Vick back/ 4 game suspension/who takes him?

[LaChapelle]

Report: Vick to be suspended four games
Posted by Mike Florio on July 23, 2009 6:59 PM ET
The good news for ESPN this week is that its decision not to devote reporting assets to the Ben Roethlisberger case has allowed it to do some great work regarding the Mike Vick situation.

Earlier in the week, ESPN reported that Vick and Commissioner Roger Goodell would meet this week. Despite rumors that the meeting would not occur so quickly, it happened Wednesday afternoon.

So +1 to Bristol. (And -1 to the idiots who posted the rumor that the meeting wouldn't happen this week.)

Sal Paolantonio and Chris Mortensen of ESPN are now reporting that Vick will be conditionally reinstated early next week, and he'll then be suspended four additional games.

Per the report, Goodell also is expected to warn Vick that any future problems will result in additional punishment. (We were going to say that Vick will be on a "tight leash," but we thought better of it. Oops.)

This means that Vick will be permitted to sign with a new team and participate in training camp and the preseason before sitting out the first quarter of the campaign.

Though it's not a home run for Vick, it's great news. Given his crimes and the fact that he previously lied to Commissioner Roger Goodell's face (and the rest of his body), Vick easily could have been suspended for most if not all of the 2009 season.

But public opinion has generally favored the notion that Vick should receive a second chance. The fact that an upstart pro football league would have been waiting with open arms to sign Vick likely didn't hurt matters, either.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by FAX

What if the driver of the first car is drunk, the driver of the second car is drunk, the cop is drunk, and the judge is drunk? What about that?

FAX

judge calls recess right before happy hour

[Dylan]

Perfect for the Steelers -- right now

[OnTheWarpath15]

Just read that if Goodell does decide to grant Vick conditional reinstatement, that one of the conditions will be taking regular drug tests - a failed test would result in the reinstatement being pulled.

Sorry, but there's no way Vick lays off the sticky.

[Fairplay]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Just read that if Goodell does decide to grant Vick conditional reinstatement, that one of the conditions will be taking regular drug tests - a failed test would result in the reinstatement being pulled.

Before game, Commissioner says "Here Vick, here is a cup take it in the bathroom and bring it back, we're testing you."

Later......

Vick says "Here's the cup back."

Commissioner astonished says, "Not of the white stuff you moron!"

[Param]

Originally Posted by wild1

The fact that Stallworth was .12, which barely used to be over the limit, had been drinking does not mean that his drinking caused the accident. From my recollection a witness said the guy ran out from between cars into his path. It's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that although he was under the influence, he was not at fault. If he hadn't been drunk, he probably would not have gotten anything.

Stallworth was totally at fault.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

its like the situation if 2 guys were robbing a bank and the police shot and killed one, it's the other one's fault because of the crime being committed. i believe it's called furtherance of a felony or something lto that effect

It's the felony murder rule and it wouldn't apply in the above instance because of the red-line rule.

If the cop killed the teller you'd be right but it doesn't apply to co-conspirators.

As for the DUI thing, it would depend almost entirely on how the doctrine of 'negligence per se' is utilized in that jurisdiction. I could see a judge going either way with it. Ultimately I'm going to bet that about 75% of the judges come down on your side.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It's the felony murder rule and it wouldn't apply in the above instance because of the red-line rule.

If the cop killed the teller you'd be right but it doesn't apply to co-conspirators.

As for the DUI thing, it would depend almost entirely on how the doctrine of 'negligence per se' is utilized in that jurisdiction. I could see a judge going either way with it. Ultimately I'm going to bet that about 75% of the judges come down on your side.

i wasnt totally sure about the felony-murder rule but i knew it was something like that, and Thanks on the other.