PayPal Link Michael Vicks Defense Fund

[NoCage]

Mr Vick is innocent until proven guilty. Please do not jump to any conclusions.

Guys it's M.G.s birthday Give 'em a brake, he's drunk as evidenced by his response.

Happy BDay Motor

:jester:

I'll step up for M.G... being it's his birthday and he's an LEO and all. An indictment just means the grand jury feels there's enough evidence to prosecute... go to trial. The jury will determine, based on evidence presented, whether he will be convicted or not. And, as exskibum pointed out, if the jury doesn't convict, that doesn't mean he's really innocent. Here's where money and the Johnny Cochrane's of the world flourish.Edit to add... I didn't even think about this becoming political... guess I'll find out... not like I haven't BTDT.

 

[exskibum]

Edit to add... I didn't even think about this becoming political... guess I'll find out... not like I haven't BTDT.

fukkit, Southern -- Iggy's gettin' drunk indoors, out of the rain, in Park City right now.

This one could take a turn for abortion, intelligent design, school vouchers and then head toward Iraq before Iggy cleans it up, closes it down, lashes out at the participants and cranks up the warn meter. If you're going to practice, now's the time. :lol:

 

[donaldb]

fukkit, Southern -- Iggy's gettin' drunk indoors, out of the rain, in Park City right now.
This one could take a turn for abortion, intelligent design, school vouchers and then head toward Iraq before Iggy cleans it up, closes it down, lashes out at the participants and cranks up the warn meter. If you're going to practice, now's the time. :lol:

:haha: :haha: :hyper:

 

[motorgod]

I would like to thank y'all for the nice birthday wishes and interesting responses. Isn't America great!

 

[ponyfool]

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept for the courts in deciding whether or not to deprive someone of their liberty (sending them to jail). It has nothing to do with public perception and people venting about how sick a person must be to participate in such an endeavor.

In America, perception IS reality. That's a fact of life. OJ was acquitted, but America as a whole believes he did it. Lindsay Lohan may not be the reckless person she appears to be, but that's certainly not the perception.

I actually admire Nike for its stance. They are waiting for due process before finally severing ties. I think that's wise. But that doesn't change the fact that as of right now, unless by some miracle Vick's defense team can come up with some bizarre plot against him (the "their framing my client" won't work, it was already used by OJ), I will not have anything to do with supporting the man. Even if they don't secure a conviction, there is enough information out there that hasn't been refuted that indicates he is the low life **** head he is purported to be.

 

[exskibum]

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept for the courts in deciding whether or not to deprive someone of their liberty (sending them to jail). It has nothing to do with public perception and people venting about how sick a person must be to participate in such an endeavor.
In America, perception IS reality.

Well stated distinction regarding this discussion and the public outcry.

OJ was acquitted, but America as a whole believes he did it.

Yes, but also for a better reason than mere perception. That was the point of my tongue in cheek reference to heirs of the dogs. In California and most other jurisdictions, it is only the "heirs", as denominated in the Probate Code, that have the right to file a civil "wrongful death" action as plaintiffs. In O.J.'s case, that is exactly what happened, and he was found liable in the judgment that resulted from the jury's verdict. One of the essential elements of that judgment was that O.J. somehow proximately caused the deaths of Nicole Browne Simpson and Ron Goldman (i.e., killed them with a knife).

The standard in the criminal case requires that he could be found guilty only if the jury was convinced of his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the civil wrongful death action, the jury essentially found that he was guilty of actions that were the equivalent of murder, but by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e., more probable than not, or >50%).

We can argue about whether the different locations of the two trials and different makeup of the juries may have been a factor in the differering results, or maybe even the different lawyers involved, but the reason that the legal system recognizes is the different burdens of proof. My point is that in the O.J. case, it wasn't just public perception. A jury actually DID find that he had killed the two victims -- just at the lower standard necessary for a civil judgment, and not at the higher standard that would have him in jail instead of out on the golf course.

I actually admire Nike for its stance. They are waiting for due process before finally severing ties. I think that's wise. But that doesn't change the fact that as of right now, unless by some miracle Vick's defense team can come up with some bizarre plot against him (the "their framing my client" won't work, it was already used by OJ), I will not have anything to do with supporting the man. Even if they don't secure a conviction, there is enough information out there that hasn't been refuted that indicates he is the low life **** head he is purported to be.

Gunny!