Chilly Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 What evidence was there besides the fact that Vick owned the house but didn't live there? So, you don't see any difference between: A.) Vick owning a house where a crime has actually been committed and is known about by the fed, occupied by his family members, and having the local sheriff say on television that Vick had indeed been at the house and knew about the dog fighting. and B.) Hardy may or may not having a gun in an incident where the cops came but found no evidence of a crime. At the time I said that its possible he had nothing to do with it and that isn't he innocent until proven Guilty, and was told that this isn't a court of law, and we can make our own decisions based on whats reported. I guess the part about how it doesn't work that way though if its a Bills player was left out I didn't address it because it wasn't a valid point to begin with. Its plenty allowable to make our own decisions based upon the facts of the case, when there are freaking facts that have been reported. If there are no such established facts, you are assuming stuff.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 isnt it an SNL skit? Porn filter picked it up.
Bill from NYC Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 I think he means the cops are worse than the criminals they police, and will stoop to any level necessary to cover their ass after they find they "jumped to the wrong conclusion." The pigs in this area, for example, are always driving drunk and even killing people, but somehow that ends up getting swept under then rug. Turns out, if you want to break the law and get away with it, the best thing to do would be to get a badge. You really did some hard time, huh? Still got a sore ass? Is it hard to get a job with an arrest record? If you lived around here, I would let you cut my grass.
KD in CA Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 What evidence was there besides the fact that Vick owned the house but didn't live there? Besides the 3 eye witnesses who testified against him?
apuszczalowski Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 So, you don't see any difference between: A.) Vick owning a house where a crime has actually been committed and is known about by the fed, occupied by his family members, and having the local sheriff say on television that Vick had indeed been at the house and knew about the dog fighting. and B.) Hardy may or may not having a gun in an incident where the cops came but found no evidence of a crime. I didn't address it because it wasn't a valid point to begin with. Its plenty allowable to make our own decisions based upon the facts of the case, when there are freaking facts that have been reported. If there are no such established facts, you are assuming stuff. At the time, the only "facts" about the Vick case was that he owned a house that the feds were investigating as being part of a dog fighting ring, and that he did not live there, but it was believed that family members have lived there. Eye witnesses said they had seen Vick at the property before But of course eye witnesses are credible here, but in the Hardy case they are not. Don't worry, I get it, Innocent until proven Guilty if they are a Bill, Draw whatever conclusions you want if they are not cause they are probably guilty.
apuszczalowski Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Besides the 3 eye witnesses who testified against him? So Eye witnesses are credible witnesses now? And I was talking about when the story first broke that they were searching a house that was owned by Vick, not now
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 So Eye witnesses are credible witnesses now? And I was talking about when the story first broke that they were searching a house that was owned by Vick, not now Why do you think states with Capital Punishment laws require "CORROBORATION"?
EndZoneCrew Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Porn filter picked it up. its not porn douche....it's freaking Toonces the Driving Cat
Chilly Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 At the time, the only "facts" about the Vick case was that he owned a house that the feds were investigating as being part of a dog fighting ring, and that he did not live there, but it was believed that family members have lived there. Eye witnesses said they had seen Vick at the property before But of course eye witnesses are credible here, but in the Hardy case they are not. Don't worry, I get it, Innocent until proven Guilty if they are a Bill, Draw whatever conclusions you want if they are not cause they are probably guilty. O RLY? Wow, I guess that the sheriff didn't say on television that there had in fact was evidence that Vick was there. Its really amusing you put the word "facts" in quotes, since that was IN FACT A FACT that he owned the house. So, I repeat: A.) Vick owning a house where a crime has actually been committed and is known about by the fed, occupied by his family members, and having the local sheriff say on television that Vick had indeed been at the house and knew about the dog fighting. and B.) Hardy may or may not have a gun in an incident where the cops came but found no evidence of a crime.
Billadelphia Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 What evidence was there besides the fact that Vick owned the house but didn't live there? At the time I said that its possible he had nothing to do with it and that isn't he innocent until proven Guilty, and was told that this isn't a court of law, and we can make our own decisions based on whats reported. I guess the part about how it doesn't work that way though if its a Bills player was left out The difference is that there was hard proof that a crime was committed. In the Vick case, you could walk on the crime scene, see the kennels, dig up the dog bones, etc. This was all right as the story was breaking. Those are facts. A heinous crime was committed there and it's obvious that it was. In the Hardy case, it was all he said-she said. There was no "crime scene" unless you consider the backyard where there wasn't any evidence to even bring charges. There was no gun for the cops to see, no bodies, no wreckage from a fight. With Lynch, again, the crime scene isn't where the story lies, it's between the driver/passengers and the victim. It's alot easier form a hypothesis when you have a real crime scene and you're not going off of what people are saying, victim or driver. When it's a case like Hardy or Lynch, it's going to be alot harder to get to the truth because you have the human element to deal with. Right now, Lynch and the woman who was hit both have about 10 lawyers standing around them telling them what happened that night. You can't do that with the Vick case because the facts are right there in front of your face.
Chilly Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 The difference is that there was hard proof that a crime was committed. Amazing, isn't it, that he's trying to argue that they're the same thing?
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 You really did some hard time, huh? Still got a sore ass? Is it hard to get a job with an arrest record? If you lived around here, I would let you cut my grass. Nice dime store psychology. I'd expect that from a cop. I have no record and a very nice job. Nice logic - you can only have an axe to grind with police if you're a criminal, therefore you're not to be taken seriously anyways. The rest of us don't notice the cops abusing their powers on a daily basis. BTW, I have a cop doing some side work around my house. Guess all that heroism doesn't pay that well.
The Senator Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Is it hard to get a job with an arrest record? If you lived around here, I would let you cut my grass. hah! that's funny. you got him real good. and after he's done with your lawn, he could go shag you some donuts.
stuckincincy Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Nice dime store psychology. I'd expect that from a cop. I have no record and a very nice job. Nice logic - you can only have an axe to grind with police if you're a criminal, therefore you're not to be taken seriously anyways. The rest of us don't notice the cops abusing their powers on a daily basis. BTW, I have a cop doing some side work around my house. Guess all that heroism doesn't pay that well. Have you told him about your posts here, and called him a pig yet? When you do, our righteous citizen, do please report back.
Billadelphia Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Amazing, isn't it, that he's trying to argue that they're the same thing? Yeah, it's a common sense thing. Any situation where there is a human element, there's going to be as many sides to the story as there are people who were there, +1. The +1 will be the truth.
The Senator Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 so since it's unecessary to have any facts to accuse - and convict- anyone of something in this forum, has anyone inquired as to the whereabouts of ML's younger brother, and whether he had 'access' to Marshawn's car?
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Have you told him about your posts here, and called him a pig yet? When you do, our righteous citizen, do please report back. Reporting back. What's your point? He knows all about previous posts, as we've had this conversation before. As I've shown, I don't hate all pigs - I let them do menial work around my house
stuckincincy Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Any peep yet, from the vehicle owner? Is he in a coma?
Chilly Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Any peep yet, from the vehicle owner? Is he in a coma? Would you be all that eager to talk to the media after something like this, especially when your attorney is out of town?
HurlyBurly51 Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 Would you be all that eager to talk to the media after something like this, especially when your attorney is out of town? From Chris Brown at BB.com: "The Buffalo Bills issued a comment Monday afternoon on the investigation currently being conducted by Buffalo Police into an alleged hit-and-run accident involving a car registered to running back Marshawn Lynch. "At this point in time, we want to let the process play out before we make any comments relative to the situation as we don't know all the facts," said Bills Vice President of Communications Scott Berchtold. "The investigation is ongoing by the Buffalo Police Department and all comments relative to Marshawn are being handled by his attorney, Michael Caffrey. Anything beyond that is speculation and we will refrain from that." Lynch's vehicle was allegedly involved in a hit-and-run accident early Saturday morning and allegedly struck a female pedestrian at West Chippewa Street and Delaware Avenue. The alleged victim has since been treated and released from Buffalo General Hospital."
Recommended Posts