Stallworth To Plead Guilty Tues (1 Viewer)

[Truman]

Sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong. If I drink 3 beers in one hour, I'd be over the limit. But I can assure you that I wouldn't be "drunk."

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that you don't have to feel drunk to be impaired.

No, I fully understand the concept. I just don't think it's accurate to label someone at .08 a "drunk driver". Someone at .2 is, and there's some shades in between. The guy that is pissed off at his girlfriend and decides to drive erratically is impaired. The guy that takes some medicine for his cough or pain is impaired as well. The old person driving in front of you is likely impaired. They don't have arbitrary cutoffs for those levels of impairment though. A person going 10 MPH over the speed limit has impaired their reaction time as well, but I doubt that people would be calling for his head if they knew he hit the person and was traveling slightly faster than the posted limit when he noticed them leap in front of him. Someone drinking 6 beers in 3 hours, driving home and having a pedestrian jump in front of their vehicle doesn't deserve the same sentence as the guy that blows a .18. It's not entirely black and white like the arbitrary cutoff that we have, and suggesting that a guy that blows .079 should get off scott free while the guy blowing a .08 should go to jail for 20 years is ridiculous IMO. Just like suggesting a guy blowing a .12 should be treated like a guy blowing that .18.

Not sure how this compares to the guy who drinks all night after receiving his $4.5 million bonus. He's impaired too, not only by alcohol, but also sleep deprivation and euphoria.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

We will never know if he would have been able to avoid the pedestrian if he was sober. He killed someone when he was behind the wheel when DRUNK. This is shameful. What if it wasa child that was killed?? Same consequences?

 

[Bri]

30 days for a DUI manslaughter charge is asinine.

Well it is more than that:In addition to jail time, Stallworth was sentenced to two years of house arrest, eight years on probation, 1,000 hours of community service and a lifetime driver's license suspension that could be eased after five years. He must also undergo drug and alcohol testing. But this:Stallworth also reached a confidential financial settlement with the family of 59-year-old Mario Reyes, who he struck and killed with his black 2005 Bentley early March 14.could be quite significant. It could also stir up questions like did the family recommend a "light" plea deal once Stallworth agreed to give them X million? I figure without that $ given, his sentence would have been more harsh.It'll be interesting to see if Plax and his self inflicted wound get more jailtime. One is clearly working with the (A)DA while the other is fighting them every step of the way.

 

[fourd]

I can't tell you the line. It's probably closer to .12 than .08, but this doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is his intoxication level should be irrelevant if this was the pedestrian's fault.

I don't know why you think ruining 2 lives instead of 1 is necessarily the most fair and moral outcome here but I happen to disagree.

The pedestrian's level of fault in this is irrelevent considering he was driving illegally intoxicated. Had Donte Stallworth not been driving that night he wouldn't have been in the position to kill a man. Are we all assuming that just because the pedestrian was not crossing at a crosswalk that somehow Stallworth's driving was somehow not impaired?

Why should the pedestrian's level of fault be irrelevant? If a sober person still would have hit the pedestrian, then why should Stallworth's punishment be far harsher? I realize that you can still get a DUI if you didn't cause the accident but you were drunk. But we're not talking about the DUI part. Can anyone prove that a sober person would have been able to or would have avoided hitting the pedestrian? I think this is the reason Stallworth got off fairly lightly on the jail time. Had he run a red light and hit someone, that would have been much different, as you could easily prove that his impaired state was the cause of the accident.

The guy was driving illegally and is the only witness to the crime... and you're going to take his testimony to be accurate? The ped's level of fault is irrelevent in this case because the driver of the car that hit him was DRUNK. Find another case to argue about where the driver was sober, and you'll have a point. In this exercise, Stallworth was DRUNK, operating a vehicle illegally. An impaired state or not, he should not have been behind the wheel at the time of the murder.

We have no hard proof that Stallworth was drunk. Just because a person's BAC is over the limit does not mean that he/she is drunk.Again - I could have 3 beers and I would be over the limit, but I assure you that I would not be "drunk" (I drink frequently and have a high tolerance). Someone who rarely drinks could have one beer and be under the limit, but they might be completely hammered.

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

 

[fourd]

a lot of holier than thou types in this threadI know when I was younger ,there but for the grace of God , I did a lot of stupid things and took dumb chances after having a good buzz

How many people did you kill while driving under the influence?

 

[fourd]

Sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong. If I drink 3 beers in one hour, I'd be over the limit. But I can assure you that I wouldn't be "drunk."

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that you don't have to feel drunk to be impaired.

No, I fully understand the concept. I just don't think it's accurate to label someone at .08 a "drunk driver". Someone at .2 is, and there's some shades in between. The guy that is pissed off at his girlfriend and decides to drive erratically is impaired. The guy that takes some medicine for his cough or pain is impaired as well. The old person driving in front of you is likely impaired. They don't have arbitrary cutoffs for those levels of impairment though. A person going 10 MPH over the speed limit has impaired their reaction time as well, but I doubt that people would be calling for his head if they knew he hit the person and was traveling slightly faster than the posted limit when he noticed them leap in front of him. Someone drinking 6 beers in 3 hours, driving home and having a pedestrian jump in front of their vehicle doesn't deserve the same sentence as the guy that blows a .18. It's not entirely black and white like the arbitrary cutoff that we have, and suggesting that a guy that blows .079 should get off scott free while the guy blowing a .08 should go to jail for 20 years is ridiculous IMO. Just like suggesting a guy blowing a .12 should be treated like a guy blowing that .18.I'm 100% certain that he was legally impaired. I just don't think he was impaired enough that he should have the book thrown at him if a pedestrian jumped in front of him, an unimpaired driver (someone blowing a .079 legally speaking) would have been unable to stop, and thus the pedestrian was at fault. If the person didn't jump in front of him and he instead gets pulled over by the police for speeding and blows that he isn't going to jail for 20 years. If your 22 year old kid drank 6 beers in 3 hours with his friends and a pedestrian leaped in front of his car and was fatally injured, you'd think sending him to prison for 20 years and ending any chance at a normal life is a fair punishment?

I keep reading how the vicitm "jumped" in front of Stallworth. Besides Stallworth saying that there is no other witness to coroborate his statement. And if he did suddenly appear in the street how did he have enough time to blow his horn and flash his lights? I believe that was also what Stallworth said. That would seem to take a lot longer than most people's immediate reaction to slam on the brakes and try to avoid the guy.

 

[zadok]

I like Donte Stallworth, he seems like a really nice guy. HOWEVER, if he didn't have millions of dollars to pay off the family of the deceased, he would be in prison for 4 years, not 30 days. This is not "equal protection under the law".

orly?

Yeah, rly."Circuit Judge Charles Burton sentenced University of Florida sophomore Rachel Ritlop to 15 years in prison, then suspended the sentence and put her on probation with a host of special conditions. One is that she spend a year in jail upon completion of her college degree."

Even shortened by 14 years, that's 12x the prison time that Stallworth will serve.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

So he has a lifetime revocation of his license in Florida. What's to stop him from getting a license in California?

 

[wildbill]

I like Donte Stallworth, he seems like a really nice guy. HOWEVER, if he didn't have millions of dollars to pay off the family of the deceased, he would be in prison for 4 years, not 30 days. This is not "equal protection under the law".

orly?

Yeah, rly."Circuit Judge Charles Burton sentenced University of Florida sophomore Rachel Ritlop to 15 years in prison, then suspended the sentence and put her on probation with a host of special conditions. One is that she spend a year in jail upon completion of her college degree."

Even shortened by 14 years, that's 12x the prison time that Stallworth will serve.

Ritlop wept in front of Burton, her remorse evident as she was shown a photo of Ira and Susan Steuerman, who died in March 2007 after the evening crash, in which Ritlop ran a flashing red stoplight. Almost three hours later, Ritlop's blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit, a prosecutor told the judge.

That's not quite the same as Stallworth's situation.

 

[zadok]

I like Donte Stallworth, he seems like a really nice guy. HOWEVER, if he didn't have millions of dollars to pay off the family of the deceased, he would be in prison for 4 years, not 30 days. This is not "equal protection under the law".

orly?

Yeah, rly."Circuit Judge Charles Burton sentenced University of Florida sophomore Rachel Ritlop to 15 years in prison, then suspended the sentence and put her on probation with a host of special conditions. One is that she spend a year in jail upon completion of her college degree."

Even shortened by 14 years, that's 12x the prison time that Stallworth will serve.

Ritlop wept in front of Burton, her remorse evident as she was shown a photo of Ira and Susan Steuerman, who died in March 2007 after the evening crash, in which Ritlop ran a flashing red stoplight. Almost three hours later, Ritlop's blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit, a prosecutor told the judge.

That's not quite the same as Stallworth's situation.

Didn't say it was, only that his millions bought him a lighter sentence. Which it clearly did.

 

[coolnerd]

So he has a lifetime revocation of his license in Florida. What's to stop him from getting a license in California?

Pretty sure that the document he signed has some language to that effect, but even it does not, I believe that most states have a question on the application that asks whether you have convisted of DUI and/or had a license suspended or revoked. Remember a cop at a traffic stop can punch your license in on his mobile computer and tell if it is legit. Pretty sure fibbing and assuming another state does not check your name and social would not be a good plan of action. Probably would be a violation of terms of plea agreement to even try to get a license and Stallworth would do a bunch of time that he purchased.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

So he has a lifetime revocation of his license in Florida. What's to stop him from getting a license in California?

Pretty sure that the document he signed has some language to that effect, but even it does not, I believe that most states have a question on the application that asks whether you have convisted of DUI and/or had a license suspended or revoked. Remember a cop at a traffic stop can punch your license in on his mobile computer and tell if it is legit. Pretty sure fibbing and assuming another state does not check your name and social would not be a good plan of action. Probably would be a violation of terms of plea agreement to even try to get a license and Stallworth would do a bunch of time that he purchased.

Probably?

 

[coolnerd]

So he has a lifetime revocation of his license in Florida. What's to stop him from getting a license in California?

Pretty sure that the document he signed has some language to that effect, but even it does not, I believe that most states have a question on the application that asks whether you have convisted of DUI and/or had a license suspended or revoked. Remember a cop at a traffic stop can punch your license in on his mobile computer and tell if it is legit. Pretty sure fibbing and assuming another state does not check your name and social would not be a good plan of action. Probably would be a violation of terms of plea agreement to even try to get a license and Stallworth would do a bunch of time that he purchased.

Probably?

Probably equals not looking at Stallworth's particular plea document.

 

[Adebisi]

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

0.01 is enough to cause impairment also. What do you think about that?

 

[Adebisi]

Didn't say it was, only that his millions bought him a lighter sentence. Which it clearly did.

Perhaps this man was the bread winner for his family, and their lives would have been financially destroyed without the settlement.

 

[Traders2001]

This shows that Mike Vick was used as a example , because for what Vick got for what he did, Stallworth should have gotten 15 years .

But i guess Vick had no one to pay off to get a reduced sentence , while Stallworth paid off the family big time ....

Vick should be reinstated immediately , he paid his dues and more .

 

[Adebisi]

This shows that Mike Vick was used as a example , because for what Vick got for what he did, Stallworth should have gotten 15 years .But i guess Vick had no one to pay off to get a reduced sentence , while Stallworth paid off the family big time ....Vick should be reinstated immediately , he paid his dues and more .

 

[fourd]

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

0.01 is enough to cause impairment also. What do you think about that?

0.01 isn't against the law. He was well over the legal limit. You can continue to try and rationalize this in whatever fashion you choose but it doesn't change the fact that he killed someone while driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

 

[Adebisi]

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

0.01 is enough to cause impairment also. What do you think about that?

0.01 isn't against the law. He was well over the legal limit. You can continue to try and rationalize this in whatever fashion you choose but it doesn't change the fact that he killed someone while driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

No one is debating that.

 

[therokie0070]

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

0.01 is enough to cause impairment also. What do you think about that?

0.01 isn't against the law. He was well over the legal limit. You can continue to try and rationalize this in whatever fashion you choose but it doesn't change the fact that he killed someone while driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

No one is debating that.

Adebisi get real and answer this if stallworth just ran over your 10 year old daughter and killed her after blowing .12 would you be ok with 30 days in jail? is there a price someone can put on you daughter? would you still defend stallworth after losing a loved one because some dumb @@@ rich football player could not call a friend or take a cab to get home after drinking all night.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

.

Would someone please lend this guy an o, the name is driving me crazy.

 

[jonessed]

30 days for a DUI manslaughter charge is asinine.

Well it is more than that:In addition to jail time, Stallworth was sentenced to two years of house arrest, eight years on probation, 1,000 hours of community service and a lifetime driver's license suspension that could be eased after five years. He must also undergo drug and alcohol testing. But this:Stallworth also reached a confidential financial settlement with the family of 59-year-old Mario Reyes, who he struck and killed with his black 2005 Bentley early March 14.could be quite significant. It could also stir up questions like did the family recommend a "light" plea deal once Stallworth agreed to give them X million? I figure without that $ given, his sentence would have been more harsh.It'll be interesting to see if Plax and his self inflicted wound get more jailtime. One is clearly working with the (A)DA while the other is fighting them every step of the way.

Money shouldn't be able to buy you out of jailtime. The family would have gotten a settlement in civil court anyway. This farce is on the DA.

 

[ookook]

With comparisons to other offenders aside, I would rather see 10 years probation and a lot of things geared at making sure he never drinks while driving again (e.g., no license for life) than a longer sentence in prison (which really serves no one al that much). And guarantees that other offenses don't happen (e.g., cannot enter a bar while on probation either I believe).

Long prison sentences don't work well as deterrants to other potential offenders.

So I am glad to see those components. In terms of prison time, I would feel no better (or worse) if he had received 2 years and was out in 1 for good behavior.

I also wonder what Goodell will say. I would give him a season off.

 

[Adebisi]

He wasn't charged with being drunk. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. Meaning his blood alcohol level was high enough to cause impairment. He should not have been behind the wheel, period.

0.01 is enough to cause impairment also. What do you think about that?

0.01 isn't against the law. He was well over the legal limit. You can continue to try and rationalize this in whatever fashion you choose but it doesn't change the fact that he killed someone while driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

No one is debating that.

Adebisi get real and answer this if stallworth just ran over your 10 year old daughter and killed her after blowing .12 would you be ok with 30 days in jail? is there a price someone can put on you daughter? would you still defend stallworth after losing a loved one because some dumb @@@ rich football player could not call a friend or take a cab to get home after drinking all night.

I would want to know the facts of the case, which are very much in question here. One fact that I do know is that Stallworth did not kill a 10 year old girl. I am not convinced that Stallworth was drunk. Some are, and he may very well have been, but I am not.Also, the fact that Stallworth is rich would have absolutely nothing to do with my decision; I can tell you that much.

 

[mmarsian]

We have no hard proof that Stallworth was drunk. Just because a person's BAC is over the limit does not mean that he/she is drunk.[\b]

Again - I could have 3 beers and I would be over the limit, but I assure you that I would not be "drunk" (I drink frequently and have a high tolerance). Someone who rarely drinks could have one beer and be under the limit, but they might be completely hammered.

Legally, it does. I don't care what you and your frat buddies think. That's the law. He was .04 OVER what the law deems "sober". Sorry. Just because you were name "Top Drinker" at Alpha Sigma Sigma (A.S.S.) doesn't mean you should be exempt from the .08 limit.He was OVER THE LIMIT. PERIOD. He's legally drunk.

 

[Adebisi]

We have no hard proof that Stallworth was drunk. Just because a person's BAC is over the limit does not mean that he/she is drunk.[\b]

Again - I could have 3 beers and I would be over the limit, but I assure you that I would not be "drunk" (I drink frequently and have a high tolerance). Someone who rarely drinks could have one beer and be under the limit, but they might be completely hammered.

Legally, it does. I don't care what you and your frat buddies think. That's the law. He was .04 OVER what the law deems "sober". Sorry. Just because you were name "Top Drinker" at Alpha Sigma Sigma (A.S.S.) doesn't mean you should be exempt from the .08 limit.He was OVER THE LIMIT. PERIOD. He's legally drunk.

I'm not really sure who you're trying to convince here. No one is disagreeing that he was legally over the limit. That still doesn't mean that he was physically drunk though. Sorry.

 

[Adebisi]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

Might be. Tolerance will do that, but it doesn't matter because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

 

[Adebisi]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

Might be. Tolerance will do that, but it doesn't matter because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

What if he hadn't had any alcohol whatsoever in this body? What do you feel would have been an appropriate punishment in that case?

 

[ScottyFargo]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

Might be. Tolerance will do that, but it doesn't matter because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

What if he hadn't had any alcohol whatsoever in this body? What do you feel would have been an appropriate punishment in that case?

I don't know. If you are able to prove that the sober driver was not at fault then justice would probably say that there's no punishment necessary. None of us have any clue to whatever tolerance level Stallworth has though, so trying to push his level of sobriety from 50% over the legal limit to where he was maybe a sip too much doesn't fly with me. The law is supposed to protect people from drunk drivers, and I suppose that in this case it'll have to be enough that he'll no longer be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car.I do know that being drunk while driving and being involved in an accident that results in the death of another person should be more than a slap on the wrist though. I will say that it is good that he's atleast losing his license to drive in FL permanently, and that the remorse he showed to the victims family appeared to be enough for them to not cry outrage at the sentencing. I am sure it might help them to move on with it. Maybe not though. There's probably something to the fact that Stallworth has said he'll carry this experience with him for the rest of his life.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

I hate to turn on a Pats brotha, but a lot of what you're posting in here is kind of ridiculous and off point. Is your suggestion that the cops should just ask everybody how drunk they feel, or how big a drinker they normally are?Or should we just raise the legal limit to about .20 just to make sure we don't accidentally ensnare any really heavy drinkers who weren't quite hammered yet?

Dude, they have to set the line somewhere.

Everybody has different tolerances, not to mention different baseline reaction times and coordination when they're sober, but I don't think the justice system would be any more efficient by putting every offender in a 3 day lab study.

If you don't want to be 'victimized' by that .01 my suggestion would be to give yourself some leeway and shoot for .00 instead of .079, or at worst keep it at one drink, unless you're a jockey.

It might be a tough break to do jail time if you're at that wrong place and time, but it's substantially tougher for the guy who gets run over.

The fact is, all these guys, like yourself, who drink a ton then claim they're perfectly fine to get behind the wheel are the exact guys who have produced this staggering amount of road carnage, provoking the .08 limit, and ruining it for everybody who has a couple drinks and wants to drive.

As far as this case, specifically, without knowing all the details I'd say it's simply a case of it being accidental, coupled with a DA who doesn't feel strongly enough about it to bring it before a jury, some good big money lawyers, and a rather apathetic, or maybe very forgiving family.

Or, maybe they're Browns fans and he floated them a couple signed jerseys.

For all we know, they hated that guy who got hit.

 

[TD5150]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

Might be. Tolerance will do that, but it doesn't matter because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

What if he hadn't had any alcohol whatsoever in this body? What do you feel would have been an appropriate punishment in that case?

If he blew a 0.00 and all other circumstances were the same I think he should have gotten the exact same sentence he did yesterday. He still killed a man, even if it was by accident while sober 30 days and a ton of probation and house arrest seems about right.Killing a man while legally drunk should have resulted in a 20 year sentence, and the family of the victim getting the same millions, or more in a civil suite.

By the way, if he had time to flash his brights and honk the horn, why didn't he jam on his brakes and swerve? I would think you can hit the brakes about 5 times faster than you can flash the brights and hit the horn.

This is pure and simple a rich NFL player buying his way out of murder. The court never should have allowed this plea to go through.

 

[Adebisi]

I don't think that's how it works, at all. B.A.C. is a metric for detirmining how much alcohol has replaced blood by volume. It might take him more to drink to get to that .12, but once he's there he's feeling the effects of someone else who drank less but also achieved a .12 B.A.C.

I am 100% certain that you are wrong.

I hate to turn on a Pats brotha, but a lot of what you're posting in here is kind of ridiculous and off point. Is your suggestion that the cops should just ask everybody how drunk they feel, or how big a drinker they normally are?Or should we just raise the legal limit to about .20 just to make sure we don't accidentally ensnare any really heavy drinkers who weren't quite hammered yet?

Dude, they have to set the line somewhere.

Everybody has different tolerances, not to mention different baseline reaction times and coordination when they're sober, but I don't think the justice system would be any more efficient by putting every offender in a 3 day lab study.

If you don't want to be 'victimized' by that .01 my suggestion would be to give yourself some leeway and shoot for .00 instead of .079, or at worst keep it at one drink, unless you're a jockey.

It might be a tough break to do jail time if you're at that wrong place and time, but it's substantially tougher for the guy who gets run over.

The fact is, all these guys, like yourself, who drink a ton then claim they're perfectly fine to get behind the wheel are the exact guys who have produced this staggering amount of road carnage, provoking the .08 limit, and ruining it for everybody who has a couple drinks and wants to drive.

As far as this case, specifically, without knowing all the details I'd say it's simply a case of it being accidental, coupled with a DA who doesn't feel strongly enough about it to bring it before a jury, some good big money lawyers, and a rather apathetic, or maybe very forgiving family.

Or, maybe they're Browns fans and he floated them a couple signed jerseys.

For all we know, they hated that guy who got hit.

My point is that just because he was over the legal limit, that doesn't mean he was physically drunk. I'm not saying that he definitely wasn't, but I'm not ready to assume that he definitely was, either. I'm not going to pile on and get upset about his 30 day sentence, because I don't know the facts of the case. And it doesn't seem like anyone else in here knows all the facts, either, but they apparently would rather just get irate over the whole thing, possible extenuating circumstances be damned.A lot of people in this thread are upset because the same legal system that determines the limit also determined that he only deserved 30 days. Irony at its finest, but that has been lost on pretty much everyone else in this thread.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm not going to pile on and get upset about his 30 day sentence, because I don't know the facts of the case. And it doesn't seem like anyone else in here knows all the facts, either, but they apparently would rather just get irate over the whole thing, possible extenuating circumstances be damned.

Now, THIS I can agree with.Also, that the Pats will torch the league in '09.

 

[ScottyFargo]

A lot of people in this thread are upset because the same legal system that determines the limit also determined that he only deserved 30 days. Irony at its finest, but that has been lost on pretty much everyone else in this thread.

That isn't irony. The decision for his punishment also stems from the legal limit, but it was up for interpretation and influence whereas the precedent for arresting people for drunk driving is already written into law. The outrage is because this is another example of a rich man taking advantage of the system.

 

[Moniker]

A lot of people in this thread are upset because the same legal system that determines the limit also determined that he only deserved 30 days. Irony at its finest, but that has been lost on pretty much everyone else in this thread.

Also, when was the last time that you saw a professional athlete, hell... anyone, man-up right away and say he screwed up. Stallworth co-operated with the police and DA from the word go. He seemed truly sorry and hurt for what he did. He has already come to an agreement with the family of the victim. I can't remember the last time I saw something like this. He could have acted just like most other people and shut up and not co-operate. He most likely would have gotten more jail time (just like most of you want) and at the same time the family would have gotten absolutely nothing. They would have had to take him to court which would have taken years. Through all of this Stallworth has been a true human being and that's more than I can say for a lot of people.

 

[Adebisi]

A lot of people in this thread are upset because the same legal system that determines the limit also determined that he only deserved 30 days. Irony at its finest, but that has been lost on pretty much everyone else in this thread.

That isn't irony. The decision for his punishment also stems from the legal limit, but it was up for interpretation and influence whereas the precedent for arresting people for drunk driving is already written into law. The outrage is because this is another example of a rich man taking advantage of the system.

If this is an example of a rich man taking advantage of the system, I assume it would be as a result a settlement being made with the victim's family, and the victim's family then, in turn, putting a good word in on his behalf to the judge. If that's what people are outraged about, then your beef is with the victim's family, and no one else.

 

[Adebisi]

A lot of people in this thread are upset because the same legal system that determines the limit also determined that he only deserved 30 days. Irony at its finest, but that has been lost on pretty much everyone else in this thread.

Also, when was the last time that you saw a professional athlete, hell... anyone, man-up right away and say he screwed up. Stallworth co-operated with the police and DA from the word go. He seemed truly sorry and hurt for what he did. He has already come to an agreement with the family of the victim. I can't remember the last time I saw something like this. He could have acted just like most other people and shut up and not co-operate. He most likely would have gotten more jail time (just like most of you want) and at the same time the family would have gotten absolutely nothing. They would have had to take him to court which would have taken years. Through all of this Stallworth has been a true human being and that's more than I can say for a lot of people.

Very What is the point in destroying Stallworth's life? It's not going to bring the victim back, and it's extremely unlikely to dissuade anyone from driving over the BAC limit in the future.

 

[malaka]

disgusting

All of the people with this type of outlook do realize that the guy ran out in front of him, right? It's even questionable whether or not it was even in a crosswalk.As Hell said, it's a good deal for all involved. Including the taxpayers who now don't have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to prove something that they were never going to be able to prove.

Who cares if he was in a crosswalk or not? The point is that if he wasn't drinking, then his reaction time/decision making would have been better and he might have been able to stop. Also, maybe he would have stopped/slowed down rather than just flash his lights/honk his horn.This is why drinking and driving is illegal and so dangerous.

This - IMO - once you are over the limit and are in any type of accident its hard to argue that its not your fault.

So in your opinion you are saying that in the case of Adenhart (the pitcher who was killed by a DUI driver), that the person who was driving the car that Adenhart was in was at fault in that accident? The driver of Adenhart's car blood alcohol was above the legal limit for someone under 21.

 

[therokie0070]

here is my last post on the topic 13,000 americans lost there lives last year from drunk drivers, that is almost 5 times more dead americans than we have lost over the last 5+ years in Iraq. I am not going to wast my time and look up the facts but I bet over 97 percent of drunk drivers that kill a human do at least 5 years in prison. we preach to children and teens not to drink and drive and then they see on ESPN some idot football player kill a man while drinking and driving and he only gets 30 days in jail, what message are we sending!!!!!!! Vick loses 150 million and does almost 2 years while Stallworth kills a human and gets 30 days, hell they better just let plaxico walk all he did was shoot him self!!!!! the NFL should suspend Stallworh with out pay for at least 2 years just to show america it will not be tolorated!!!!!

 

[malaka]

here is my last post on the topic 13,000 americans lost there lives last year from drunk drivers, that is almost 5 times more dead americans than we have lost over the last 5+ years in Iraq. I am not going to wast my time and look up the facts but I bet over 97 percent of drunk drivers that kill a human do at least 5 years in prison. we preach to children and teens not to drink and drive and then they see on ESPN some idot football player kill a man while drinking and driving and he only gets 30 days in jail, what message are we sending!!!!!!! Vick loses 150 million and does almost 2 years while Stallworth kills a human and gets 30 days, hell they better just let plaxico walk all he did was shoot him self!!!!! the NFL should suspend Stallworh with out pay for at least 2 years just to show america it will not be tolorated!!!!!

Just wondering where you are getting that fiqure....and if you are refering to alochol related traffic deaths, because they do have a way of playing with those stats. Not saying that drinking and driving is right but I want know if those fiqures are drunk drivers or alochol related traffic deaths.Stallworth tested above the legal limit that is a fact, however that isn't the only contributing factor on why a man is dead, hence the reason for the plea deal. Everyone seems to forget the guy was running to catch a bus across traffic and not in a crosswalk, who is to say if Stallworth was stone cold sober he could of stopped in time to avoid the accident, which might be the reason for the plea deal. Stop comparing Stallworth to Vick, local charges are different then Federal Charges (you don't want to mess with Feds) and Vick had more charges then just dog fighting.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

 

[Sammy Traveller]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

even in the best-possible scenario for him, I think he's finished.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

I suppose this means Goodell didn't consider whether or not the man would have still died if Stallworth were sober. Good decision avoiding the strawman.

 

[Moniker]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

even in the best-possible scenario for him, I think he's finished.

Little got 8 games for his dui manslaughter conviction to go along with his 90 days in jail and 4 years probation. Anything more than that (8 games) for Stallworth would be insane considering that Little did absolutely nothing to show remorse, didn't co-operate with the police/DA and did nothing to help the family of his victim.

 

[Adebisi]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

I suppose this means Goodell didn't consider whether or not the man would have still died if Stallworth were sober. Good decision avoiding the strawman.

I actually agree with the decision to suspend him.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think this is shameful.

 

[Sammy Traveller]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

even in the best-possible scenario for him, I think he's finished.

Little got 8 games for his dui manslaughter conviction to go along with his 90 days in jail and 4 years probation. Anything more than that (8 games) for Stallworth would be insane considering that Little did absolutely nothing to show remorse, didn't co-operate with the police/DA and did nothing to help the family of his victim.

It's Goodell's kitchen now. Tagliabue is no longer around.

 

[twistd]

Goodell has suspended Stallworth "indefinitely" according to cnnsi.com.

I suppose this means Goodell didn't consider whether or not the man would have still died if Stallworth were sober. Good decision avoiding the strawman.

I actually agree with the decision to suspend him.

I agree with the decision to suspend him, but I'm curious to see how long the suspension is. Leonard Little got eight games for a similar crime. His criminal penalty was similar. My guess is that Stallworth gets suspended for a year, or so. Goddell is going to be harsher on this than Tags was. But according to ESPN the Browns will probably release him. I wonder if they can legally challenge a suspension? And what if Goddell suspends him for two years or five years? I'm very curious to see how this plays out.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Jul. 1 - 9:07 am et - Rotoworld

Law enforcement sources have told the Miami Herald that Donte' Stallworth tested positive for marijuana after fatally striking pedestrian Mario Reyes. Stallworth's civil and criminal cases have already been settled, but he remains on indefinite NFL suspension.

Commissioner Goodell is sure to take this new information under advisement when deciding how long to extend Stallworth's suspension.

Q: Was this marijuana information buried ? Why is only being released now ?