Stallworth vs Burress vs Vick

[Mile High Mania]

Ok, so...

Vick brutally kills a bunch of dogs, spends a great deal of time in jail (nearly 2 years right)... is released and trying to get back into the NFL.

Burress accidentaly shoots himself in the ass, with a gun at a nightclub... team releases him and he's staring at a possible suspension for the league. Could still play in 2009.

Stallworth gets behind the wheel of a car drunk, kills another human being and is staring at 30 days in jail and could likely still plan in 2009.



I know there's more to the different stories, but what's up with this... ?

[rambleonthruthefog]

vick was made an example of much more that the others.

[Hootie]

dumb as shit

[CoMoChief]

Well Stallworth got a Leonard Little type of deal, because his ass should be in jail for a long ass time, not 30 frickin days.

[ziggysocki]

Not Stallworth's fault, that dude should have looked both ways before crossing the sidewalk.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Ok, so...

Vick brutally kills a bunch of dogs, spends a great deal of time in jail (nearly 2 years right)... is released and trying to get back into the NFL.

Burress accidentaly shoots himself in the ass, with a gun at a nightclub... team releases him and he's staring at a possible suspension for the league.

Stallworth gets behind the wheel of a car drunk, kills another human being and is staring at 30 days in jail and could likely still plan in 2009.



I know there's more to the different stories, but what's up with this... ?

Stallworth hit a guy who wasn't even in a crosswalk on a major roadway when it was dark out. Hell drunk or not, I probably would of hit him too. He blew a .12, which is bad and he should be held accountable for his actions but it could of happened to just about anybody in that position. .12 isn't piss on a cop drunk. Didn't the legal limit used to be .10, and maybe still is in some states? If the civil case goes to trial I would not think Stallworth will be found 100% negligent for the accident.

Another thing worth mentioning, in many states a police officer can give you a DUI/DWI if they feel your drinking contributed to the loss even if you weren't above the legal limit anyway. I've seen an accident where the guy blew a .03 or something like that and somebody made a left hand turn in front of him and they cited him for a DWI even though he was not the majority at fault in the accident.

[topher79]

Dude crossed the street illegally that's why he got the light the sentence. That and he set that family up for life. It also didn't hurt him any that he owned it when it happened and didn't try cover it up.

Still doesn't make it right though. If that was you or me...."See you in 15!"

[KCUnited]

Vick didn't go to jail for killing dogs.

[Just Passin' By]

Different 'crimes' in different jurisdictions.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Vick didn't go to jail for killing dogs.

The sentencing and the reason the focus was so huge on him was because of the killing (IMO) not so much the illegal dog fighting operation.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

Stallworth hit a guy who wasn't even in a crosswalk on a major roadway when it was dark out. Hell drunk or not, I probably would of hit him too. He blew a .12, which is bad and he should be held accountable for his actions but it could of happened to just about anybody in that position. .12 isn't piss on a cop drunk. Didn't the legal limit used to be .10, and maybe still is in some states? If the civil case goes to trial I would not think Stallworth will be found 100% negligent for the accident.

Another thing worth mentioning, in many states a police officer can give you a DUI/DWI if they feel your drinking contributed to the loss even if you weren't above the legal limit anyway. I've seen an accident where the guy blew a .03 or something like that and somebody made a left hand turn in front of him and they cited him for a DWI even though he was not the majority at fault in the accident.

Justifying it is crazy to me...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by topher79

Dude crossed the street illegally that's why he got the light the sentence. That and he set that family up for life. It also didn't hurt him any that he owned it when it happened and didn't try cover it up.

Still doesn't make it right though. If that was you or me...."See you in 15!"

Essentially my understanding is there was no proof that Stallworth being over the legal limit contributed to the accident. Under ost manslaughter laws there has to be a contributing factor besides BAC such as reckless driving, speeding etc......

He shouldn't have been driving in the first place so obviously you could say that made him at fault for even being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It kind of brings up some interesting questions. What if your over the limit and somebody else runs a stop sign and slams into you and a passenger in your vehicle dies. Even though the other car runs a stop sign does that make you culpable because you shouldn't have been on the road anyway?


I am sure the precedence on these type issues have been set in the past and I am not defending Stallworth but I find it interesting.

So if the he was just tooling along and the guy runs out in front of him how much culpability does he have?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Justifying it is crazy to me...

That's not justification....its the circumstances. Unfortunately everything isn't as black and white as everyone wants to make things.

Nobody is saying he should have been driving but the circumstances of the accident may not support the charges as a whole. Like I said, in most states there has to be another contributing factor. That's the law.


Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds people liable for any death which occurs because of criminal negligence, or a violation of traffic safety laws. A common use of the vehicular manslaughter laws involves prosecution for a death caused by driving under the influence (determined by excessive blood alcohol content levels set by individual states), although an independent infraction (such as driving with a suspended driver's license), or negligence, is usually also required.[20]

In some U.S. states, such as Texas, intoxication manslaughter is a distinctly defined offense. A person commits intoxication manslaughter if he, or she, operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride while intoxicated and, by reason of that intoxication, causes the death of another by accident or mistake.[21]

Intoxication manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter and other similar offenses require a lesser mens rea than other manslaughter offenses. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant is entitled to use the alcohol, controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, or other substance, is no defense.[22] For example, in Texas, to prove intoxication manslaughter, it is not necessary to prove the person was negligent in causing the death of another, nor that they unlawfully used the substance that intoxicated them, but only that they were intoxicated, and operated a motor vehicle, and someone died as a result. The same rule of law applies in New York for vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.[23]

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Justifying it is crazy to me...

Categorizing DUI as its own crime is crazy to me. Different beliefs.

[Kyle DeLexus]

I get what your sayin Mile. When the whole Vick thing was first going nuts and whatnot and there were people sending chain emails with injured dogs and saying what a criminal Vick was, I sent one to everyone on the list about people killed from drunk driving and mentioned Leonard Little and how people are more upset about Vick than they were with Little.