michael vick's dog fighting ring
edith head
5,106 Posts
has there been a thread on this already? what the hell is going on? i just read something about 30 dog carcasses being found on his property. 
Comments
He supposedly told women that his name was Ron Mexico.
Becaue of this, you can't get an official NFL jersey made with the name Mexico on the back.
Ron Mexico was Vick's hotel and hospital clinic check-in name. Like Johnny Depp's was/is "Mr. Donkey Penis."
"#7 Mexico" jerseys sold in the hundreds before the NFL put a stop to the practice. Really, though - you can just get a replica or EQT #7 Vick jersey, seam-rip the name panel, and have a screenprinter apply the name directly to the jersey. It was a minor cottage industry on eBay at one point.
That's funny. the ebay part...
I heard some shit about the behavior of the bengals/other lower end nfl franchises that made my jaw hit the floor on Friday. let's just say if there is a team that is acting out of control and incompatent, it starts at the top.
Ron Mexico...hilarious. Gar#### spill the fucking beans. Change names to protect the innocent.
No secrets, kk. Let's hear it.
I'm sayin'.... They need to tie the guy down in the ring and let the dogs eat him up. This shit is sick, and I really don't see how people can stomach shit like this.
Like Cockfighting, been around a looooong time. Won't go away because of one guy getting clipped. From the reports I have seen, he is in some pretty deep, hot water. He pretty much admitted he was a fan of dogfights in an onair interview, then they find all that dogfight-related shit on his country estate. They are gonna rain down on him, no doubt. How dude's like this can't keep their traps shut when they are knee-deep in dirt is one of life's continuing mysteries.
i wish i didn't see that
Being Fair to Michael Vick
Andrew Cohen
Washington Post
June 1 , 2007
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/06/being_fair_to_michael_vick.html
Here is my choice for the most atrocious law-related story of the week. There are so many things wrong with it -- journalistically, legally, even morally -- that I hardly know where to begin. I focus upon it here only to show how the news media should not cover the law (if the media want to treat people fairly).
The story is about Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. So we are clear about what I am talking about, here are the first two graphs of the article written by ESPN's Len Pasquarelli:
Two law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation have told ESPN.com they believe there is sufficient evidence to indict Michael Vick in connection with a suspected dog fighting ring that was run on property the Falcons quarterback owned in Virginia.
The sources, however, cautioned this week that, based on the current evidence, it might be difficult to successfully prosecute Vick, who has denied knowledge of dog fighting at the property in Surry County.
Those words, collectively, are the written equivalent of asking the "Have you stopped beating your wife" question in open court. Shame on the unidentified folks for saying those things to Pasquarelli. And shame on Pasquarelli and his editors for allowing the story to be posted.
Why the outrage? Let me count the ways.
1. The story contradicts itself on its most fundamental point. If there is "sufficient evidence" to indict Vick than there ought to be "sufficient evidence" to convict him, because prosecutors have a duty to indict people only when the evidence supports a conviction. In other words, if a prosecutor does not believe he or she could or would gain a conviction at trial, that prosecutor ought not bring the case to begin with. (See, Nifong, Michael.) The "law enforcement officials" Pasquarelli cited ought to know that. And even if they don't, Pasquarelli, it seems to me, has a responsibility to know something about the nature of a criminal investigation (and thus why his column turns on itself) before he starts allowing these "sources" to use ESPN.com to point a finger at Vick.
2. The use of unidentified "law enforcement officials" to anonymously and prematurely portray Vick as culpable (even with the phony caveat in the second sentence) is one of the more unfair and deplorable tactics used by police and prosecutors all over the country -- just like the staged "perp walk" that ensures that a grim picture of a particular defendant is shown over and over again in the months, weeks, and days leading up to a trial. Pasquarelli's sources are probably breaching certain rules by talking to him in this manner. And Pasquarelli's attempt to weasel out of the main thrust of the piece -- that there is sufficient evidence to indict -- is not nearly enough to balance things out.
3. By failing to inform his readers that law enforcement officials often leak information like this in this fashion as part of an overall strategy to put pressure on a suspect or target of an investigation, Pasquarelli failed to allow his readers to understand that there may be impure motives and intent behind the cooperation that his "sources" were giving him. In other words, the column desperately needed a paragraph explaining how "unidentified law enforcement sources" often are dead wrong -- especially at this stage of an investigation-- and that even when they are, the faulty information they leak can taint jurors for months or years to come. This problem is particularly unfair for suspects or targets because at this stage of a case there is no judge around to impose a gag order on anyone.
4. Pasquarelli should never have posted the piece without comment from Vick's attorney -- his article says that he he did not return messages -- or some other countervailing voice that might have mentioned some of the things I have pointed out. As it stands, the column is nothing more than a shill piece for the columnist's "sources."
I have no idea whether Vick knew that dog fighting was going on at his property or whether he was involved in it (and, really, I'm not sure I care). But I do know from covering the law that people deserve more from the media than Vick has received in this instance.
Other than that, the piece was great. If anyone of you have any good "bad" law stories to share, send them along. And have a great weekend.
Nobody has ever accused Vick (either one) of being smart.
just to add: "ALLEGEDLY knee-deep in dirt".
all will be revealed when i move to the next occupacion...
i heard it was like 300 carcasses.
reading this shit literally makes me sick to my stomach