The Legal Layers to Michael Vick's Onion

Michael Vick, the man even non-sports enthusiasts have come to know as the one who participated in killing dogs, entered his plea agreement [PDF] today. Already convicted in the court of public opinion, Vick will forgo facing a jury of his peers in exchange for a lesser sentence. He now faces the possibility of up to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine, and this is only the beginning of the consequences. Unfortunately for Mr. Vick, there are more layers to this onion.

Layer 1, Federal Laws (criminal and civil):

Vick plead guilty to breaking two federal criminal laws. The first was one count of "Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities," which violates Title 18, US Code, Section 371. 371 punishes "two or more persons" who conspire to commit an illegal act, where one person does something to further the conspiracy (in other words, just deciding to do something illegal is not enough, you actually have to act to further your plans). In case you are wondering, conspiracy laws are very powerful. They allow prosecutors to tie-in huge networks of defendants connected to illegal activity -- it's the most effective way to go after terrorists because any person who participated in even one small part of the conspiracy (e.g. renting a safe house) can still be liable for all the acts of co-conspirators (e.g. an actual bombing). Here, Vick and his buddies agreed to bet on dogfights, and then they acted on their plans.

The second law they broke was to "Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture," which violates Title 7, US Code, Section 2156 (a)(1). As the name indicates, 2156 punishes sponsoring or exhibiting animal fighting. Clearly Vick did this as well when he hosted fights at his Virginia home. (Dog fighting was legal for a number of years and was only outlawed in all states in 1976.)

Vick was also liable in a civil action. The plea agreement included a "civil action" to recover the costs of seizing and dealing with the 54 dogs. The costs the government sought were for collecting, kenneling and euthanizing the dogs. Had someone other than Vick owned the dogs, it is conceivable that they could have sued Vick for the value of the dogs and possibly even more (a case in Alaska allowed damages for the emotional distress a person suffered when their dog was killed).

In exchange for Vick's plea, the U.S. government charged him with one count (as opposed to multiple counts) and agreed to waive further prosecutions (assuming he keeps his end of the bargain).

Layer 2, the State of Virginia:

Vick also likely violated two Virginia laws, one for gambling (although he claims that he did not gamble himself or take any winnings, but merely supplied the cash) and the other for dog fighting. Since his plea agreement is with the U.S. government, it does not impact the state of Virginia's right to independently prosecute Vick.

Layer 3, the NFL:

On Friday, Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, indicated that he was suspending Vick indefinitely without pay. Excerpts of the letter stated that the commissioner's decision was based on Vick's "significant involvement in illegal gambling" which violates his NFL player contract. Even associating with gamblers is grounds for a lifetime ban from the NFL (since it harms the reputation of the league). Vick's fate now rests with the commissioner, the only individual who has the authority to either ban or reinstate him.

Layer 4, the Atlanta Falcons:

As a consequence of the league's decision, the Atlanta Falcons can withhold his $6 million salary for the upcoming season. Additionally, they can attempt to collect about $22 million of his $37 million signing bonus from his 10-year, $130 million contract that he signed in 2004 (he can apparently keep the prorated amount for the years he has already played).

Layer 5, Vick's Sponsors:

Nike and Rawlings said thanks but we'll find other superstars to sell our products.

Layer 6, the fans:

Not just those in Atlanta, but fans all around the country. If Vick comes back, will they accept him?

Layer 7, Michael Vick:

It's got to be tough to wake up in the morning and come to terms with that lapse of judgment.

In short, not a pretty onion for Michael Vick.

For more information on understanding hot issues and the law go to www.whywellwin.com.

Comments

[oafishcad]

I realize this is only my own interpretation, but Mr. Vick's "apology" seemed so insincere it was laughable. Contrition? He looked like he was the one being tortured to have to endure apologizing for something he had no sense was wrong. Since Rehab isn't available for killing animals, he did the next best Celebrity gambit-find Jesus. I hope I'm wrong.

[commonsenselives]

I hope you're wrong too.

But I have a sinking suspicion you're not.

[shsofahs]

What galled me most about Vick's comments yesterday was his characterization of his actions as "immature". My eleven year-old sometimes dances for no reason at all when Spongebob and Patrick say something particularly witty. She and her friends crack up whenever one of them burps or even says the word "burp". Perhaps my great affection for pro football could be seen in some quarters as a sign of immaturity. To cage dogs, brutalize them, train them to kill each other, to use your own hands to strangle or conspire to electrocute them, then dump them as if they were garbage under a few feet of dirt is not immature. It is callous, it is sociopathic, it is evil. To debase and torture a living thing, any living thing, displays the soulless nature of one's self. It's not only Vick but his partners (I mean his criminal associates as well as his legal team and advisers, if they are at all indistinguishable) who haven't learned a thing. Children, even immature adults may be stuck in a childish mode, but that doesn't make them anti-social. If Vick were so damn tough, he'd be reading these posts. He'd be searching high and low for anything and everything that might help him become a real human being. Think that will happen?

[johntal]

I realize that it is not an original thought;but where is the same outrage over human torture and suffering?

[Vixen0932]

exactly...!

[BigTuna]

> It's got to be tough to wake up in the morning and come to terms
> with that lapse of judgment.

Running a red light to save time is a lapse of judgment.

A married man having drinks with an attractive coworker is a lapse of judgment.

Repeatedly executing animals that don't meet an arbitrary standard is not a lapse of judgment. It's a sign that he's incapable of empathy, which makes him a danger to society NO MATTER WHICH RACE HE IS.

[JimR]

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for Vick and think he should be banned for life from the NFL. What he did was disgusting and reprehensible.

But a danger to society? That's a real stretch. (Yes, I am aware of the attempted serial killer correlations; I just don't think they apply here.)

[argentino]

very well said big tuna..."a mistake" is picking up the wrong set of keys, not hanging, drowning and electrocuting innocent dogs...

[Balakirev]

As my wife would say, "Oh, well!" He dug his own deep pit through animal torture on a regular basis. Then he added a few more dozen feet to it by the arrogance with which he acted when the matter when was unearthed, and since. He simply didn't believe he'd done anything wrong to creatures capable of feeling great pain.

I wonder if this is a good sign, that perhaps Americans are finally awakening to the idea that torture itself is the opposite of the kind of treatment we all expect for ourselves and extend to others? And that what we've been hearing from prison camps in Iraq (not merely those run by the American military) and interrogation facilities for suspected terrorists disgusts and horrifies us? Is Vick, perhaps, our first chance to respond to this kind of thing, since the Bush administration has prevented our revulsion from having any effect?

I haven't any idea. But I do think we should proceed next to good ol' Mitt and his special method of dog transportation.

[Chuckwheat]

You make a good correlation; we violate our principles whenever we torture any living thing, animal or human.
And this might jolt a few celebrities into realizing they're not above the law.