A Bit OT : UD sacks Vick

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Innocent until proven guilty, of course. However, I think a difference between this case and a he said/she said case, is that the FBI may have already determined that a crime was committed. Irrelevant to who was involved, they may have already determined that, beyond doubt, illegal dog fighting took place. The question, of course, is if and how Vick was involved. However, that this was not a fly by night operation (dog condos were built, etc) and it was on Vick's property at least ties him as the property owner, which may have some legal ramifications in and of itself (ala, seized property in drug cases). In fact, in all neighborhoods, it is against the law to have certain things take place on the land, whether or not the owner knows. For example, in many neighborhoods, one can't build a gas station, condo, hotel, tavern, casino or public playground. It doesn't take a legal scholar to deduce that Vick's home probably wasn't zoned for dog fighting and public gambling-- and the property owner will be held to some responsibility, if just financial (read: fines).

Of course it is irresponsible to prejudge guilt and guess whether Vick was electrocuting Spot, but that does not mean that a person cannot look at information and make responsible opinions. It wouldn't be unfair of me to predict that if a motel and gas station materializes on your front lawn that you may be seeing a big fine in your future. And I would find it hard to believe that if a brothel or underage bar or dog fighting ring existed on someone's land for seven years (arbitrarily picked amount)that the property owner won't at least be fined. Even if you the owner knew nothing about the activity, it's near certain he's going to at least be fined.

So I go out on a daring, reckless, wind swept limb and predict there will be a fine for the property owner.