Chief Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Perhaps it won't be completely separate, and I may feel differently when I'm actually watching the games. But that doesn't change the fact that I'll want the falcons to win. I could even muster up the strength to root for the team with li'l Joey under center. That's better than about 70,000 lions fans... Rooting for the Falcons, great. Rooting for Vick, pathetic. Rooting for Joey Hairball, desperate and/or brain dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Fair enough. However, I don't have season tickets to sell, and I'm not a fan of my local team. I love football, and you should all know that trying to pick another team to root for just wouldn't be the same. I shouldn't have to give up something that I enjoy, nor do I want to. So, where's the line between supporting the team and supporting the heinous deeds of a particular player? Especially with your brothers rooting for different teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 You know I think a lot of people need to chill in this thread. There's an awful lot of "I'm trying to get you" moments going on here, all based on Vick presumably being guilty, as opposed to innocent as he is right now. In fact, many of you fishing out for condemnation have egg on your face after jumping all over the dog carcass story which turned out to be nothing. What's wrong with letting the investigation running its course, before we start labeling people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 You know I think a lot of people need to chill in this thread. There's an awful lot of "I'm trying to get you" moments going on here, all based on Vick presumably being guilty, as opposed to innocent as he is right now. In fact, many of you fishing out for condemnation have egg on your face after jumping all over the dog carcass story which turned out to be nothing. What's wrong with letting the investigation running its course, before we start labeling people? Read Ditkaless Wonders' post and you may enhance your understanding. I was actively rooting against OJ during his legal travails, and haven't lost a wink of sleep over that despite the fact that he wasn't convicted of murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Actually the original warrant, and therefore investigation, went to drug related activity. That is what the were authorized to search for. When they saw direct evidence of animal endangerment they were authorized to address that which was in plain sight, but no more. They never did a search for evidence of the animal related charges as that would have exceeded their warrant. That was why it was important for Poindexter to execute the subsequent search. When he did not the Feds stepped in. Evanescent evidence was allowed to remain under the custody and control of the accused for far too long. This failure was shameful and speaks, along with Poindexters comments impugning the Feds as racists, of Poindexters gross negligence in the matter or perhaps something darker still than mere incompetence. Since when is a washer/dryer not in plain sight? We know the authorities went through desks seizing paperwork, so I doubt seizing a floor buffer or shop vac would have been anymore out of line. I gaurantee you they would've at least tested them for blood. I know it's popular to bash Poindexter, but if you had bothered to read up on Poindexter, you'd know that he had a previous dog fighting ring prosecution going with 30-something counts in the recent past, which was dismissed because of an improper warrant. I'd say that would be enough for any prosecutor to be a little gun shy about making sure exacting language is included in any subsequent search warrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 As a fan, I would be pressuring my team to get rid of this POS. Not only does he have the dogpound after him, but he has also had problems in an airport and FLICKED OFF HIS OWN STADIUM. Ridiculous that anyone would support this guy just because he's on the team. If he was a 2nd/3rd string player he probably wouldn't be on the team anymore. If 2nd/3rd was, I would once again be pressuring my team to release said douchebag. Some of these responses are ridiculous. Lets support Rae Carruth when he gets out, or maybe OJ will make a comeback! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 As a fan, I would be pressuring my team to get rid of this POS. Not only does he have the dogpound after him, but he has also had problems in an airport and FLICKED OFF HIS OWN STADIUM. Ridiculous that anyone would support this guy just because he's on the team. If he was a 2nd/3rd string player he probably wouldn't be on the team anymore. If 2nd/3rd was, I would once again be pressuring my team to release said douchebag. Some of these responses are ridiculous. Lets support Rae Carruth when he gets out, or maybe OJ will make a comeback! Very well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) Since when is a washer/dryer not in plain sight? We know the authorities went through desks seizing paperwork, so I doubt seizing a floor buffer or shop vac would have been anymore out of line. I gaurantee you they would've at least tested them for blood. I know it's popular to bash Poindexter, but if you had bothered to read up on Poindexter, you'd know that he had a previous dog fighting ring prosecution going with 30-something counts in the recent past, which was dismissed because of an improper warrant. I'd say that would be enough for any prosecutor to be a little gun shy about making sure exacting language is included in any subsequent search warrants. You know I refrained from taking a tone with you to begin with, but no longer. What makes you think I have not read up on Poindexter? What makes you think you know more about evidence than me, a career prosecutor? You say the washers, dryers, and shop vacs were in plain sight, and they were. What you do not get is what plain sight means as in your very post you state they would have had to test those items for blood residue. In other words such residue is not in plain sight on the items. See plain sight has one meaning to the general public and ignorant schmoes like yourself, to the legal community it has quite another meaning. It is a term of art. A term with particular and well described meaning, the knowledge of which is arrived at through study, not pompous spewing on the internet on subjects one clearly knows nothing about. If we need a virgins opinion on the Star Wars films we will look you up. On matters of other concern you should remain silent. Now let's ask another question. Why, in a drug investigation where they were prepared to look for drugs, manufacturing paraphernailia, precursor chemicals, and drug residue would they even be prepared to look for residual blood. That was not within the extent of their warrant nor the scope of their investigation. Once they saw the crime in progress of animal abuse or neglect they could not turn their eyes from it, but legally the warrant does not shift to allow them to shift the focus of their investigation into that. Rather they had to leave without exceeding the scope of their warrant. They then needed to go back in front of a judge and with the evidence they did find in plain sight, and with any other evidence they could gather, articulate probable cause to search for evidence of dog fighting. In short shut the SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS !!! up skippy. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you have spewed your nonsense with no actual thought. Either way your ignorance offends me and your condescending attitude invites a bitch slapping. Edited June 11, 2007 by Ditkaless Wonders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Read Ditkaless Wonders' post and you may enhance your understanding. I was actively rooting against OJ during his legal travails, and haven't lost a wink of sleep over that despite the fact that he wasn't convicted of murder. No, I did and am down with most of what he has said. Vick most likely isn't "innocent" in the strictest idea of the law since it WAS his property and I find the notion that the cousin bankrolled that operation to be very far fetched. That doesn't change the fact that there appears to be baiting going on in this thread AS IF he were already found guitly. And the OJ things is apples and oranges. OJ had cuts that night, there was blood all over his house, he could be placed near the crime scene and he ran from the cops. There isn't much in the Vick case that looks as strong as any one of those events surrounding OJ, which describes only the first 48 hours of the case (except for the flight which was day 3 or 4), where it went downhill for all involved from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 In short shut the SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS !!! up skippy. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you have spewed your nonsense with no actual thought. Either way your ignorance offends me and your condescending attitude invites a bitch slapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 In short shut the SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS !!! up skippy. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you have spewed your nonsense with no actual thought. Either way your ignorance offends me and your condescending attitude invites a bitch slapping. Big Score is an expert in all areas he can google and read for 15 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) And the OJ things is apples and oranges. OJ had cuts that night, there was blood all over his house, he could be placed near the crime scene and he ran from the cops. There isn't much in the Vick case that looks as strong as any one of those events surrounding OJ, which describes only the first 48 hours of the case (except for the flight which was day 3 or 4), where it went downhill for all involved from there. Aside, of course, from a house that Vick owned, Vick's license to breed dogs at said residence, his hugh investment in breeding those dogs, no apparent return from the investment, and numerous eye witness accounts from neighbors and people in the dog fighting business. Then you have him ditching the house at a greatly reduced price in one day and the burglary that conveniently stole items that might provide significant physical evidence (you know how thieves snatch & grab washers & dryers to fence on the black market these days)... Nope. Nothing suspicious at all going on there. Edited June 11, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Aside, of course, from a house that Vick owned, Vick's license to breed dogs at said residence, his hugh investment in breeding those dogs, no apparent return from the investment, and numerous eye witness accounts from neighbors and people in the dog fighting business. The you have him ditching the house at a greatly reduced price in one day and the burglary that conveniently stole items that might provide significant physical evidence (you know how thieves snatch & grab washers & dryers to fence on the black market these days)... Nope. Nothing suspicious at all going on there. I didn't say it wasn't suspicious. It's not as bad as OJ. Is this the tailgate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Lets not forget about how Vick threw his coach under a bus either...class move. Which One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) Is this the tailgate? No. If this were the tailgate, someone would have tied the dog fighting to Bush, Big Oil, and a global warming cover up by page 2. Edited June 11, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 No. If this were the tailgate, someone would have tied the dog fighting to Bush, Big Oil, and a global warming cover up by page 2. But putting words in my mouth and responding to me as if I wrote things I didn't - so I guess this is the gate, at least this thread is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerwin8 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 This isn't difficult at all. The only thing I'd be rooting for right now if Vick played in DEN is that the Feds get sufficient evidence to put him in a dark hole for a significant portion of his life. And if he didn't? If your team let him play for the ensuing year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 And if he didn't? If your team let him play for the ensuing year? I wouldn't support them. Really, this isn't that difficult of an ethics conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I wouldn't support them. Really, this isn't that difficult of an ethics conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 But putting words in my mouth and responding to me as if I wrote things I didn't - so I guess this is the gate, at least this thread is. You mean things like this: You know I think a lot of people need to chill in this thread. There's an awful lot of "I'm trying to get you" moments going on here, all based on Vick presumably being guilty, as opposed to innocent as he is right now. In fact, many of you fishing out for condemnation have egg on your face after jumping all over the dog carcass story which turned out to be nothing. What's wrong with letting the investigation running its course, before we start labeling people? Let me ask you, do you know that the evidence removed by the Feds weren't dog carcasses? If you can't prove that, you're making the same mistake that you are accusing others of making. It's human nature to use common sense when confronted by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The standard of guilt required by the criminal judicial system is not in effect here. It's part of what makes this place so interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 Aside, of course, from a house that Vick owned, Vick's license to breed dogs at said residence, his hugh investment in breeding those dogs, no apparent return from the investment, and numerous eye witness accounts from neighbors and people in the dog fighting business. Then you have him ditching the house at a greatly reduced price in one day and the burglary that conveniently stole items that might provide significant physical evidence (you know how thieves snatch & grab washers & dryers to fence on the black market these days)... Nope. Nothing suspicious at all going on there. Very nicely put. That burglary seems to have been all-to-convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) You mean things like this: Let me ask you, do you know that the evidence removed by the Feds weren't dog carcasses? I C'mon - you need to do better than that. Why is the evidence being removed thought to be dog carcasses? Because 1 radio station made a guess, based on information they supposedly heard and everyone else ran with it. The only reason the words "dog carcasses" is even being used is because of an error that has since been pulled. If the report had been about unicorn carcasses it would mean just as much. If you can't prove that, you're making the same mistake that you are accusing others of making. No, I'm not. Edited June 11, 2007 by Pope Flick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 11, 2007 Author Share Posted June 11, 2007 The report that is confirmed is that the Feds have been leaving the property with boxes in hand. The contents of those boxes have not been publicly revealed, though my guess is that they don't contain unicorn carcasses (again, speculating). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 C'mon - you need to do better than that. Why is the evidence being removed thought to be dog carcasses? Because 1 radio station made a guess, based on information they supposedly heard and everyone else ran with it. The only reason the words "dog carcasses" is even being used is because of an error that has since been pulled. If the report had been about unicorn carcasses it would mean just as much. No, I'm not. You think Vick was fighting unicorns at the house? Oh, well that's okay, then. Okay, I'll ask you: Why do you think Feds were digging holes all over the grounds at Vick's place? Maybe they all heard there was good fishin' down the road & needed some nightcrawlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 though my guess is that they don't contain unicorn carcasses (again, speculating). Conclusion jumper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts