See incredible Roberts double-standard Update at foot.
Michael Vick, victim. That's how Selena Roberts's article in today's New York Times largely portrays the NFL QB accused of involvement with dogfighting. The article's headline sets the tone: Vick Is Trapped in His Circle of Friends.
Excerpts:
- The crooked circle Michael Vick drew around himself has tripped and squeezed him.
- The first to fail Vick was Davon Boddie, a cousin and personal chef. His marijuana possession charge in April led police to a white house with black buildings behind it on Moonlight Road in Surry County, Va. [Darn that Davon. If only he hadn't been busted on the pot charge, Vick might have been able to continue -- allegedly -- killing dogs that didn't make the grade.]
- The first to flip on Vick was Tony Taylor, a fast friend from Newport News, Va., with an arrest record for drug trafficking and a traffic record for reckless driving.
- The latest to betray Vick is Quanis Phillips, a friend since middle school. Along with Purnell Peace, Phillips, who once served jail time on a drug charge, accepted a plea deal on Friday and implicated Vick as the owner and operator of a dogfighting ring. [Does Roberts believe in the law of omerta?]
- Group dynamics can collapse under pressure. Vick has been abandoned, left to contemplate a plea deal that could imprison him and ruin his N.F.L. career.
What is Roberts' point? Should Vick's friends, who presumably had all the QB's tough background but none of his advantages, have kept their mouths shut, prevented the truth from coming out, and done their time in order to protect him? It's hard for me to see Vick, with all the stardom and the $130 million contract that went with it, as the victim here. All he had to do was one thing: not participate in dogfighting.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault, dear Selena, lies not in the underlings, but in the star.
UPDATE: Roberts was all for snitching . . . in the Duke lacrosse case. Allahpundit at Hot Air picked up my item, and fleshed it out with links to Roberts' articles on the Duke case, including one in which she wrote: ""[W]hy is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching? . . . The stigma as a traitor — and the threat of repercussion and isolation — is more powerful than the instinct to do what's right. Does President Brodhead dare to confront the culture behind the lacrosse team's code of silence or would he fear being ridiculed as a snitch?"
Snitching on Duke players: good. Snitching on Vick: "betrayal." Let's see, what could be the difference between the two cases?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Things I'd Like To Know
August 18, 2007 - 15:58 ET by NoMoreClintonsMark, I'd like to know if Selena Roberts is African American. If so, it would go a long way to explaining the tone of this article. In the black culture, you're a "rat" or "snitch" if you give testimony against another black person even if it means helping the police solve the crime. In Philadelphia, where they are closing in on 300 murders so far this year (95+ percent black on black), the police and responsible African Americans are trying to convince witnesses to step forward and do the right thing since so many of these murders are unsolved. The author of this article is part of that same mindset and it is sickening let alone reprehensible that any newspaper, even the NYT, would print it. Michael Vick, if the charges are true -- and at this point there is no reason to believe they are not, should spend several years in an orange jumpsuit and be banned forever from the NFL.
She is not:
August 18, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Mark FinkelsteinShe is not: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/sports/bio-roberts.html
Thanks
August 19, 2007 - 06:25 ET by NoMoreClintonsThen she is a wannabe of sorts who is taking up their case for them . . . it's even more despicable.
Whatever, she's a hunching, low self esteem insane lib
August 19, 2007 - 19:31 ET by SportPoliticsI mean look at that picture, you can see the shameful guilt written all over her smile. They always have this head down hunched over thing going on, like they're submissive for their misbehavior and just waiting for the due punishment to come down.
I'm reading the article, the 55-66 mostly pitbulls they got from the property, - the whole 9 yards, at least there was a picture of the estate...
My mind goes to this show I watched on discovery or travel or something, two tough guys into karate and fighting travel to the Phillipines.
They run in the mud water rice patties for training under some national top "Master" of some discipline over there, before they wind up at a bamboo national mudhut where they hold the championship "stick fighting" contest for this karate' form or whatever it was. Well the younger smaller USA guy was chosen to fight their chubby out of shape national champion, and he did pretty well, they beat eachother with a couple 2-3 foot long sticks for like 3 two minute rounds.
Anyway, the same bamboo stick hut stadium the size of a small ranchouse is CURRENTLY used over there for their cockfights. They showed it, and had their funny take on how scarey it was that the locals fight chickens to death before and after their stickfight match.
Well, that's about the mentality....lol... Vick ought to call the Clinton's. I'm sure they can arrange his flight from justice to the Phillipines or some other animal fighting 3rd world mudhole, where he can be happy and probably own the best bamboo bloodhut around.
In the black culture,
August 18, 2007 - 17:50 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIn the black culture, you're a "rat" or "snitch"
It's not just there that this is evident, although it may be more prevalent.
Most kids hear 'don't be a tattletale' at home from Mom and Dad.
In elementary school it's don't be a 'squealer' or a 'rat' from other kids.
In high school it evolves to don't be a 'narc' or a 'snitch'.
It has it's effect.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Dog Daze
August 18, 2007 - 16:03 ET by BarkerI'm surprised Selena Roberts didn't call the Vick gang a bunch of "snitches".
We are like those we hang
August 18, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Dan The Man 2We are like those we hang with.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Who cares, is this really
August 18, 2007 - 16:50 ET by hatukWho cares, is this really news? Let him have his day in court, if guilty, put him away, if not let him have his job back. I rate this right up there with what that Hilton girl is doing on any given day.
As a VA TECH alumni,
August 18, 2007 - 17:12 ET by bobthemanAs a VA TECH alumni, I'm saddened by the whole affair. The Vick brothers had so much talent and potential that it's crazy they couldn't keep out of trouble. Back in the 70's, I was lucky enough to play high school football in northern VA. A couple of my former team mates actually made it to the pro's... one was a jerk, the other, as normal as they come... guess which one lasted the longest and without all the drama?
As another VA TECH alumni (graduated '78)
August 18, 2007 - 18:14 ET by GalvanicI understand your sentiment, bobtheman, but I've got a different take on the Vick brothers: Sooner or later, thugs get caught.
In the case of these two, Marcus self-destructed sooner than Michael. To our alma mater's credit, they gave Marcus chances to reform, and when it was apparent that he was incorrigable, they cut him loose.
Michael Vick is an amazingly talented athlete, but he's never been normal when it comes to on and off field behavior. He was exciting to watch and he did much for VaTech football, but he also had a reputation as a bad boy. Despite the editorial of Roberts at NYT, Vick is totally responsible for his actions, and if convicted of dogfighting, ought to be banned from the NFL for life.
And as you know, Vick's #7 was retired at Tech and flies on a banner alongside other retired numbers. I hope they haul it down permanently.
One of the best T-shirts I've seen here in Fairfax County, Virginia since the Vick indictment, is a black shirt styled after a football jersey, with Vick's #7 on the front and back, and the word CONVICK where the name normally is displayed on the back.
Galvanic, I'd much rather
August 18, 2007 - 18:19 ET by BlondeGalvanic,
I'd much rather have my retired #7 jersey as a representative of my University....Danny Wuerffel. The fact that he never did much in the pros doesn't mitigate the fact that he was a great college quarterback. Plus, he's a sterling human being.
They have a whole herd of thugs down at the Miami football program, and of course, we call our cross state rivals the Florida State Criminoles. For a reason, unfortunately.
I can't wait for the college season to start. The Gators are one of the youngest IA teams this year, and I don't really expect them to repeat. A top tier bowl game would satisfy me. Seriously, wishing for two repeats in a row is rather greedy, don't you think?
Oh.....love that T-shirt you described. Good one.
And you bring up another excellent point in your post as well. Universities and coaches do no one any favors (society in general) by allowing the kind of behaviour their star athletes get away with....acting like complete and utter morons. That's another reason why I really like Urban....he kicked one of his best players off the team last year for bad behaviour. It's an object lesson all those headed to the pros should learn....that LAWS (rules) do apply to you superstar athletes.
Kill them Pups
August 18, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Lame CherrySince the Selena Roberts will not bring this out and instead sees the world in liberal black and evil white, it is time in discussion to examine a few TRUTHS no one wants to face.
Does anyone know how the dog breeds we have today came about? They came about as cattle, guard and hunting breeds. For example the Chesapeake Bay Retreivers were meant to fetch ducks in the ocean all day in ice cold water and then lay all night by the duck boat guarding the market hunter's property by killing anyone who tried or die trying. Any dog who did not make the grade was either drown as weak or shot.
This was the practice 200 years ago in all breeds. Pups of not the right color or effectiveness were grabbed by the feet and had their heads whacked against a board.....and want to know something else? Breeders in America and around the world do the same thing Michael Vick was doing in killing dogs for better quality today.
What do you think the Humane Society does with all those dogs and cats? They kill them and often they end up in tankage at rendering plants as fertilizer or pet food filler.
People do not seem to understand that Pit Bulls were bred for dog fighting. They love doing this as much as a terrier who was bred to kill rats loves chewing a rat to death. If you missed an ABC report about a decade ago about Pit Bulls, you would have seen two dogs locked on each other just howling in delight. They love it as much as Tiger Woods does swinging a golf club.
The question which liberals will not ask is why is it ok for Junior Reagan to host the dog show in New York when the breeders behind it are part of a culling process where puppies are killed just like Michael Vick did. Why is it immoral for him when breeders are doing it?
As dog fighting is illegal in America, that indeed is a crime and I am glad I do not understand what appeals to people doing it, but in that even one needs to examine if Pit Bulls who love killing each other are better off than a cowering whining poodle having a needle stuck into it or being gassed by your kind hearted Bob Barker Humane Society type.
In that a Pit Bull had an ending it was born for and the poodle got the worst of the deal....as poodles were bred long ago with their oil coats to retrieve ducks in the cold Atlantic waters.
There are enough people passing judgment in this that that does not need comment except to expand that I would like to see dozens of these rich possee jocks prosecuted for their rapes to murders.
It just behooves this American nation to debate what is humane. Old practices which gave us and continue to give us race horses, hunting dogs, cats, parrots and even chickens to eat all culled culls to help develop a better breed. That is the fact and everyone here benefitted by it and from it. To look down on Michael Vick is being dishonest of what is being condoned all across the globe.
Vick is no more guilty of cruelty in killing dogs than the Humane Society is a million more times over. Vick is guilty of dog fighting with a breed of dogs who love and live for killing each other.
Those are the facts which need to be debated, discussed and looked at responsibly. You will notice the dog breeders are very quiet about this as is the Humane Society. Sure PETA likes to scream to raise funds, but PETA is a group who wants no pets.....and yet has not figured out yet that if people did not have pets none of these breeds would exist.
Liberals come up with allot of dipstick ideas as do Times propagandists, but for the sake of animals and not the two legged critter Michael Vick who thinks he is his own law there needs to be decided what is best for these dogs as they are bred in instinct what is now considered illegal.
Otherwise there are allot of dead puppies and kitties suffering the same fate and Michael Vick is not responsible for all of that.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC, That's just,
August 18, 2007 - 23:55 ET by BlondeLC,
That's just, um, lame.
Vick is no more guilty of cruelty in killing dogs than the Humane Society is a million more times over.
Responsible dog (and cat) breeders don't kill their non preferred animals...they make sure they're found a decent home and taken out of the gene pool.
Just because pit bulls and other "fighting" type dogs were originally bred for that alleged sport (sheesh!) doesn't mean they're not acceptable pets and companions for the right owner.
To equate Michael Vick's (I even hate to say alleged) malfeasance in killing his "fighting dogs" to the Humane Society fighting cruelty and humanely euthanizing unwanted animals is absolutely insane.
Do you have any idea how fighting dogs are trained? Poor little pound puppies (you know, the ones that the Humane Society is trying to find a home for, and then may have to humanely euthanize) are FED to fighting dogs. I believe the term is "baiting".
Then you go on to make a point about race horses, hunting dogs, and parrots. Race horses are pampered creatures. They do what they do for a short time, and if successful...live a more pampered life than you can possibly imagine. And if not, usually end up as a beloved pet.
The fact that an animal was "bred" for a certain purpose is a function of the humans who breed them. But I find your callous disregard for Vick's "crimes" because he owned and fought "fighting dogs" (who according to you are perfectly happy to be killed amusing millionaire idiot atheletes) to be absolutely stupid.
I've liked some of the stuff you've posted here, but this one of yours is just plain ignorant.
Your shot(s) at the Humane Societ(ies) is obnoxious as well. There wouldn't need to be any Humane Societies if human beings were responsible pet owners. Actually, I find your shots at the H.S. to be worse than ignorant, a better description would be vile, stupid, ugly, and moronic.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
blonde
August 19, 2007 - 00:03 ET by shawn228Agreed Blonde, the dogs at the SPCA are at least euthanized. Along with making these dogs kill each other for monetary gain, the ones that did not show enough "fighting spirit" were electricuted. From what what I understand they used rape chairs as a form of breeding.
The thing that infuriated
August 19, 2007 - 00:10 ET by BlondeThe thing that infuriated me about LC's post was the idea that it was okay to fight these dogs because they'd been bred to fight.
That's insane.
I hate cruelty in any form. I hate people who think of their pets as a disposable item. All of the animals I've ever owned (with the exception of the equine variety) have been rescued pets.
Someone else posted on the Vick thing a day or so ago...and I agree with the poster, and I'm sorry I can't cite who it was, because he/she had a perfect line....something like "Well Vick is going to see exactly what it's like to be locked up in a cage and be someone's else's bi***" .
What goes around, comes around. And for Vick, I hope he's treated worse than a fighting dog when he's in the pound.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well that's interesting lame cherry
August 19, 2007 - 19:57 ET by SportPoliticsI read through it there lame cherry, but have to say blonde's rebuttal along with the article itself appears to discredit your ideas, at least in the 1st world.
My actual impression after finishing your post was the thought that the dogs bred for fighting and killing eachother are just like the Islamic societies bred for killing eachother. LOL - I mean it hit home. Yes, it's a great thing, ain't it. Nothing to love more than death for someone else, and even glorying in the fight and ones own death. I think the pitbull fighting is a bit behind ?
I understand where you're coming from, I've said before - around farmland here when farmers dogs have a litter one or two may be eaten by the pigs and any troublesome pups they unceremoniously shot. I guess some of that is currently discouraged (or perhaps blatantly illegal) to a degree but only a generation or so ago it was a widespread practice of neccessity.
If Vick wants to fight dogs I'm sure he can find a 3rd world hellhole where it's legal and encouraged and with all his money he can take his trip and have his fun.
I quite understand the idea of a duck hunting dog or a protector of the family or any such guard dog, but I'm not certain I understand the utility of a dog on same breed dog killing machine except for the bloodsport and bragging rights. What does one do with a top killing dog, but kill more dogs of the same breed, usually ? It seems to me the other traditional uses had and have a goal in mind that is more in line with the survival of the human owners.
Unless and except in the case of "show" breeding, where the ultimate idea is pride of the owner, or perhaps level of care and training, still a higher goal than it appears Vick was after, with chained to axles and electrocuted losers commentary at the story.
Hey ya know, maybe Islam needs to cut it out, too.
I agree that it needs to be
August 20, 2007 - 16:10 ET by KhyrisI agree that it needs to be discussed.
While illegal, one should not commit those acts which are crimes...
... until they have been changed by due process defined in the constitution.
"Animal cruelty" is one of those things that I strongly feel should never have been a law in the first place. It in no way affects the rights and equity between citizens.
We definitely need to have a discussion about having such laws repealed... but just like the idea of repealing medicare (to promote privatized health industries) people have a knee-jerk reaction to the initial statement and dismiss it before listening to the "why." Repealing medicare legislation does imply that we wish to stop people from getting healthcare any more than repealing animal cruelty legislation implies I'm promoting animal cruelty.
Let me set that straight... animal cruelty is morally wrong... it's indicative of a sick personality type... and should be discouraged and shunned. I merely don't think it's the place of the government to legislate upon it. Especially since the definition of what constitutes "cruel" is so subjective. If we have such a hard time defining what constitutes "cruel and unusual" for people... what business do we have attempting to define it for animals?
No, I think the proper recourse in such instances is for morality and social norms to be impressed upon such individuals in the usual manner... through their parents, peers, and neighbors... which is exactly what appears to be happening in this case.
The law in this case may merely tell someone that it "is" wrong. But it is important to convey "why" it is wrong. The law fails catastrophically in this regard, as there is so much grey area in terms of what species are protected, what are pests, what is acceptable for food livestock, etc. Laws need to be written in black-and-white, and applied to situations of grey by reasonable minds. Laws that are written in moral greys to begin with such as this are not something we should entrust to our government, but to ourselves.
-
August 20, 2007 - 22:01 ET by dahliatraversI think the proper recourse in such instances is for morality and social norms to be impressed upon such individuals in the usual manner
That sounds good in theory except that it did not work in this case. The participants were not guided by morality or the social norms that were impressed upon them. Nor is it working in many other ongoing instances of dog and cock fighting, which I sincerely hope law enforcement starts cracking down on.
The difference is that no
August 18, 2007 - 18:25 ET by balboaThe difference is that no one was coming forward in the Duke case when more info was desperately wanted. I think what Roberts is pointing out is the flawed foundation that all Vick's friendships were based on, foundations that were destined to fall away at the right moment, such as this incident. Vick is a victim, of his own poor judgement.
I beg to differ
August 18, 2007 - 18:41 ET by c5thenThe primary difference between the cases at this point (tring not to use hind-sight in the Duke case) is that one was a couple of affluent white boys accused of raping a black stripper at a party. The other is a black affluent sports star accused of involvement in a dogfighting endeavor and bankrolling the whole thing.
At this same point in the cases, Roberts had the Duke lacross players already convicted and guilty as hell, but Vick is a "victim" of poor freindship.
I think what Roberts is pointing out is the liberal philosophy that if you are black, you are a victim of something, it just needs to be discovered. If you are white, you are guilty of almost anything until proven innocent.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
I don't think that's what
August 18, 2007 - 18:47 ET by balboaI don't think that's what she's saying. Yes, Vick is a victim, but I don't think Roberts is taking any of the responsibility off of him. It's his poor choice of "friends" that is sealing his fate.
We're all victims
August 18, 2007 - 18:52 ET by stratmanYeah.
Richard Milhous Nixon was a victim too.
His surviving family members should get an attorney and sue the perpetrators.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
We're all guilty
August 18, 2007 - 19:03 ET by Jack Bauerstrat -- and as well as being victims, we're all guilty too.!
Except those in jail. They're all innocent
My contention is that Vick
August 18, 2007 - 19:04 ET by balboaMy contention is that Vick is a victim of his own poor judgement. I don't feel sorry for the guy if the allegations are true.
People do not spontaneously
August 18, 2007 - 19:52 ET by stratmanPeople do not spontaneously hold dog fights at their million dollar mansions without a history of involvement in the activity. Or, Vick was coerced by thugs.
I'll wager that Vick has a history of attending animal fights prior to his arrival in the NFL. Having the million dollar mansion merely facilitated the holding of the event at his convenience and to get a little juice from the action, either in cash, favors or the thrill of the kill (alledgedly literally on his part).
Vick has a long history of troublesome behaviour. The people he willingly associates with are thugs or thug pretenders. He has cultivated his own bizarre and angry persona and seeks out associates that also display questionable/known bad boy behaviour. As such, Vick cannot be a victim because he knowingly associated with undesirable types. I doubt Vick's friends were pretending to be goody two shoes and then flipped, became thugs and held dog fights against Vick's will, then flipped again and became model citizens complying with law enforcement officials.
Would you say a bank robber being charged for murder because his partner killed someone in the commission of a crime is a victim? The robber knew his partner had a gun and should know that sometimes things don't go the way you thought. Both are willing participants in a crime. At that point, it doesn't matter if one criminal behaves asynchronous to the other. If you don't participate in criminal activity in the first place then escalation can not occur.
In actuality, the bank robber scenario doesn't equate to the Vick situation. Vick is alledged to have done some of the killing himself. There is no guilt by association. Vick did it (alledgedly).
Concerning the Duke Lacrosse team debacle, witnesses did give police accounts of the evening, which turned out to be true. The prosecutor, Nifong, willfully disregarded the testimony of the males and the other stripper. Nifong also disregarded the changing story of the alledged victim. Sexual assualt is either proven by eyewitness testimony and/or physical evidence. I've already discussed the witness testimony. The physical evidence did not support the guilt of the players. In comparison, the physical evidence at the Vick home unquestionable determined that criminal activity occurred. Vick is already guilty of a crime or crimes unless he has a compelling reason for not knowing about the fights, the dog blood and tissue in what appears to be a space suspiciously looking like a dog fighting arena, or the dog corpses on his property. Eyewitness testimony places Vick on the property during the fights, involved in the gambling and in the killing of animals. Physical evidence may surface corroborating these allegations.
Unless Vick has mental retardation he cannot be a victim of his own poor judgement. He can have a victim mentality, which will get him the attention of Jesse and Al no doubt, but he is not a victim of dog fights, animal killings or illicit gambling. Vick alledgedly participated in all these activities knowingly and willingly, and, he knew his activities were considered criminal. As such, Vick is no more a victim than OJ.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
I think we're saying the
August 18, 2007 - 20:56 ET by balboaI think we're saying the same thing. I don't think Vick's friends were goody two-shoes before now; I think they were loyal to Vick until now. But that's what happens when the scarecrow plays with fire.
Scarecrow Plays With Fire
August 18, 2007 - 23:51 ET by stratmanYes indeed.
Whatever the outcome, maybe we shouldn't place so much hero worship on the shoulder's of athletes. They are human afterall.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Charles Barkley was
August 19, 2007 - 18:35 ET by balboaCharles Barkley was right.
What's really a shame is that there are plenty of people, kids amongst them, that don't think Vick has done anything wrong, that this is just an attempt by "white folk" to finally get rid of the black quarterback.
Dog fighting is part of the
August 19, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Ten7sDog fighting is part of the web of underground criminal activity including gangs, drugs, extortion, etc, etc. Vick is facing at least three witnesses and literally TONS of corroborating evidence. Vick is a fool if he doesn't make a deal, and his lawyers are fools if they don't emphatically advise him to take a plea deal. He could be facing dozens of well substantiated charges and some very, very lenghty jail time. The deal that the prosecutor reportedly offered, something like a recommendation of 1 year with a full, contrite confession, is going to look wonderful in hindsight. If he goes to trial, they will make an example out of him.
Being a complete cynic I
August 19, 2007 - 19:37 ET by ahusserBeing a complete cynic I believe that Vick would be crazy to accept a deal. He will never be convicted. The defense has more peremptory challenges than the prosecution you can bet there will be at least one member of the jury who will not convict Vick no matter what he did. There will be a succession of hung juries if not an outright acquittal because it is a white racist plot to defame a black athlete. This will become very similar to the OJ trial. The phenomenon is called jury nullification and it is becoming a very real problem.
ah
August 19, 2007 - 19:43 ET by BlondeGood point, and great link.
This is troublesome, to say the least. I'd not really heard that before.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde The only solution
August 19, 2007 - 20:13 ET by ahusserBlonde
The only solution I can think of to this is not having a unaminous(sic?) verdict. Maybe 10 or 11 out of 12 to convict (or throw out the high and the low like in Olympic Diving :)). I believe one state already has this but I don't remember which one. A cop friend of mine was shot by a guy (the cop white, the perp black) there were three trials before they got a conviction and it was for a lesser included offense than attempted murder. The judge, the same in each trial, was livid that with the evidence at hand the jerk wasn't convicted outright. Luckily the jerk had back up time and went down on other charges also related to the use of a handgun by a convicted felon. Of course he also was out on parole. This was in DC.
Why am I not surprised
August 19, 2007 - 20:23 ET by BlondeWhy am I not surprised (about DC)?
I've only ever sat on one jury (what do you want to bet there will be a summons in my mailbox when I get home for even thinking those words). It was for homestead exemption fraud, so I don't really have any personal experience in this.
But the minute I'd read what you posted, I knew you were right. And our judiciary is not the venue for "Civil" protests. This is truly a troubling issue, and has to have you law enforcement types pulling your hair out.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
That's one side of the coin
August 19, 2007 - 21:06 ET by SportPoliticsThe other side of the coin is the judge and the prosecutor, barring evidence, keeping evidence from the defense, cops and detectives lying on the stand, modified and rewritten police reports, and forcing all sorts of ridiculous rules and allowing other crazy blatant disregarded crimes from the stand or the evidence into court.
Would you feel the same if Nifong charged the Duke boys got it to court, and a lone white male held out on the jury, nullifying a guilty verdict ?
I don't buy the one-sided view. How about the liberals suing for ten of millions of dollars, would be nice to have a lone republican "nut" holding out on that jury, huh.
Sure, I suppose the OLD story is the mafia "buying" a juror or two.
BUT, how about that jury that came out of the Libby trial, and mr. WaPo reporter turned juror hit the cameras and said he really didn't believe the right person got convicted, but he wanted to send a message... and was sad they "didn't get Rove". NULLIFICATION would have been REALLY nice then.
So, be careful what you wish for. They already seem to have a lock on picking juries and all these babblings and instructions from the judges, and all the evidence barred, pro and con, convict and acquit.
It's just like anything else, you want people to do the right thing, and in some cases, that IS someone holding out and not going with the "crowd" or the "media perception".
Usually, nowadays, they (the judge and the prosecution) just "dismiss" that kind of juror, or two or three of them, and suddenly they get the verdict they want in a few hours after a week or two stalemate.
The article says it's(nullification) been geting more common the last 30 years. Well I submit to you insane left wing kookball cases have been geting more common as well, and it's about time some citizens do what they can to put the kabosh on it.
My original point being.
August 20, 2007 - 07:14 ET by ahusserMy original point being. Vick will never be convicted. I would be very surprised if he does and he would be crazy to accept a deal. The libs and NAACP are making this a racial issue rather than a criminal one just like the OJ trial. In OJ one Detective who said the N word was more important than convicting a murderer. The evidence in that trial was there. and You are talking about jury tampering and other ills that the justice system has always been prone to. Jury nullification is different because it is not about police or prosecutorial misconduct nor about buying off jurors it is about disregarding evidence based on personal belief whether racial or political. The defense has always had more leeway in the number of challenges to who is on the jury. Lawyers have classes in how to pick juries.
Racism vs. Reality
August 20, 2007 - 07:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKEveryone knows that 'blacks' do not commit any criminal acts and the fact that there's a disproportionate number of blacks in prison is further example of our racist justice system.
Why do you think he won't be convicted?
August 20, 2007 - 07:34 ET by sarcasmoDoesn't the prosecution have all his buddies flipped to testify against Vick? They're after Michael's property/money, IMO. OJ's was a different case. Blacks & whites were divided on OJ, despite all the evidence that OJ killed both people. I don't see that in the Vick case, especially if people he knows testify about him killing "man's best friend," no matter who sits on the jury. Chances are good he's also on candid camera, if my guess is right.
IMO Michael Vick's best chance of salvaging any NFL career is to take a plea and serve his time so that he can act sorry about what happened, something he can't do while at the same time fighting the case. His lawyers won't say this, but one or more of them may have different interests in this case than their clients.
Also, I think it's important for fairness to look at the history of jury nullification, since without nullification (for example) truth might still not be a defense to libel. Ultimately, the courage & truthful principles exercised by "common" people over "leaders" in the Zenger case became the First Amendment. I seriously doubt a juror would nullify in the Vick case because jurors (with the exception of OJ's, it seems) don't want violent people in their community.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> I think they would sarc
August 20, 2007 - 07:41 ET by Cool ArrowI still don't see how OJ walked, and that wasn't just one juror.
If I had a son doing some years for marijuana, I'd likely have a strong opinion against controlled substance prosecution.
Now multiply by 5 or 6 the number of such grievances my perceived community had against "the man"
He's a gambler, I think he'll roll the dice.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
if you're right
August 20, 2007 - 08:04 ET by sarcasmoThings are much worse than I think for race relations and the judicial system in this country. But a nullification in this case wouldn't be at all like a nullification of a silly weed case. The OJ analogy is better, IMO, despite the dogs-humans difference, due to the violence-factor, and I'm thinking/hoping OJ's verdict was a fluke.
Maybe I hang around with the wrong black people, but the small & unscientific sample I know all think Vick should/will go to jail for a while. They're very religious people, and they're even more convinced than I am that Vick's football career is effectively over...Even if he emerged from jail a year from now in even better shape as a player, what team owner wants to invite PETA nuts out in front of the stadium protesting every game?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Things are bad
August 20, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Cool ArrowWhere would this trial be held?
Would it surprise you that cockfighting and Dogfighting have been going on around these parts for years? And there has never been a prosecution? That's just the regional and cultural demography.
Now just throw in the race card in Atlanta Ga. Let that sink in . . . Atlanta Ga.
On the side of nullification you have questions asked more skillfully than I can offhand: "Ladies & gtlmn of the jury, isn't it strange you never heard of a white man doin time for dogfighting?"
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
In the OJ trial there were
August 20, 2007 - 08:21 ET by ahusserIn the OJ trial there were 8 jurors who based their decision on race and a detective who sometime in his career said the N word rather than just one juror. But all it takes is one. To me jury nullification is simply not weighing or even considering evidence at all as you are supposed to do as a juror. The evidence may lead you to a different conclusion and you may act on that conclusion but just to pick a side, ignore the evidence and vote to convict or acquit based on your personal beliefs whether political or racial or whatever is wrong.
I submit that Vick probably would accept the following deal: an Alford plea on Misdeameanor animal cruelty charges, and/or running an illegal establishment, no jail time, maybe a hefty fine and a very large donation to the animal advocates of his choosing and his promise that he will never be naughty again. The major stumbling block of going to trial would be all the dirty laundry coming out in a protracted and lengthy trial and a very slight chance of being convicted for felony charges (and I mean slight). Which would make it more probable that he would lose his quarterbacking job because of the adverse publicity, conviction of a felony (not that there aren't any felons in the NFL). By accepting a deal he could let the NFL off the hook cause they can say he is contrite and has paid his debt to society etc.
Jury nullification
August 20, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Cool ArrowTo me jury nullification is simply not weighing or even considering evidence at all as you are supposed to do as a juror.
Ok, you just perfectly defined the topic at hand. All that's needed now is for the Defense to present one juror with a self righteous internalized reason to embrace it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I am not an expert on this
August 20, 2007 - 08:32 ET by Ruths husband BenI am not an expert on this case, in fact it is a big yawner for me, but I have some knowledge of jury nullification. It is not a new phenomenon and it is not a problem. It is very easy to find anecdotal cases where someone is set free who is obviously guilty, but by and large jury nullification is the last bastion of justice in this country. For example, there have been many people taken to trial for using a handgun to defend themselves and their property. Rarely are these successfully prosecuted, because a jury of one's peers recognize that although the letter of the law may have been violated, the spirit of the law was not. Before the days of concealed carry permits, jury nullification was the last refuge of protection for many women who carried handguns to protect themselves from stalkers.
Jury nullification is we the people nullifying unjust laws. Because we are not perfect, sometimes juries are misled, but it is generally not the case.
From the Federal Jury
August 20, 2007 - 11:15 ET by ahusserFrom the Federal Jury handbook you, as a juror, would be examined by the judge or counsel or both. You have to answer truthfully questions about your ability to render an impartial verdict based on the evidence and facts of the case. You are asked if there is any reasons you cannot make an impartial verdict or if you have any prejudices concerning this case which would make it impossible for you to be impartial, or if you are related to or know the defendants. In your example you would be prejudiced against the law itself. You could be challenged based on cause, or peremptory challenged. In Federal court the defense has 10 peremptory challenges while the prosecution has 6 there is no limit to challenges based on cause. If you knowingly lie about any of the questions posed to you about your qualifications or impartiality or prejudices you can be tried for perjury because you will be sworn in. All your baggage should be revealed before you are picked as a juror and it doesn't mean you will not be picked as a juror.
There is a world of
August 20, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Ruths husband BenThere is a world of difference between being prejudiced against the law and deciding that a particular law is being unfairly applied. In the example that I gave, I am saying that few juries will bring a guilty verdict against a woman for carrying a illegally concealed weapon when she is under imminent threat.
I stand by my earlier statement, Jury nullification is the last bastion of justice, as clearly as the right to own and bear arms is the last bastion of liberty. Nullification prevents overzealous prosecuters from committing acts of tyranny through the courts. I also believe that Jury nullification was the intent of our founding fathers when they established trial by a jury of one's peers. What has corrupted our judicial system is not juries (who I acknowedge occasionally err), but judges who overrule sound decisions by juries. Activist judges who consider themselves as being above the jury (and therefore above the people) instead of being facilitators for the jury undermine the populous' confidence that everyone will recieve a fair trial.
ahusser
August 20, 2007 - 12:50 ET by SportPoliticsI appreciate your prior comments back and understand what you are saying, but I am with Ben on this. I've read about this nullification recently (and a long time ago as well) and apparently there has only been 1 woman ever charged, and that was reversed.
So what we have here is several different "uses" made by jurors. The one you mention where their personal racial or political preference is used as a weapon to let a guilty person go free (essentially the same as mafia buying jurors - or anyone else buying them) is of course what one wants avoided.
On the other hand, the laws and cases and potentials we have all heard about, many so ridiculous, certainly a few I mentioned out of control (NiFong) - leave me with the belief that a jury of my peers should have the last say. As you mentioned there are already numerous filterings done to weed out unwanted jurors by prosecutors and defense. I also have as does everyone else that right under the Constitution. Not like I'm going to let the Salem witch trials stat burning again with the NiFongs around.
You shouldn't charge a juror either (they aren't charged by what I've read), after you pick them with the weeding out process, and through the trial they see the corruption from the bench, or whatever reason they find...in the case... that becomes a ridiculous breach of common sense - that they would not see until in the jurors seat.
Pretty tough proving a persons thoughts.
I'm with my fellow citizen not giving totalitarian power to the system, with no last resort. I do believe the law is with me as well. I'll stick with my fellow citizens, not unbridled power and control of the State.
Tell me the law isn't, and I'll ask how the OJ jurors weren't charged. ( lol - ok bad example for me - but you get my point)
Thank you JB
August 19, 2007 - 20:21 ET by SportPoliticsGosh darn golly thanks.
I see someone else slowly and gently loosened the rope around balboa's neck he placed there, until he finally agreed that he was sayin' exactly that, and that he agreed all along with everyone else here...yeah, sure...saying the same thing...yep all along...
Glad there's a refuge...but I just gotta leave that parting shot, for the denoosed.
the WARDEN : " I have to say that's the most amazing story I've ever heard. What amazes me most is that you were taken in by it. "
Blonde, I see you up there, I was being nice, really, I didn't say it to bal, he'll never even see this.
Too funny,
August 19, 2007 - 20:28 ET by BlondeToo funny, Sport.
"Denoosed".
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Victims, past and present
August 18, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Mica the MagnificentCharles Manson was a victim of his times.
Lorena Bobbit was a victim of a penis.
Mark David Chapman was a victim of Lennon's music.
Son of Sam Berkowitz was a victim of Brooklyn.
Osama Bin Laden is a victim of American Culture.
(Liberals may applaud here)
Michael Vick is a low-life.
August 19, 2007 - 01:15 ET by Dave RAlbeit a $130 mil one, but a low-life nonetheless.
As someone who has had dogs for most of my life, I cannot even begin to fathom treating these wonderful animals in the way many people involved in dog-fighting do. Sure, I loathe pit bulls as a breed, but slamming them to the ground to kill them is cruelty that is beyond description.
Vick deserves whatever happens to him. I wonder how he would feel if someone were to treat him in the same fashion as it has been alleged he treated some of his under-performing animals.
I just hope he has taken his last snap in the NFL, as I would lose whatever respect I still have for the league if is should decide to alllow him back in.
And I'm saying that as an Atlanta resident, who is also a Falcons fan.
I don't care how many fannies Michael Vick puts in the seats down at the Dome. The Falcons will be better off without him.
}}---> Yes, it's sad
August 19, 2007 - 04:39 ET by Cool ArrowI guess I'd forgotten how many Super Bowls this superstar has led the Falcons to.
To hear the Media, you'd think Al Gore had just been caught leaving a huge Carbon Footprint. Well, maybe that's not a good example.
You'd think Laura Bush had lied about her daughters feelings for beau. Yeah, that's it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
-
August 19, 2007 - 07:22 ET by dahliatraversExcellent post, Mark. Ms. Roberts, time to see a tailor - your hypocrisy is showing.
No one was tripped, squeezed or betrayed. They all deliberately did something really bad, left a lot of evidence and got caught.
Puzzled...
August 20, 2007 - 06:03 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat puzzles me is why would someone in Vick's position engage in such an activity? He must be dumb as a box of rocks. Unlike being involved with drugs, you won't be viewed as a helpless victim by the public at large in this. What an idiot.
Speaking of "Snitching"
August 19, 2007 - 07:59 ET by sarcasmoHere's an article from Reason's Radley Balko.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Drugs
August 19, 2007 - 09:55 ET by iveseenitallVick and his buddies are a bunch of druggies. " Let's get high and electrocute a few mutts." You can take them out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of them. And I say get a real "journalist" like Geraldo from Fox to write a defense of them. He's for unrestricted use of drugs.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
}}---> tack tack tack
August 19, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Cool ArrowNow you can't continue bumping your racist post to the top.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Vick
August 19, 2007 - 10:45 ET by countywolf1This Lame Cherry person really is 'lame' to think it's okay to conduct dog fighting or that 'humane societies' are just as cruel as Vick. It shows that there are plenty of people out there that condone this horror and don't know how 'humane societies' work.
quick someone call him a nappy headed ho
August 19, 2007 - 14:28 ET by lunaticcringeradiothen his lawyer can deflect attention off his crime and prove that it wasn't his fault he was fighting dogs, someone ruined his whole life by calling him a name.