Latest.
http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d80f6e6cc
Confirms the guy was not trying to cross at a cross-walk. Not that it changes anything, although the article does state that Stallworth's blood test results are not available yet.
Morally it doesn't change anything, but legally it does. In this country, in most cities and counties, killing someone with your car is almost always brushed under the rug. When you are walking you better be careful; someone can kill you and most likely suffer no consequences. The fact that the man wasn't in a cross walk makes it even more likely that Stallworth walks. It makes me sick but that's the truth. You are more likely to do jail time for being caught in possession of some weed than for killing someone with your car.
Again, this is where people taking the legal limit as the gospel definition of impairment start to stray from reality. Let's all remember that the legal limit is a a legal convenience, nothing more. Everyone gets impaired at different alcohol levels based upon a multitude of biological factors. Because that's too complex to measure on a case-by-case basis, they simply pass laws with a single legal limit above which everyone is considered to be impaired. This victim was rushing across the street, not at a cross-walk, trying to reach a bus to get home. It may well be that he was in fact the person most responsible for causing his own death.
I'm not defending drinking and driving nor am I ignoring the information that Stallworth may have been speeding or driving recklessly. If his BAC was as high as reported he's most certainly screwed because someone got killed and will get punished. If he was driving recklessly - driving too fast for conditions and pulling abruptly around other cars to run through a light - then he's got a lot of blame for this and may well be the most to blame.
But if you're truly trying to get to the bottom of what happened in this incident and reconstruct how it actually happened, you don't lean on the legal limit to determine fault.
