2007-12-10 03:19:52 · 10 answers · asked by keith 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Hmmmmmm, let's see. OJ was found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his peers. Michael Vick pled GUILTY for his crimes.
2007-12-10 03:22:21 · answer #1 · answered by kja63 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with [ kja63 ]
The jury
" The racial composition of the jury was strongly influenced by the decision of the prosecution to file the Simpson case in downtown Los Angeles rather than--as is usually the case-- in the judicial district where the crime occurred-- in this case, Santa Monica. Had the case be filed in Santa Monica, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated prosecutor in the Charles Manson case, said the mistake "dwarfed anything the defense did."
However - Micheal Vick - aft. The other three defendants plead guilty and agreed to help the prosecution in there case to convict Vick. Vick had no other course but to also plead guilty.
The sentence handed down today - too I was way too lenient. To be in prison for only 23 months is not enough. My only other response to this is :
That I hope to never see Micheal Vick play pro-football ever again. He has most definitely has been a disgrace to not only the NFL but to other sports as well.
To add to the OJ killings:
The city of Los Angeles was afraid of having yet another burning from the blacks after the sentencing of Rodney King. The lootings, beatings and arson that happen there should not had happen if Marshal Law was called as to where anybody seen aft a certain time would be shot. The above would not have happen. The so call “Black Rage” is no excuse for these people to act like animals. If they expect to receive respect? They must learn to give it....
2007-12-10 03:57:26 · answer #2 · answered by Old Dawg 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that OJ was found guilty in a court of law...Vick pled guilty
2007-12-10 04:29:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Michael Vick is getting off easy for his horrendous behavior.
Pete Rose gambled (no killing) and he was banned for life from having anything whatsoever to do with baseball, etc.
2007-12-10 03:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Ohno 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oj's case got turned into a big race thing b/c of that jack-a.s.s. lawyer of his. so he was found not guilty (b/c there would have been riots in the streets if he'd been found guilty and the jurors were scared)
Vick's a convicted a.s.s.h.o.l.e so of couse he got a sentence.
2007-12-10 03:24:23 · answer #5 · answered by neonatheart 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cause this is America, Baby & the lawmakers are biased, rich quackjobs who don't really care about the godly/righteous aspect of policies, they only care about the ability of the policies to make them & their rich friends more money.
2007-12-10 03:25:07 · answer #6 · answered by GretchenGold 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's America.
2007-12-10 03:22:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ,,,sadly, wasn't convicted...frankly, I'd rather see someone go to jail for killing dogs than people...
2007-12-10 03:56:35 · answer #8 · answered by madsmaha1 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Vick got what he deserved...OJ didn't.
2007-12-10 03:45:53 · answer #9 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
O.J. was founded not guilty.
2007-12-10 03:42:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋