to what was siezed under the first warrant I have concerns. The first warrant did not authorize the police to look for evidence of dog fighting. When they saw animals in distress they were not required to ignore that. They were free to secure those animals, but then their obligation was to go no further in their search in that regard. They could complete their search for matters related to drug dealing or manufacturing, but then they needed to leave, secure the premises, and seek another warrant related to their then existing probable cause to believe that a separate illegal activity was taking place on the property. I have real concerns that the tread mills, carpets, and other items will get excluded.

 

As for arguing the semantics of calling an item a rape stand verses a breeding stand I take this as what it is, an off point argument meant to distract. A rose by any other name springs to mind. So does you say potato I say you're a dumb ass.

 

As to what their forensic people were prepared to look for I know our crime lab people go out with fully equiped trucks. I also know that they are instructed to limit themselves to the scope of the warrant before going in, though obviously they take caution to not contaminate other potential evidence. In a drug raid absent allegations that violent crime took place this means that collecting and testing for blood would exceed the scope of the initial warrant. My guys would have, in accord with their training, secured the premises and sought a new warrant before proceeding.

 

As for my bona fides as a prosecutor you have no real idea. Your analysis of this matter thus far does, however, give me an idea as to your bona fides.

 

Lastly when it conmes to throwing a fellow prosecutor under the bus I agree I may have knocked Poindexter there in my rush to save the prosecutors he threw under the bus by suggesting racial animus in their pursuit of the truth. I have no trouble damaging the rep of someone who struck the first such blow. Poindexter's behavior in this matter has been nothing short of outrageous and I will not stand in solidarity with him. If you choose to do so that is your choice.

 

In the very first sentence of this post, you're still dispatching disparaging remarks Poindexter's way & insinuating lies.

So Poindexter was in the process of executing a correctly worded warrant, at least according to his statements.

You do realize that the warrant he was carefully wording would have been the THIRD (3rd) search warrant issued from his office?

 

You obviously have an axe to grind here with Poindexter over a case you are far removed from & truly have no idea as to what is going on behind the scenes. I would hope that cases & defendants that come under your review, get a fairer shake than you have thus far displayed towards one of your own peers.

 

And while you have now subsided in your slanderous insinuations of incompetence & corruption against a fellow prosecutor, you still insist on suggesting racial animus by Poindexter from his comments as to why the Federal Dept of Ag has stepped into the investigation without combining resources.

"This comes as a shocker to me," Poindexter said. "That's the thing that's so strange, that they've taken such an interest in this. Michael Vick is so big, I guess they want in, too. They want some of this limelight. It's like someone wants to make their bones (reputation) on this case."

 

"I wonder, what's the federal interest in this, with all the serious things going on in the world?" Poindexter said.

 

"Maybe I'm missing the boat. I see this as a class six felony (punishable up to five years in jail and a $2,500 fine). Now it's completely elevated because it involves Michael Vick."

 

"Apparently these people want it," Poindexter said. "They want it, and I don't believe they want it because of the serious criminal consequences involved. ... They want it because Michael Vick may be involved."

 

"There's a larger thing here, and it has nothing to do with any breach of protocol," Poindexter said. "There's something awful going on here. I don't know if it's racial. I don't know what it is."

 

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said "it does seem strange" for federal authorities to "sweep in" on this case. "Usually they're pretty good about working with local prosecutors," he said.

Even a Professor of law (you know, the person who taught you what you know about the law) says it seems strange for the Feds to sweep in like this & then not share information.

 

The is the only racial overtone to anything Poindexter has said in regards to the Feds Dept of Ag stepping into the investigation is "I don't know if it's racial."

 

From those six(6) words, you belabor the race card of a fellow prosecutor?

 

You have slandered a fellow prosecutor as incompetent, insinuated corruption & belabored the race card to a fellow prosecutor who is married to Gammiel Poindexter, General District Court judge for the 6th Judicial Circuit and sits in the city of Hopewell and Sussex County.

 

You truly are a piece of work aren't you?

 

Also, it was not only your incorrect terminology of calling the breeding stand seized a "rape stand" but your absolute conviction in getting up on your soap box & proclaiming to all & sundry that the "rape stand"was the only item among all of the materials seized, that was relevant to a dog breeding kennel.

 

Plain & simply, your pompous diatribe was incorrect & exhibited either an extreme ignorance to the dog breeding business, or simply spouting off at the mouth without true though or understanding, probably because you seem to have a rather inflated opinion of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it possible she may have insight if her credentials are as presented, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

Why not? You don't seem to have a problem believing Poindexter is racist, incompetent & possibly corrupt.

 

 

 

Doh! :D

Checked with our people who handle animal matters. Dr. Merck was consulted by our office in regards to a string of cat mutalations a few years back, and was also consulted in regard to defense of an ordinance seeking to ban pit bulls.

 

Couldn't help yourself could you? had to check her credentials anyway. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plain & simply, your pompous diatribe was incorrect & exhibited either an extreme ignorance to the dog breeding business, or simply spouting off at the mouth without true though or understanding, probably because you seem to have a rather inflated opinion of yourself.

 

 

You know, Poindexter, if you'd spend as much time doing your job as you do here making inane posts, your warrants might be good when they are written. Now I see how you came up with the handle "Big Score 1" also - Vick must be paying you a hell of a lot of scratch to cover his arse like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Mr. Career Prosecutor, I'd love to continue debating your slurring of a fellow prosecutor who is married to a district judge as being a racist, slandering him as incompetent & insuating that he might be corrupt as well as pointing out your knowledge of the dog breeding business and the tools used therein, is extremely limited, but unlike you I'm not on the taxpayers dime. I actually have to work for a living.

 

Until next time Mon Amis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, Poindexter, if you'd spend as much time doing your job as you do here making inane posts, your warrants might be good when they are written. Now I see how you came up with the handle "Big Score 1" also - Vick must be paying you a hell of a lot of scratch to cover his arse like this.

 

Now back to the ignore list with you - now moreso than ever.

 

You just can't do it can ya BB? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poindexter is not my peer.

 

 

 

If anything my comments were libleous, not slanderous. 9Any first year law student or any peson with a dictionary would get this distinction correct.)

 

 

I do not insist on suggesting racial animus by Poindexter. I note that he raised the topic unprodded as to the feds, and I find that beyond irresponsible. He gave the eventual defense, should it come to that, ammunition, and he did so out of picque and hubris.

 

 

I have taught law. Actually and more to the point criminal procedure.

 

 

The professor's comments were strange indeed. You are missing the import of those comments. The unmistakable implication of those comments are that the feds have reason to believe Poindexter is incompetent or dirty. If the feds were merely seeking glory they could have investigated cooperatively and charged federal violations seperately.

 

 

You are clearly not even worth bantering with as your level of acumen is on a par with Vick's cousin.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while you have now subsided in your slanderous insinuations of incompetence & corruption against a fellow prosecutor, you still insist on suggesting racial animus by Poindexter from his comments as to why the Federal Dept of Ag has stepped into the investigation without combining resources.

 

From those six(6) words, you belabor the race card of a fellow prosecutor?

 

You have slandered a fellow prosecutor as incompetent, insinuated corruption & belabored the race card to a fellow prosecutor who is married to Gammiel Poindexter, General District Court judge for the 6th Judicial Circuit and sits in the city of Hopewell and Sussex County.

 

You truly are a piece of work aren't you?

 

 

 

And that ladies and gentlemen is how one can try to avoid losing a debate: attacking the person you are losing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that Bronco Billy, who has no legal training as far as I know, was able to correctly use the term burglary to describe what happened to Vick's house, so many say robbery instead.

 

I note that Big Score 1 is unaware of the distinction between libel and slander.

 

 

 

 

I counterpose the two for my own amusement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this fuss over a QB who couldnt hit the broad side of a barn with a pass from 15 yards! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

career prosecutor

 

 

 

 

Also generally used to refer to one with 20+ years experience in a prosecutor's office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Big Score tries to put stink on the term in an attempt to get my goat (for what one might wonder) it only pleases me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When Big Score tries to put stink on the term in an attempt to get my goat (for what one might wonder) it only pleases me more.

 

 

It ought to piss you off when someone tries to get your goat. You put so much effort into training them to get them just right, and then someone comes along & tries to abscond with it.

 

Maddening, I tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always regretted not trying to get into law school...now I realize why I never did... :D J/K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tup:

 

I just don't get it. Even if people want to play the wait and see approach on this incident, there are still many other examples that show this guy as the POS he is. How anyone could support him at this point is beyond me.

 

The second he showed me his "Number 1's" I would of come out :D . He has ran the Falcants through a laundry list of poor publicity for the past 3 years now while he has been nothing more then a slightly better version of Kordell Stewart.

 

I seriously am starting to believe that people are posting supportive statements for R. Mexico in here for no other reason then just to continue arguing. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait ...

 

Im confused.

 

Is BigScore1 a prosecutor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait ...

 

Im confused.

 

Is BigScore1 a prosecutor?

 

 

That's not the impression I get. Maybe he slept in a Holiday Inn last night... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait ...

 

Im confused.

 

Is BigScore1 a prosecutor?

 

 

 

Some implication that he might be in his use of the phrase "fellow prosecutor". Yet the phrase was used ambiguously enough in context that he may have only been referring to me and to Poindexter, and not himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tup:

 

I just don't get it. Even if people want to play the wait and see approach on this incident, there are still many other examples that show this guy as the POS he is. How anyone could support him at this point is beyond me.

 

The second he showed me his "Number 1's" I would of come out :D . He has ran the Falcants through a laundry list of poor publicity for the past 3 years now while he has been nothing more then a slightly better version of Kordell Stewart.

 

I seriously am starting to believe that people are posting supportive statements for R. Mexico in here for no other reason then just to continue arguing. :D

 

 

Believe it or not, Kordell Stewart had 2 seasons where he finished in the top 3 in the league MVP voting (1997 & 2001)..... I don't think Vick has even reached Kordell levels.

 

In 1997, Kordell had 3020 yards passing, 21 passing TD's, 476 yards rushing, 11 passing TD's

In 2001, Kordell had 3109 yards passing, 14 passing TD's, 537 yards rushing, 5 passing TD's

 

Vick has never thrown for 3000 yards and the most total TD's he ever had was 22, 10 less than Kordell's 32 in 1997. Therefore, Kordell Stewart has a right to be angered by being compared to Michael Vick. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, Kordell Stewart had 2 seasons where he finished in the top 3 in the league MVP voting (1997 & 2001)..... I don't think Vick has even reached Kordell levels.

 

In 1997, Kordell had 3020 yards passing, 21 passing TD's, 476 yards rushing, 11 passing TD's

In 2001, Kordell had 3109 yards passing, 14 passing TD's, 537 yards rushing, 5 passing TD's

 

Vick has never thrown for 3000 yards and the most total TD's he ever had was 22, 10 less than Kordell's 32 in 1997. Therefore, Kordell Stewart has a right to be angered by being compared to Michael Vick. :D

 

 

My Apologies to Mr. Stewart then, I did not realize. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.