I know they are about as similar as they are different, but the Vick case has many things that the Duke case had too, such as a complete national spotlight, a major organization against them (Duke case had NAACP; Vick case has PETA). They both also left (and will leave) two major sports teams with a black eye.
Are those two kinda the same?
2007-08-01 13:23:58 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
The only difference is, people gave the Duke lacrosse players the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't a fan of the NAACP protest when the news first broke on that story. Nor am I a big fan of PETA's protest. I wish people would just sit back and wait until the trial has concluded before passing judgement. Innocent until proven guilty.
2007-08-01 13:34:36 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, this doesn't remind me of the Duke Lacrosse case in the least.
As others have pointed out, this is a federal case with multiple witnesses, there was only ONE witness against the Duke players, the 'alleged' victim.
Even if the Duke players had been guilty, although it would have been inexcusable if they had raped her, the alleged 'victim' was not beyond blame because she had put herself in the position to be treated badly. These dogs that Michael Vick abused and killed had NO choice, and there was absolutely NO reason they should have been subjected to this horrendous treatment.
PETA stayed out of the Duke case. NAACP has put more than their two cents in on BOTH cases, and in both instances they were WRONG. Btw, why didn't NAACP speak out on behalf of the other black guys accused of this crime in the Michael Vick case? Why are they defending ONLY Michael Vick? I think this shows where the NAACP's consideration is placed, and it isn't for the 'Advancement" of every 'colored' person. I believe this shows a real 'prejudice' on THEIR part.
2007-08-02 08:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lot more hard evidence against Vick though. The Duke case was weak right from the start.
2007-08-01 21:09:37 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I really don't see the similarities, except that they both involved sports and players who were accused of bad things. But Vick was more than accused. There are people testifying that the dogs were HIS and it was at HIS house! All the evidence they have of the dog fighting materials, etc. The Duke case was a lot of hearsay, this one is based on evidence, plain and simple...
2007-08-01 20:36:20 · answer #4 · answered by El_Refe 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. The Duke thing was a law enforcement and DA blunder from the get go. Vick's case sure seems a whole lot more solid. So solid, his buddies are rolling over on him.
2007-08-01 21:58:42 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Uh...No...Because the Duke Lacrosse case had a DA that was using the case as a boost for his political career...and it turned out that the accused were innocent all along...and that the ACCUSER was fabricating a story.
In this case, it is looking pretty bad for the accused, Michael Vick...like he is guilty...
2007-08-01 21:03:19 · answer #6 · answered by Terry C. 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No the men in the Duke case were innocent and Vick is guilty as charged and plus some...no telling what all he has done
2007-08-01 22:16:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
when the FEDS get involved you better be scard because of there success rate and I think PETA did a good thing going after vick because unlike the duke case the FEDS know how to investigate a case and the DA in the duke case just wanted to get his name out.
2007-08-01 21:17:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
yeah they are but I think Vick is actually guilty and the Duke case was just some dumb ***** making up ****
2007-08-01 21:48:11 · answer #9 · answered by football chick 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No - the Duke guys had no co-defendants plead guilty, Vick has.
2007-08-01 20:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by John L 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋