Sports Illustrated: Co defendent- dogfighting almost exclusively funded by Vick [Archive]

bluerug

07/31/2007, 06:24 PM

07/31/2007, 06:40 PM

:lol: Now why am I shocked at your reply BC?

UH_OH_5_OH

07/31/2007, 07:37 PM

Doesn't matter who's running it....it's a deplorable incident !

bluerug

07/31/2007, 10:15 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10454712#post10454712 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dc
:lol: Now why am I shocked at your reply BC?

Hmmm..... Let me think about that and i will get back to you on the subject at hand.:lol: :lol:

Aliie

08/01/2007, 06:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10455075#post10455075 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by UH_OH_5_OH
Doesn't matter who's running it....it's a deplorable incident !

+1 :mad:

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 06:54 AM

Michael Vick doesn't beat dogs to death, he was tenderizing them

Michael Vick wasn't betting on dog fights, He was betting on which owner would be happy after the fight

Michael Vick didn't raise fighting dogs, he raised dogs that like to fight

Michael Vick didn't know there were dog fights being held on his property, he thought they were cockfights and the dogs were just arguing over which bird was going to win.

(Sorry, just read the Chuck Norris thread)

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 06:56 AM

:lmao: grim!!!

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 07:13 AM

Forgot one.

Michael Vick didn't hand a man a backpack full of cash to pay off a dog fight winner, he handed him a backpack full of cash to pay for the backpack full of cocaine the man gave him.

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 07:57 AM

I guess there is poetic justice -

http://wetwebfotos.com/usermedia/high/5/1695_68.jpg

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:35 AM

Wow i still cant believe you are jumping the gun on this subject. Just wait and see what happens before you start to make him out to be a very bad person. The old saying goes "Never judge a book by its cover." That would be the perfect time to say this, he may have guilty written all over him, but he is not guilty thus far.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:36 AM

"As part of a plea agreement, Tony Taylor pledged to fully cooperate with the government in its prosecution of Vick and two other men accused of running an interstate dogfighting enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels" on Vick's property in rural Surry County."

Yep, that's how plea bargains work. And it's likely that Vick's other "friends" will start falling as well, especially once it comes out who the other "secret" witnesses are.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10454601#post10454601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
And we should believe a guy like this? Hmmm........Dont think so, but thats just me.

Yep, it is just you. In these Vick threads you've shown an undeniable naivete when it comes to "heroes" (professional athletes). There are countless examples of athletes who have jeapordized their careers by doing something that the rest of us would consider stupid (Pete Rose, Roy Tarpley, Shawn Kemp, Michael Irvin, Ben Roethlesberger to name a few off the top of my head). What you have to realize is that these players don't consider something like this a "risk". Many of them truly believe they are untouchable. They feel that (a) they won't get caught, and (b) even if they do, they'll just get a slap on the wrist.

You've also shown a considerable lack of understanding of this country's criminal justice system; exemplified by the comment above and by your lack of understanding of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" from the other thread (no, they are not equivalent in our legal system, and, if you need, I can give you a few examples to explain it).

It's probably best for you to avoid these threads until you understand those things, so we don't have to shut another one down.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:37 AM

"Vick pleaded not guilty to the same charges last week and said in a written statement that he looked forward to "clearing my good name." He also pleaded with the public to resist a rush to judgment." Taken from the article.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:41 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10457984#post10457984 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
"Vick pleaded not guilty to the same charges last week and said in a written statement that he looked forward to "clearing my good name." He also pleaded with the public to resist a rush to judgment." Taken from the article.

You wonder why he didn't do that when all this started several weeks ago (just like the Duke players and Kobe did). It would have been smarter to make that plea before he'd got so far behind in the public opinion battle. He probably never imagined that his sponsors would start dropping him like they have.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:41 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10457977#post10457977 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Yep, that's how plea bargains work. And it's likely that Vick's other "friends" will start falling as well, especially once it comes out who the other "secret" witnesses are.

Yep, it is just you. In these Vick threads you've shown an undeniable naivete when it comes to "heroes" (professional athletes). There are countless examples of athletes who have jeapordized their careers by doing something that the rest of us would consider stupid (Pete Rose, Roy Tarpley, Shawn Kemp, Michael Irvin, Ben Roethlesberger to name a few off the top of my head). What you have to realize is that these players don't consider something like this a "risk". Many of them truly believe they are untouchable. They feel that (a) they won't get caught, and (b) even if they do, they'll just get a slap on the wrist.

You've also shown a considerable lack of understanding of this country's criminal justice system; exemplified by the comment above and by your lack of understanding of the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" from the other thread (no, they are not equivalent in our legal system, and, if you need, I can give you a few examples to explain it).

It's probably best for you to avoid these threads until you understand those things, so we don't have to shut another one down.

Dave

I have said that OJ was guilty and he was found innocent. I do understand how it works double jeopardy and all of that, but if every juror member was like most people and say right off the bat he is guilty what would be the cause for a trial? Same in every other case in the nation.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:47 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458004#post10458004 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
You wonder why he didn't do that when all this started several weeks ago (just like the Duke players and Kobe did). It would have been smarter to make that plea before he'd got so far behind in the public opinion battle. He probably never imagined that his sponsors would start dropping him like they have.

Dave

Do you really think he needs the sponsors right now? I think that is the least of his worries. All iam saying is just let it play out before we all judge him and say he is guilty.

08/01/2007, 08:49 AM

Well even if the glove doesn't fit, makes no difference to me.

Guilty...

We are not the jury at his trial, we can say he's guilty or what ever we want. It's our right.

So there.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:50 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458008#post10458008 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I have said that OJ was guilty and he was found innocent. I do understand how it works double jeopardy and all of that, but if every juror member was like most people and say right off the bat he is guilty what would be the cause for a trial? Same in every other case in the nation.

No. He wasn't found "innocent". He was found "Not guilty" of Murder 1. You can only be found guilty or not guilty in regards to the specific charge. That does not mean he did not commit murder. It means that there was not sufficient evidence to show the degree of premeditation and planning that involves murder 1.
Murder 1 involves premeditation and planning.
Murder 2 does not.

Had he been charged with murder 2, rather than 1, he may have been found guilty. Even though he was cleared of the murder 1 charge, that does not mean he did not commit murder, just that it couldn't be proven that he had planned it. Because of the double jeopardy rules, he couldn't be recharged by the state for a lesser degree. From that standpoint, going for a murder 1 charge is a little gamble on the part of the prosecution's side. If they get it, it's a huge win, but there's the risk that, as in this case, they don't have enough support for it.

Remember, he was still found responsible for their deaths in the wrongful death suit, which is why he's broke. That shows that it's possible to still not be innocent in either the existential sense or in the legal sense even if found not guilty of a given charge.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:50 AM

I know it is and i respect that, just telling my side thats all. A nice simple debate.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:51 AM

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 08:52 AM

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/201731a.gif

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:54 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458025#post10458025 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Do you really think he needs the sponsors right now? I think that is the least of his worries. All iam saying is just let it play out before we all judge him and say he is guilty.

Of course he doesn't need them. But I'm betting he wished he had jumped on this sooner so he hadn't lost them all so easily. He let himself take such a pounding before responding that they were forced to distance themselves from him.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:55 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458037#post10458037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
No. He wasn't found "innocent". He was found "Not guilty" of Murder 1. You can only be found guilty or not guilty in regards to the specific charge. That does not mean he did not commit murder. It means that there was not sufficient evidence to show the degree of premeditation and planning that involves murder 1.
Murder 1 involves premeditation and planning.
Murder 2 does not.

Had he been charged with murder 2, rather than 1, he may have been found guilty. Even though he was cleared of the murder 1 charge, that does not mean he did not commit murder, just that it couldn't be proven that he had planned it. Because of the double jeopardy rules, he couldn't be recharged by the state for a lesser degree. From that standpoint, going for a murder 1 charge is a little gamble on the part of the prosecution's side. If they get it, it's a huge win, but there's the risk that, as in this case, they don't have enough support for it.

Remember, he was still found responsible for their deaths in the wrongful death suit, which is why he's broke. That shows that it's possible to still not be innocent in either the existential sense or in the legal sense even if found not guilty of a given charge.

Dave

My bad for saying innocent. Its just that when his book came out last year and when he had his 15 mins of fame yet again the reporters were saying he was found innocent and you would have a handful of reporters say not guilty but the majority said innocent.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:58 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458064#post10458064 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Of course he doesn't need them. But I'm betting he wished he had jumped on this sooner so he hadn't lost them all so easily. He let himself take such a pounding before responding that they were forced to distance themselves from him.

Dave

And he has not lost "ALL" his sponsors, just some of his major ones thats all.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 08:58 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458073#post10458073 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
My bad for saying innocent. Its just that when his book came out last year and when he had his 15 mins of fame yet again the reporters were saying he was found innocent and you would have a handful of reporters say not guilty but the majority said innocent.

Maybe that's a good sign of which reporters have an idea of what they're talking about.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 08:59 AM

Also is there a saying that goes "Innocent until proven guilty." Or something along them lines, i heart it on cops all the time. So does that mean if you are not proved guilty then you are innocent?

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 08:59 AM

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until it came out there were 3 (now 4) people placing him at the scene. The Prosecutors would never take the word of a snitch without something to back it up. Let's face it, this has been going on for 6 years using his business and property. Unless he rode the short yeller bus to college he had to at least know something was going on. Hey may or may not have particiated but even knowing there was just dog fighting going on is cause for everything he is getting.

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:03 AM

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:03 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458098#post10458098 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until it came out there were 3 (now 4) people placing him at the scene. The Prosecutors would never take the word of a snitch without something to back it up. Let's face it, this has been going on for 6 years using his business and property. Unless he rode the short yeller bus to college he had to at least know something was going on. Hey may or may not have particiated but even knowing there was just dog fighting going on is cause for everything he is getting.

We all know dog fighting is going on, so should we all be prosecuted?

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:04 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458083#post10458083 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
And he has not lost "ALL" his sponsors, just some of his major ones thats all.

Who does he have left?
He's lost Nike, Reebok, Rawlings, Upper Deck, Donruss (heck, Reebok didn't even have a deal with him; they just stopped selling his stuff).
Coca-cola, Hasbro, Kraft foods, EA Sports, and Airtran had all let their contracts with him expire even before this all came about, though it's hard to say if those were a result of his previous questionable decisions or his on the field production.

Dave

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 09:04 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458118#post10458118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
We all know dog fighting is going on, so should we all be prosecuted?

If its on YOUR property and you know it, yes you should get prosecuted.

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:04 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458118#post10458118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
We all know dog fighting is going on, so should we all be prosecuted?

Thats just stupid man. Is dogfighting being done on your property using animals from your business?

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:06 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458118#post10458118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
We all know dog fighting is going on, so should we all be prosecuted?

If we are paying for it, gambling on it, and/or owning the grounds on which it's happening, yes.

Dave

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:07 AM

God, I'm on the same side as PETA, I so need a shower:D

GSMguy

08/01/2007, 09:08 AM

being a pit bull advocate and loving my dog tremendously this whole thing makes me sick.

i have been reluctant to comment but Blue carpet your hero worship is out of control.

this man is not a god he has flaws even though he runs real fast

P.S. his running wont get him anywhere when he is being chased around a jail cell by his new boyfriend.

PPS Bluecarpet if you know of any actual locations where dog fighting goes on please let the authorities know

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:09 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458093#post10458093 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Also is there a saying that goes "Innocent until proven guilty." Or something along them lines, i heart it on cops all the time. So does that mean if you are not proved guilty then you are innocent?

No, it doesn't mean that in the legal sense. That saying is cute, and it's part of the philosophy of our criminal justice system, but it is not true from the perspective of the process of our system.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:09 AM

See you all think Vick has done it, from a few snithces that are all getting something in return. Iam just going to watch and see what happens and if he is found guilty then so be it, he is then a horrible person, but until then he is "Innocent until proven guilty."

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:10 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:10 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458138#post10458138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
God, I'm on the same side as PETA, I so need a shower:D

Yeah, that's been one of the worst things for me about this whole situation as well.

Dave

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:12 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458156#post10458156 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

From your link:
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments."

Just what I said, not explicitly part of the code.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:12 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458139#post10458139 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GSMguy
being a pit bull advocate and loving my dog tremendously this whole thing makes me sick.

i have been reluctant to comment but Blue carpet your hero worship is out of control.

this man is not a god he has flaws even though he runs real fast

P.S. his running wont get him anywhere when he is being chased around a jail cell by his new boyfriend.

PPS Bluecarpet if you know of any actual locations where dog fighting goes on please let the authorities know

Of course i would let police know if i know where dog fights are being held, i am saying we know its going on and its true we do, we might not know where but we know its going on. I have never said he is my hero and hes not, i just dont jump the gun like many people and say he is guilty. I have an open mind and thats all.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:13 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458150#post10458150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
See you all think Vick has done it, from a few snithces that are all getting something in return. Iam just going to watch and see what happens and if he is found guilty then so be it, he is then a horrible person, but until then he is "Innocent until proven guilty."

You haven't answered either of my questions.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:13 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458166#post10458166 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
From your link:
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments."

Just what I said, not explicitly part of the code.

Dave

A lot of things are not written right out in front of you but yet we still go by them.

gtrestoration

08/01/2007, 09:14 AM

So he gets a 1/4 million fine at most it seems if he's found guilty. Once that's over where will he stand with some NFL owners in need of some on-field help?
Even if he never again gets to step on the field he could still be set for life.

SteveU

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:14 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458173#post10458173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
You haven't answered either of my questions.

Did not even see them, now i will go back and answer them.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:15 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458171#post10458171 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I have an open mind and thats all.

I wonder about that since you still seem stuck on this "innocent" vs "not guilty" distinction and insist on using it in the colloquial rather than strict legal sense.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:18 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458179#post10458179 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
So he gets a 1/4 million fine at most it seems if he's found guilty. Once that's over where will he stand with some NFL owners in need of some on-field help?
Even if he never again gets to step on the field he could still be set for life.

There are a couple of problems here. The bankruptcy rate for former athletes is fairly high. They don't tend to be "savers", and they have short careers, so a lot of them run out of money sooner than you would expect.
Also, if the racketeering charges, which are expected to come in a couple of weeks, go through and are upheld, he can actually lose everything he owns.

As for the on-field stuff, I think his play has spoken for itself, which is why there was talk of getting him out of Atlanta even before this happened.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:18 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458122#post10458122 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Who does he have left?
He's lost Nike, Reebok, Rawlings, Upper Deck, Donruss (heck, Reebok didn't even have a deal with him; they just stopped selling his stuff).
Coca-cola, Hasbro, Kraft foods, EA Sports, and Airtran had all let their contracts with him expire even before this all came about, though it's hard to say if those were a result of his previous questionable decisions or his on the field production.

Dave

He has some sponsors left, you cant honestly think everyone dropped him do you?

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:19 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458191#post10458191 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
I wonder about that since you still seem stuck on this "innocent" vs "not guilty" distinction and insist on using it in the colloquial rather than strict legal sense.

There is no such thing as strict legal sense, the line has become very faded the last few years. May i post the amendments please or the ones that matter for innocent until proven guilty?

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:20 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458207#post10458207 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
He has some sponsors left, you cant honestly think everyone dropped him do you?

OK, I'll repeat my question: Who does he have left?
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. He might still have a couple (probably not for long, if that's the case). I just don't know of any. But I wouldn't be surprised if everyone did drop. The big guns have, and they're usually the companies that can hold out the longest. You think that Joe's used cars can afford to have his name dragged through the mud?

Dave

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 09:21 AM

bluerug

08/01/2007, 09:23 AM

As much as we hate to say it, if someone says you are not guilty, thus you are innocent.

Innocent-"Synonyms 1. sinless, virtuous; faultless, impeccable, spotless, immaculate. 2. Innocent, blameless, guiltless imply freedom from the responsibility of having done wrong. Innocent may imply having done no wrong at any time, and having not even a knowledge of evil: an innocent victim. Blameless denotes freedom from blame, esp. moral blame: a blameless life. Guiltless denotes freedom from guilt or responsibility for wrongdoing, usually in a particular instance: guiltless of a crime. 6. simple, naive, unsophisticated, artless."

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:24 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458219#post10458219 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
There is no such thing as strict legal sense, the line has become very faded the last few years. May i post the amendments please or the ones that matter for innocent until proven guilty?

Our legal system would disagree with you about their being "no such thing as a strict legal sense".
OK, show me the amendments which explicitly make the word "innocent" equivalent to the term "not guilty".

Dave

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:26 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458234#post10458234 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
As much as we hate to say it, if someone says you are not guilty, thus you are innocent.

Innocent-"Synonyms 1. sinless, virtuous; faultless, impeccable, spotless, immaculate. 2. Innocent, blameless, guiltless imply freedom from the responsibility of having done wrong. Innocent may imply having done no wrong at any time, and having not even a knowledge of evil: an innocent victim. Blameless denotes freedom from blame, esp. moral blame: a blameless life. Guiltless denotes freedom from guilt or responsibility for wrongdoing, usually in a particular instance: guiltless of a crime. 6. simple, naive, unsophisticated, artless."

Again, in the colloquial usage that is true. IT'S NOT TRUE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. They have strict definitions of this. A court ruling only defines your guilt in regards to a specific charge against you. I go back to the explanation above: if you're found "not guilty" of murder 1, that doesn't mean you didn't commit murder, which would be necessary for true "innocence".

Dave

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:35 AM

The fact that snitches get something in retrun is exactly why prosecutors are careful to get evidence that will back up what they say.

Example: Snitch A says Vick was at a April 26th fight. First thing the prosecutor will do is confirm Vick was even in the area. Then they start looking at other things that might back up the snitches story.

gtrestoration

08/01/2007, 09:36 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458204#post10458204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
The bankruptcy rate for former athletes is fairly high. They don't tend to be "savers", and they have short careers, so a lot of them run out of money sooner than you would expect.

I was gonna make some mention about exceptions like Tyson, etc but thought it would just muddy up the conversation.

If the prosecutors can build a case that can withstand our system he'll pay the penalty, if not he wont. A guilty vertict is not what people want, they want to see the consequences in an arena.

SteveU

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:39 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458306#post10458306 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gtrestoration
If the prosecutors can build a case that can withstand our system he'll pay the penalty, if not he wont. A guilty vertict is not what people want, they want to see the consequences in an arena.

People want to see him wrapped in steak and let loose on a field with 11 hungry pitbulls. As Jon Stewart said "We'll see if you're really as elusive as they say you are." :D

Dave

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:42 AM

Anyone know why the cops were at Vick's house in the first place, such a nice boy:D

gtrestoration

08/01/2007, 09:43 AM

:lol:

I heard it more like they send the "breeding" stand along with him to the facility he stays in.

SteveU

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:44 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458340#post10458340 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Anyone know why the cops were at Vick's house in the first place, such a nice boy:D

Autographs?

He called to complain about his noisy neighbors?

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 09:52 AM

"The case began April 25 when investigators conducting a drug search at a massive home Vick built in rural Virginia found 66 dogs,"

I guess I wasn't really paying attention to why they were at Vick's house when they found the dogs

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 09:53 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458398#post10458398 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
"The case began April 25 when investigators conducting a drug search at a massive home Vick built in rural Virginia found 66 dogs,"

I guess I wasn't really paying attention to why they were at Vick's house when they found the dogs

I hadn't paid much attention to that either. It's not uncommon for dog-fighting rings to have some drug involvement also (gotta pay for the dogs somehow).

Dave

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 09:56 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458408#post10458408 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
I hadn't paid much attention to that either. It's not uncommon for dog-fighting rings to have some drug involvement also (gotta pay for the dogs somehow).

Dave

A 10-year, $130-million contract certainly lends itself to a good start for their purchases.

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 10:10 AM

This might explain it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtVnqZCndo

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:10 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458423#post10458423 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dkh0331
A 10-year, $130-million contract certainly lends itself to a good start for their purchases.

:lol:

True. I guess I was thinking more in terms of when "commoners" set up their dog-fighting rings.

Dave

Muttling

08/01/2007, 10:18 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458037#post10458037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
No. He wasn't found "innocent". He was found "Not guilty" of Murder 1. You can only be found guilty or not guilty in regards to the specific charge. That does not mean he did not commit murder. It means that there was not sufficient evidence to show the degree of premeditation and planning that involves murder 1.
Murder 1 involves premeditation and planning.
Murder 2 does not.

Had he been charged with murder 2, rather than 1, he may have been found guilty. Even though he was cleared of the murder 1 charge, that does not mean he did not commit murder, just that it couldn't be proven that he had planned it. Because of the double jeopardy rules, he couldn't be recharged by the state for a lesser degree. From that standpoint, going for a murder 1 charge is a little gamble on the part of the prosecution's side. If they get it, it's a huge win, but there's the risk that, as in this case, they don't have enough support for it.

Yes it is a huge risk as the prosecution spends a lot of time trying to prove premeditation, but (as I understand it) the jury/ judge does have the option of finding him guilty of the lesser charge of murder 2 even if he is formally charged with murder 1.

Thus, the OJ jury could have still found him guilty of murder 2 had they been provided with sufficeint evidence that he comitted the crime. The simple fact is the prosecution didn't prove he killed them beyond a reasonable doubt.

BrianD

08/01/2007, 10:24 AM

Bluecarpet, you really ought to stop posting on this thread. You are embarrassing yourself.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:24 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458576#post10458576 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Muttling
Yes it is a huge risk as the prosecution spends a lot of time trying to prove premeditation, but (as I understand it) the jury/ judge does have the option of finding him guilty of the lesser charge of murder 2 even if he is formally charged with murder 1.

Thus, the OJ jury could have still found him guilty of murder 2 had they been provided with sufficeint evidence that he comitted the crime. The simple fact is the prosecution didn't prove he killed them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Interesting. I didn't realize that. Is that a universal rule, or is it state dependent?
I guess I would have to change my analogy to discuss it as manslaughter vs murder 1 then.

Dave

The Grim Reefer

08/01/2007, 10:27 AM

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:31 AM

Just watch an episode of cops and watch and hear what is said at the end of each and every show.

Muttling

08/01/2007, 10:32 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458604#post10458604 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Interesting. I didn't realize that. Is that a universal rule, or is it state dependent?
I guess I would have to change my analogy to discuss it as manslaughter vs murder 1 then.

Dave

I believe it's universal, but that's a question for Batguano and Nina, they're the legal eagles around here. I'm just an amatuer.

On a side point, it's something judges are hesitant to do. However, if you have rock solid proof that someone killed another person and you fail to prove premeditation the legal system isn't going to just let them walk. That is the intent of letting the judge or jury find them guilty on the lesser charge instead of the exact one they were charged with.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:33 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458601#post10458601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BrianD
Bluecarpet, you really ought to stop posting on this thread. You are embarrassing yourself.

I dont think i am, but thanks for your concern. I just believe that we should let the justice system play out instead of putting a big GUILTY sign on his face. Patience is a virtue and only time will tell.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:34 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458640#post10458640 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Just watch an episode of cops and watch and hear what is said at the end of each and every show.

OMG. ROTFLMAO

I've always heard that's the best source for intelligent legal discourse.

Wow.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:37 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458661#post10458661 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
OMG. ROTFLMAO

I've always heard that's the best source for intelligent legal discourse.

Wow.

Yea b/c cops has nothing to do with the legal system.:lol: :lol:

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:39 AM

Hopefully no one here gets called for jury duty. Putting a guilty verdict on someone without the trial even starting. I find that very, very funny.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:40 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458684#post10458684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Yea b/c cops has nothing to do with the legal system.:lol: :lol:

It does have a little bit more than Reno 911, but not very much.

It still doesn't address the things I've said. It was also perfectly placed following Brian's post. Too funny.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:41 AM

So can i post the Amendments? And outline the parts that means innocent until proven guilty? Its not in black and white as a lot of things.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458697#post10458697 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Hopefully no one here gets called for jury duty. Putting a guilty verdict on someone without the trial even starting. I find that very, very funny.

That makes you ineligible for that given trial. It's one of the things they go through in the screening process. The more you know about a given case beforehand, the less likely you are to be selected.

Dave

BrianD

08/01/2007, 10:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458655#post10458655 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I dont think i am, but thanks for your concern. I just believe that we should let the justice system play out instead of putting a big GUILTY sign on his face. Patience is a virtue and only time will tell.

Yes, you are. Your defense of this thug is unfortunate. As someone asked you, have you read the indictment? If not, you really should. There is a reason why the "snitch" pled guilty. The evidence was overwhelming, and he received no break in the charges for pleading guilty.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458702#post10458702 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
It does have a little bit more than Reno 911, but not very much.

It still doesn't address the things I've said. It was also perfectly placed following Brian's post. Too funny.

Dave

Reno 911 is making fun of cops, just like SNL is making fun of every news network when they do their little news skits does that mean Fox News is the same as SNL news? Too funny.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:43 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458710#post10458710 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
That makes you ineligible for that given trial. It's one of the things they go through in the screening process. The more you know about a given case beforehand, the less likely you are to be selected.

Dave

I do think the majority of people know about this case.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:44 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458704#post10458704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
So can i post the Amendments? And outline the parts that means innocent until proven guilty? Its not in black and white as a lot of things.

You can, but it's not going to disprove anything that I've said. I already told you that I know that our system follows the approach of "innocent until proven guilty"; it really doesn't have anything to do with how this started.
You're trying to play semantics and you're not addressing (not understanding?) the fundamental point of my argument (and Nina's in the other thread) that "not guilty" and "innocent" are not equivalent in our legal system.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:46 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458712#post10458712 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BrianD
Yes, you are. Your defense of this thug is unfortunate. As someone asked you, have you read the indictment? If not, you really should. There is a reason why the "snitch" pled guilty. The evidence was overwhelming, and he received no break in the charges for pleading guilty.

I have read it, of course its going to sound really bad. Remember how bad the Duke team sounded? What happend there?

Same thing we just dont know yet, so let it play out before making assumptions, b/c thats what they are assumptions.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:46 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458724#post10458724 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I do think the majority of people know about this case.

That's true. And that's going to make jury selection difficult (just as it did in the OJ case).

Reno 911 is making fun of cops, just like SNL is making fun of every news network when they do their little news skits does that mean Fox News is the same as SNL news? Too funny.

You completely missed my point, didn't you?
And yes, I would put Fox News at about the level of SNL news, but that's a whole other discussion.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:47 AM

Innocent from webster means "free from legal guilt or fault."

Legal is the keyword.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:48 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458739#post10458739 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I have read it, of course its going to sound really bad. Remember how bad the Duke team sounded? What happend there?

And what's been consistently said from the experts that differentiates that case from this? The level of evidence. When the Duke case started, there were a lot of media people saying that the evidence was tenuous at best. They're not saying that with this case; in fact, they're saying the opposite.
That also wasn't a federal prosecution.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:48 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458741#post10458741 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine

You completely missed my point, didn't you?
And yes, I would put Fox News at about the level of SNL news, but that's a whole other discussion.

Dave

Ok then CNN.:D

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:49 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458759#post10458759 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
And what's been consistently said from the experts that differentiates that case from this? The level of evidence. When the Duke case started, there were a lot of media people saying that the evidence was tenuous at best. They're not saying that with this case; in fact, they're saying the opposite.
That also wasn't a federal prosecution.

Dave

And we should go off the media why?

BrianD

08/01/2007, 10:51 AM

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 10:52 AM

I agree this is a very sad case.

BrianD

08/01/2007, 10:53 AM

I doubt we are talking about the same thing.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:54 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458753#post10458753 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Innocent from webster means "free from legal guilt or fault."

Legal is the keyword.

You really just don't get it, do you?

Our system is not run based on Websters, or even the Oxford English dictionary.
Let's try this again. You and I both get involved in a bar fight, independently. We each kill the person we were fighting. You get prosecuted on involuntary manslaughter charges, and are found guilty. I get prosecuted on Murder 1 charges, but, without enough evidence that I had planned it, and I'm found "not guilty".
Does that mean I'm innocent of killing the person I fought, while you're guilty of killing the person you fought? The circumstances are identical. I'm "innocent" of Murder 1. But not innocent of the killing of another person.

Dave

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 10:56 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458764#post10458764 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
And we should go off the media why?

I'm just pointing out the problems involved when you try to compare the two cases, which, you may have noticed, you brought up.

I think it's a lot more useful to go off the indictment itself, and to dig deeper with whatever the media reports (ie, use that as a starting point, and jump from there).

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:00 AM

Can we all agree on one thing at least. He is not guilty as of now, correct? So could we then say he may be found guilty or he may not be found guilty. Instead of being so sure that he will be found guilty or not guilty.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:01 AM

Let it play out as that is what iam doing, and what will happen will happen. As it goes it is what it is.

Muttling

08/01/2007, 11:01 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458601#post10458601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BrianD
Bluecarpet, you really ought to stop posting on this thread. You are embarrassing yourself.

Translation: A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Badda Bing BABY.....Two pages in a row and I wasn't even trying.

Perhaps Brian accidentally transferred some of his secret powers to me. :D

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 11:07 AM

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:19 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458840#post10458840 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Can we all agree on one thing at least. He is not guilty as of now, correct? So could we then say he may be found guilty or he may not be found guilty. Instead of being so sure that he will be found guilty or not guilty.

I don't think anyone can disagree with that.
Though you also have seemed awfully sure. . .

Originally posted by bluecarpet
he will still be found innocent in my mind.

If you're just planning on "letting it play out", then why do you keep responding? Why not just wait until he's found innocent and then come back with a good "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" afterwards?

I'm not part of the legal system. I'm not part of his jury. I am part of the court of public opinion, and I'm free to voice my opinion about it. That said, look back through this thread. I haven't said what my viewpoint on this case is to this point.
I will now. I think he's guilty. I think he's going to be found guilty. I think he's going to take a pounding (in multiple senses of the word). I don't know enough about the racketeering side of things, but, from what I understand, if those come through, then he's REALLY in trouble. If I'm wrong, so be it; it won't be the first time and probably won't be the last.
I think he should have come forward long before now to profess his innocence (ala Duke players, Kobe), and he could have prevented at least some of this. I think that, if the NAACP really supported him, they should have come forward a lot sooner (I think their timing is very interesting, and I have my theories, but that's another discussion). I think Clinton Portis is a moron.

Dave

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:22 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458895#post10458895 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dkh0331
Next door neighbor is a former federal prosecutor. Spoke w/ him on Sunday - his thought on the indictment against Vick - "Sucks to be him"

I spoke to a federal district judge I know who thinks it's much worse than that. I would have to dodge the profanity filter to give an exact quote, but the last part of his explanation was, "Vick's something that rhymes with ducked".

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:24 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458970#post10458970 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine

Why not just wait until he's found innocent and then come back with a good "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" afterwards?

Its not that type of case to come back and tell you all i told you so.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:25 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459013#post10459013 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Its not that type of case to come back and tell you all i told you so.

Um, OK.

Unless you mean in the sense that he's guilty, so you won't be able to tell us that. :D

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:26 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10458895#post10458895 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dkh0331
The legal system has not found him guilty as of this date. The court of public opinion - be it right or wrong, has found him guilty, IMPHO.

ms.dkh is a criminal defense attorney and part time public defender. In PA, the jury can find the defendant guilty of a lessor crime.

Next door neighbor is a former federal prosecutor. Spoke w/ him on Sunday - his thought on the indictment against Vick - "Sucks to be him"

Of course it sucks to be Vick right now, iam a kid with no law degree or a judge and i still know that. And are you saying that everyone in the public so called court thinks he is guilty?

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:26 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459019#post10459019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Um, OK.

Unless you mean in the sense that he's guilty, so you won't be able to tell us that. :D

Um, ok i think he is innocent until proven guilty. Whats the big problem with that?

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:27 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459023#post10459023 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
And are you saying that everyone in the public so called court thinks he is guilty?

I don't think that anything anyone has said has implied that.

Dave

spoiledcats

08/01/2007, 11:28 AM

Well, I think he's guilty. I don't care if the 'snitches' got something in return. That's how the system works, and it happens all the time. If I'm proven wrong, I'll say "Wow was I wrong about him." Somehow, I don't think I will be saying that.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:28 AM

The question is what will you all say if he is found to be not guilty?

beerguy

08/01/2007, 11:30 AM

I'll say "I guess our legal system is screwed up."

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:31 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459033#post10459033 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Um, ok i think he is innocent until proven guilty. Whats the big problem with that?

There is no problem with that (except for your statement that we shouldn't be so sure about his guilt or lack of it, but I guess that's beside the point).
I only had a problem with your approach to defending him which showed significant naivete and a lack of understanding of our legal system. After that you've just given lots of other statements to go after without giving me any evidence to change my opinions on any of these issues.

Dave

der_wille_zur_macht

08/01/2007, 11:31 AM

Beerguy and BrianD, you guys should get out of this serious thread and come play in one of the fun ones.

Bluecarpet, you can stay here. ;)

dkh0331

08/01/2007, 11:32 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459042#post10459042 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
I don't think that anything anyone has said has implied that.

Dave

I did. I believe that the majority of the general public does believe he is guilty. At least in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:33 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459078#post10459078 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
There is no problem with that (except for your statement that we shouldn't be so sure about his guilt or lack of it, but I guess that's beside the point).
I only had a problem with your approach to defending him which showed significant naivete and a lack of understanding of our legal system. After that you've just given lots of other statements to go after without giving me any evidence to change my opinions on any of these issues.

Dave

Well i dont think i am naive, i dont just rush to judge someone, i wait till it is all said and done.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:35 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459052#post10459052 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
The question is what will you all say if he is found to be not guilty?

I'll say a lot of what I said just a few posts above (I'm not sure you really read what anyone else writes).

If I'm wrong, so be it; it won't be the first time and probably won't be the last.

I'm OK with being wrong. I'll still think he's a jerk and a moron, and I think and Ron Mexico have given me enough support for that view. I'll still think he's a subpar QB until he proves otherwise. He's probably the most exciting player in the league on any given play, but he's still not a great QB.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:36 AM

It is very hard to talk over the internet but if it was a person to person talk i think it would be much better. I may have to look into being a lawyer. All you have to do is prove that the other person is wrong and then you going to be right 99.9 percent of the time. Learned that from "Thank you for smoking."

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:37 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459089#post10459089 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dkh0331
I did. I believe that the majority of the general public does believe he is guilty. At least in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

No, I agree that the majority does. bc was trying to quibble that not everyone does. I'm realizing that he takes things quite literally, so we have to be clear on points like that.

Dave

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:38 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459099#post10459099 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Well i dont think i am naive,

Your viewpoints on professional athletes was the first thing that made me think that: specifically that they wouldn't do something stupid that would risk their careers and finances.
Your viewpoints on our legal system supported my belief.

Dave

der_wille_zur_macht

08/01/2007, 11:39 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459129#post10459129 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I may have to look into being a lawyer.

Good luck!

No, really.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:40 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459121#post10459121 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
I'll say a lot of what I said just a few posts above (I'm not sure you really read what anyone else writes).

Dave

How do i answer then?

:lol:

Plus i am fine with being wrong as well. Either way this case does not affect me personally other than the fact that these dogs were punished from fighting and beating and many other aweful things as well. Which i do think it is wrong in every aspect.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459146#post10459146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Your viewpoints on professional athletes was the first thing that made me think that: specifically that they wouldn't do something stupid that would risk their careers and finances.
Your viewpoints on our legal system supported my belief.

Dave

The legal system goes off the belief "Innocent until proven guilty by the court of law." It is what it is.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:42 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459129#post10459129 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
It is very hard to talk over the internet but if it was a person to person talk i think it would be much better.

This is probably the case with most discussions. I'm not sure that you'd have an easier time convincing any of us if this were in person.

Dave

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:44 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459146#post10459146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
Your viewpoints on professional athletes was the first thing that made me think that: specifically that they wouldn't do something stupid that would risk their careers and finances.
Your viewpoints on our legal system supported my belief.

Dave

Also athletes are capable of doing stupid things, look at Jermaine O'neil (however you spell his name), want to talk about a thug talk about him. Or mike tyson, people that have been convicted of their crimes.

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:44 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459173#post10459173 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Wolverine
This is probably the case with most discussions. I'm not sure that you'd have an easier time convincing any of us if this were in person.

Dave

I would have a much, much better chance.

BrianD

08/01/2007, 11:48 AM

All anyone has to do is look at the fish bluecarpet has crammed into small tanks (not to mention keeping a blue carpet anemone in a nano), and you will see he is not much on listening.

spoiledcats

08/01/2007, 11:48 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459212#post10459212 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
I would have a much, much better chance.

No offense, but I just really doubt it.

BrianD

08/01/2007, 11:50 AM

How sad is this? Talk about cruel. Maybe I understand better why he doesn't think the Vick deal is so important.

"140 aggressive with Blue Face Angel, Yellowbelly Puffer,Sohal Tang,Foxface, Arothron Reticularis Puffer, Huma Huma Trigger, Red Sea Sailfin."

Yep, there is no doubt that tank would be "aggressive", although anytime you mix a sohal in with all those other angels and tangs, what else could it be called? Death tank?

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:51 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459204#post10459204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
Also athletes are capable of doing stupid things, look at Jermaine O'neil (however you spell his name), want to talk about a thug talk about him. Or mike tyson, people that have been convicted of their crimes.

It's good you recognize that:
This is the king of thing that tipped me off, with other quotes implying that he would risk his career for something like this:

I think Vick is not dumb enough to put himself right in the middle of it all.

Wolverine

08/01/2007, 11:51 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459166#post10459166 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bluecarpet
The legal system goes off the belief "Innocent until proven guilty by the court of law." It is what it is.

Wow. Good thing I'm a glutton for punishment.
You still don't get it, do you?

bluerug

08/01/2007, 11:52 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10459241#post10459241 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BrianD
All anyone has to do is look at the fish bluecarpet has crammed into small tanks (not to mention keeping a blue carpet anemone in a nano), and you will see he is not much on listening.

Oh man here we go, flame me for taking good care of my fish and flame me for taking a carpet out of a crappy lfs to save its life. It thrived in the tank and eventually outgrew the tank and then gave it to a friend of mine.