Posted 28 July 2007 - 06:18 PM
this is where you'll find I'm extreme when it comes to this kind of stuff. call it faith, call it logic, call it reason...but first, it is not my job to judge others (i'll leave it at that).
second, while i believe most of our system is broken (including the judicial system), i firmly believe in the IDEALS within our system as set forth by our fore fathers. the most important one as it pertains to this case is DUE PROCESS.
if - Michael Vick is proven, not only in my eyes...but in the eyes of our federal grand jury, to have MASTERMINDED, CONDUCTED &/OR PARTICIPATED in any of the aforementioned heinous cimes, then by all means...i hope he gets what he deserves.
however, i believe it is not only premature, but illogical & un-necessarily compromising of one's sanity to try the case in their heads at this time.
let me play devil's advocate for a minute. let's take the facts we know FOR SURE TO BE TRUE at this moment:
1) he owns the property of which these terrible acts took place
2) he's related to individuals named as witnesses & defendants on the indictment
3) we know these terrible acts took place & they are too many & too graphic to really mention
that's really the only FACTS we KNOW to be true at this moment.
now, you'll have to excuse me as i'm more of a sophist & so by nature i am rather skeptical of secondhand information, so here' where i have questions.
i have seen too many situations where, not only an athelete (see Ray Lewis), but also celebrities in general have been indicted under the principle of their involvement of the crime, or their association with the individual/s connected to said crime, simply as a tactic to pressure said celebrity into "spilling the beans". they rely on smear tactics & the threat of prison time to "scare" the celebrity into cooperating with the authorities. this was most commonly & famously used during the prohibition era & during the age of the decline of the mafioso.
now...i'm not saying that this is what they are doing. i'm just saying that it is something that many should consider this before passing judgement in this particular situation. i mean, sure there are witnesses who (as is being reported on the indictment...keep in mind you see what THEY want you to see) place Michael at the scene...& i'm not an imbecile...he obviously knew what was going on. however, the burden of proof is to say that (dare i say it) without a shadow of a doubt, Michael Vick MASTERMINDED, CONDUCTED &/OR PARTICIPATED in any of the heinous acts. otherwise...to me, he's just somebody who was allowing waaaay too much to go on at a property which he owned with relatives & friends of his, & he should have done more to stop &/or prevent this from happening.
if the latter is the case, then all he is guilty of is negligence & (a much smaller count) of participating in illegal dogfighting (by proxy of course by not preventing them from occurring) & should have the CORRECT amount of punishment placed upon him.
either way...he needs to check his head...the question is to which degree.
i mean, look at it this way...if you believe violence is a way of obtaining balance, or sanity, or retribution...& you go to a bar with a friend (who's underage mind you) & proceed to watch him & three other buddies pummel the bejesus out of some poor soul until death...but you are just a bystander, by law you are negligeable & held just as legally responsible for the death of the victim as the ones who carried out the act themselves.
under these circumstances Vick would not be absolved of any wrong-doing, in fact...in the court of public opinion he would still be just as hated as he already is. my question to you is this...are you really that bitter to want to end somebody's career & chance to continue to help his community (contrarty to these preceedings he is a model citizen & spends exhorbitant amount of money & time on his community & family) because he knew about & may have watched a couple of dog fights?
just as likely & probable as it is that he was the Cappo di Tutti Capo in this case, isn't it just as likely that he was just waaaaaay too busy to know the ENTIRE situation beyond the simple fights that went on at the estate?
i'm on the fence myself. i have waaaaay too many questions that need unquestionable answers....that's just how i am. i find it a pitiful & angry society that rushes to judge the alleged sins of another before understanding the entire situation as it lies.
& really, isn't that a paradox in & of itself...to understand the situation of another outside of oneself, under circumstance alien to your own being. i think that's why it was written:
judge not lest ye be judged.