Michael Vick: what do you think??? - Page 3

cougartrace · 07-24-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecallahan

And yet guilty people after being executed are found to be innocent. Mistakes can be made.

uhh..the dogs were being treated this way at Michael Vick's house!!!! He can't be found totally innocent. He owns the dang property

cougartrace · 07-24-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeyethearcher

yeah i am just going to have to wait for the trial. i hope court tv has it. all that says is they are going to show you what they think they can prove. which is what the O J people said.

from what i have read it would appear that they had agents at these fights which means video and they can prove that he profitted from the fight. lets hope if he did this that that is true. if all they have are these cooperating witnesses then any attorny that vic can afford will tear them apart no problem. "guilty" witnesses mean nothing now a days.

sorry i am a wait and see kinda guy. i would suck on a jury. i think O J did it but with the evidence that was shown in court i would have had to say not guilty as well.

Well, we differ because I think OJ was shown guilty and now everyone knows he is.

Where Vick will most likely get into trouble from is the execution of the dogs. From what I understand there are tapes of him telling how to execute the dogs.

The actual fighting of the dogs he may get off on.

Underdog07 · 07-24-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkeyethearcher

sorry i am a wait and see kinda guy. i would suck on a jury. i think O J did it but with the evidence that was shown in court i would have had to say not guilty as well.

There is nothing wrong with that and it is what our legal system is designed for.

The OJ trial is interesting because the prosecutors had a very good case which they destroyed with their ineptness.

hawkeyethearcher · 07-24-2007, 01:36 PM

of all those pages, and i only glanced through an dread a few parts of each page, the most interesting is
vic was given a bag of money by one person and gave it to another as winnings. it doesnt mention cooperating witness so i would guess they can prove this with pics.
vic

also 82 and 83 mention vic was again involved so i would hope they have pics and or audio. maybe dna evidence of the dogs blood on him.

hawkeyethearcher · 07-24-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog07

There is nothing wrong with that and it is what our legal system is designed for.

The OJ trial is interesting because the prosecutors had a very good case which they destroyed with their ineptness.

exactly

thecallahan · 07-24-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougartrace

uhh..the dogs were being treated this way at Michael Vick's house!!!! He can't be found totally innocent. He owns the dang property

Are we talking about the house he says he bought for a family member or the house he lives in?

Just remember, jumping to conclusions can hurt someone almost as if they were proven guilty when found innocent (look what the Duke lacrosse player had to go through).

And indictment's just say they have evidence, they haven't brought this stuff into court yet have they?

I wonder if this will be as interesting to watch as the OJ case.

cougartrace · 07-24-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thecallahan

Are we talking about the house he says he bought for a family member or the house he lives in?

Just remember, jumping to conclusions can hurt someone almost as if they were proven guilty when found innocent (look what the Duke lacrosse player had to go through).

And indictment's just say they have evidence, they haven't brought this stuff into court yet have they?

I wonder if this will be as interesting to watch as the OJ case.

If you own the house where illegal activities were taken place, you are liable.

thecallahan · 07-24-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougartrace

If you own the house where illegal activities were taken place, you are liable.

So I kill 20 people, bury them in your yard without you knowing, that makes you partially at fault for the deaths?

cougartrace · 07-24-2007, 01:45 PM

well, If I own the house at the time of the burying, then yes, I am partially liable.

From what I understand, this was Mike's house. His cousin or whatever was just living in it.

hawkeyethearcher · 07-24-2007, 01:47 PM

nothing took place at his house from what i read. it was the house he bought for someone else.

course i know tha for a fact owning the house even owning the dogs means nothing unless you are involved in what they were used for and what was done to them. i lived a couple houses down from a bird fighting house. i knew the owner but he did not live there. his brother did and ran this fighting ring himself. course as it says they can put the money and the killing of these dogs in vicks hands so we will see if thats true.