Stallworth To Plead Guilty Tues (1 Viewer)

[Adebisi]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

The system is flawed, is what I'm saying.I drink all the time. Put me next to someone who has never had a drink in his life. I could have three beers, and this other person could have one. I would be over the limit, but I would be pretty much unaffected. The other person would be under the limit, but could be falling all over himself.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

This is my question as well.And we are getting this story from Stallworth who was drunk.There are no other "sober" witnesses.

 

[imagroid]

The comparisons between Vick, Plax and Stallworth don't really hold water.

Vick intentionally ran a dog fighting ring.

Plax intentionally carried an unlicensed, concealed gun into a crowded night club. (He didn't intentionally shoot himself, but he's being charged for possessing the gun not shooting himself)

Stallworth didn't intend to kill the guy. I agree that the sentence is light, but the justice system tends to reward any criminal for admitting the act, having no priors, being remorseful, etc. I don't think a "poor" person would have gotten 30 days but I don't think they would have gotten 15 years either.

You also have to consider that a 1 or 2 year sentence would end his career and I think a judge would, and should, consider that. If a bank executive went to jail for 2 years for DUI manslaughter he or she could easily go back to work in the same field and work back up the career ladder. Thats not happening for your average NFL player and the judge should consider the loss of his future employment as part of the sentence.

We saw this line of defense in the Vick vs. Leonard thread. I don't even care how many days he gets, or if our justice system is flawed..etc... However this defensive argument that I have bolded really irks the living crap outta me. The intentional crime committed was getting into the car intoxicated. It doesn't matter if he meant to kill the guy or not. That's why they have a manslaughter charge.

Didn't this happen really early in the morning? What if he had been out drinking the night before, slept it off, but had drank so much that the alcohol was still in his system? Maybe it wasn't intentional.Awesome avatar, by the way.

Thanks.Alcohol has a pretty fast turnover rate. If he blew a .12 after having slept for 5 hrs..he was probably in the vicinity of .20+ before he passed out (or blacked out). Regardless he blew .12. Even if you are a regular drinker, that is at least "buzzed". The dude is rich. Call a cab, have someone pick you up, do something. It's irresponsible.

 

[imagroid]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

The system is flawed, is what I'm saying.I drink all the time. Put me next to someone who has never had a drink in his life. I could have three beers, and this other person could have one. I would be over the limit, but I would be pretty much unaffected. The other person would be under the limit, but could be falling all over himself.

What you are suggesting leads to far too much interpretation. That is why they set a number and call it the Law. A 180lb guy can have about 2-2.5 drinks/hr and be right around .08. That is plenty if you just wanna have a couple and go home. If you plan to drink more than that, make arrangements. You may feel totally fine, but your motor skills are affected whether you think so or not.

 

[Adebisi]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

The system is flawed, is what I'm saying.I drink all the time. Put me next to someone who has never had a drink in his life. I could have three beers, and this other person could have one. I would be over the limit, but I would be pretty much unaffected. The other person would be under the limit, but could be falling all over himself.

What you are suggesting leads to far too much interpretation. That is why they set a number and call it the Law. A 180lb guy can have about 2-2.5 drinks/hr and be right around .08. That is plenty if you just wanna have a couple and go home. If you plan to drink more than that, make arrangements. You may feel totally fine, but your motor skills are affected whether you think so or not.

To address this post as well as your previous post, my point is that we don't know the whole story (or at least I don't; maybe you do). He might have gotten totally wrecked the night before, slept overnight, and then woke up feeling fine, even though he was technically still over the limit. If he woke up feeling fine, he probably assumed his BAC was zero, or close to it.

 

[ScottyFargo]

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?

 

[StackTheLine]

good deal for all concerned

Except the one that died...

 

[Adebisi]

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?

Being impaired and being "illegally intoxicated" (or intoxicated according to the state's standards) are two entirely different things.

 

[imagroid]

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?

Being impaired and being "illegally intoxicated" (or intoxicated according to the state's standards) are two entirely different things.

The law doesn't care if you can drink a 12 pk and feel fine. The law doesn't care if you got wasted, passed out for 3 hrs, woke up and drove home cause you felt fine. The law only cares about the alcohol concentration in your blood if you decide to get behind the wheel. And to answer you previous question, no I guess I don't know the "whole story". I just know, he killed a guy and blew .12, which is well over the legal limit.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

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?

 

[Adebisi]

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?

Being impaired and being "illegally intoxicated" (or intoxicated according to the state's standards) are two entirely different things.

The law doesn't care if you can drink a 12 pk and feel fine. The law doesn't care if you got wasted, passed out for 3 hrs, woke up and drove home cause you felt fine. The law only cares about the alcohol concentration in your blood if you decide to get behind the wheel. And to answer you previous question, no I guess I don't know the "whole story". I just know, he killed a guy and blew .12, which is well over the legal limit.

On that same note, "the law" says that Stallworth's punishment is 30 days in jail.I was not arguing whether or not Stallworth had broken the law - clearly, he did. I was arguing against people who seem to be outraged because they feel Stallworth got off easy.

 

[TD5150]

After it came out today that Stallworth is ONLY getting 30 days in jail for killing somebody it makes me question or legal system even more than I already do.

How on earth can Vick serve over a year for killing dogs and Stallworth gets 30 days for killing a HUMAN while drunk driving?

With this logic Burress should get NEGATIVE 6 months for shooting himself in the leg. Since you can't serve negative time behind bars the government should just pay Plax a few million and call it a day. Pretty good logic....no?

Wow.... is the court system screwed beyond belief or is it just me?.......Let me say it again, DRUNK DRIVING MURDER GETS 30 DAY IN JAIL?.....again, WOW.

 

[Phurfur]

After it came out today that Stallworth is ONLY getting 30 days in jail for killing somebody it makes me question or legal system even more than I already do.

How on earth can Vick serve over a year for killing dogs and Stallworth gets 30 days for killing a HUMAN while drunk driving?

With this logic Burress should get NEGATIVE 6 months for shooting himself in the leg. Since you can't serve negative time behind bars the government should just pay Plax a few million and call it a day. Pretty good logic....no?

Wow.... is the court system screwed beyond belief or is it just me?.......Let me say it again, DRUNK DRIVING MURDER GETS 30 DAY IN JAIL?.....again, WOW.

13,000 people lose their lives to drunken drivers every year. This is one of the reasons.

 

[FFFanatic71]

By NO means am I defending the penalty, but there was a financial settlement by Stallworth for the family. Plus there's a 10-yr probation and revocation of his driver's license for the rest of his life. Still not enough, IMO, but it is more than just 30 days in jail. I think the financial settlement is what triggered the "ok" of the penalty. And it is a plea, so both sides have to agree with this. Shame on the justice system though.

 

[TD5150]

13,000 people lose their lives to drunken drivers every year. This is one of the reasons.

Are you telling me becasue drunk driver killings are fairly common that the offender shouldn't be punished accordingly? That doesn't make sense at all.

IMO jail time should be about

Burress = 3 mo

Vick = 1 yr

Stallworth = 20 yrs

with all of them paying fines and serving additional house arrest / probation.

 

[TD5150]

By NO means am I defending the penalty, but there was a financial settlement by Stallworth for the family. Plus there's a 10-yr probation and revocation of his driver's license for the rest of his life. Still not enough, IMO, but it is more than just 30 days in jail. I think the financial settlement is what triggered the "ok" of the penalty. And it is a plea, so both sides have to agree with this. Shame on the justice system though.

I understand the financial settlement and the house arrest etc... but considering what he did anything other than jail time is insignificant to him and he is thanking god for those "punishments" vs. an extended stay in jail.The system is beyond broken.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Stallworth only serving 30 days is ridiculous, but you can't compare it directly to the Vick case. For one thing, Vick's was a federal case. For another, Vick's actions were premeditated and intentional.

 

[Sinrman]

All I can say is that if it were you or I, we'd be in prison for a lot longer than 30 days....

 

[TD5150]

I just read this whole thread and there are some crazy people with crazy opinions out there.

Over the limit is over the limit, I don't care one bit if you feel drunk or not...you are, you just don't realize it....becasue you are drunk.

Trying to put blame on the guy not using the cross walk? come on, we all have J-walked before so since we do it's okay if we get run down by a drunk driver? Stallworth is 100% at fault. He was 100% at fault the second he sat behind the wheel and turned the key. He bought his way out of this, not two ways about it. If you or I did the same thing we would be in jail for 10 years min.

Regarding Vick, I don't care if he planned dog torture and murder for years then carried it out, it's still a dog. (don't get me wrong I love dogs) but it's a dog. It doesn't have a soul, a family to support, a job, people who depend on him, a wife, kids, a mother, a father, friends....should I continue?

Stallworth's crime is 100 times more severe than Vick's and his punishment should have been proportional to the crime.

The reality is, no matter how messed up it sounds, the populous care more about their dogs than they do about humans. Vick was made an example of and Stallworth was not. They both have (or had) more money than they ever needed and both could have bought their way out of their problems, the difference is the court felt the public pressure of the Vick case and not the Stallworth case simply because people love their dogs more than their neighbors. It's very disappointing.

 

[HellToupee]

a lot of holier than thou types in this thread

I 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

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

After it came out today that Stallworth is ONLY getting 30 days in jail for killing somebody it makes me question or legal system even more than I already do.How on earth can Vick serve over a year for killing dogs and Stallworth gets 30 days for killing a HUMAN while drunk driving?With this logic Burress should get NEGATIVE 6 months for shooting himself in the leg. Since you can't serve negative time behind bars the government should just pay Plax a few million and call it a day. Pretty good logic....no?Wow.... is the court system screwed beyond belief or is it just me?.......Let me say it again, DRUNK DRIVING MURDER GETS 30 DAY IN JAIL?.....again, WOW.

It wasn't murder. HTH

 

[Moniker]

I just read this whole thread and there are some crazy people with crazy opinions out there.

Over the limit is over the limit, I don't care one bit if you feel drunk or not...you are, you just don't realize it....becasue you are drunk.

Trying to put blame on the guy not using the cross walk? come on, we all have J-walked before so since we do it's okay if we get run down by a drunk driver? Stallworth is 100% at fault. He was 100% at fault the second he sat behind the wheel and turned the key. He bought his way out of this, not two ways about it. If you or I did the same thing we would be in jail for 10 years min.

Regarding Vick, I don't care if he planned dog torture and murder for years then carried it out, it's still a dog. (don't get me wrong I love dogs) but it's a dog. It doesn't have a soul, a family to support, a job, people who depend on him, a wife, kids, a mother, a father, friends....should I continue?

Stallworth's crime is 100 times more severe than Vick's and his punishment should have been proportional to the crime.

The reality is, no matter how messed up it sounds, the populous care more about their dogs than they do about humans. Vick was made an example of and Stallworth was not. They both have (or had) more money than they ever needed and both could have bought their way out of their problems, the difference is the court felt the public pressure of the Vick case and not the Stallworth case simply because people love their dogs more than their neighbors. It's very disappointing.

Yes there are... The only thing that the Vick and Stallworth cases have in common is that they both play professional football.

 

[Adebisi]

Over the limit is over the limit, I don't care one bit if you feel drunk or not...you are, you just don't realize it....becasue you are drunk.

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."

 

[DrJ]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

The system is flawed, is what I'm saying.I drink all the time. Put me next to someone who has never had a drink in his life. I could have three beers, and this other person could have one. I would be over the limit, but I would be pretty much unaffected. The other person would be under the limit, but could be falling all over himself.

What you are suggesting leads to far too much interpretation. That is why they set a number and call it the Law. A 180lb guy can have about 2-2.5 drinks/hr and be right around .08. That is plenty if you just wanna have a couple and go home. If you plan to drink more than that, make arrangements. You may feel totally fine, but your motor skills are affected whether you think so or not.

No, a 180 lb male can't process 2 drinks / hr. It's more like 1. Drinking 2 beers per hour, he's going to hit the .08 in about 3 hours. If he continues drinking 2 beers for another hour, he's close to the .12If you're 180 lbs, had 6 beers in 3 hours at a family party, and a pedestrian jumped in front of your vehicle on the way home I guess you should get the chair.

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

 

[Adebisi]

If Stallworth was drunk, he should not have been driving. But I am not convinced that he was.

So what you are saying is that they should make exceptions with people who have a high alcohol tolerance even if they blow over .1????

The system is flawed, is what I'm saying.I drink all the time. Put me next to someone who has never had a drink in his life. I could have three beers, and this other person could have one. I would be over the limit, but I would be pretty much unaffected. The other person would be under the limit, but could be falling all over himself.

What you are suggesting leads to far too much interpretation. That is why they set a number and call it the Law. A 180lb guy can have about 2-2.5 drinks/hr and be right around .08. That is plenty if you just wanna have a couple and go home. If you plan to drink more than that, make arrangements. You may feel totally fine, but your motor skills are affected whether you think so or not.

No, a 180 lb male can't process 2 drinks / hr. It's more like 1. Drinking 2 beers per hour, he's going to hit the .08 in about 3 hours. If he continues drinking 2 beers for another hour, he's close to the .12If you're 180 lbs, had 6 beers in 3 hours at a family party, and a pedestrian jumped in front of your vehicle on the way home I guess you should get the chair.

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

 

[DrJ]

Also, I don't think it was all that long ago that .12 was legal in some places. I know it was .10 in Illinois here until the Federal Government forced everyone to go to .08, and I thought we were lower than some.

To me, there's some definite shades of gray here. Yes the law has to set a level, but what's the difference between .079 and .080? If he was .079, it would just be that stupid moron who jumped in the middle of the street, but since it was 5 minutes earlier and he was still .080 he's should be crucified for it? He should definitely receive some punishment, but I'm just not sure .12 is a level I'm comfortable taking someone's life away over if the pedestrian was largely at fault for the incident. There's a difference between that and the guy who drives .2 and should certainly know better than to drive.

I don't disagree that 30 days is light, but people wanting 20 years are kind of crazy.

 

[imagroid]

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, a 180 lb male can't process 2 drinks / hr. It's more like 1. Drinking 2 beers per hour, he's going to hit the .08 in about 3 hours. If he continues drinking 2 beers for another hour, he's close to the .12

If you're 180 lbs, had 6 beers in 3 hours at a family party, and a pedestrian jumped in front of your vehicle on the way home I guess you should get the chair.

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

When I said 2-2.5/hr I meant for 1 hour. 4 in 2 hours in borderline. See here DMV BAC ChartThe thought of drinking a number of drinks over several hours and then driving doesn't really cross my mind, so I wasn't saying 2.5 per hour for 3 hours. That's insane. I'm not a stupid 19 year old kid anymore. If you drink and drive you suck imo. Wanna have a drink or two and then go home? Totally fine. Wanna party for 4 hours? Get a cab. If you are frequently in a situation where you are drinking and then driving, I suggest getting a pocket breathalyzer or erring on the cautious side. You can make it home 999/1000 but someone could die that 1 time. I can't believe how some people are so lax on the subject of drinking and driving. Have a close friend get killed by some piece of #### drunk ####### and you'll probably change your tune.

 

[DrJ]

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?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I just read this whole thread and there are some crazy people with crazy opinions out there.Stallworth's crime is 100 times more severe than Vick's and his punishment should have been proportional to the crime.The reality is, no matter how messed up it sounds, the populous care more about their dogs than they do about humans.

So, he should get 200 years?When you hear about a guy getting jail time, 10 yrs probation, 2 yrs house arrest, and lifetime revocation of his driver's license for accidentally running over some stray dog then get back to me on that.Thx for keeping us down to earth.psEvery time I stray into one of these threads there are all these repetitive outraged posts --- either outraged about the drinking, or the murdering, or about vick, or about the outraged posters, etc, but all I can ever think of is how this drunk guy got it together to flash his lights AND honk his horn to warn the guy he was just about to run him over.How many of you guys would go to all that trouble, or think that quick on your feet while hammered?

 

[jonessed]

30 days for a DUI manslaughter charge is asinine.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

I think we can all agree that's way too high to be driving.

 

[DrJ]

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

I think we can all agree that's way too high to be driving.

I don't disagree. But it's not enough to throw someone in prison for 20 years just for driving by itself either. How much that intoxication factored into the accident should certainly be a consideration.

 

[a_troll00]

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

I think we can all agree that's way too high to be driving.

I don't disagree. But it's not enough to throw someone in prison for 20 years just for driving by itself either. How much that intoxication factored into the accident should certainly be a consideration.

20 years is not for the DUI, it's for DUI manslaughter.

 

[DrJ]

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

I think we can all agree that's way too high to be driving.

I don't disagree. But it's not enough to throw someone in prison for 20 years just for driving by itself either. How much that intoxication factored into the accident should certainly be a consideration.

20 years is not for the DUI, it's for DUI manslaughter.

I understand what the charges were, but I'm guessing it's not entirely certain those charges would stick. Again, how much the intoxication factored into the accident should certainly be a consideration here. Not saying it's what happened here, but hypothetically some guy is at .08 exactly. He's driving down the street, obeying all other traffic laws, all of the sudden from between 2 white vans and entirely invisible until within his path a pedestrian runs out a few feet in front of him. Is it fair to label that DUI manslaughter and throw the guy in prison for 20 years? IMO, no. If the person happened to live it really doesn't change the nature of the crime any either. Nor if he drove by 5 seconds sooner and the person ended up darting behind him instead.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

ETA: Here's a more conservative estimate. 1 drink per hour is almost exact here. 1 drink in 1 hour = .002. 2 drinks in 2 hours = .003. At 2 / hr you're looking at the following using even their estimates:

1 hour = .023

2 hours = .045

3 hours = .068

4 hours = .090

5 hours = .113

At 2.5 / hr, he's at .99 in 3 hours.

I think we can all agree that's way too high to be driving.

I don't disagree. But it's not enough to throw someone in prison for 20 years just for driving by itself either.

I can't imagine a guy at .99 would get 20 years in any jail for anything.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

According to who? ...Dante Stallworth?

"Hey you ... you're not in a crosswalk and therefore I am within my right to run you over with my car"

 

[Unlucky]

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.

 

[therokie0070]

OK to all those who are defending stallworth you are on crack and should be slapped silly. If you drink and drive and kill someone you should have the book thrown at you and do hard time!!!! there is alot to be learned here first off the family clearly allowed stallworth to put a price on the deceased, shame on them I would want him to serve max time and then I would still try to take him for millions in civil court if he took one of my family members. to anyone who thinks I am being a jerk let me add I currently have an uncle from miami who last year blew a .09 after hitting a pedestrian on a bike and killed him. The guy on the bike did not have lights and ran a stop sign, My uncle got 12 years without possibility of parole, I love my uncle but if you drink and drive and kill you should serve at least 10 years in my opinion.

 

[ScottyFargo]

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.

 

[therokie0070]

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.

yeah stallworth should have not been behind the wheel therfore regardless the pedestrian would be alive

 

[ScottyFargo]

OK to all those who are defending stallworth you are on crack and should be slapped silly. If you drink and drive and kill someone you should have the book thrown at you and do hard time!!!! there is alot to be learned here first off the family clearly allowed stallworth to put a price on the deceased, shame on them I would want him to serve max time and then I would still try to take him for millions in civil court if he took one of my family members. to anyone who thinks I am being a jerk let me add I currently have an uncle from miami who last year blew a .09 after hitting a pedestrian on a bike and killed him. The guy on the bike did not have lights and ran a stop sign, My uncle got 12 years without possibility of parole, I love my uncle but if you drink and drive and kill you should serve at least 10 years in my opinion.

A very sad anecdote but certainly fitting.

 

[Jack Burton]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

 

[therokie0070]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

why because he is in the NFL and rich!!!!! the average Joe with priors or history of abuse will get the book thrown at them so why not the rich and famous!!!!

 

[Jack Burton]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

why because he is in the NFL and rich!!!!! the average Joe with priors or history of abuse will get the book thrown at them so why not the rich and famous!!!!

I dont think an average Joe should get 12 years either under the same circumstances.

 

[therokie0070]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

why because he is in the NFL and rich!!!!! the average Joe with priors or history of abuse will get the book thrown at them so why not the rich and famous!!!!

I dont think an average Joe should get 12 years either under the same circumstances.

Really would you say that if stallworth or an average Joe just hit and killed your daughter/wife/son!!!!!!!!!!! fact is if the indivdual drinking and driving obeyed the law they would have never been on the road!!!!

 

[Adebisi]

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.

According to who? ...Dante Stallworth?

"Hey you ... you're not in a crosswalk and therefore I am within my right to run you over with my car"

Stallworth's story seems far more likely than yours. It's ridiculous to think that Stallworth's thought process was even remotely close to that.

 

[Adebisi]

OK to all those who are defending stallworth you are on crack and should be slapped silly. If you drink and drive and kill someone you should have the book thrown at you and do hard time!!!! there is alot to be learned here first off the family clearly allowed stallworth to put a price on the deceased, shame on them I would want him to serve max time and then I would still try to take him for millions in civil court if he took one of my family members. to anyone who thinks I am being a jerk let me add I currently have an uncle from miami who last year blew a .09 after hitting a pedestrian on a bike and killed him. The guy on the bike did not have lights and ran a stop sign, My uncle got 12 years without possibility of parole, I love my uncle but if you drink and drive and kill you should serve at least 10 years in my opinion.

What if he hadn't been drinking at all and had killed someone behind the wheel in what was concluded to be a complete accident? Would you still think he should serve time in prison?

 

[Adebisi]

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.

 

[Adebisi]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

why because he is in the NFL and rich!!!!! the average Joe with priors or history of abuse will get the book thrown at them so why not the rich and famous!!!!

How is "the average Joe with priors or history of abuse" comparable to Stallworth? Did Stallworth have priors or history of abuse?

 

[Adebisi]

I dont think Stallworth should get 12 years but 30 days is an insult. I say a two year sentence with chance of parole after one year.

why because he is in the NFL and rich!!!!! the average Joe with priors or history of abuse will get the book thrown at them so why not the rich and famous!!!!

I dont think an average Joe should get 12 years either under the same circumstances.

Really would you say that if stallworth or an average Joe just hit and killed your daughter/wife/son!!!!!!!!!!! fact is if the indivdual drinking and driving obeyed the law they would have never been on the road!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!