Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation



    The Sun article is here.

    "Apparently these people want it," Poindexter said. "They want it, and I don't believe they want it because of the serious criminal consequences involved. ... They want it because Michael Vick may be involved."
    That would be Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald G. Poindexter, who apparently got his feelings hurt when the big nasty Feds came and took his high profile celebrity case. Tell me something, Gerald, would you complain to the newspapers if the Feds took a dogfighting case that *wasn't* involving Michael Vick? Or are you just as jealous of this case as you claim the Feds are?

    Some people should just shut up.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,417

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    He has a point, he handles all other dog fighting cases in his jurisdiction (probably). One of the reasons Jamal went through his drug case was because of federal investigators and prosecutors looking for a big name to nail. It was clearly entrapment, at least from the evidence we saw.




  3. #3

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    He has a point, he handles all other dog fighting cases in his jurisdiction (probably). One of the reasons Jamal went through his drug case was because of federal investigators and prosecutors looking for a big name to nail. It was clearly entrapment, at least from the evidence we saw.
    Does he handle all of them? In the article he acknowledges sometimes the Feds take them.

    I agree he has a point. But making it this way makes him look hypocritical, at least to me.

    Also if they *do* end up charging Vick, the Feds are probably better equipped to handle a high profile prosecution then the locals, who as we've seen over the years can get outgunned by a powerful defense team.

    I guess I just resent a prosecutor whining like a defense attorney, "look at them picking on my defendant." Weak.

    edit: 'Entrapment' means, somebody essentially being tricked into committing a crime they were not predisposed to commit anyway. An example of entrapment is the classic Supreme Court case on the subject, dealing with law enforcement (postal inspectors, I think) pestering a guy to buy kiddie porn over a period of time until he finally gave in and ordered some.
    Last edited by festivus; 06-08-2007 at 11:53 AM.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bel Air
    Posts
    223

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    he is just jealous that his name will not be on the case when they charge Vick, and he will look stupid if they find out vick was involved and his guys took to long getting the evidence.




  5. #5

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    edit: 'Entrapment' means, somebody essentially being tricked into committing a crime they were not predisposed to commit anyway. An example of entrapment is the classic Supreme Court case on the subject, dealing with law enforcement (postal inspectors, I think) pestering a guy to buy kiddie porn over a period of time until he finally gave in and ordered some.
    Are you trying to say Jamal's case was not entrapment? or that it was?




  6. #6

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    Come On Football season!!!!. We are so starved for feetball, we are grasping at straws to have something to discuss!




  7. #7

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Rochardrik View Post
    Are you trying to say Jamal's case was not entrapment? or that it was?
    It wasn't. Entrapment is extremely rare.

    Here is an article on the subject:
    ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

    However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
    Virtually every case falls into this 'offer an opportunity' category. By its nature, that's what undercover policework is.

    No disrespect to Greg intended, obviously tons of people use this word without knowing precisely what it is. In the practice of law it is largely mythical.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  8. #8

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by Rochardrik View Post
    Come On Football season!!!!. We are so starved for feetball, we are grasping at straws to have something to discuss!
    Truth.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,417

    Re: Fed.s taking dogfighting investigation

    edit: 'Entrapment' means, somebody essentially being tricked into committing a crime they were not predisposed to commit anyway. An example of entrapment is the classic Supreme Court case on the subject, dealing with law enforcement (postal inspectors, I think) pestering a guy to buy kiddie porn over a period of time until he finally gave in and ordered some.
    Jamal had a woman pursue him to date him. Once dating him, she then pestered him about setting up a drug deal. On the tapes he declines a number of times before finally agreeing to make the phone call. Without the government stooge, working for them to lighten her own sentence, he was not predisposed to commit the crime and more than likely would not have.

    I have no love for Jamal but that case was crap, if it wasn't the feds wouldn't have taken 10 years off the table for 4 months served at his own convenience (off-season). He took the deal for fear of gambling 4 months vs. 10 years. Who knows what a jury will do.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland