Vick's formal plea - OT

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Seems like this is relevent to sports news....<br /><br /><a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070824_Vick_Statement_Of_Facts.pdf" target="_new">http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070824_Vick_Statement_Of_Facts.pdf</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Leon- In the last 3 years we have been swamped (especially on talk shows like ESPN) with Maurice Clarett and his criminal dealings, Kobi and his sexual escapades, and now Vick and the dogs. Lost in the shuffle were a lot of really good sports stories. <br />I for one am fed up with hearing about Vick and hope he uses his time in prison to good use so he can come out and become a productiove member of society and erase the ghosts of his despicable conduct. I am also fed up with how sports talk show radio has become so sleazy that shows like The Herd are nothing more than the National Enquirer for sports. The last straw was hearing how Darryl Strawberry did nothing worse than Mickey Mantle, it was only because Mantle was while and Strawberry black. Give me a break...<br /><br />Tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Tbob,<br /><br />Daryl Strawberry has received far more second chances than the average John Doe. However, I have to admit that the media spotlight shines a lot more brightly right now than it ever did during the Mick's time.<br /><br />In Mick's time a ballplayer might get away with an affair. The media would keep it hushed up. Now days it seems like the media would jump on anything like that. Certainly there's a lot more reporting about DUI's, I don't remember the media reporting on any of the old-timer's drinking and driving.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>They finally choose a JURY...<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.vintagecardprices.com/pics/169/41172.jpeg"><br /><br />Had to add it....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>CLASSIC!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>woof to that<br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/90077068_eda7c77c52.jpg"><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p><img src="http://cycleback.com/henrydog.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matthew</b><p> I certainly don't mean to defend Vick, but does anyone else feel like he is being treated worse than other players who have committed similar (or worse) crimes?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>No.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>No. They should do to him what he did to the dogs. Then I say he doesn't even need to be punished after that....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matthew</b><p>You are getting me wrong. I am asking if any other players have gotten off easier than Vick for similar infractions. Does anyone else remember the Ray Lewis murder trial? He only got off because he rolled on the other guys. He settled with the families to avoid civil court. What punishment did he get from the NFL?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>I've heard that argument a TON lately.........what SHOULD have happened is those other guys should have had the book thrown at them too. We should not be considering reducing Vick's punishment because other guys got off basically scott-free. I'm not a PETA guy or anything but what he did was reprehensible. Dog fighting alone is bad enough but to kill dogs because they wouldn't fight is beyond.......hopefully, the book will be thrown at him because of the gambling issues too. Then maybe the IRS will pile on for tax evasion--they took it to Pete, go after Mike......<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Maybe we are talking about different things. I posted the plea as it leaves no doubt about anything and hearsay won't be a factor. It's pretty big news and I thought important enough to do an off topic post. As for his real punishment we'll see what the legal system says......regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matthew</b><p>I am only referring to the NFL punishments. Seems to me they have been extremely lax on other players. Vick deserves the suspension. But so do several other players. Why have they not received it?<br /><br />What are the chances that Pacman will receive a harsher sentence now? I saw an interview not long ago of the family of the paralyzed security guard. He was working a 2nd job to help his wife through law school when he was injured. Is this crime any less or more terrible? Neither Jones or Vick should ever play again.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The NFL has strict anti-gambling rules. In 1963, Alex Karas and Paul Hornung were suspended for a year for gambling. As far as NFL suspension goes, the gambling part probably is the bigger issue. The dog fighting doesn't help.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>RIP VICKY

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>to be fair to all players in every sport, punishments need to be "cut and dry" from their perspective sports.<br /><br />if you get caught: you get "X" amount of punishment whether you are white, black, yellow, jewish, armenien, italian, greek, ethiopian, german, mexican (or mexican't), english, canadian, eskimo, filipino, or french. ok, wait...the french should get double<br /><br />dont base the punishment on things like, "he does donate a lot of money to charity" eventhough he's molesting children. or "he was raised by a single mother with 14 brothers and sisters" so you cant blame him when he charges the mound with a baseball bat.<br /><br />but if the german guy can work a deal in a court of law better than the canadian, then more power to him.<br /><br />Vick will get far less than what he deserves in my opinion but he's also entitled to work a deal, and i'm not defending him by any means...i honestly dont even know what team he plays for, but i think its the falcons<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>NFL's punishments have become very harsh recently, since a year or so ago. This was due to a number of players who repeatedly got into trouble with the law, which became a PR problem. Punishments were a lot less even a couple of years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Since when has Vick been treated differently because of his race? That's just a convenient ploy to try to get him out of the mess he's in -- blame the accuser. Indeed, the NAACP has already called for forgiveness for Vick and reinstatement when the guy has served a total of zero days for his crime and has barely even admitted it yet. In my mind, Vick is to receive a pretty light sentence for what he did. A year in jail? That's it? If you are caught with a loaded, unlicensed gun in NYC -- without firiing it or using it in any manner other than possessing it -- you can receive a year or two in jail.<br /><br />Let's keep in mind that Pacman was not accused of shooting the guy in Vegas. He was arrested for felony coercion in connection with the fight at the strip club. I'm not suggesting that the shooting of the bouncer was not as bad as what happened to the dogs -- I'm simply saying that Vick's conduct (illegal gambling, torturing and killing animals) was worse than what has been attributed to Jones thus far.<br /><br />If Vick is not suspended for life from the NFL he will certainly receive a de facto lifetime suspension because no one will dare hire him due to the nature of his crimes. And I say, good riddance: it's about time animal cruelty is recognized for the evil that it is. At the very least people should appreciate that one who tortures animals often times moves on to humans next.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Vick got what he deserved and hopefully his NFL career is over.<br /><br />The general public is tired of all these rich and spoiled celebrities receiving a "get out of jail free" card. Since the O.J. trial, and to a lesser extent the Michael Jackson and Robert Blake trials, I've become very cynical about how the justice system works. No matter what anyone says, you can buy your way out of trouble. Perhaps some of these overpaid hacks will no longer be able to get away with this stuff anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Barry, it's not the fault of the defense lawyers or defendants when those sort of things happen. What would you expect a defense lawyer to do -- throw the case because he thinks his client is guilty? Remember this: behind every great acquittal is an incompetent prosecutor. All a defense lawyer does is put the government to its proof.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Hi Jeff- I knew my post would touch a chord with you, and nothing personal.<br /><br />You could argue a case is won because of a poor prosecutor; you could also argue a person of limited means loses a case because of a poor defense attorney, and a wealthy client has a huge edge because of a relentless defense team. Two ways to look at it.<br /><br />Bottom line: rich defendents hold the edge.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>And I agree with you on that point.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I don't mind wealthy people living in bigger houses than I do, driving better cars, wearing better clothes (hey, even the homeless dress better than I do), or having better baseball cards. I'm at peace with that.<br /><br />But I'm not comfortable with people buying justice, especially when they are guilty and get to walk scot free. I understand that this is what you do for a living, that you are very good at it, and are rewarded for your skills. But I'm a hopeless idealist and in my perfect world, O.J. would have said "I did it, you caught me, and I'm ready to serve my time."<br /><br />It doesn't ususally work that way, does it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Barry, wealthy defendants don't 'buy'justice. If it were that simple, they'd write a check to the court and be done with it. OJ's situation had more to do with the makeup of the jury than any trickery by the defense lawyers. Perhaps in your idealized world that set of African-American jurors would not have been so quick to forgive another African-American for murdering his white wife and her white friend. I think your liberal guilt is simply clouding your perception as to what really happened in that case, which was hardly symptomatic of what is wrong with our criminal justice system.<br /><br />I agree that the system can be tough on poor people and that the public defenders of our country are often stretched too thin to put in the same time and resources as retained counsel on cases. But why not compare the resources of a wealthy defendant with the resources of the federal government, the dozens of FBI agents and prosecutors that work on many cases for years both before an indictment and up to trial? And how about the press which often convicts a defendant before the case even starts? Rarely do you see the press calling for an acquittal in a case before a trial begins. I can recall one very high profile case I was in in which the prosecutor pulled me aside before the trial and told me that all he had to do was mention my client's name before the jury as much as possible in order to gain a conviction. (Happy to report that he was wrong on that count)<br /><br />Is it so bad that a defendant seeks to level the playing field a tiny bit before a trial? And while you decry how unfair the criminal justice system here in America is, find me another country that does better and provides more rights to the accused.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I actually think we do have the fairest system of justice in the world, for all its flaws. And I'm not going to pretend I know everything that goes on during a trial. I really only know what I hear, and of course that is through our beloved media.<br /><br />And I know there are innocent people who face going to jail, and if a good lawyer can get them an acquittal that's a wonderful thing.<br /><br />But I just hate to see a person who is guilty (some defendents are in fact guilty) walk away without being punished. I am glad to see Vick get such a harsh punishment and I think he deserves it. But the O.J. case, for whatever reason the jury acquitted him, makes me sick to this day. How do the Goldman and Brown families feel about it? Both were devastated by the verdict, and they are the true victims. That's all, what else can I say. All defendents are allowed their day in court and I know some guilty ones will not be convicted. But it makes me unhappy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>That Vick is loaded and will lose hundreds of millions of dollars due to his crime does not contribute to his punishment in my mind. He tortured animals, he killed animals and he gambled illegally on this grotesque 'sport'. Just a year in jail? Let's hope not, otherwise in my mind he's getting off light. I think a few years in jail might have a better deterrent effect on this sort of sordid, sadistic behavior. At least in my mind, torturing animals is evil -- and I'd think that our board would agree it's even worse than banner ads, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>No way. Banner ads are the root of all evil and suppress discussion against said advertisers !!! I can tell in how much restraint you and the others use.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Please excuse my legal ignorance...but why would the Feds agree to let Vick and his team of lawyers basically call there own shots here? Was the case that weak? It seemed like they had him nailed from everything I had read. Just to save the taxpayers money? His lawyers are obviously good at what they do, but why did they let him off so easy?. I guess I'm asking Jeff here.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I'm not qualified to say whether Vick's punishment was too light or fair. His crimes were reprehensible and it simply amazes me that he would find the need to involve himself in such sordid activities, and that he couldn't foresee the trouble he might face if caught.<br /><br />But does anybody think he will play in the NFL again? Would any team dare sign him? We know he's a great athlete but would all the fallout be worth it? From a public relations standpoint I don't think anyone will go near him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Paul, it was a plea bargain and in federal cases a potential sentence is reduced should the defendant accept responsibility for his actions. This includes, besides pleading guilty to a charge, also saving the prosecution time and expense. I don't disagree with such a reduction in exposure as that is in line with public policy. <br /><br />As for the agreed-upon recommendation of sentence, 12-18 months, that is about right for this sort of conviction after plea (sad to say, hurting animals and gambling on it does not come with the appropriate jail exposure in my opinion). The case was rock-solid against Vick but that doesn't mean that plea bargains are not still offered. The prosecution surely considered the collateral fallout from Vick pleading guilty and the resulting plea agreement appears to reflect it. Of course, the judge can do whatever he wants in sentencing Vick which means he can ignore the agreed-upon sentencing recommendation. <br /><br />If the evidence was weak my guess is there would have been a trial as Vick has bigger fish to fry than being concerned about going to jail for a year or three, i.e., an NFL career and all the cash that comes with it. And if the evidence was weak the offer would have been a hell of a lot less than 12-18 months. I've been involved in weak federal cases in which a plea offer of 4 years was made on a murder case. That's a weak-case offer, not the one here.<br /><br />Edited to address Barry's remark: in my opinion, Vick is done with the NFL. He'll be in jail the entire 08 season and only then will any suspension go into real effect, which will surely be at least a year or two at the very least. By then he will be at the very least damaged goods athletically. Regardless, he is the face of boorish, violent behavior in the NFL and the one thing we can all agree upon (except the NAACP and Stephon Marbury apparently) is that hurting animals is bad for a team's image, especially a team's leader. He'll have to figure out a way to get by on the tens of millions he already made. Sniff, sniff.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jeff- I may be wrong, but I thought I heard somewhere that part of Vick's plea deal is that he will reveal a lot of other sordid behavior that is going on among other NFL players. Do you know if that's true?<br /><br />And Marbury should keep his mouth shut. Fine basketball player, but not a great thinker.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>Thanks Jeff. I understand the plea, it just seemed like the Feds were holding all the cards and they let his lawyers set the terms in his favor where he does not have to admit killing or gambling. The NFL seemed most worried about the gambling aspect of the case, and because he didn't admit to gambling I think he will be back, not as a QB though, as that position is often the "face of the franchise". I think he can be a "slash" type player somewhere down the line...return kicks, split him out, hand him the ball a few times a game, etc..

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i hope vick never plays again in the NFL.the "sport" of dog fighting is barbaric. but,torturing dogs is psycho sick, and to do it not once but god only knows how many times, is unexcusible. those poor animals, vick disgusts me. this guy and his gang are the lowest of scum.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Paul, I don't think Vick's lawyers did all that much -- they never had a chance. Whatever tiny subtleties they extracted from the feds are meaningless: he's going to jail for a decent amount of time and his NFL career is likely over. Vick lost on all counts on this one and he lost in a big way.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Barry, I have read that Vick's agreement includes cooperation. I'm disappointed by this because I don't believe that the last guy in to cooperate in a case should be allowed to do this. If he was truly concerned about helping the feds he would have come in on day 1. This is a total self-preservation move and will be used by his various handlers to claim later that he's somehow seen the light and is on the road to redemption. <br /><br />In addition, one thing that has not been brought up anywhere I've read is that a cooperator, should he be deemed to have substantially assisted the government in the prosecution of others, will be the beneficiary of a motion to the judge for a lower sentence from the government. This means that Vick could conceivably not serve a day in jail. In addition, when one cooperates with the feds he usually has to make himself available to testify against others. Therefore, Vick may be cooperating with the feds for a few years until the various investigations and trials he is involved in are completed. The upshot of all this is that a cooperating defendant, except in rare circumstances, does not get sentenced until after his cooperation is complete due to two reasons: a) if he is sentenced before he fulfills his cooperation with the feds, he would have no incentive to continue to cooperate; and b) if he is sentenced before his cooperation is complete how will the feds provide the full extent of his cooperation to the sentencing judge -- thereby giving Vick the chance to get the full benefit of his cooperation agreement?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You understand the system far better than I do but my gut is he does a year in jail.<br /><br />What kind of jail does he go to? Maximum? Medium? He's a pretty tough guy but if he gets into a prison with gangs he is going to have a really hard time. Does he get isolated or will he be a part of the regular prison population?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>He'll go to a prison camp which is not dangerous at all. He'll be treated like a king (except by the guards) and be bored out of his mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>So he'll go to a prison like Martha Stewart went to. He can teach his fellow inmates flower arrangements and how to make a quiche!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycle</b><p>No one was ever sent to Sing Sing or Alcatraz serving a 12-18 month sentence, so no one should image Vick being sent to places like those. Has nothing to do with special treatment for a celebrity, but that the sentence is very short.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>12-18 months doesn't sound that short.<br /><br />Imagine yourself sitting there that long, it wouldn't be easy. Do they let you watch Seinfeld reruns in prison?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Too bad the XFL folded. Vick would have been a natural.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Barry, I think they only show Rob Schneider movies. It's intended to lower the rate of recidivism.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Watching Rob Schneider movies would fall under cruel and inhuman punishment!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Since Johnny Cash died, prisoners only get Menudo Reunited concerts now.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>maybe they can make a reality show version of "the longest yard"...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Hrechka</b><p> Three things you are deprived of in prison:<br />1. Privacy<br />2. Quiet<br />3. Darkness<br />Try getting used to sleeping in a noisy place with glaring lights and no privacy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Just read that the NFL forbids bids all players from any gambling, whether legal or illegal. As a precedent, Art Schlichter was banned indefinitely (like Vick) for first offense gambling.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Jeff-<br />Excellent post (8-25 @ 7:16 a.m.). You hit all the issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>Being a veterinarian, I think neutering would be an appropriate sentence for Mr. Vick. It has been proven to reduce aggression among aggressive dogs and it would prevent Mr. Vick from reproducing further preventing problems in the future. Just a thought. an adjunct to Jeff's post?<br /><br />Dr. Mac

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycle</b><p>Henry demonstrating that not all dogs lead hard lives.<br /><br /><img src="http://cycleback.com/kkl.jpg">