Donte Stallworth wins Ed Block Courage Award (1 Viewer)

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Can anyone explain to me how Stallworth had the time and presence of mind to flash his lights at the pedestrian but did NOT have the time or presence of mind to put his foot on the brake?

I mean, he has to acknowledge the guy, recognize he wants to flash his brights as a response, reach for them (or whatever) and actually flash them. That has to take a couple of seconds minimum and several feet of space travelling at that speed. Why not acknowledge the guy and slam on the brakes instead? What am I missing here?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Can anyone explain to me how Stallworth had the time and presence of mind to flash his lights at the pedestrian but did NOT have the time or presence of mind to put his foot on the brake? I mean, he has to acknowledge the guy, recognize he wants to flash his brights as a response, reach for them (or whatever) and actually flash them. That has to take a couple of seconds minimum and several feet of space travelling at that speed. Why not acknowledge the guy and slam on the brakes instead? What am I missing here?

The same question I've asked several times now without a cogent response.

 

[Football Critic]

Can anyone explain to me how Stallworth had the time and presence of mind to flash his lights at the pedestrian but did NOT have the time or presence of mind to put his foot on the brake? I mean, he has to acknowledge the guy, recognize he wants to flash his brights as a response, reach for them (or whatever) and actually flash them. That has to take a couple of seconds minimum and several feet of space travelling at that speed. Why not acknowledge the guy and slam on the brakes instead? What am I missing here?

The same question I've asked several times now without a cogent response.

Exactly, but you should know the type of people we are dealing with, since they are defending an action of a drunk driver...and BY LAW he was drunk.On a baseball note, now Miggy Cabrera will get the same unharsh treatment in Florida as he was taking drinks in a vehicle on the side of a road with a deputy looking at him, lol. And for what it is worth, huge Miggy and Tigers fan.Kill someone or not, if you drink and drive, you deserve the harshest treatment.

 

[Instinctive]

Can anyone explain to me how Stallworth had the time and presence of mind to flash his lights at the pedestrian but did NOT have the time or presence of mind to put his foot on the brake?

I mean, he has to acknowledge the guy, recognize he wants to flash his brights as a response, reach for them (or whatever) and actually flash them. That has to take a couple of seconds minimum and several feet of space travelling at that speed. Why not acknowledge the guy and slam on the brakes instead? What am I missing here?

The same question I've asked several times now without a cogent response.

Exactly, but you should know the type of people we are dealing with, since they are defending an action of a drunk driver...and BY LAW he was drunk.On a baseball note, now Miggy Cabrera will get the same unharsh treatment in Florida as he was taking drinks in a vehicle on the side of a road with a deputy looking at him, lol. And for what it is worth, huge Miggy and Tigers fan.

Kill someone or not, if you drink and drive, you deserve the harshest treatment.

Finally, something I agree with.In response to Hustler:

I have no idea ho fast he was going, but if it was more than 40 or so then the few feet saved by braking instead of not flashing the headlights doesn't make a difference. In fact, braking is a terrible idea. In this situation it is advisable to try and steer out of the way.

Not to mention, perhaps he flashed his brights at the guy while he still wasn't in the road yet? I have no idea, but if a guy is on the sidewalk, I'm not slamming on the breaks right away either...

 

[Da Guru]

Stallworth probably flashed his lights to warn the jaywalker and he still tried to cross. Sometimes when I see deer on the side of the roadway I will flash my lights just to warn them I am coming. Once in awhile they still wander into the road.

 

[Truman]

The guy ran into the passenger side of Stallworth's car and his feet got run over. His head hitting the tarmac is what killed him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...5/mcnabb/1.html

"I understood why people were angry about the sentence,'' said Stallworth. "I understand human psychology; I majored in psychology at Tennessee. Everyone wants every story to be black and white, but sometime they're not. It was an intricate case. People hear 'alcohol' and they hear 'deceased' and they tie the two together. But this case just wasn't that easy. I can tell you from being in the middle of it, the police did extensive investigation into the case, and they had no reason to let me off easy.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7If1Gk

When the cell phone rang in his Miami condo around 2 a.m. on March 14, 2009, Stallworth had been asleep for five hours. He'd worked out hard the previous day, a Friday, and gone to bed early, planning to sleep through the night and fly to Cleveland that Saturday evening. Monday was the start of offseason workouts for the Browns, and Stallworth planned to show new coach Eric Mangini he was set to be a stalwart receiver and team leader after having signed a rich extension with the team.

Stallworth has thought about the phone call often -- during his 24 days in a Miami jail, during his long days of house arrest, during workouts, during everything.

"If I could change one thing?'' he said to me. "I wouldn't have gotten out of bed at 2 in the morning. The main thing I've learned through this is that everything you do, every decision you make, leads to subsequent actions and reactions, no matter how minute those decisions might seem at the time.''

But he did get up, and he drove from Miami into Miami Beach to attend a friend's birthday gathering at a nightclub, LIV, at the swank Fontainebleau Hotel. He arrived about 3. He bought a bottle of liquor for his friend's table, and had a couple of shots out of the bottle. Then, Stallworth said, he went to the bar, met some women and did a couple of shots with them. "Four shots total,'' he told me. After that, the party adjourned to his friend's hotel room upstairs.

I asked Stallworth about smoking marijuana that night, and he said he didn't. But he said he had smoked pot on a short vacation trip the previous weekend.

Some time after 5, Stallworth left the Fontainebleau and drove home. "There have been times if I felt I was incapable of driving I'd call a friend of mine, even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, and I'd leave my car wherever I was,'' Stallworth said. "But on this night, I felt fine, so I drove home.''

He was back in bed about 5:45, but he slept only a short time. About 6:45, he woke up hungry. Because he was leaving for Cleveland that day, he said he'd cleaned out his refrigerator and had nothing to eat in the house. So he got back in his car, a Bentley, and drove toward the MacArthur Causeway, a six-lane, half-mile-long highway from downtown Miami to Miami Beach with several 24-hour restaurants. It was still mostly dark in the morning; sunrise on this day was 7:31 a.m., with Daylight Savings Time having gone into effect the previous weekend.

As Stallworth neared Miami Beach in moderately heavy morning traffic, he was in the far left lane of the three east-bound lanes of traffic. Coming suddenly from his far right, he said he noticed a shadow of a figure running across the right lane. He flicked his lights at the running figure twice and in a split-second had a decision to make -- slam on his brakes and risk a chain-reaction collision; swerve hard to the left into the concrete median; swerve right, which would take him into the path of the runner; or gently hit his brakes and hope the runner stopped. Even with the suddenness of the figure running across the road, he figured the runner would stop rather than try to beat a vehicle that wouldn't be able to stop suddenly enough to avoid a collision.

"Obviously, I wasn't expecting him to cross all the lanes,'' Stallworth said. "By the time I saw him, I thought I had time to gently apply my brakes and hope he'd just stop [in the road while Stallworth's car passed]. I couldn't turn left, because I'd go right into the concrete barrier. I thought maybe he'd see me and figure he should just stop and wait 'til I went by.''

The man didn't stop. Reyes, coming off a night shift for a construction company and running for a bus on the other side of the highway, thudded into the passenger side of Stallworth's Bentley.

"But he didn't die from the impact,'' Stallworth said, somberly. "His feet got run over by my tires, and he fell, and his head hit the concrete.''

Stallworth stopped in the left lane, put on his emergency flashers and reached into the back seat for his cell phone. While he looked out the back window and saw Reyes lying in the road, he dialed 911 and eventually figured out where to tell the operator to send help. He thought he'd be able to look down at the figure in the road when he walked back to the scene, but he couldn't look. By that time, a police officer was there, radioing for help.

"Shock was the first emotion,'' Stallworth said. "I drive that causeway all the time. I never see people running across it.''

When the police began questioning him, Stallworth answered everything. "I waived my Miranda rights,'' he said, meaning the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. "I just wanted to be 100 percent cooperative. It didn't hit me that I might be in some trouble until they gave me the field sobriety test.''

Stallworth's blood-alcohol content was .126. The Florida limit for driving while impaired is .08, so Stallworth was above the legal limit by 50 percent. He insists he did not feel impaired the night of the accident, and there's no certainty the accident would have been avoided had he been within the legal limit. But once he tested 50 percent over the limit, it was clear the combination of events would be linked, rightfully, in the eyes of the police.

From there, life unraveled. He pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in June and reached a settlement with the Reyes family; I've heard Stallworth paid the family at least $3 million. In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of "community control'' confinement, eight years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. ("Community control'' is less harsh than house arrest, which would have meant 24-hour-a-day electronic monitoring. Community control is more a strict probation; Stallworth is not allowed to drive for at least four more years, but he can leave home for work, church, medical, legal and community service activities, and for any approved activities by his probation officer.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

 

[Da Guru]

The guy ran into the passenger side of Stallworth's car and his feet got run over. His head hitting the tarmac is what killed him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...5/mcnabb/1.html

"I understood why people were angry about the sentence,'' said Stallworth. "I understand human psychology; I majored in psychology at Tennessee. Everyone wants every story to be black and white, but sometime they're not. It was an intricate case. People hear 'alcohol' and they hear 'deceased' and they tie the two together. But this case just wasn't that easy. I can tell you from being in the middle of it, the police did extensive investigation into the case, and they had no reason to let me off easy.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7If1Gk

When the cell phone rang in his Miami condo around 2 a.m. on March 14, 2009, Stallworth had been asleep for five hours. He'd worked out hard the previous day, a Friday, and gone to bed early, planning to sleep through the night and fly to Cleveland that Saturday evening. Monday was the start of offseason workouts for the Browns, and Stallworth planned to show new coach Eric Mangini he was set to be a stalwart receiver and team leader after having signed a rich extension with the team.

Stallworth has thought about the phone call often -- during his 24 days in a Miami jail, during his long days of house arrest, during workouts, during everything.

"If I could change one thing?'' he said to me. "I wouldn't have gotten out of bed at 2 in the morning. The main thing I've learned through this is that everything you do, every decision you make, leads to subsequent actions and reactions, no matter how minute those decisions might seem at the time.''

But he did get up, and he drove from Miami into Miami Beach to attend a friend's birthday gathering at a nightclub, LIV, at the swank Fontainebleau Hotel. He arrived about 3. He bought a bottle of liquor for his friend's table, and had a couple of shots out of the bottle. Then, Stallworth said, he went to the bar, met some women and did a couple of shots with them. "Four shots total,'' he told me. After that, the party adjourned to his friend's hotel room upstairs.

I asked Stallworth about smoking marijuana that night, and he said he didn't. But he said he had smoked pot on a short vacation trip the previous weekend.

Some time after 5, Stallworth left the Fontainebleau and drove home. "There have been times if I felt I was incapable of driving I'd call a friend of mine, even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, and I'd leave my car wherever I was,'' Stallworth said. "But on this night, I felt fine, so I drove home.''

He was back in bed about 5:45, but he slept only a short time. About 6:45, he woke up hungry. Because he was leaving for Cleveland that day, he said he'd cleaned out his refrigerator and had nothing to eat in the house. So he got back in his car, a Bentley, and drove toward the MacArthur Causeway, a six-lane, half-mile-long highway from downtown Miami to Miami Beach with several 24-hour restaurants. It was still mostly dark in the morning; sunrise on this day was 7:31 a.m., with Daylight Savings Time having gone into effect the previous weekend.

As Stallworth neared Miami Beach in moderately heavy morning traffic, he was in the far left lane of the three east-bound lanes of traffic. Coming suddenly from his far right, he said he noticed a shadow of a figure running across the right lane. He flicked his lights at the running figure twice and in a split-second had a decision to make -- slam on his brakes and risk a chain-reaction collision; swerve hard to the left into the concrete median; swerve right, which would take him into the path of the runner; or gently hit his brakes and hope the runner stopped. Even with the suddenness of the figure running across the road, he figured the runner would stop rather than try to beat a vehicle that wouldn't be able to stop suddenly enough to avoid a collision.

"Obviously, I wasn't expecting him to cross all the lanes,'' Stallworth said. "By the time I saw him, I thought I had time to gently apply my brakes and hope he'd just stop [in the road while Stallworth's car passed]. I couldn't turn left, because I'd go right into the concrete barrier. I thought maybe he'd see me and figure he should just stop and wait 'til I went by.''

The man didn't stop. Reyes, coming off a night shift for a construction company and running for a bus on the other side of the highway, thudded into the passenger side of Stallworth's Bentley.

"But he didn't die from the impact,'' Stallworth said, somberly. "His feet got run over by my tires, and he fell, and his head hit the concrete.''

Stallworth stopped in the left lane, put on his emergency flashers and reached into the back seat for his cell phone. While he looked out the back window and saw Reyes lying in the road, he dialed 911 and eventually figured out where to tell the operator to send help. He thought he'd be able to look down at the figure in the road when he walked back to the scene, but he couldn't look. By that time, a police officer was there, radioing for help.

"Shock was the first emotion,'' Stallworth said. "I drive that causeway all the time. I never see people running across it.''

When the police began questioning him, Stallworth answered everything. "I waived my Miranda rights,'' he said, meaning the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. "I just wanted to be 100 percent cooperative. It didn't hit me that I might be in some trouble until they gave me the field sobriety test.''

Stallworth's blood-alcohol content was .126. The Florida limit for driving while impaired is .08, so Stallworth was above the legal limit by 50 percent. He insists he did not feel impaired the night of the accident, and there's no certainty the accident would have been avoided had he been within the legal limit. But once he tested 50 percent over the limit, it was clear the combination of events would be linked, rightfully, in the eyes of the police.

From there, life unraveled. He pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in June and reached a settlement with the Reyes family; I've heard Stallworth paid the family at least $3 million. In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of "community control'' confinement, eight years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. ("Community control'' is less harsh than house arrest, which would have meant 24-hour-a-day electronic monitoring. Community control is more a strict probation; Stallworth is not allowed to drive for at least four more years, but he can leave home for work, church, medical, legal and community service activities, and for any approved activities by his probation officer.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

How can you avoid a person running into the side of your vehicle? This was just an accident.

 

[Football Critic]

The guy ran into the passenger side of Stallworth's car and his feet got run over. His head hitting the tarmac is what killed him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...5/mcnabb/1.html

"I understood why people were angry about the sentence,'' said Stallworth. "I understand human psychology; I majored in psychology at Tennessee. Everyone wants every story to be black and white, but sometime they're not. It was an intricate case. People hear 'alcohol' and they hear 'deceased' and they tie the two together. But this case just wasn't that easy. I can tell you from being in the middle of it, the police did extensive investigation into the case, and they had no reason to let me off easy.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7If1Gk

When the cell phone rang in his Miami condo around 2 a.m. on March 14, 2009, Stallworth had been asleep for five hours. He'd worked out hard the previous day, a Friday, and gone to bed early, planning to sleep through the night and fly to Cleveland that Saturday evening. Monday was the start of offseason workouts for the Browns, and Stallworth planned to show new coach Eric Mangini he was set to be a stalwart receiver and team leader after having signed a rich extension with the team.

Stallworth has thought about the phone call often -- during his 24 days in a Miami jail, during his long days of house arrest, during workouts, during everything.

"If I could change one thing?'' he said to me. "I wouldn't have gotten out of bed at 2 in the morning. The main thing I've learned through this is that everything you do, every decision you make, leads to subsequent actions and reactions, no matter how minute those decisions might seem at the time.''

But he did get up, and he drove from Miami into Miami Beach to attend a friend's birthday gathering at a nightclub, LIV, at the swank Fontainebleau Hotel. He arrived about 3. He bought a bottle of liquor for his friend's table, and had a couple of shots out of the bottle. Then, Stallworth said, he went to the bar, met some women and did a couple of shots with them. "Four shots total,'' he told me. After that, the party adjourned to his friend's hotel room upstairs.

I asked Stallworth about smoking marijuana that night, and he said he didn't. But he said he had smoked pot on a short vacation trip the previous weekend.

Some time after 5, Stallworth left the Fontainebleau and drove home. "There have been times if I felt I was incapable of driving I'd call a friend of mine, even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, and I'd leave my car wherever I was,'' Stallworth said. "But on this night, I felt fine, so I drove home.''

He was back in bed about 5:45, but he slept only a short time. About 6:45, he woke up hungry. Because he was leaving for Cleveland that day, he said he'd cleaned out his refrigerator and had nothing to eat in the house. So he got back in his car, a Bentley, and drove toward the MacArthur Causeway, a six-lane, half-mile-long highway from downtown Miami to Miami Beach with several 24-hour restaurants. It was still mostly dark in the morning; sunrise on this day was 7:31 a.m., with Daylight Savings Time having gone into effect the previous weekend.

As Stallworth neared Miami Beach in moderately heavy morning traffic, he was in the far left lane of the three east-bound lanes of traffic. Coming suddenly from his far right, he said he noticed a shadow of a figure running across the right lane. He flicked his lights at the running figure twice and in a split-second had a decision to make -- slam on his brakes and risk a chain-reaction collision; swerve hard to the left into the concrete median; swerve right, which would take him into the path of the runner; or gently hit his brakes and hope the runner stopped. Even with the suddenness of the figure running across the road, he figured the runner would stop rather than try to beat a vehicle that wouldn't be able to stop suddenly enough to avoid a collision.

"Obviously, I wasn't expecting him to cross all the lanes,'' Stallworth said. "By the time I saw him, I thought I had time to gently apply my brakes and hope he'd just stop [in the road while Stallworth's car passed]. I couldn't turn left, because I'd go right into the concrete barrier. I thought maybe he'd see me and figure he should just stop and wait 'til I went by.''

The man didn't stop. Reyes, coming off a night shift for a construction company and running for a bus on the other side of the highway, thudded into the passenger side of Stallworth's Bentley.

"But he didn't die from the impact,'' Stallworth said, somberly. "His feet got run over by my tires, and he fell, and his head hit the concrete.''

Stallworth stopped in the left lane, put on his emergency flashers and reached into the back seat for his cell phone. While he looked out the back window and saw Reyes lying in the road, he dialed 911 and eventually figured out where to tell the operator to send help. He thought he'd be able to look down at the figure in the road when he walked back to the scene, but he couldn't look. By that time, a police officer was there, radioing for help.

"Shock was the first emotion,'' Stallworth said. "I drive that causeway all the time. I never see people running across it.''

When the police began questioning him, Stallworth answered everything. "I waived my Miranda rights,'' he said, meaning the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. "I just wanted to be 100 percent cooperative. It didn't hit me that I might be in some trouble until they gave me the field sobriety test.''

Stallworth's blood-alcohol content was .126. The Florida limit for driving while impaired is .08, so Stallworth was above the legal limit by 50 percent. He insists he did not feel impaired the night of the accident, and there's no certainty the accident would have been avoided had he been within the legal limit. But once he tested 50 percent over the limit, it was clear the combination of events would be linked, rightfully, in the eyes of the police.

From there, life unraveled. He pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in June and reached a settlement with the Reyes family; I've heard Stallworth paid the family at least $3 million. In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of "community control'' confinement, eight years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. ("Community control'' is less harsh than house arrest, which would have meant 24-hour-a-day electronic monitoring. Community control is more a strict probation; Stallworth is not allowed to drive for at least four more years, but he can leave home for work, church, medical, legal and community service activities, and for any approved activities by his probation officer.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

How can you avoid a person running into the side of your vehicle? This was just an accident.

Or he would not of walked into the car if a drunk driver was not on the road.No matter what the situation, it is always your fault if your drinking and driving...ALWAYS!

He could have been wanting to lay in the road to commit suicide, but if your drunk, its always your fault.

Drunk driving is morally, ethicly, and legally wrong.

 

[BespokeJort]

The guy ran into the passenger side of Stallworth's car and his feet got run over. His head hitting the tarmac is what killed him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...5/mcnabb/1.html

"I understood why people were angry about the sentence,'' said Stallworth. "I understand human psychology; I majored in psychology at Tennessee. Everyone wants every story to be black and white, but sometime they're not. It was an intricate case. People hear 'alcohol' and they hear 'deceased' and they tie the two together. But this case just wasn't that easy. I can tell you from being in the middle of it, the police did extensive investigation into the case, and they had no reason to let me off easy.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7If1Gk

When the cell phone rang in his Miami condo around 2 a.m. on March 14, 2009, Stallworth had been asleep for five hours. He'd worked out hard the previous day, a Friday, and gone to bed early, planning to sleep through the night and fly to Cleveland that Saturday evening. Monday was the start of offseason workouts for the Browns, and Stallworth planned to show new coach Eric Mangini he was set to be a stalwart receiver and team leader after having signed a rich extension with the team.

Stallworth has thought about the phone call often -- during his 24 days in a Miami jail, during his long days of house arrest, during workouts, during everything.

"If I could change one thing?'' he said to me. "I wouldn't have gotten out of bed at 2 in the morning. The main thing I've learned through this is that everything you do, every decision you make, leads to subsequent actions and reactions, no matter how minute those decisions might seem at the time.''

But he did get up, and he drove from Miami into Miami Beach to attend a friend's birthday gathering at a nightclub, LIV, at the swank Fontainebleau Hotel. He arrived about 3. He bought a bottle of liquor for his friend's table, and had a couple of shots out of the bottle. Then, Stallworth said, he went to the bar, met some women and did a couple of shots with them. "Four shots total,'' he told me. After that, the party adjourned to his friend's hotel room upstairs.

I asked Stallworth about smoking marijuana that night, and he said he didn't. But he said he had smoked pot on a short vacation trip the previous weekend.

Some time after 5, Stallworth left the Fontainebleau and drove home. "There have been times if I felt I was incapable of driving I'd call a friend of mine, even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, and I'd leave my car wherever I was,'' Stallworth said. "But on this night, I felt fine, so I drove home.''

He was back in bed about 5:45, but he slept only a short time. About 6:45, he woke up hungry. Because he was leaving for Cleveland that day, he said he'd cleaned out his refrigerator and had nothing to eat in the house. So he got back in his car, a Bentley, and drove toward the MacArthur Causeway, a six-lane, half-mile-long highway from downtown Miami to Miami Beach with several 24-hour restaurants. It was still mostly dark in the morning; sunrise on this day was 7:31 a.m., with Daylight Savings Time having gone into effect the previous weekend.

As Stallworth neared Miami Beach in moderately heavy morning traffic, he was in the far left lane of the three east-bound lanes of traffic. Coming suddenly from his far right, he said he noticed a shadow of a figure running across the right lane. He flicked his lights at the running figure twice and in a split-second had a decision to make -- slam on his brakes and risk a chain-reaction collision; swerve hard to the left into the concrete median; swerve right, which would take him into the path of the runner; or gently hit his brakes and hope the runner stopped. Even with the suddenness of the figure running across the road, he figured the runner would stop rather than try to beat a vehicle that wouldn't be able to stop suddenly enough to avoid a collision.

"Obviously, I wasn't expecting him to cross all the lanes,'' Stallworth said. "By the time I saw him, I thought I had time to gently apply my brakes and hope he'd just stop [in the road while Stallworth's car passed]. I couldn't turn left, because I'd go right into the concrete barrier. I thought maybe he'd see me and figure he should just stop and wait 'til I went by.''

The man didn't stop. Reyes, coming off a night shift for a construction company and running for a bus on the other side of the highway, thudded into the passenger side of Stallworth's Bentley.

"But he didn't die from the impact,'' Stallworth said, somberly. "His feet got run over by my tires, and he fell, and his head hit the concrete.''

Stallworth stopped in the left lane, put on his emergency flashers and reached into the back seat for his cell phone. While he looked out the back window and saw Reyes lying in the road, he dialed 911 and eventually figured out where to tell the operator to send help. He thought he'd be able to look down at the figure in the road when he walked back to the scene, but he couldn't look. By that time, a police officer was there, radioing for help.

"Shock was the first emotion,'' Stallworth said. "I drive that causeway all the time. I never see people running across it.''

When the police began questioning him, Stallworth answered everything. "I waived my Miranda rights,'' he said, meaning the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. "I just wanted to be 100 percent cooperative. It didn't hit me that I might be in some trouble until they gave me the field sobriety test.''

Stallworth's blood-alcohol content was .126. The Florida limit for driving while impaired is .08, so Stallworth was above the legal limit by 50 percent. He insists he did not feel impaired the night of the accident, and there's no certainty the accident would have been avoided had he been within the legal limit. But once he tested 50 percent over the limit, it was clear the combination of events would be linked, rightfully, in the eyes of the police.

From there, life unraveled. He pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in June and reached a settlement with the Reyes family; I've heard Stallworth paid the family at least $3 million. In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of "community control'' confinement, eight years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. ("Community control'' is less harsh than house arrest, which would have meant 24-hour-a-day electronic monitoring. Community control is more a strict probation; Stallworth is not allowed to drive for at least four more years, but he can leave home for work, church, medical, legal and community service activities, and for any approved activities by his probation officer.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

How can you avoid a person running into the side of your vehicle? This was just an accident.

Or he would not of walked into the car if a drunk driver was not on the road.No matter what the situation, it is always your fault if your drinking and driving...ALWAYS!

He could have been wanting to lay in the road to commit suicide, but if your drunk, its always your fault.

Drunk driving is morally, ethicly, and legally wrong.

LOLI finally figured out that FC is parodying others in the thread. Quite the Stephen Colbert act. Sorry I'm a little slow and didn't figure it out sooner

 

[Football Critic]

The guy ran into the passenger side of Stallworth's car and his feet got run over. His head hitting the tarmac is what killed him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...5/mcnabb/1.html

"I understood why people were angry about the sentence,'' said Stallworth. "I understand human psychology; I majored in psychology at Tennessee. Everyone wants every story to be black and white, but sometime they're not. It was an intricate case. People hear 'alcohol' and they hear 'deceased' and they tie the two together. But this case just wasn't that easy. I can tell you from being in the middle of it, the police did extensive investigation into the case, and they had no reason to let me off easy.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7If1Gk

When the cell phone rang in his Miami condo around 2 a.m. on March 14, 2009, Stallworth had been asleep for five hours. He'd worked out hard the previous day, a Friday, and gone to bed early, planning to sleep through the night and fly to Cleveland that Saturday evening. Monday was the start of offseason workouts for the Browns, and Stallworth planned to show new coach Eric Mangini he was set to be a stalwart receiver and team leader after having signed a rich extension with the team.

Stallworth has thought about the phone call often -- during his 24 days in a Miami jail, during his long days of house arrest, during workouts, during everything.

"If I could change one thing?'' he said to me. "I wouldn't have gotten out of bed at 2 in the morning. The main thing I've learned through this is that everything you do, every decision you make, leads to subsequent actions and reactions, no matter how minute those decisions might seem at the time.''

But he did get up, and he drove from Miami into Miami Beach to attend a friend's birthday gathering at a nightclub, LIV, at the swank Fontainebleau Hotel. He arrived about 3. He bought a bottle of liquor for his friend's table, and had a couple of shots out of the bottle. Then, Stallworth said, he went to the bar, met some women and did a couple of shots with them. "Four shots total,'' he told me. After that, the party adjourned to his friend's hotel room upstairs.

I asked Stallworth about smoking marijuana that night, and he said he didn't. But he said he had smoked pot on a short vacation trip the previous weekend.

Some time after 5, Stallworth left the Fontainebleau and drove home. "There have been times if I felt I was incapable of driving I'd call a friend of mine, even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning, and I'd leave my car wherever I was,'' Stallworth said. "But on this night, I felt fine, so I drove home.''

He was back in bed about 5:45, but he slept only a short time. About 6:45, he woke up hungry. Because he was leaving for Cleveland that day, he said he'd cleaned out his refrigerator and had nothing to eat in the house. So he got back in his car, a Bentley, and drove toward the MacArthur Causeway, a six-lane, half-mile-long highway from downtown Miami to Miami Beach with several 24-hour restaurants. It was still mostly dark in the morning; sunrise on this day was 7:31 a.m., with Daylight Savings Time having gone into effect the previous weekend.

As Stallworth neared Miami Beach in moderately heavy morning traffic, he was in the far left lane of the three east-bound lanes of traffic. Coming suddenly from his far right, he said he noticed a shadow of a figure running across the right lane. He flicked his lights at the running figure twice and in a split-second had a decision to make -- slam on his brakes and risk a chain-reaction collision; swerve hard to the left into the concrete median; swerve right, which would take him into the path of the runner; or gently hit his brakes and hope the runner stopped. Even with the suddenness of the figure running across the road, he figured the runner would stop rather than try to beat a vehicle that wouldn't be able to stop suddenly enough to avoid a collision.

"Obviously, I wasn't expecting him to cross all the lanes,'' Stallworth said. "By the time I saw him, I thought I had time to gently apply my brakes and hope he'd just stop [in the road while Stallworth's car passed]. I couldn't turn left, because I'd go right into the concrete barrier. I thought maybe he'd see me and figure he should just stop and wait 'til I went by.''

The man didn't stop. Reyes, coming off a night shift for a construction company and running for a bus on the other side of the highway, thudded into the passenger side of Stallworth's Bentley.

"But he didn't die from the impact,'' Stallworth said, somberly. "His feet got run over by my tires, and he fell, and his head hit the concrete.''

Stallworth stopped in the left lane, put on his emergency flashers and reached into the back seat for his cell phone. While he looked out the back window and saw Reyes lying in the road, he dialed 911 and eventually figured out where to tell the operator to send help. He thought he'd be able to look down at the figure in the road when he walked back to the scene, but he couldn't look. By that time, a police officer was there, radioing for help.

"Shock was the first emotion,'' Stallworth said. "I drive that causeway all the time. I never see people running across it.''

When the police began questioning him, Stallworth answered everything. "I waived my Miranda rights,'' he said, meaning the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police questioning. "I just wanted to be 100 percent cooperative. It didn't hit me that I might be in some trouble until they gave me the field sobriety test.''

Stallworth's blood-alcohol content was .126. The Florida limit for driving while impaired is .08, so Stallworth was above the legal limit by 50 percent. He insists he did not feel impaired the night of the accident, and there's no certainty the accident would have been avoided had he been within the legal limit. But once he tested 50 percent over the limit, it was clear the combination of events would be linked, rightfully, in the eyes of the police.

From there, life unraveled. He pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in June and reached a settlement with the Reyes family; I've heard Stallworth paid the family at least $3 million. In addition, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years of "community control'' confinement, eight years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service. ("Community control'' is less harsh than house arrest, which would have meant 24-hour-a-day electronic monitoring. Community control is more a strict probation; Stallworth is not allowed to drive for at least four more years, but he can leave home for work, church, medical, legal and community service activities, and for any approved activities by his probation officer.)

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

How can you avoid a person running into the side of your vehicle? This was just an accident.

Or he would not of walked into the car if a drunk driver was not on the road.No matter what the situation, it is always your fault if your drinking and driving...ALWAYS!

He could have been wanting to lay in the road to commit suicide, but if your drunk, its always your fault.

Drunk driving is morally, ethicly, and legally wrong.

LOLI finally figured out that FC is parodying others in the thread. Quite the Stephen Colbert act. Sorry I'm a little slow and didn't figure it out sooner

Seriously? LOL is right, call me what ever you like. My point is if you blow past the legal limit, and you were driving, you are a degenerate human being with no respect for your own life or others. Continue to mock me, I love the haters.

I wonder how many uneducated people on this board would feel the same way if it was their own family member? I would bet everything I have, that none of you would defend this action in anyway. So if your defending drinking and driving, your fake.

 

[Instinctive]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

 

[BespokeJort]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

This, exactly. We're not arguing that he's not guilty of the DUI, or defending the DUI, but that doesn't mean the DUI was the proximate cause of the accident. It's a fairly simple idea to grasp, and the inability to do so suggests that you probably shouldn't be throwing around 'uneducated' at those who disagree with you.On a side note, anyone arguing that he's getting the star athlete treatment seems to be forgetting that this is not mike vick/big ben/OJ simpson/kobe bryant. Hell, he's not even Leonard Little or Plaxico Burress. Donte stallworth sucks. Sure he's probably got high-priced lawyers, but I feel like if I was a judge there's no way I'd be letting him off easy for who he was...this is not the star of anyone's fantasy team or even terribly relevant to the success of the nfl team. This is not even a borderline irrelevant player who made one huge play that saved his team's bacon. If there's anyone who would be used to set an example of "pro athletes don't get off easy here" it would be him.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

 

[BespokeJort]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

he got that from the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgGan excerpt of which was posted a few posts above. Obviously it's stallworth's side of the story but one would think if such a concrete part of the story was false it would come out rather quickly (as point of impact is something that's always looked at in the event of a collision and if he had hit the guy with the front end of his car there'd be a giant dent to show for it)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

he got that from the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgGan excerpt of which was posted a few posts above. Obviously it's stallworth's side of the story but one would think if such a concrete part of the story was false it would come out rather quickly (as point of impact is something that's always looked at in the event of a collision and if he had hit the guy with the front end of his car there'd be a giant dent to show for it)

The passenger side, and "front end" could potentially be the same thing... Right side of the hood is the passenger side, right fender, right head light, right blinker, right front tire, right side of the bumper.. That's all the passenger side, also front end... And ultimately, as you've said, this is Stallworth's word, the only other person there is now dead.And he was convicted of this, was he not?

 

[BespokeJort]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

he got that from the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgGan excerpt of which was posted a few posts above. Obviously it's stallworth's side of the story but one would think if such a concrete part of the story was false it would come out rather quickly (as point of impact is something that's always looked at in the event of a collision and if he had hit the guy with the front end of his car there'd be a giant dent to show for it)

The passenger side, and "front end" could potentially be the same thing... Right side of the hood is the passenger side, right fender, right head light, right blinker, right front tire, right side of the bumper.. That's all the passenger side, also front end... And ultimately, as you've said, this is Stallworth's word, the only other person there is now dead.

And he was convicted of this, was he not?

he plead guilty. There's a difference (I don't know what he was facing if it went to trial, but generally a guilty plea will result in a much lighter sentence and possible reduced charge--e.g. dui manslaughter as opposed to vehicular homicide etc. Again, I don't have all the details in this case). If it was me, all his talk of "wanting to do the right thing" aside, even if I believed myself innocent i'd probably take the 29 days if it was between that or multiple years if I fought it and lost.Ultimately, you're right. the other guy can't speak for himself. But the investigators almost certainly looked at the impact points on the car and the nature of the guy's injuries, and if he was speaking complete BS it would likely come out (I know if I had that info and knew he was lying I would want it to get out). And his account of the story certainly seems to align itself with the punishment he received a lot better than the "he just mowed himself down and the court was so wowed by his star power they decided not to give him much time anyhow" explanation. Generally the level of the plea bargain offered is going to depend on the evidence and what the prosecutors/investigators feel they can prove--admittedly this is speculation, but if they thought he was completely at fault, they wouldn't have likely offered 29 days IMO.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's like you lack reading comprehension. Here it is, in caps for the first part.

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

he got that from the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgGan excerpt of which was posted a few posts above. Obviously it's stallworth's side of the story but one would think if such a concrete part of the story was false it would come out rather quickly (as point of impact is something that's always looked at in the event of a collision and if he had hit the guy with the front end of his car there'd be a giant dent to show for it)

The passenger side, and "front end" could potentially be the same thing... Right side of the hood is the passenger side, right fender, right head light, right blinker, right front tire, right side of the bumper.. That's all the passenger side, also front end... And ultimately, as you've said, this is Stallworth's word, the only other person there is now dead.

And he was convicted of this, was he not?

he plead guilty. There's a difference (I don't know what he was facing if it went to trial, but generally a guilty plea will result in a much lighter sentence and possible reduced charge--e.g. dui manslaughter as opposed to vehicular homicide etc. Again, I don't have all the details in this case). If it was me, all his talk of "wanting to do the right thing" aside, even if I believed myself innocent i'd probably take the 29 days if it was between that or multiple years if I fought it and lost.Ultimately, you're right. the other guy can't speak for himself. But the investigators almost certainly looked at the impact points on the car and the nature of the guy's injuries, and if he was speaking complete BS it would likely come out (I know if I had that info and knew he was lying I would want it to get out). And his account of the story certainly seems to align itself with the punishment he received a lot better than the "he just mowed himself down and the court was so wowed by his star power they decided not to give him much time anyhow" explanation. Generally the level of the plea bargain offered is going to depend on the evidence and what the prosecutors/investigators feel they can prove--admittedly this is speculation, but if they thought he was completely at fault, they wouldn't have likely offered 29 days IMO.

That's my point...

When you submit a guilty plea, you're admitting to guilt... He did do something wrong there... I wouldn't admit to doing something I didn't do.

 

[Instinctive]

Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...

But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...

If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...

Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.

That's kinda grasping at straws a bit isn't it?

 

[Da Guru]

THE DRINKING AND DRIVING ITSELF DESERVED A MUCH HARSHER PENALTY.

It still was not his fault that the guy died. The guy was an idiot. He ran into the side of a car. If my relative did the same thing, i would still call him an idiot. In fact, I lost my cousin two years ago because he was drinking and drove his motorcycle into a tree in Gulf Shores. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. He was an idiot for doing it. I still miss him, he's still family, it's still an idiotic action that led to death. Just like a guy running across the highway when he can see a car coming...and not even being run OVER, but he himself running into the side of the car. Incredibly stupid.

I'm not sure you can really say that, not being there to know one way or another.

A guy running across the street at a bad time, in the wrong place doesn't mean it's ok to run him over. Could Stalworth have been able to avoid the collision? Was he impaired? Those are questions that you can't answer...

Also, I find it hard to believe the pedestrian ran into the side of the car. Not sure where you guys get that.

On the flip side, being over the limit doesn't automatically make it your fault any more than it does to not have your seat belt on...

he got that from the story at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz1EL7Z0RgG

an excerpt of which was posted a few posts above. Obviously it's stallworth's side of the story but one would think if such a concrete part of the story was false it would come out rather quickly (as point of impact is something that's always looked at in the event of a collision and if he had hit the guy with the front end of his car there'd be a giant dent to show for it)

The passenger side, and "front end" could potentially be the same thing... Right side of the hood is the passenger side, right fender, right head light, right blinker, right front tire, right side of the bumper.. That's all the passenger side, also front end... And ultimately, as you've said, this is Stallworth's word, the only other person there is now dead.



And he was convicted of this, was he not?

he plead guilty. There's a difference (I don't know what he was facing if it went to trial, but generally a guilty plea will result in a much lighter sentence and possible reduced charge--e.g. dui manslaughter as opposed to vehicular homicide etc. Again, I don't have all the details in this case). If it was me, all his talk of "wanting to do the right thing" aside, even if I believed myself innocent i'd probably take the 29 days if it was between that or multiple years if I fought it and lost.

Ultimately, you're right. the other guy can't speak for himself. But the investigators almost certainly looked at the impact points on the car and the nature of the guy's injuries, and if he was speaking complete BS it would likely come out (I know if I had that info and knew he was lying I would want it to get out). And his account of the story certainly seems to align itself with the punishment he received a lot better than the "he just mowed himself down and the court was so wowed by his star power they decided not to give him much time anyhow" explanation. Generally the level of the plea bargain offered is going to depend on the evidence and what the prosecutors/investigators feel they can prove--admittedly this is speculation, but if they thought he was completely at fault, they wouldn't have likely offered 29 days IMO.

That's my point...

When you submit a guilty plea, you're admitting to guilt... He did do something wrong there... I wouldn't admit to doing something I didn't do.

The bottom line is that both parties had bad judgment. Stallworth did not sleep it off long enough, and the guy who ran into the side of his car made a bad decsion as well.

 

[BespokeJort]

Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...

But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...

If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...

Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.

That's kinda grasping at straws a bit isn't it?

Hard to say without statistics backing it up, but if I had to guess I'd say it happens fairly frequently. The point isn't that it happened here for certain, the point is that pleading guilty doesn't automatically mean you are...and certainly doesn't necessarily mean you agree it happened exactly the way the prosecution claims it did.

Put yourself in his shoes though...as you can see from the direction this thread has gone, the punishment he deserves is obviously a judgment call...he's admitted to the DUI, so it really boils down to interpretation of the law (and how it relates to florida's fault laws). considering that there's a significant number of people in the population here (which holds a much higher percentage of football fans than the general public) calling for him to get multiple years, would you risk that by fighting the charge on an argument when jury selection luck of the draw could put seven guys like Football Critic on the jury? Or would you think, "yes, whether or not my conduct was proximate cause of his death, i made a very serious mistake, and 29 days in jail is a price I'm willing to pay for it." In his shoes I think would I take the deal, whether I mowed him down with the grille of the car or he ran into the side of it. A month in jail would be unpleasant to say the least, but you can get on with life when you get out. Going to prison for years is life-altering for almost anyone.

Bottom line, pleading guilty in our court systems is almost never done for the catharsis of admitting guilt...it's done because it carries a lighter sentence than fighting it and losing, and the perp and his lawyers either don't think they can beat the case or aren't sure and aren't willing to risk the consequences of trying and failing.

 

[Football Critic]

Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...

But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...

If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...

Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.

Ummmmm, really?

 

[Instinctive]

Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...

But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...

If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...

Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.

Ummmmm, really?

Sorry - that post was meant for people who would actually read it. Err, I mean comprehend it...err I mean the people above you. Try thisTo the post above that ---> good point. Actually, in our legal system, because plea bargains generally get less publicity, the average American is amazed at the number of cases we plead out. It is a vast majority.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

 

[BespokeJort]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney.

However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent. Even if you wanted to posit that any person who plead innocent and was found guilty actually was (which would be wrong, see all the people who get exonerated from old charges when new evidence comes to light...not an overwhelming percentage but you've got to also assume there are some whose evidence never is discovered or who die in prison first), there's really no way to get an accurate number of how many innocent people plead guilty (how would one measure this? Obviously they're going to serve the time, and further investigation into such cases is likely fairly rare as police departments have limited resources and aren't going to throw much at cases that are already closed)

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

 

[omahabrad]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

Innocent people do go to jail sometimes, that's a fact. For example, here in Nebraska acouple years ago an officer was found guilty of planting evidence in more than one case, innocent people went to jail because he wanted to be seen as a hero that got the bad guy. You have too much blind faith in the legal system.

 

[BespokeJort]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

here's just one example, an article i read on SI a few days ago (to keep it football related anyhow) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/25/terry.harrington/index.htmlThe above guy probably didn't have the best representation ever, sure...if that one doesn't do it for you, you may want to read up on Rubin "Hurricane" Carter (a couple excellent books out there on the guy, or watch the movie for that matter).

these things happen. They're certainly not the overwhelming majority of cases, but they happen more than enough to be statistically significant, especially when the suspect is black.

Also keep in mind that in stallworth's case, the DUI part was already conceded (even if they'd wanted to fight it, he blew and blew high) so it's not a case of "if I wasn't there, no way could they find me guilty." This is a case of interpretation of the law--and look at some of the other posters in this thread; even if everything he says is true (the guy ran into the side of the car etc) there are those who still interpret that as meaning he's guilty of anywhere from DUI manslaughter to vehicular homicide.

It's a different case if you're conceding that yes, you did commit a crime, just not all of what you're being charged with. I'd say in such a case there is at least a 25 percent chance of getting the book thrown at you.

For a similar case, what if you got in a fistfight, the other guy started it but the only witnesses present were his buddies and claim you did, you punched him back, he fell and hit his head and died. Maybe you're black and he's white, and you've got a minor history so you're not gonna be looked at kindly in the eyes of the judge. Same sentences on the line; do you plead and take a month for assault or fight it and risk 25-life with the murder charge? Even if you personally would fight it, you've gotta see that there's reason a lot of people might consider the plea.

 

[SproutDaddy]

<!--quoteo(post=12935475:date=Feb 20 2011, 06:03 PM:name=Instinctive)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Instinctive @ Feb 20 2011, 06:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=12935475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Submitting a guilty plea is definitely not necessarily equal to admitting guilt. In a purely legal sense, yes. But...</b>

But I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and lack an alibi for, say, a B and E during which a death occurred (equivalent to murder), I had an argument with the dead guy the night before and a history of disagreements, no other suspects, no other B and Es in the neighborhood to establish a pattern...

If all of that was stacked against me, and I could plead guilty for a month or go to trial against a mountain of, albeit circumstantial, evidence and risk 10+ years...I just might plead it out. I'm law abiding, so I won't have to worry about three strikes later on - I was just in an incredibly unlucky situation and I didn't have any proof of innocence. I didn't want to leave it up to a jury, but if anyone asks me, I'll still declare my innocence...

Long story short - there are cases out there where it doesn't matter if you did it or not, pleading guilty might be the intelligent move.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ummmmm, really? <img src="http://static.footballguys.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=" " border="0" alt="lol.gif" />

Really. I take it you've never had legal issues.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

Innocent people do go to jail sometimes, that's a fact. For example, here in Nebraska acouple years ago an officer was found guilty of planting evidence in more than one case, innocent people went to jail because he wanted to be seen as a hero that got the bad guy. You have too much blind faith in the legal system.

Sometimes when "innocent" people are acquitted of crimes they were previously convicted of, they are acquitted based on a technicality, or based on an over zealous prosecutors/officers improper actions... but sometimes those people were guilty, just that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

I've been to court over a traffic citation that I thought I would get out of. I was guilty but I thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict, then the officer embellished the story in court and I was convicted. The officer lied to get the conviction, I shouldn't have been convicted based on his testimony, but I was indeed guilty.

I'm not saying that the court system is perfect. I know people make mistakes. But when you have a high powered lawyer involved, you don't plead guilty when you aren't..

In this particular case, seems like alot of straw grasping...

"Innocent people do go to jail sometimes"

and

'Sometimes an innocent man should plead guilty vs facing a 10 year sentence'

Either of those statements could be used to claim innocence for half this worlds prison population... Bit of a reach if you ask me. When true, those statements would be true for a VERY SMALL fraction... Like less than 1%... And we aren't talking about people who couldn't afford good representation here..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

here's just one example, an article i read on SI a few days ago (to keep it football related anyhow) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/25/terry.harrington/index.htmlThe above guy probably didn't have the best representation ever, sure...if that one doesn't do it for you, you may want to read up on Rubin "Hurricane" Carter (a couple excellent books out there on the guy, or watch the movie for that matter).

these things happen. They're certainly not the overwhelming majority of cases, but they happen more than enough to be statistically significant, especially when the suspect is black.

Also keep in mind that in stallworth's case, the DUI part was already conceded (even if they'd wanted to fight it, he blew and blew high) so it's not a case of "if I wasn't there, no way could they find me guilty." This is a case of interpretation of the law--and look at some of the other posters in this thread; even if everything he says is true (the guy ran into the side of the car etc) there are those who still interpret that as meaning he's guilty of anywhere from DUI manslaughter to vehicular homicide.

It's a different case if you're conceding that yes, you did commit a crime, just not all of what you're being charged with. I'd say in such a case there is at least a 25 percent chance of getting the book thrown at you.

For a similar case, what if you got in a fistfight, the other guy started it but the only witnesses present were his buddies and claim you did, you punched him back, he fell and hit his head and died. Maybe you're black and he's white, and you've got a minor history so you're not gonna be looked at kindly in the eyes of the judge. Same sentences on the line; do you plead and take a month for assault or fight it and risk 25-life with the murder charge? Even if you personally would fight it, you've gotta see that there's reason a lot of people might consider the plea.

Are you basing your defense on a story Stallworth told a reporter?1) The article didn't say "guy ran into the side of the car"... Said something along the lines of 'thudded against the passenger side' which could mean many things.. The right side of the bumper and the right side of the hood are passenger side...

2) Stollworth said he didn't die from the impact, that he was still alive until his head hit the ground... a) that's only Stallworth's story b) how the hell would he know? especially if he didn't get out of the car to even look at the guy. c) The guy wouldn't have hit the ground without first impacting the car. The guys head hit the ground as a result of the impact with the car... It's completely irrelivant..

To answer your question, If I was fighting with a guy, and his head hit the curb during the struggle and caused a death blow. I would be charged of involuntary manslaughter. It would still be the fault of the struggle, which I took part in. If he hit me first, but his friends said otherwise, then I'd have to fight it in court. People who would lie about such things knowing there buddy was at fault, when my life hangs in the balance are not going to be upstanding citizens, it most likely would show at some point during the trial that they are liars... I doubt seriously that I could watch one of my friends start some trouble and be killed as a result, and then turn around and lie in court to ruin an innocent mans life. I'd hate to lose a friend, but he was being an #######, and no one deserves to lose the rest of their future over an ####### whether it was a friend of mine or not.

"What if a dragon came down from the sky"... What if What if... These theoretical situations exist more in your heads than they do in reality.. None of which can be used to acquit Stallworth..

 

[houstonlibrarian]

And Michael Vick is given the key to the city in Dallas lol

Weird world we live in these days.

 

[BespokeJort]

I would say there are more guilty people pleading innocent then there are innocent people pleading guilty at a ratio of about million to 1... That's just a guess, but I think it's less likely than you're suggesting. Seems you think it's a common occurrence...

Especially if a guy has a lawyer... A DA might be able to scare an unrepresented schmuck into pleading guilty when he's innocent, but you can't prove an innocent man guilty that has a high end lawyer...

No argument with the bolded, although your ratio is obviously way high (I realize this is likely an intentional exaggeration but after some of the cockamamie statements posted in this thread it's hard to be sure). Pretty much every guy has a lawyer. If by unrepresented you mean a guy with a public defender (actual unrepresented people or those who choose to represent themselves are very few and far between), sure, the number of people who plead guilty is higher in such cases...but that opens the whole 'socioeconomic demographics of crime' issue as in any case a higher percentage of those accused (rightly AND wrongly) of crime tend to be poor and thus less likely to be able to afford their own defense attorney. However I'd hazard a guess that neither of us actually has any idea how many innocent people plead guilty and guilty people plead innocent.

Regardless, whether you're guilty or innocent, a rational decision of how to plead in any criminal case depends on the deal you can get in relation to the likely sentence if you fight it and the chances of getting off. Humans are by nature risk-averse. Many people would plead guilty and accept 29 days in jail if it eliminated a 50% or even 25% possibility of getting 10 years in prison (I know for damn sure I would), for the same reason that most people (besides gambling addicts) aren't willing to wager 100% of their assets on an even-odds bet. Not losing everything is more important than a payoff of equal(ish) value (e.g. doubling your money or getting off the charge scot-free).

(And I realize that the percentages and odds i gave there aren't exactly the same, but for any who either disagree with or don't follow the greater point of that paragraph I doubt my wasting additional time making the math line up will change their minds)

If I was charged with a crime I did not commit, that carried a 10 year sentence, and I had a good lawyer... There is no way in hell I'd plead guilty even if it was to do 5 days... If I didn't do it, there aren't even odds that I'm going to be convicted, not even a 25% chance as you've suggested. If I have a good lawyer, and I didn't do it... there is VERY LITTLE chance I'm convicted... You have to be proven guilty, and if you have a good lawyer, how are they going to prove an innocent man guilty? You can't prove a truth to be false or a false to be truth...

here's just one example, an article i read on SI a few days ago (to keep it football related anyhow) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/the_bonus/01/25/terry.harrington/index.htmlThe above guy probably didn't have the best representation ever, sure...if that one doesn't do it for you, you may want to read up on Rubin "Hurricane" Carter (a couple excellent books out there on the guy, or watch the movie for that matter).

these things happen. They're certainly not the overwhelming majority of cases, but they happen more than enough to be statistically significant, especially when the suspect is black.

Also keep in mind that in stallworth's case, the DUI part was already conceded (even if they'd wanted to fight it, he blew and blew high) so it's not a case of "if I wasn't there, no way could they find me guilty." This is a case of interpretation of the law--and look at some of the other posters in this thread; even if everything he says is true (the guy ran into the side of the car etc) there are those who still interpret that as meaning he's guilty of anywhere from DUI manslaughter to vehicular homicide.

It's a different case if you're conceding that yes, you did commit a crime, just not all of what you're being charged with. I'd say in such a case there is at least a 25 percent chance of getting the book thrown at you.

For a similar case, what if you got in a fistfight, the other guy started it but the only witnesses present were his buddies and claim you did, you punched him back, he fell and hit his head and died. Maybe you're black and he's white, and you've got a minor history so you're not gonna be looked at kindly in the eyes of the judge. Same sentences on the line; do you plead and take a month for assault or fight it and risk 25-life with the murder charge? Even if you personally would fight it, you've gotta see that there's reason a lot of people might consider the plea.

Are you basing your defense on a story Stallworth told a reporter?1) The article didn't say "guy ran into the side of the car"... Said something along the lines of 'thudded against the passenger side' which could mean many things.. The right side of the bumper and the right side of the hood are passenger side...

2) Stollworth said he didn't die from the impact, that he was still alive until his head hit the ground... a) that's only Stallworth's story b) how the hell would he know? especially if he didn't get out of the car to even look at the guy. c) The guy wouldn't have hit the ground without first impacting the car. The guys head hit the ground as a result of the impact with the car... It's completely irrelivant..

To answer your question, If I was fighting with a guy, and his head hit the curb during the struggle and caused a death blow. I would be charged of involuntary manslaughter. It would still be the fault of the struggle, which I took part in. If he hit me first, but his friends said otherwise, then I'd have to fight it in court. People who would lie about such things knowing there buddy was at fault, when my life hangs in the balance are not going to be upstanding citizens, it most likely would show at some point during the trial that they are liars... I doubt seriously that I could watch one of my friends start some trouble and be killed as a result, and then turn around and lie in court to ruin an innocent mans life. I'd hate to lose a friend, but he was being an #######, and no one deserves to lose the rest of their future over an ####### whether it was a friend of mine or not.

"What if a dragon came down from the sky"... What if What if... These theoretical situations exist more in your heads than they do in reality.. None of which can be used to acquit Stallworth..

The point isn't to acquit Stallworth. The point is that your blind faith in the justice system is unfounded and your conclusion that the guilty plea means he's admitting his actions were the primary cause of Reyes' death is invalid. There are some here to whom it doesn't matter whether Stallworth's actions that night (as opposed to those of a different, sober driver in his place) actually caused Reyes's death, or whether Reyes was primarily at fault (practical fault, as in causing the accident to happen, moreso than legal fault as in responsibility for paying for damages via the state laws, although florida's laws seem to slant towards my point more than towards yours) and likely unavoidable by any driver, drunk or sober. They believe (and have even literally stated so in this thread) that even if Reyes were to intentionally dive under Stallworth's wheels, Stallworth is a murder by virtue of driving drunk. I am not one of those people. If you are, there's not much to talk about as we'll never see eye to eye.

Stallworth is absolutely guilty of DUI, but I have yet to hear anything close to a convincing argument that his recklessness played a greater role in causing the incident than Reyes's actions did. That is likely the basis of why (I believe) he got the sentence he did; even if the perpetrator has a high-priced lawyer, prosecutors aren't going to offer such a light sentence in a deal if they've got an open-and-shut conviction on their hands. Should I hear such an argument, I would likely then agree that he deserved a sentence on par with causing the end of a human life. Until I hear such an argument, it would be tough to convince me that he deserved anything more than a sentence on par with a DUI.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm not saying that the court system is perfect. I know people make mistakes.

The point is that your blind faith in the justice system is unfounded

Actually, if you read through many of my posts regarding the justice system, you'd know that my opinion of the justice system isn't very high.. Heck you could have just read the last couple of posts in this thread and known that this statement you made here was unwarranted..

your conclusion that the guilty plea means he's admitting his actions were the primary cause of Reyes' death is invalid.

I never said his actions were the primary cause, I wasn't there. Neither were you. Only he and Reyes were there, and of the 2 of them only one is still left on this planet. That 1 person (Stallworth) has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, equaling a conviction... Of manslaughter, not DUI...

Stallworth is absolutely guilty of DUI, but I have yet to hear anything close to a convincing argument that his recklessness played a greater role in causing the incident than Reyes's actions did. That is likely the basis of why (I believe) he got the sentence he did; even if the perpetrator has a high-priced lawyer, prosecutors aren't going to offer such a light sentence in a deal if they've got an open-and-shut conviction on their hands. Should I hear such an argument, I would likely then agree that he deserved a sentence on par with causing the end of a human life. Until I hear such an argument, it would be tough to convince me that he deserved anything more than a sentence on par with a DUI.

Through the process of having a good lawyer, admitting guilt, cooperating throughout the case, and not having a terrible criminal record, the sentence he received was not surprising to me. He admitted to making a mistake, cooperated the entire time and had no priors... Of course a good lawyer is going to get you light punishment in that case...BTW, a first time DUI gets you 24 hours in jail and a suspended sentence in many states... Not 27 days, a suspended sentence, and a lengthy supervised probation. Big difference..

 

[BespokeJort]

I'm not saying that the court system is perfect. I know people make mistakes.

The point is that your blind faith in the justice system is unfounded

Actually, if you read through many of my posts regarding the justice system, you'd know that my opinion of the justice system isn't very high.. Heck you could have just read the last couple of posts in this thread and known that this statement you made here was unwarranted..

your conclusion that the guilty plea means he's admitting his actions were the primary cause of Reyes' death is invalid.

I never said his actions were the primary cause, I wasn't there. Neither were you. Only he and Reyes were there, and of the 2 of them only one is still left on this planet. That 1 person (Stallworth) has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, equaling a conviction... Of manslaughter, not DUI...

Stallworth is absolutely guilty of DUI, but I have yet to hear anything close to a convincing argument that his recklessness played a greater role in causing the incident than Reyes's actions did. That is likely the basis of why (I believe) he got the sentence he did; even if the perpetrator has a high-priced lawyer, prosecutors aren't going to offer such a light sentence in a deal if they've got an open-and-shut conviction on their hands. Should I hear such an argument, I would likely then agree that he deserved a sentence on par with causing the end of a human life. Until I hear such an argument, it would be tough to convince me that he deserved anything more than a sentence on par with a DUI.

Through the process of having a good lawyer, admitting guilt, cooperating throughout the case, and not having a terrible criminal record, the sentence he received was not surprising to me. He admitted to making a mistake, cooperated the entire time and had no priors... Of course a good lawyer is going to get you light punishment in that case...BTW, a first time DUI gets you 24 hours in jail and a suspended sentence in many states... Not 27 days, a suspended sentence, and a lengthy supervised probation. Big difference..

Saying "I know the justice system isn't perfect" doesn't counteract the rest of your post basically stating that it's impossible to convict an innocent man with a decent lawyer, and there's never any reason for an innocent man to plead guilty (because he'll never be convicted). I'll give you that 'blind faith' might have been wording it too strongly, but the general point remains the same.And yes, I am aware that a DUI's punishment is generally much smaller (often even too small even for repeat offenses, especially in athletes' sake), but 30 days is much closer to that than to the 15 years (just looked it up, it's 15 rather than 10 had he fought and been found guilty) that's the max sentence for dui manslaughter/vehicular homicide, no?What do you do when you make your living as an athlete and you go to prison for 15 years??? That's the rest of your career, easily. If you pay restitutions to the family (as he did), there goes a big chunk of the money you have left...the rest probably goes to supporting any family you have while you're in. Then, coming out, you have to figure out how to make money as a convicted killer (hell, it's hard to get hired fresh out of COLLEGE nowadays, much less the pen) with (likely) few meaningful skills left as you can no longer play...staring down the barrel of that, and the fact that (as you refuse to acknowledge) IF the story he's telling is true, the case should work out in his favor but is still a judgment call based on the jury's interpretation of fault (the basis for my original 25% chance of a guilty verdict estimate), you don't think the guy had reason to plead it out simply not to risk it?Yes, that was a run-on sentence with way too many parentheses.

 

[GridironMenace]

I'm not saying that the court system is perfect. I know people make mistakes.

The point is that your blind faith in the justice system is unfounded

Actually, if you read through many of my posts regarding the justice system, you'd know that my opinion of the justice system isn't very high.. Heck you could have just read the last couple of posts in this thread and known that this statement you made here was unwarranted..

your conclusion that the guilty plea means he's admitting his actions were the primary cause of Reyes' death is invalid.

I never said his actions were the primary cause, I wasn't there. Neither were you. Only he and Reyes were there, and of the 2 of them only one is still left on this planet. That 1 person (Stallworth) has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, equaling a conviction... Of manslaughter, not DUI...

Stallworth is absolutely guilty of DUI, but I have yet to hear anything close to a convincing argument that his recklessness played a greater role in causing the incident than Reyes's actions did. That is likely the basis of why (I believe) he got the sentence he did; even if the perpetrator has a high-priced lawyer, prosecutors aren't going to offer such a light sentence in a deal if they've got an open-and-shut conviction on their hands. Should I hear such an argument, I would likely then agree that he deserved a sentence on par with causing the end of a human life. Until I hear such an argument, it would be tough to convince me that he deserved anything more than a sentence on par with a DUI.

Through the process of having a good lawyer, admitting guilt, cooperating throughout the case, and not having a terrible criminal record, the sentence he received was not surprising to me. He admitted to making a mistake, cooperated the entire time and had no priors... Of course a good lawyer is going to get you light punishment in that case...BTW, a first time DUI gets you 24 hours in jail and a suspended sentence in many states... Not 27 days, a suspended sentence, and a lengthy supervised probation. Big difference..

Saying "I know the justice system isn't perfect" doesn't counteract the rest of your post basically stating that it's impossible to convict an innocent man with a decent lawyer, and there's never any reason for an innocent man to plead guilty (because he'll never be convicted). I'll give you that 'blind faith' might have been wording it too strongly, but the general point remains the same.And yes, I am aware that a DUI's punishment is generally much smaller (often even too small even for repeat offenses, especially in athletes' sake), but 30 days is much closer to that than to the 15 years (just looked it up, it's 15 rather than 10 had he fought and been found guilty) that's the max sentence for dui manslaughter/vehicular homicide, no?What do you do when you make your living as an athlete and you go to prison for 15 years??? That's the rest of your career, easily. If you pay restitutions to the family (as he did), there goes a big chunk of the money you have left...the rest probably goes to supporting any family you have while you're in. Then, coming out, you have to figure out how to make money as a convicted killer (hell, it's hard to get hired fresh out of COLLEGE nowadays, much less the pen) with (likely) few meaningful skills left as you can no longer play...staring down the barrel of that, and the fact that (as you refuse to acknowledge) IF the story he's telling is true, the case should work out in his favor but is still a judgment call based on the jury's interpretation of fault (the basis for my original 25% chance of a guilty verdict estimate), you don't think the guy had reason to plead it out simply not to risk it?Yes, that was a run-on sentence with way too many parentheses.

Boo-Hoo. How is Stallworth going to support his family if he is in jail for 10 years. Oh-Noes! So let's give him 3 weeks. Hey, how is Reyes going to support his family?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Saying "I know the justice system isn't perfect" doesn't counteract the rest of your post basically stating that it's impossible to convict an innocent man with a decent lawyer, and there's never any reason for an innocent man to plead guilty (because he'll never be convicted). I'll give you that 'blind faith' might have been wording it too strongly, but the general point remains the same.

Here again, that's a bit of an exaggeration. I never said the word impossible. I even conceded that sometime, yet VERY FEW times, innocent people are convicted.

And yes, I am aware that a DUI's punishment is generally much smaller (often even too small even for repeat offenses, especially in athletes' sake), but 30 days is much closer to that than to the 15 years (just looked it up, it's 15 rather than 10 had he fought and been found guilty) that's the max sentence for dui manslaughter/vehicular homicide, no?What do you do when you make your living as an athlete and you go to prison for 15 years??? That's the rest of your career, easily. If you pay restitutions to the family (as he did), there goes a big chunk of the money you have left...the rest probably goes to supporting any family you have while you're in. Then, coming out, you have to figure out how to make money as a convicted killer (hell, it's hard to get hired fresh out of COLLEGE nowadays, much less the pen) with (likely) few meaningful skills left as you can no longer play...staring down the barrel of that, and the fact that (as you refuse to acknowledge) IF the story he's telling is true, the case should work out in his favor but is still a judgment call based on the jury's interpretation of fault (the basis for my original 25% chance of a guilty verdict estimate), you don't think the guy had reason to plead it out simply not to risk it?

There are varying degrees of circumstances, negligence, and mitigating factors in every case. I would still contend that Stallworth's Lawyer, record, and cooperation were the reasons for his light sentence.. Not that he was completely innocent and without fault.With a guilty plea, Stallworth admits to having some fault in this mans death. And the court seems to think so as well. I can't prove he was guilty, you can't prove that he wasn't. I can't prove that he didn't plead guilty only to avoid a heavier sentence, you can't prove that he did. Considering what we can prove, that he was driving a car under the influence, got into an accident that killed a man, entered a guilty plea, and was convicted of manslaughter, I have a stronger argument then you. You keep quoting hypotheticals for which you know you can't prove. And your arguments could be used for probably 50% or better of all the convictions in the united states.Evidence points to him having faultPlea points to him having faultConviction points to him having faultYour argument against is only fueled by some hypothetical situation you've constructed yourself, and can't prove one way or another, and a sports writers article where his only source was Stallworth, in which btw, Stallworth never claimed to be innocent.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Giving him a <i>courage</i> award is an insult. This guy has already used up any and all award/rewards possible. As stated before, he should be in jail right now.

I don't blame him for not being in prison right now, that's the fault of our broken legal system. But if this guy had any honor whatsoever he would not accept something like this.



Also, on a different note, I can't wait for the day that Ray Lewis retires and goes away. Maybe he should go into law after football, or selling used cars. There's not another guy that gives off such a sleazy, fake feel imo.

Good for you.

 

[BespokeJort]

I'm not saying that the court system is perfect. I know people make mistakes.

The point is that your blind faith in the justice system is unfounded

Actually, if you read through many of my posts regarding the justice system, you'd know that my opinion of the justice system isn't very high.. Heck you could have just read the last couple of posts in this thread and known that this statement you made here was unwarranted..

your conclusion that the guilty plea means he's admitting his actions were the primary cause of Reyes' death is invalid.

I never said his actions were the primary cause, I wasn't there. Neither were you. Only he and Reyes were there, and of the 2 of them only one is still left on this planet. That 1 person (Stallworth) has pleaded guilty to manslaughter, equaling a conviction... Of manslaughter, not DUI...

Stallworth is absolutely guilty of DUI, but I have yet to hear anything close to a convincing argument that his recklessness played a greater role in causing the incident than Reyes's actions did. That is likely the basis of why (I believe) he got the sentence he did; even if the perpetrator has a high-priced lawyer, prosecutors aren't going to offer such a light sentence in a deal if they've got an open-and-shut conviction on their hands. Should I hear such an argument, I would likely then agree that he deserved a sentence on par with causing the end of a human life. Until I hear such an argument, it would be tough to convince me that he deserved anything more than a sentence on par with a DUI.

Through the process of having a good lawyer, admitting guilt, cooperating throughout the case, and not having a terrible criminal record, the sentence he received was not surprising to me. He admitted to making a mistake, cooperated the entire time and had no priors... Of course a good lawyer is going to get you light punishment in that case...BTW, a first time DUI gets you 24 hours in jail and a suspended sentence in many states... Not 27 days, a suspended sentence, and a lengthy supervised probation. Big difference..

Saying "I know the justice system isn't perfect" doesn't counteract the rest of your post basically stating that it's impossible to convict an innocent man with a decent lawyer, and there's never any reason for an innocent man to plead guilty (because he'll never be convicted). I'll give you that 'blind faith' might have been wording it too strongly, but the general point remains the same.And yes, I am aware that a DUI's punishment is generally much smaller (often even too small even for repeat offenses, especially in athletes' sake), but 30 days is much closer to that than to the 15 years (just looked it up, it's 15 rather than 10 had he fought and been found guilty) that's the max sentence for dui manslaughter/vehicular homicide, no?

What do you do when you make your living as an athlete and you go to prison for 15 years??? That's the rest of your career, easily. If you pay restitutions to the family (as he did), there goes a big chunk of the money you have left...the rest probably goes to supporting any family you have while you're in. Then, coming out, you have to figure out how to make money as a convicted killer (hell, it's hard to get hired fresh out of COLLEGE nowadays, much less the pen) with (likely) few meaningful skills left as you can no longer play...staring down the barrel of that, and the fact that (as you refuse to acknowledge) IF the story he's telling is true, the case should work out in his favor but is still a judgment call based on the jury's interpretation of fault (the basis for my original 25% chance of a guilty verdict estimate), you don't think the guy had reason to plead it out simply not to risk it?

Yes, that was a run-on sentence with way too many parentheses.

Boo-Hoo. How is Stallworth going to support his family if he is in jail for 10 years. Oh-Noes! So let's give him 3 weeks. Hey, how is Reyes going to support his family?

Nobody's shedding a tear for Stallworth. That was simply a rationale explaining his likely motivation for pleading guilty. Nice reading comprehension there, chief.

Saying "I know the justice system isn't perfect" doesn't counteract the rest of your post basically stating that it's impossible to convict an innocent man with a decent lawyer, and there's never any reason for an innocent man to plead guilty (because he'll never be convicted). I'll give you that 'blind faith' might have been wording it too strongly, but the general point remains the same.

Here again, that's a bit of an exaggeration. I never said the word impossible. I even conceded that sometime, yet VERY FEW times, innocent people are convicted.

And yes, I am aware that a DUI's punishment is generally much smaller (often even too small even for repeat offenses, especially in athletes' sake), but 30 days is much closer to that than to the 15 years (just looked it up, it's 15 rather than 10 had he fought and been found guilty) that's the max sentence for dui manslaughter/vehicular homicide, no?

What do you do when you make your living as an athlete and you go to prison for 15 years??? That's the rest of your career, easily. If you pay restitutions to the family (as he did), there goes a big chunk of the money you have left...the rest probably goes to supporting any family you have while you're in. Then, coming out, you have to figure out how to make money as a convicted killer (hell, it's hard to get hired fresh out of COLLEGE nowadays, much less the pen) with (likely) few meaningful skills left as you can no longer play...staring down the barrel of that, and the fact that (as you refuse to acknowledge) IF the story he's telling is true, the case should work out in his favor but is still a judgment call based on the jury's interpretation of fault (the basis for my original 25% chance of a guilty verdict estimate), you don't think the guy had reason to plead it out simply not to risk it?

There are varying degrees of circumstances, negligence, and mitigating factors in every case. I would still contend that Stallworth's Lawyer, record, and cooperation were the reasons for his light sentence.. Not that he was completely innocent and without fault.---nobody's saying he's completely innocent and without fault. He was driving drunk. Still,

With a guilty plea, Stallworth admits to having some fault in this mans death. And the court seems to think so as well. I can't prove he was guilty, you can't prove that he wasn't. I can't prove that he didn't plead guilty only to avoid a heavier sentence, you can't prove that he did. Considering what we can prove, that he was driving a car under the influence, got into an accident that killed a man, entered a guilty plea, and was convicted of manslaughter, I have a stronger argument then you. You keep quoting hypotheticals for which you know you can't prove. And your arguments could be used for probably 50% or better of all the convictions in the united states.

Evidence points to him having fault

---What evidence besides the admitted DUI?

Plea points to him having fault

---we've been over this. No, not necessarily, it doesn't.

Conviction points to him having fault

---Counting the conviction double in addition to the guilty plea is laughable; what, did you think when he plead guilty, the judge was just going to say, "no, you know what, i find you innocent anyway, GTFOH"

Your argument against is only fueled by some hypothetical situation you've constructed yourself, and can't prove one way or another, and a sports writers article where his only source was Stallworth, in which btw, Stallworth never claimed to be innocent.

---It's not fueled by a hypothetical situation at all. It's fueled by the unchallenged fact that the guy he hit was either running across or standing in the middle of a busy six-lane highway. Stallworth being under the influence may have caused him to fail to drive defensively in an adequate manner (thus possibly contributing to some degree to the man's death), but it is an undeniable fact that he had the right of way (thus Reyes certainly contributed to his death as well). Who contributed more (and whether Stallworth actually contributed at all) is what the jury would determine if he plead not guilty and it went to trial. Any hypotheticals are only provided to illustrate concepts to any who might otherwise fail to grasp them.

 

[jackdubl]

<!--quoteo(post=12905562:date=Feb 10 2011, 01:51 PM:name=jackdubl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jackdubl @ Feb 10 2011, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=12905562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All I'm really saying is, if you are a grown man who decides to run into traffic and you end up getting hit, don't come crying to me about it. I don't care if a blind one-armed drunk little person with a suspended license was the driver. Don't run into traffic and it won't matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Idiotic statement in my opinion, as it sounds as if an uneducated person made this statement. I'd bet you care if the person hit your family member.

I would hate for the Karma you just created for yourself to ever happen.

Bottom line, there is a reason why drinking and driving is illegal and a has more severe penalty, then jaywalking....but keep arguing if its right to drink and drive or if there is any defense for it, as its just dumb to discuss.

Read my sig. Karma isn't as powerful as teaching your children not to run across six lane highways. Are you saying the guy running across the highway is only at fault if a sober driver hits him, or hits someone else trying to avoid him?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What evidence besides the admitted DUI?

Umm, a dead crane operator? Damaged vehicle?

we've been over this. No, not necessarily, it doesn't.

Yes it does, only in your hypotheticals does it not. In your mind, nothing is definite. I could come up with an alternate to any story you dream up, hypothetically...

Counting the conviction double in addition to the guilty plea is laughable; what, did you think when he plead guilty, the judge was just going to say, "no, you know what, i find you innocent anyway, GTFOH"

.... wow.. He plead guilty, there for he is guilty, there for he was convicted.. end of... It never had an opportunity to make it to the judge. But someone along the line found fault with Stallworth (investigator, DA.. etc) or he wouldn't have ended up in court. The judge actually has very little to say about it until the facts are in front of him. The outcome of this case was decided by the DA and Stallworths lawyer... Not the Judge.. But the judge could have changed the agreement between the DA and Attorney if he wanted to.

It's not fueled by a hypothetical situation at all. It's fueled by the unchallenged fact that the guy he hit was either running across or standing in the middle of a busy six-lane highway. Stallworth being under the influence may have caused him to fail to drive defensively in an adequate manner (thus possibly contributing to some degree to the man's death), but it is an undeniable fact that he had the right of way (thus Reyes certainly contributed to his death as well). Who contributed more (and whether Stallworth actually contributed at all) is what the jury would determine if he plead not guilty and it went to trial. Any hypotheticals are only provided to illustrate concepts to any who might otherwise fail to grasp them.

If you're going to go back and read through my previous posts you'll find that I did fault the crane operator with crossing were he shouldn't have. But that does not release Stallworth from all responsibility, seems Stallworth agrees (guilty plea) police/DA/justice system agree (investigated, arrested, charged, convicted of manslaughter)... You're the one looking for excuses for the man and all you know is what you see on the internet.Everyone who was there, (and is still alive) found fault with Stallworth including Stallworth.. You were never there...

 

[BespokeJort]

What evidence besides the admitted DUI?

Umm, a dead crane operator? Damaged vehicle?

You've admitted yourself we don't know where the damage on the vehicle was (using it in your own rebuttal to the information in the linked article), without which the fact that the vehicle is damaged is only evidence of a crash and not of who caused it. The dead crane operator is evidence of an accident, not of who caused it...so what do you know of the evidence?

we've been over this. No, not necessarily, it doesn't.

Yes it does, only in your hypotheticals does it not. In your mind, nothing is definite. I could come up with an alternate to any story you dream up, hypothetically...No, in my mind, it's not definite that a man who pleads guilty to get a month sentence and eliminate the possibility of facing 15 years in a judgment call case is guilty without knowing the facts of the case. The hypothetical situations you have latched onto are still more valid than the unfounded absolutes you're speaking in (which are the type of thing I was arguing against in the first place--I have no major problem with his sentence as it stands, it's the "he plead guilty so I know he must be guilty" or "he was DUI so even if the guy intentionally threw himself under the wheels to commit suicide he's a murderer" crap).

Counting the conviction double in addition to the guilty plea is laughable; what, did you think when he plead guilty, the judge was just going to say, "no, you know what, i find you innocent anyway, GTFOH"

.... wow.. He plead guilty, there for he is guilty, there for he was convicted.. end of... It never had an opportunity to make it to the judge. But someone along the line found fault with Stallworth (investigator, DA.. etc) or he wouldn't have ended up in court. The judge actually has very little to say about it until the facts are in front of him. The outcome of this case was decided by the DA and Stallworths lawyer... Not the Judge.. But the judge could have changed the agreement between the DA and Attorney if he wanted to. come on now...you wanted to talk about how rare innocent men pleading guilty are, and how it only exists in 'hypotheticals'...without a doubt judges refusing to accept guilty pleas is far rarer

It's not fueled by a hypothetical situation at all. It's fueled by the unchallenged fact that the guy he hit was either running across or standing in the middle of a busy six-lane highway. Stallworth being under the influence may have caused him to fail to drive defensively in an adequate manner (thus possibly contributing to some degree to the man's death), but it is an undeniable fact that he had the right of way (thus Reyes certainly contributed to his death as well). Who contributed more (and whether Stallworth actually contributed at all) is what the jury would determine if he plead not guilty and it went to trial. Any hypotheticals are only provided to illustrate concepts to any who might otherwise fail to grasp them.

If you're going to go back and read through my previous posts you'll find that I did fault the crane operator with crossing were he shouldn't have. But that does not release Stallworth from all responsibility, seems Stallworth agrees (guilty plea) police/DA/justice system agree (investigated, arrested, charged, convicted of manslaughter)... You're the one looking for excuses for the man and all you know is what you see on the internet.Everyone who was there, (and is still alive) found fault with Stallworth including Stallworth.. You were never there...

You'll get the manslaughter charge and arrest anytime there's a dead pedestrian in front of a drunk person's vehicle until the investigation completes. Based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" crossed with the fact that Stallworth had the right of way, my understanding is that to convict Stallworth of DUI manslaughter the prosecutor would likely have to prove that Stallworth's being under the influence prevented him from stopping where a sober person would have been able to (as opposed to being able to convict simply by proving his BAC was over .08 as they would have to if he ran the guy down in a crosswalk or on the sidewalk, etc). While I agree that Stallworth certainly could have contributed, it would likely be fairly difficult to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.My point was never that Stallworth is definitely "innocent" (he's guilty of DUI, and neither of us have any idea as to the rest), or to make excuses for or condone his behavior. My point is that I don't believe it's a sure thing he would have been successfully convicted, had he plead not guilty, and that there is a reasonable possibility that a not guilty verdict in such a case would have been correct instead of some sort of miscarriage of justice (again, I don't know that it would be for certain, but I don't believe anyone here knows enough to say that his actions were the proximate cause of death as opposed to the running in the street).

Anyhow, at this point I doubt we're going to come to any real agreement and frankly I'm losing interest, so this is my last post in this thread.