PDA

View Full Version : Dante Stallworth gets THIRTY days in prison.


Edman
06-16-2009, 11:59 AM
Also gets 10 years probation, a thousand hours of community service, and worked out some deal with the family. Just heard on Sportscenter.

http://images.sodahead.com/images/polls/0/0/0/0/7/2/0/7/8/polls_slap_on_the_wrist_1253_747999_answer_3_mediu m.jpeg

Nice job working the system by him and his lawyer.

meanjoecoop
06-16-2009, 12:13 PM
He had the option to be traded to the Bengals or serve 30 days + probation. He took the 30 days.

Stallworth said about his plea options "Being traded to the Cincinnati Bengals would have been a life sentence...It was not an option I would even consider."

Seriously...30 days! Depending on the commissioner he might not even miss a day of training camp.

Must be nice to be a celebrity. A friend of mine had a sister who hit and killed a pedestrian while distracted by her minivan full of kids and a cell phone call. No alcohol. She got 5 years.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

If this was any regular Joe, we would have already had a trial started and we would be convicted and had the book thrown at us for this crime.

When will athletes and celebrities finally get the same treatment in the court of law that any of us would? Judges always say that athletes and celebrities are not above the law...but then they accept deals like this. Hypocrites.

Fire Haley
06-16-2009, 12:20 PM
He worked out a deal to pay off the family.

That eliminated any future civil suit. all sides agreed.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-fbn-stallworth-pedestrian-killed,0,483389.story

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 12:34 PM
That's very sad. But, truth is, rich people can pay to work the system. From a possible to 15 years, or 5475 days, all the way down to a mere 30 days is quite a bit of disparity.

lilyoder6
06-16-2009, 01:40 PM
i think the day that athletes and celebs get treated like evryone else.. is the day when they have no money left 2 get there way out of shit

xfl2001fan
06-16-2009, 01:56 PM
i think the day that athletes and celebs get treated like evryone else.. is the day when they have no money left 2 get there way out of shit

The way this economy is going, that might not be too far off. (This isn't about left/right or Dem/Rep either...just a general statement about how bad our economy is).

That being said, it's a crock of $hit that he gets off like this. I wish someone would do him serious bodily harm so that he couldn't come back to my team. And yes, I do mean that.

KeiselPower99
06-16-2009, 02:19 PM
That's very sad. But, truth is, rich people can pay to work the system. From a possible to 15 years, or 5475 days, all the way down to a mere 30 days is quite a bit of disparity.

I havent heard more truthful words in a long time.

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 02:37 PM
30 days in jail for KILLING a guy? That's the biggest fricking joke I've ever heard.

It'll be interesting to see how this compares with this guy (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4240352), the drunk driver who killed Nick Adenhart from the Angels. Something tells me when the shoe is on the other foot, this (non-celebrity) killer is going to get the book thrown at him.

Fire Haley
06-16-2009, 02:49 PM
Money can't buy happiness, unless you're a millionaire (and not killing dogs)

Vince Neil

In 1984 Vince Neil the lead singer for the band Mötley Crüe, lost control of the car he was driving and hit an opposing vehicle. The two occupants of the other car were seriously injured but the passenger of Neil's car, Nicholas Dingley (aka Razzle, drummer for the Finnish metal band Hanoi Rocks) was killed. Neil was charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence of alcohol.

In July of 1986 he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 5 years probation, $2.6 million in restitution to the victims of the crash and 200 hours of community service. Neil got out of jail in 20 days for good behavior.

cubanstogie
06-16-2009, 03:01 PM
Truly amazing that Vick has much harsher sentence than Stallworth. People also seem to come down harder on Vick. A person was killed by a driver breaking the law and he gets one month in prison. I was going to say our legal system is quite embarrassing, but our Country as a whole is becoming a joke. Don't get me wrong Vick is a piece of shit, but you can't compare a dogs life to a humans, although PETA will disagree with me.

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 03:14 PM
To be fair, Vick's crime was committed with forethought and extreme malice. Stallworth's was a spontaneous thing, a situational occurrence. Makes a difference...

Carolina Steelers
06-16-2009, 03:38 PM
to be fair, I dont think so tell the victims families it was just an occurrence. Also the victims family was just bought out instead of persueing any thing else legally or pushing for a harsher sentence they just took the money.

revefsreleets
06-16-2009, 03:54 PM
It's not "just" an occurrence, but it was a singular event.

Vick's was patterned behavior...repeated malevolence with knowledge in advance of exactly what he was doing.

Stallworth did not set out to kill anyone. It was an accident with the added weight of his drinking. Vick is a different story...he knew all along what he was doing was illegal, and he had a whole illegal enterprise set up.

Steel_12
06-16-2009, 04:05 PM
Don't blame the legal system, blame the family! They took the money...but if they saw that Stallworth was genuinely remorseful about what happened, why make his life hell for an accident?

silver & black
06-16-2009, 04:17 PM
Please, clear something up for me. As I understand it, the unfortunate victim jumped a barrier to cross a 4 lane highway as a short cut to where he was going. Is that correct? If it is, I would have to say that the victim is just as accountable for what happened as Stallworth. I'm NOT condoning Stallworth's drinking and driving, but, if the victim had not done such a foolish thing, this would probably not have happened.

If I'm totaly off base on this, then I agree with everyone else.

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 04:58 PM
It's not "just" an occurrence, but it was a singular event.

Vick's was patterned behavior...repeated malevolence with knowledge in advance of exactly what he was doing.

Stallworth did not set out to kill anyone. It was an accident with the added weight of his drinking. Vick is a different story...he knew all along what he was doing was illegal, and he had a whole illegal enterprise set up.

I don't know whether to believe that or not. If Stallworth had gotten drunk and then started waving a loaded gun around, and it went off and killed someone ... something tells me there'd be a little more outrage. I don't know why, but for some reason, people act like it's less bad to kill someone by running them over than to kill them some other way. But it's still the same idea; he got drunk and did something dangerous that everyone knows you're not supposed to do.

I can't believe anyone would even think of comparing this to what Vick did. Someone is dead because of this.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-16-2009, 05:25 PM
Please, clear something up for me. As I understand it, the unfortunate victim jumped a barrier to cross a 4 lane highway as a short cut to where he was going. Is that correct? If it is, I would have to say that the victim is just as accountable for what happened as Stallworth. I'm NOT condoning Stallworth's drinking and driving, but, if the victim had not done such a foolish thing, this would probably not have happened.

If I'm totaly off base on this, then I agree with everyone else.

Oh, I see where you are coming from. And I agree that Stallworth is not 100% to blame for the accident.

However, if Stallworth was sober, maybe he hits the breaks and/or swerves to avoid the guy instead of simply flashing his headlights.

Honestly, the drunk driving laws in this country need to change. No more "party plates" (if you get caught driving drunk in the state of Ohio, you can get a specific yellow with red lettering license plate that signifies you have a DUI on your record).

If you get caught driving under the influence, it should be an automatic three year suspension, and if you let someone under a DUI suspension drive your vehicle, you get the same suspension.

If you drive drunk and kill someone, you should never ever be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle again in your life.

And no, a breathalyzer to be able to start your car isn't good enough either. It's too easy to have someone blow into the machine for you. Just offer someone five dollars outside a bar, they will do it.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
06-16-2009, 07:47 PM
I was at a loss for words when I heard this today. I wonder if that same Florida "law" applies to the average Joe.

fansince'76
06-17-2009, 12:31 AM
Truly amazing that Vick has much harsher sentence than Stallworth. People also seem to come down harder on Vick. A person was killed by a driver breaking the law and he gets one month in prison. I was going to say our legal system is quite embarrassing, but our Country as a whole is becoming a joke. Don't get me wrong Vick is a piece of shit, but you can't compare a dogs life to a humans, although PETA will disagree with me.

HUGE difference between getting busted on a federal rap as opposed to a "local" rap. The feds WILL take a gigantic shit on you if you get convicted by them - they're the one legal entity in this country that truly doesn't give a damn who you are or how much money you have.

Galax Steeler
06-17-2009, 04:52 AM
He should have had to pull more time then 30 days. The system just isn't working. He should atleast be pulling a min. of about 5 years.

revefsreleets
06-17-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm confused....are you guys saying that somehow Stallworth set out to run someone over? That he had deliberate foresight and a plan to kill a guy, that he thought about it for a long time and then executed his plan?

Because if you are comparing an accident like Stallworth's with Vick's patterned, planned, long-term actions, there IS no comparison.

Yes, a man is dead, but he also used a CAR to do it, and it WAS accidental. I'm sure Stallworth is contrite and severly apologetic, and I KNOW he didn't deliberately set out to kill a man.

Vick is a POS. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he set-up an entire illegal enterprise, deliberately flaunting his illegal activities. The two acts are dramatically different because of the INTENT.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm confused....are you guys saying that somehow Stallworth set out to run someone over? That he had deliberate foresight and a plan to kill a guy, that he thought about it for a long time and then executed his plan?

Because if you are comparing an accident like Stallworth's with Vick's patterned, planned, long-term actions, there IS no comparison.

Yes, a man is dead, but he also used a CAR to do it, and it WAS accidental. I'm sure Stallworth is contrite and severly apologetic, and I KNOW he didn't deliberately set out to kill a man.

Vick is a POS. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he set-up an entire illegal enterprise, deliberately flaunting his illegal activities. The two acts are dramatically different because of the INTENT.

I can't speak for everyone else, but what I'm saying is that deliberate or not, if a person is dead because of you, it's automatically worse than whatever happens to a bunch of dogs.

And also that I don't buy the "accidental" part, because deliberately driving drunk kind of cancels that out. No matter how much you thought you weren't going to wreck or how sorry you say you are afterward.

Some people might think Stallworth was less malicious because he was "just" careless ... but if you're so careless that people get killed, now you're talking about more than careless. Certainly more than 30 days' worth, anyway.

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 01:09 PM
If I were the family of this deceased person, I'd have said "stick the money up your a**, your goin to jail"

Sad that the family could be bought.

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 01:10 PM
I can't speak for everyone else, but what I'm saying is that deliberate or not, if a person is dead because of you, it's automatically worse than whatever happens to a bunch of dogs.

THANK YOU, I mean c'mon people :banging:

revefsreleets
06-17-2009, 01:18 PM
So, if he wasn't drunk (and he only blew a .126 so it's not like he was falling down), it's STILL worse than Vick?

It was an accident. It was not deliberate. There is a difference, and the law recognizes that.

(sigh)

Nevermind...you guys are right, 30 days for Vick, and string Stallworth up from a tree.

Regardless, the Browns will cut him today or tomorrow, so he's also unemployed. He lost his license forever as well, and he's probably out several mil.

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 01:26 PM
So, if he wasn't drunk (and he only blew a .126 so it's not like he was falling down), it's STILL worse than Vick?

It was an accident. It was not deliberate. There is a difference, and the law recognizes that.

(sigh)

Nevermind...you guys are right, 30 days for Vick, and string Stallworth up from a tree.

Regardless, the Browns will cut him today or tomorrow, so he's also unemployed. He lost his license forever as well, and he's probably out several mil.



well let's face it, he was impaired, he chose to drive, and it ended a life. a HUMAN life. I'm not excusing Vick in any way. But when animals lives have more value then humans.....somethings terribly wrong, my friend.

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 01:27 PM
In CA there is felony vehicular manslaughter and misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.(DUI manslaughter is sort of a misnomer, at least in CA) It all depends on the level of negligence and intoxication. If you are DUI it automatically starts in felony land. Then you would have to analyze how good your DUI charges are. I'm just guessing, but I bet it was a pretty weak charge. Maybe not because Stallworth wasn't under the influence but in a typical DUI stop, blood tests are at least an hour removed from the actual stop. In this cause i would think they are even further removed. The further you get away from driving and blood test the more speculative the result becomes. I don't know FL law and if they have the same structure for manslaughter as we do. In CA, the killing has to be the proximate result of the DUI/speed. Basically if he wasn't speeding or DUI would the guy still be dead. I'm not sure that's the case here. The guy ran out in the road out of a cross walk. Look at it this way, say Stallworth was .35 driving the speed limit and following all traffic laws; guy runs out in front of him and he kills the guy. What does the DUI have to do with the guy being dead? Thats what the DA has to analyze.

In my experience 30 days in not uncommon at all on a misdemeanor manslaughter.
You have to also remember that just because he had a .12 when he was tested doesn't mean they could have pinned a .12 on him at the time of driving. There are people very day beating .12 DUIs for a myriad of reasons. We'll never really know the strength or weakness of the case.

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 01:34 PM
well let's face it, he was impaired, he chose to drive, and it ended a life. a HUMAN life. I'm not excusing Vick in any way. But when animals lives have more value then humans.....somethings terribly wrong, my friend.

You are oversimplifying the situations. Federal laws have much harsher punishments than state charges. They also have sentencing guidelines drastically different than state courts. For instance Federal crack cocaine charge, mandatory minimum 10 years. State crack cocaine charge, probably not seeing a day of jail.

xfl2001fan
06-17-2009, 01:39 PM
well let's face it, he was impaired, he chose to drive, and it ended a life. a HUMAN life. I'm not excusing Vick in any way. But when animals lives have more value then humans.....somethings terribly wrong, my friend.

Nobody is putting the value of a dogs life over that of a humans life...we're putting more into it than just that one aspect of the issue at hand. You are narrowly trapped in that one portion of the entire whole.

Yes, most human lives are worth more than a dogs life. (If you're a child molester and I have to save you or a goldfish from a burning building...the fish is coming with me.)

However, there is still the rest of the law to consider. There was one (maybe two depending on your thought process) laws that Stallworth broke. Vehicular manslaughter (inexcusably accidental) and DUI.

Vick has a plethora of items (with malicious intent) that, when tallied up, came to his "slap on the wrist".

Stallworth is getting off entirely too easy IMO...but, regardless, Vick's was worse because of his malicious intent on the whole thing. His wasn't inexcusably accidental, he flat out ignored several Federal Laws.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 01:43 PM
In CA there is felony vehicular manslaughter and misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter.(DUI manslaughter is sort of a misnomer, at least in CA) It all depends on the level of negligence and intoxication. If you are DUI it automatically starts in felony land. Then you would have to analyze how good your DUI charges are. I'm just guessing, but I bet it was a pretty weak charge. Maybe not because Stallworth wasn't under the influence but in a typical DUI stop, blood tests are at least an hour removed from the actual stop. In this cause i would think they are even further removed. The further you get away from driving and blood test the more speculative the result becomes. I don't know FL law and if they have the same structure for manslaughter as we do. In CA, the killing has to be the proximate result of the DUI/speed. Basically if he wasn't speeding or DUI would the guy still be dead. I'm not sure that's the case here. The guy ran out in the road out of a cross walk. Look at it this way, say Stallworth was .35 driving the speed limit and following all traffic laws; guy runs out in front of him and he kills the guy. What does the DUI have to do with the guy being dead? Thats what the DA has to analyze.

In my experience 30 days in not uncommon at all on a misdemeanor manslaughter.
You have to also remember that just because he had a .12 when he was tested doesn't mean they could have pinned a .12 on him at the time of driving. There are people very day beating .12 DUIs for a myriad of reasons. We'll never really know the strength or weakness of the case.

All good points, but I can't shake the feeling that if you're at .12 and it's 7 in the morning, you were probably pretty shitfaced at that night and ought to know better than to be driving.

Hell, I was in New Orleans a few years ago (before the hurricane) and I stayed out all night ... and even on Bourbon Street, the bars were empty at 7 in the morning. Basically, even the people who really partied their asses off had all called it a night. So after a night like that, if you still don't recognize that you don't belong behind the wheel, you've got to be a complete shithead.

And also, I don't know about "only" blowing a .12. I blew a .13 once (the cops thought I was an underage drinker, not a drunk driver) and have to say I was pretty toasted. Of course, that was nothing like the time I blew a .30, in which case I was basically just flopping around. (In case you were wondering, that time, I was a passenger in my own car being driven by the designated driver, but the cops figured they'd pull him over right as we left the bar anyway, on the off chance that he was drunk too. Anyway, if I could figure out in that condition how to conduct myself at least passably so as not to do any harm to anyone, it's a mystery to me why Stallworth couldn't.)

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 02:01 PM
Again, I don't know FL laws but in CA, typically you don't have to blow into the roadside breathalyzer, you have the right to refuse it. Also keep in mind the day before Stallworth did this he got a 4.5 million dollar bonus for signing. I know I have partied well into 7 in the morning and not made 4.5 mil.

My point is there are lots of things we don't know about the case to be making sweeping generalizations.

xfl2001fan
06-17-2009, 02:02 PM
Stallworth also hung around after the scene...he didn't go run and hide. Don't remember all the details, but didn't he call 911? That probably played a small part in his favor.

revefsreleets
06-17-2009, 02:06 PM
I guess I can't get my point across: I do NOT value dogs more than humans. But I do see the difference between an accident with some inflaming circumstances and patterned criminal behavior and long-term illegal enterprises.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 02:55 PM
I guess I can't get my point across: I do NOT value dogs more than humans. But I do see the difference between an accident with some inflaming circumstances and patterned criminal behavior and long-term illegal enterprises.

I'm not accusing you of valuing dogs more than humans ... and if everything else about the crimes was equal, Vick would be the worse of the two, no doubt about it.

But everything else isn't equal, because a guy died in one case. To me, that overrides what the intent was. If Stallworth got drunk and accidentally ran over a dog, then yes, Vick was still worse. If Vick was running a crime syndicate that killed a person, then yes, he was worse. But that isn't what happened, and no matter why Vick was doing what he did, the end result was not as serious as what Stallworth did. In my opinion, anyway.

St33lersguy
06-17-2009, 04:03 PM
TOO DAMN LENIANT!!!!! That is a travesty!! He ended a human life and he gets 30 days. 10 years in prison at leastand suspend his driving license indefinitely! Also if I was the family I would not agree to payment less than 5 mil and then sue for that money if he refuses to accept

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 04:12 PM
I'm not accusing you of valuing dogs more than humans ... and if everything else about the crimes was equal, Vick would be the worse of the two, no doubt about it.

But everything else isn't equal, because a guy died in one case. To me, that overrides what the intent was. If Stallworth got drunk and accidentally ran over a dog, then yes, Vick was still worse. If Vick was running a crime syndicate that killed a person, then yes, he was worse. But that isn't what happened, and no matter why Vick was doing what he did, the end result was not as serious as what Stallworth did. In my opinion, anyway.

Intent doesn't matter? That's sad. The Law says intent matters, why is that a difficult concept to grasp? You have the power to change the law, go ahead. I think it's a pretty damn good law. People don't get in their car intending to kill people. Accidents happen. Apparently you also don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. I hope the shoe is never on the other foot and you are charged with a crime, will you just assume you are guilty then and ask for a harsher punishment?

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 04:12 PM
TOO DAMN LENIANT!!!!! That is a travesty!! He ended a human life and he gets 30 days. 10 years in prison at leastand suspend his driving license indefinitely! Also if I was the family I would not agree to payment less than 5 mil and then sue for that money if he refuses to accept


He doesn't ever get to drive again. 2 years of house arrest and 8 more years of probation.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-17-2009, 04:39 PM
He doesn't ever get to drive again. 2 years of house arrest and 8 more years of probation.

Not true, in five years he can be granted a drivers license.

Two years house arrest beats the hell out of two years of prison.

My friend is on 10 years probation for a burglary conviction when the cops pinned him for a rash of burglaries in his girlfriend's neighborhood because the night of one, he was leaving his girlfriend's house.

10 years for burglary, 8 for killing a person. Sounds effed up to me.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 05:13 PM
Intent doesn't matter? That's sad. The Law says intent matters, why is that a difficult concept to grasp? You have the power to change the law, go ahead. I think it's a pretty damn good law. People don't get in their car intending to kill people. Accidents happen.

I didn't say intent doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter so much that you should consider a fatal "accident" as no big deal just because the guy didn't mean to do it. People get 30 days for getting caught with weed, for chrissakes.

And I still cannot even begin to stress how much I don't buy the "accident" part in Stallworth's case. The guy made the decision to party all night and then get behind the wheel, and it is absolutely inconceivable in this day and age to not know this is dangerous. It's something they absolutely beat into your head as soon as you're old enough to understand English. Your argument makes it sound like driving drunk is something that just happens to people through no fault of their own. No.

Maybe it wasn't as deliberate as cold-blooded murder, but don't give me this bullshit that it was just an innocent mistake either.

Apparently you also don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. I hope the shoe is never on the other foot and you are charged with a crime, will you just assume you are guilty then and ask for a harsher punishment?

I don't know where you get that from, but you're about as wrong as it's possible to be. The guy killed someone, got caught red-handed, and admitted to the crime. He is definitely guilty.

You talk about the shoe being on the other foot ... what if someone killed one of your family members and got off with a slap on the wrist? Would you walk away with a smile on your face and say oh well, it's OK because he didn't mean to do it? I don't think so, so don't give me that shit either.

The real shame of it all is that the guy's family was so easy to buy off. I would hope that if I died, my loved ones would value my life more than a cash payment.

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 05:42 PM
The real shame of it all is that the guy's family was so easy to buy off. I would hope that if I died, my loved ones would value my life more than a cash payment.

:iagree:

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 05:48 PM
Yes, most human lives are worth more than a dogs life. (If you're a child molester and I have to save you or a goldfish from a burning building...the fish is coming with me.)


I could not agree with you more on that point :drink:

7SteelGal43
06-17-2009, 05:53 PM
You are oversimplifying the situations. Federal laws have much harsher punishments than state charges. They also have sentencing guidelines drastically different than state courts. For instance Federal crack cocaine charge, mandatory minimum 10 years. State crack cocaine charge, probably not seeing a day of jail.



I just can't believe all this talk about federal vs state laws and intent. And if i'm oversimplifying, it's because it IS overly simple. Everybody knows drinking impairs you. He drank, he drove, he ran a man over and killed him. What other facts do you need to know to know that 30 days is a joke ? No wait, it's not a joke 'cause it ain't even funny.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 06:47 PM
I just can't believe all this talk about federal vs state laws and intent. And if i'm oversimplifying, it's because it IS overly simple. Everybody knows drinking impairs you. He drank, he drove, he ran a man over and killed him. What other facts do you need to know to know that 30 days is a joke ? No wait, it's not a joke 'cause it ain't even funny.

That's right .. unbelievable that it can get so convoluted for some people. It doesn't take much to see that no matter what The Rules say, why they were put there, or what happened to some other guy in some other case -- it doesn't seem like they worked very well for Stallworth.

LVSteelersfan
06-17-2009, 07:35 PM
I think Vick AND Stallworth both got off too easy to be honest. People who will kill dogs without a second thought tend to be people who will kill other people without a thought. I have read that most serial killers start off by killing small animals. So don't try to minimize what Vick did just because they were "only dogs". I am not one of those PETA nuts, but passionate, normal humans do not torture any other living thing. It drives me crazy that the justice system allows families of the victims to be bought off. It should never happen that way.

Steel_12
06-17-2009, 08:10 PM
I just can't believe all this talk about federal vs state laws and intent. And if i'm oversimplifying, it's because it IS overly simple. Everybody knows drinking impairs you. He drank, he drove, he ran a man over and killed him. What other facts do you need to know to know that 30 days is a joke ? No wait, it's not a joke 'cause it ain't even funny.

What other factors? The dead man ran across the street trying to catch the bus...Stallworth didn't flee the scene...Stallworth cooperated the entire time...Stallworth was genuinely remorseful...The family wanted to get the case resolved ASAP for the 15 year old child of the deceased...

Do some people really not understand plea bargaining? That's obviously the best verdict they could get and satisfy the family. This case is different from Vick's case in EVERY aspect. As some have said already, this is not a Fed case. Geez!

SteelersinCA
06-17-2009, 11:18 PM
I didn't say intent doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter so much that you should consider a fatal "accident" as no big deal just because the guy didn't mean to do it. People get 30 days for getting caught with weed, for chrissakes.

And I still cannot even begin to stress how much I don't buy the "accident" part in Stallworth's case. The guy made the decision to party all night and then get behind the wheel, and it is absolutely inconceivable in this day and age to not know this is dangerous. It's something they absolutely beat into your head as soon as you're old enough to understand English. Your argument makes it sound like driving drunk is something that just happens to people through no fault of their own. No.

Maybe it wasn't as deliberate as cold-blooded murder, but don't give me this bullshit that it was just an innocent mistake either.



I don't know where you get that from, but you're about as wrong as it's possible to be. The guy killed someone, got caught red-handed, and admitted to the crime. He is definitely guilty.

You talk about the shoe being on the other foot ... what if someone killed one of your family members and got off with a slap on the wrist? Would you walk away with a smile on your face and say oh well, it's OK because he didn't mean to do it? I don't think so, so don't give me that shit either.

The real shame of it all is that the guy's family was so easy to buy off. I would hope that if I died, my loved ones would value my life more than a cash payment.

Who said it wasn't a big deal. I said in my experience as an attorney this is not a case that is so out of the ordinary like you want to believe it is. You can organize a movement to change the law if you wish. Until then the law is the law.

If someone killed a loved one of mine and it was an accident I certainly wouldn't be as upset if the perpetrator intended to kill them. Bottom line is regardless of whether Stallworth was DUI or not the guy most likely would have been hit and killed. That removes the proximate result element of a vehicular manslaughter required to send someone away for any real length of time.

cubanstogie
06-18-2009, 12:21 AM
Who said it wasn't a big deal. I said in my experience as an attorney this is not a case that is so out of the ordinary like you want to believe it is. You can organize a movement to change the law if you wish. Until then the law is the law.

If someone killed a loved one of mine and it was an accident I certainly wouldn't be as upset if the perpetrator intended to kill them. Bottom line is regardless of whether Stallworth was DUI or not the guy most likely would have been hit and killed. That removes the proximate result element of a vehicular manslaughter required to send someone away for any real length of time.

I don't consider it an accident when a guy gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone. A vehicle is a weapon at that point. I also understand that he didn't plan it like Vick did. Its called accountability and he should be accountable for more than a month in jail. Barkely did a month in jail for a DUI and didn't kill anyone. I do know I would rather see 100 dogs dead than a human though.

tony hipchest
06-18-2009, 12:44 AM
I don't consider it an accident when a guy gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone.

what do you consider it when a guy gets behind the wheel sober and kills someone?

not to make light of the situation, but i have spilt less beer drunk, than glasses of milk or soda while sober, and either way, it was never intentional.

what is being lost here is that 2 years on "house arrest" and another 8 on probation, is pretty much a life sentence. theres a 1 :100,000 shot he makes it through the 1st 6 months w/o a violation (which means he will have to buy his way out of another sentence... but still).

that is the real travesty here.

SteelersinCA
06-18-2009, 02:00 AM
I don't consider it an accident when a guy gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone. A vehicle is a weapon at that point. I also understand that he didn't plan it like Vick did. Its called accountability and he should be accountable for more than a month in jail. Barkely did a month in jail for a DUI and didn't kill anyone. I do know I would rather see 100 dogs dead than a human though.

A vehicle is always a weapon, drunk or sober. What about the guy who glances at his radio/gps, the person texting, or the lady putting on makeup? Do you have the same zero tolerance for them? They all make a conscious and volitional decision as well. You do also realize that the guy ran out into the street. I guarantee it's a different story if he's crossing in a crosswalk when he has the right of way.

what do you consider it when a guy gets behind the wheel sober and kills someone?

not to make light of the situation, but i have spilt less beer drunk, than glasses of milk or soda while sober, and either way, it was never intentional.

what is being lost here is that 2 years on "house arrest" and another 8 on probation, is pretty much a life sentence. theres a 1 :100,000 shot he makes it through the 1st 6 months w/o a violation (which means he will have to buy his way out of another sentence... but still).

that is the real travesty here.

Good point Tony, the probation is always the killer. The guy cannot leave his house except for work for 2 years, probably supervised probation with multitudes of drug and alcohol tests and can never drive again. His license is suspended forever. It's not like he's getting a slap on the wrist. What do you expect the DA to do if he has a crappy case? Then you'd be crying he got away!

steelwall
06-18-2009, 04:47 AM
Noone can sit here and say that money/fame does not have a bias in our form of law. Please.... we see it all the time...

Is 30 days worth killing a man, while out (perhaps ever so slightly drunk at 7am) IMO ...hellllllll.....nooooo.....

In this case, if I was the judge, his money would have played a factor...but the opposite factor... Man, call a cab....pay one of your flunkies to drive you..... Millions of dollars and you are roaming the streets (however so drunk you may or may not be) after one drink I'm tossing my keys to my DD... IDIOT!!!!

revefsreleets
06-18-2009, 10:05 AM
How can he get his license back? I thought it was a lifelong ban?

Cheppy
06-18-2009, 01:34 PM
Yup, money talks.. If that was me I'd end up doing hard time. (as i should) I think Leonard Little recieved a similar punishment for the same offense & the piece of garbage ended up getting a second DWI.

On a more positive note, I've gotten two drunk drivers arrested in the past week.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a45/77717/1010_the_dawg.jpg

SteelersinCA
06-18-2009, 06:09 PM
Looks like MADD got to Goodell. Indefinite suspension.

xfl2001fan
06-18-2009, 06:09 PM
And he's suspended for a year (or two).

I know it says indefinetely...but reality says Gooddeal will let him back in.

SteelersinCA
06-18-2009, 06:15 PM
He should, drunk driving accidents have been steadily declining since the 60s while the amount of cars on the road have increased exponentially but because of corrupt organizations like MADD and the fear monger they promote you'd think it's a pandemic.

Fire Haley
06-18-2009, 06:16 PM
Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth, has been suspended indefinitely by the NFL.

The suspension is effective immediately, the league announced in a news release Thursday afternoon.

"The conduct reflected in your guilty plea resulted in the tragic loss of life and was inexcusable," commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. "While the criminal justice system has determined the legal consequences of this incident, it is my responsibility as NFL Commissioner to determine appropriate league discipline for your actions, which have caused irreparable harm to the victim and his family, your club, your fellow players and the NFL."

steelreserve
06-18-2009, 07:47 PM
Who said it wasn't a big deal. I said in my experience as an attorney this is not a case that is so out of the ordinary like you want to believe it is. You can organize a movement to change the law if you wish. Until then the law is the law.

Yup, that attitude is exactly what's the problem.

For most people, the law is so disconnected and unreachable from their everyday lives that they have about zero hope of changing it, or really of doing anything other than staying out of its way and hoping that when the law decides to randomly reach out and touches them, it only deals them inconvenience instead of injustice or financial ruin.

On the flip side, when you're involved with the law every day, there's a whole separate disconnect with it being one in a series of routine events for you, versus perhaps one of the most important moments of a lifetime for someone else. Not a very good situation, and it certainly doesn't make me believe that experience with the nuts and bolts of how the legal system works renders one any more qualified to say what justice is.

SteelersinCA
06-18-2009, 08:34 PM
Yup, that attitude is exactly what's the problem.

For most people, the law is so disconnected and unreachable from their everyday lives that they have about zero hope of changing it, or really of doing anything other than staying out of its way and hoping that when the law decides to randomly reach out and touches them, it only deals them inconvenience instead of injustice or financial ruin.

On the flip side, when you're involved with the law every day, there's a whole separate disconnect with it being one in a series of routine events for you, versus perhaps one of the most important moments of a lifetime for someone else. Not a very good situation, and it certainly doesn't make me believe that experience with the nuts and bolts of how the legal system works renders one any more qualified to say what justice is.

How is that a problem? Let me get this right, you want someone to go outside of the law to administer whatever justice you think is fit? If you don't like the law, change it. What other choice is there? Anarchy? Vigilante justice? Funny how the family isn't complaining of injustice but people not "connected" at all are. Irony much?

cubanstogie
06-19-2009, 12:13 AM
quote:
A vehicle is always a weapon, drunk or sober. What about the guy who glances at his radio/gps, the person texting, or the lady putting on makeup? Do you have the same zero tolerance for them? They all make a conscious and volitional decision as well. You do also realize that the guy ran out into the street. I guarantee it's a different story if he's crossing in a crosswalk when he has the right of way.

Thats true a vehicle is always a weapon. The fact the someone drinks and gets behind the wheel compounds the danger of the weapon drastically. The difference is the idiot putting makeup on is not breaking the law, although they should also be held accountable IMO. Everyone has there prejudice's , mine is against drunk drivers. I drink more than most I will admit, but I routinely pay for cabs or call for a ride if I am out, and I am not a multi millionaire who could easily afford a cab or limo. I find it hard to believe if this guy killed a family member of one of you who thinks this sentence fits the crime, you wouldn't be outraged at the weak sentence.

cubanstogie
06-19-2009, 12:19 AM
what do you consider it when a guy gets behind the wheel sober and kills someone?

not to make light of the situation, but i have spilt less beer drunk, than glasses of milk or soda while sober, and either way, it was never intentional.

what is being lost here is that 2 years on "house arrest" and another 8 on probation, is pretty much a life sentence. theres a 1 :100,000 shot he makes it through the 1st 6 months w/o a violation (which means he will have to buy his way out of another sentence... but still).

that is the real travesty here.

It depends on the situation, if it is street racing or some negligence of the driver I have zero tolerance. I worry about my wife and daughter constantly when they are driving without me, and this crap just makes it worse. I never considered it intentional, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that he knew not to drive. A message needs to be sent to people braking the law especially when it impacts innocent victims. I don't think it was a big enough message.

SteelersinCA
06-19-2009, 11:58 AM
especially when it impacts innocent victims.

You hit the nail on the head. The guy was not innocent. Did he deserve to die? Absolutely not. Had he been completely innocent, Stall worth would be looking at a long long jail sentence, but the guy was not innocent. Like I have said repeatedly, if the death is not the proximate result of the unlawful act it is extremely difficult to get a conviction.

Proximate result is the key to it all. It's akin to a negligence standard in the civil world. There is a comparative fault analysis going on. The difference in criminal is it is a much much higher standard to prove fault.

No one is saying the guy deserved to die, no one is saying 30 days = a human life. People want answers to how this can happen in the legal system and that is exactly how it happens. Everyone has their own idea of justice but consider this. Let's assume Stallworth was about a .12 at the time of driving. There are studies that at a .12 your reaction time is thousandths of a second slower than a sober person. Let's also assume that Stallworth was driving 10 mph over the speed limit and otherwise following all traffic laws. He hits the guy, kills him.

Now the way the law works is once a decision is made in one set of facts you can apply that decision to similar facts to reach the same result. So you are driving down the street 10 mph over the speed limit (not a stretch right?) and a person runs out in front of you and you kill them. A lawyer gets up and argues the Stallworth case is analogous to your situation and you should receive the 10-15 years he got. You say wait a second, I wasn't drinking! Then they point out that even thousandths of a second would not have saved this persons life he would have just impacted your car a couple millimeters over. You go to jail for 10-15 years or whatever you think is "just" for Stallworth. Is that Justice?

Proximate cause/result and innocence are the issue. No one likes to put blame on the guy that got killed but he shares some blame which presents the biggest problem in prosecuting Stallworth, which impacts his sentence.

xfl2001fan
06-19-2009, 12:32 PM
SteelersinCA - It's unfortunate, but there are too many people who will likely choose to ignore what you're saying because they can't get past the "Human Life" issue at hand.

If I cut your wrists and you survive, I get an attempted pre-meditated murder charge. If I cut my wrists and survive...I get psycological treatment...despite the fact that I have attempted (in both cases) to take a "human life."

I expect that for most of those you are arguing with, they only use fine distinction when it suits their agenda...and won't bother to change their agenda with logic.

steelreserve
06-19-2009, 12:54 PM
SteelersinCA - It's unfortunate, but there are too many people who will likely choose to ignore what you're saying because they can't get past the "Human Life" issue at hand.

If I cut your wrists and you survive, I get an attempted pre-meditated murder charge. If I cut my wrists and survive...I get psycological treatment...despite the fact that I have attempted (in both cases) to take a "human life."

I expect that for most of those you are arguing with, they only use fine distinction when it suits their agenda...and won't bother to change their agenda with logic.

I think what you've just gone out of your way to prove is that by their nature, laws are pretty blunt instruments because they have to be written so broadly ... so the law as written may or may not be a very effective tool when you get down to a specific case, and it may spit out a result that's completely unacceptable to a lot of people. That's become particularly true of late, with judges and lawyers becoming more and more constrained by regulations that attempt to legislate human judgment out of the picture. It may not even be the law itself that's the problem, but our methods of applying the law, but either way, it only makes the justice system seem like more of a random roll of the dice.

I don't see anything wrong with being unhappy about that, and when you get down to it, that's the fundamental issue that most people seem to be upset about here. Taking the attitude of "oh well, the law is the law and it's there for a reason" doesn't make the law any more effective, or really do anything except sound like you are oblivious to a problem or don't care.

silver & black
06-20-2009, 08:36 AM
"While the criminal justice system has determined the legal consequences of this incident, it is my responsibility as NFL Commissioner to determine appropriate league discipline for your actions, which have caused irreparable harm to the victim and his family, your club, your fellow players and the NFL."

What I get from that is.... since a life was lost, he was forced to take appropriate action... while everyone else, and certain teams, are treated with a slap on the wrist. Goodell sucks.

SteelersinCA
06-20-2009, 12:14 PM
I think what you've just gone out of your way to prove is that by their nature, laws are pretty blunt instruments because they have to be written so broadly ... so the law as written may or may not be a very effective tool when you get down to a specific case, and it may spit out a result that's completely unacceptable to a lot of people. That's become particularly true of late, with judges and lawyers becoming more and more constrained by regulations that attempt to legislate human judgment out of the picture. It may not even be the law itself that's the problem, but our methods of applying the law, but either way, it only makes the justice system seem like more of a random roll of the dice.

I don't see anything wrong with being unhappy about that, and when you get down to it, that's the fundamental issue that most people seem to be upset about here. Taking the attitude of "oh well, the law is the law and it's there for a reason" doesn't make the law any more effective, or really do anything except sound like you are oblivious to a problem or don't care.

I said the law is the law unless you want to change it. We absolutely have the vehicle to change it. You just have to decide if you are upset enough only to post on a message board or to actually do something about it. It's sort of like Bush v Gore; remember how insanely upset people were that GWB won the electoral college but lost the popular vote? I'm sure there are some people that will still ignorantly say he lost the election and shouldn't be President. I predicted then of all the people upset with the way the system works, no one would try to change it. Same thing here. The system works for the vast majority of people. There will always be excpetions to ever rule, every system. There will always be every systems "Patriots." :drink:

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-21-2009, 12:52 AM
From what I have read, it is difficult to determine that Stallworth's actions alone resulted in the the mans death. It appears that the victim somehow darted across the street and while alcohol might have impaired his reaction time, its not clear that if he was cold sober........that the outcome would have been different.

That is why it appears they took the plea bargain. While it looks pretty much like 30 days for a human life and 18month for a dog's life.......it apparantly isnt that black and white.

While I personally think Vick got more than was warranted, he did break federal laws and paid the price. Stallworth used bad judgement in driving while over the legal limit, but its unclear that his level of intoxication caused the accident. IMO, Leonard Little's incident was much worse than Stallworth's.

SteelersinCA
06-21-2009, 12:39 PM
From what I have read, it is difficult to determine that Stallworth's actions alone resulted in the the mans death. It appears that the victim somehow darted across the street and while alcohol might have impaired his reaction time, its not clear that if he was cold sober........that the outcome would have been different.

That is why it appears they took the plea bargain. While it looks pretty much like 30 days for a human life and 18month for a dog's life.......it apparantly isnt that black and white.

While I personally think Vick got more than was warranted, he did break federal laws and paid the price. Stallworth used bad judgement in driving while over the legal limit, but its unclear that his level of intoxication caused the accident. IMO, Leonard Little's incident was much worse than Stallworth's.

Bingo!!!:thumbsup:

steelreserve
06-22-2009, 12:51 AM
I said the law is the law unless you want to change it. We absolutely have the vehicle to change it. You just have to decide if you are upset enough only to post on a message board or to actually do something about it. It's sort of like Bush v Gore; remember how insanely upset people were that GWB won the electoral college but lost the popular vote? I'm sure there are some people that will still ignorantly say he lost the election and shouldn't be President. I predicted then of all the people upset with the way the system works, no one would try to change it. Same thing here. The system works for the vast majority of people. There will always be excpetions to ever rule, every system. There will always be every systems "Patriots." :drink:

Well, that's the core of the issue right there. It's a question of access to "The System," and for the average person, there really isn't much of that unless you dedicate your entire life to changing the law.

Let's say I wanted to change the law in California so Stallworth would've gotten more time in jail. Where would I start? I could write a letter to my congressman, and it would be ignored. I could write to my state legislator, and it would be ignored. I could write a letter to the editor, maybe they'll publish it, but even then, nothing comes of it. At any point along the way on those paths, there's a "gatekeeper" who's more likely than not to dismiss you as a crazy person for having such an intense interest in a subject.

So there go the easy options ... what else? I could try to get a ballot measure passed -- but wait, this state is so big and unmanageable that you need more than a million signatures to do that. So good luck unless I'm already heavily involved and connected in politics. I guess I could run for office, or hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. Those could conceivably work.

Problem is, with any of those, you're right back to dedicating your whole life to it, and that's not something most people can afford to do. That's why I really do believe there's become a disconnect in our system of "representation," and it's discouraging enough that common people mostly won't take more than a passing interest in it. So if it doesn't affect you or your family directly ... well, then yeah, mostly you don't have the time or energy to do more than register your complaint in a general sense. Multiply that by 50 issues you're unhappy with and could potentially be fighting for, and it looks even more pointless. That's why you find me here on the message board instead out on the street marching and breaking bottles or whatever it is you supposed I should be doing.

Sorry, man. Your theory works well on paper, but it's pretty hopeless down here at ground level.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-22-2009, 01:18 AM
I heard of a case where somebody was behind the wheel of a car and over the legal limit. They were hit while stopped at a light and the person that hit them ended up being injured.

Just being behind the wheel and over the legal limit does not make you guilty.

"No matter how thin you slice it...there are always 2 sides".

SteelersinCA
06-22-2009, 10:10 AM
Well, that's the core of the issue right there. It's a question of access to "The System," and for the average person, there really isn't much of that unless you dedicate your entire life to changing the law.

Let's say I wanted to change the law in California so Stallworth would've gotten more time in jail. Where would I start? I could write a letter to my congressman, and it would be ignored. I could write to my state legislator, and it would be ignored. I could write a letter to the editor, maybe they'll publish it, but even then, nothing comes of it. At any point along the way on those paths, there's a "gatekeeper" who's more likely than not to dismiss you as a crazy person for having such an intense interest in a subject.

So there go the easy options ... what else? I could try to get a ballot measure passed -- but wait, this state is so big and unmanageable that you need more than a million signatures to do that. So good luck unless I'm already heavily involved and connected in politics. I guess I could run for office, or hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. Those could conceivably work.

Problem is, with any of those, you're right back to dedicating your whole life to it, and that's not something most people can afford to do. That's why I really do believe there's become a disconnect in our system of "representation," and it's discouraging enough that common people mostly won't take more than a passing interest in it. So if it doesn't affect you or your family directly ... well, then yeah, mostly you don't have the time or energy to do more than register your complaint in a general sense. Multiply that by 50 issues you're unhappy with and could potentially be fighting for, and it looks even more pointless. That's why you find me here on the message board instead out on the street marching and breaking bottles or whatever it is you supposed I should be doing.

Sorry, man. Your theory works well on paper, but it's pretty hopeless down here at ground level.

Ever heard of MADD? They are responsible for the vast majority of law changes in the nation re: DUI. There is an equally strong argument that they have gone over the line.

Just because it is difficult to change a law does not mean the system is broke. If it were easy to change laws, laws would change all the time. You are right that a lot goes into a law being changed, enacted, repealed, whatever, and it should. You shouldn't be able to wake up one morning and say, I don't like this, let's change it. Most laws have been vetted substantially, so you are bound to meet some resistance. Likewise if you can't find a million people to sign on to your new law in a state the size of CA, maybe your proposal isn't that great. It should be a challenge to change to law and I have no qualms with it being that way.

steelreserve
06-22-2009, 12:51 PM
Ever heard of MADD? They are responsible for the vast majority of law changes in the nation re: DUI. There is an equally strong argument that they have gone over the line.

Just because it is difficult to change a law does not mean the system is broke. If it were easy to change laws, laws would change all the time. You are right that a lot goes into a law being changed, enacted, repealed, whatever, and it should. You shouldn't be able to wake up one morning and say, I don't like this, let's change it. Most laws have been vetted substantially, so you are bound to meet some resistance. Likewise if you can't find a million people to sign on to your new law in a state the size of CA, maybe your proposal isn't that great. It should be a challenge to change to law and I have no qualms with it being that way.

Nor would I have a problem with it ... 10 or 15 years ago. However, at some point since then, it seems like the disconnect between the public and the legislative process has grown to the point where laws are basically created in a vacuum and the "substantial vetting" is mostly to make sure it won't cause the state to get sued by some disgruntled minority. Which usually happens anyway, the result being that half the time, the courts take it upon themselves to write the law unilaterally, in which case it's tailored to the small but vocal minority.

Then when people get upset that the legislative process isn't working, you get the ballot initiatives from the public trying to overrule the legislature, and of course half of them are poorly thought out themselves but pass anyway due to an overwhelming feeling of general resentment that the system isn't looking out for you, so you have to do it yourself. California in particular is really a great case study of a legislative system that has become broken and paralyzed with fear, complete with a public backlash that's equally broken in its own right.

There are really four parts to the problem in California -- the size of the state being unmanageable, so that one state legislator is theoretically supposed to represent a million people accurately and be receptive to them (good luck) ... which leads to money being ever more important to political achievement (further disconnecting the average person) ... the fact that, for some reason, this state now feels the need to legislate everything to death ... and finally, the increasing power of the litigious few to dictate the law for everyone else by basically abusing the legal system to hold the rest of us hostage.

The end result being that a lot of laws are made that aren't very good, and it's pretty hopeless to spend the effort to change one, because three new ones will spring up in its place. Your faith in the legislative system is really faith in a system that ceased to exist a number of years ago.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm pretty far removed from just talking about drunk driving by now.

Kaeg
06-26-2009, 11:09 PM
Not to rehash this subject again, but I couldn't help but think of this topic and how it relates to common people vs celebrities because of what I just heard on my local news this morning. A guy ran into the back of a motorcycle while drunk; killing the motorcyclist. Got 4-12 years today. Just a little food for thought.

HughC
07-02-2009, 01:22 PM
I didn't think this was worthy of a separate thread, so I'll add this news here:
Judge won't release video of Donte Stallworth hitting pedestrian - Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1124494.html)

A Miami-Dade judge on Thursday refused to release surveillance video that captured NFL player Donte' Stallworth fatally hitting a pedestrian who was crossing the MacArthur Causeway.

Stallworth, 28, is serving 30 days in a Miami-Dade jail after last month pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter in the drunk driving death of Mario Reyes, 59.

Reyes' family members, along with prosecutors, had asked that the video be restricted because its posting on the Internet or release on television would cause emotional trauma, especially for Reyes' 15-year-old daughter.

continue reading ... (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1124494.html)

The column also has a video of a Miami police officer administering the field sobriety test to Stallworth.

revefsreleets
07-02-2009, 01:33 PM
They also have confirmed that he was also smoking dope at the time. That obviously makes the 30 days even more of an atrocity.