You or I run over and kill someone drunk (Stallworth)

[pr_capone]

we get tossed in jail for years.

Donte Stallworth does 30 days and community service. Victim's family get some money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

[Kyle DeLexus]

Only in America/Don King

[kcxiv]

haha, my sister my friend and i were talking about that earlier. WE go, shit if it was us, we would have gotten 15 years and that was that.

Its crazy how he only got 30 days for killing someone. I know someone who was with her BF who did some drug deal and she got 7 years for it. She was just driving her bf to the spot and she got 7 fucking years. First time ever getting into trouble. Yet he kills someone and 30 days.

[Reaper16]

Sounds like a good settlement.

[ClevelandBronco]

OMG. 30 days.

Try 15 years.

[Frazod]

I guess it was more important for the victim's family to get money than justice.

Oh well. Money can't bring back the dead, but it can buy the living lots of cool stuff.

:shake:

[-King-]

Do you have 5 mil to give to the family? No. You point is kind of killed by the fact that the victims family AGREED AND BARGAINED for this. If they had never agreed to it, then he would get years in jail. So it's not like its just his celebrity status that allowed him to get off so light.


But still, 30 days in jail, 10 years probation, 2 years house arrest, and 5 million gone is plenty.

[Bugeater]

Do you have 5 mil to give to the family? No. You point is kind of killed by the fact that the victims family AGREED AND BARGAINED for this. If they had never agreed to it, then he would get years in jail. So it's not like its just his celebrity status that allowed him to get off so light.


But still, 30 days in jail, 10 years probation, 2 years house arrest, and 5 million gone is plenty.
The family shouldn't be allowed to try a criminal case.

[Farzin]

Money talks...

[Kyle DeLexus]

The family shouldn't be allowed to try a criminal case.

I agree with this. They should have taken him to civil court after his criminal case.

[Consistent1]

I agree with this. They should have taken him to civil court after his criminal case.


Why? They got a ton without going through any risk. I have mixed feelings on this thing, but there had to be something to the guy being somewhat at fault. The 30 days thing is what opens ones eyes. Hope the family enjoys the money.

[Bugeater]

Why? They got a ton without going through any risk. I have mixed feelings on this thing, but there had to be something to the guy being somewhat at fault. The 30 days thing is what opens ones eyes. Hope the family enjoys the money.
What risk would they have been taking?

[chiefforlife]

Driving drunk and killing someone walking in an intersection, your sentence should not be in DAYS. NO WAY!

[stumppy]

Doesn't suprise me.
The way our judicial system works anymore is a travesty. Most of the time the end result of any court proceeding is directly related to how much money you have.

[cdcox]

The family shouldn't be allowed to try a criminal case.

It just amazes me that a judge would even consider this.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Why? They got a ton without going through any risk. I have mixed feelings on this thing, but there had to be something to the guy being somewhat at fault. The 30 days thing is what opens ones eyes. Hope the family enjoys the money.

It still shouldn't even be an option. He was driving drunk and should have to go to court IMO

[cdcox]

I'm much more disturbed by a family being empowered to to trade jail time of the guilty for $ in their pocket than I am by the idea of the affluent and famous getting off easy and the family getting nothing. The former is a new precedent, whereas the latter, while unjust, has always been a fact of life. If the judge wanted to set a new precedent, just hold the rich and famous to the same standard as everyone else.

[crazycoffey]

Isn't life grand?

[Kyle DeLexus]

I'm much more disturbed by a family being empowered to to trade jail time of the guilty for $ in their pocket than I am by the idea of the affluent and famous getting off easy and the family getting nothing. The former is a new precedent, whereas the latter, while unjust, has always been a fact of life. If the judge wanted to set a new precedent, just hold the rich and famous to the same standard as everyone else.

I'm with you there.

[Consistent1]

The court system couldn't have had Stallworth's balls in the vice that tightly to do this. It is already going to cause a shit-storm.

[Kyle DeLexus]

The court system couldn't have had Stallworth's balls in the vice that tightly to do this. It is already going to cause a shit-storm.

He was drunk and driving and killed someone. They were in there pretty tight. It doesn't matter if the dude threw himself in front all of a sudden as a form of suicide.

[Consistent1]

I dunno man. Look at the controversy here. The money thing is a seperate issue. That case HAD to have been flawed in some way.

[crazycoffey]

I dunno man. Look at the controversy here. The money thing is a seperate issue. That case HAD to have been flawed in some way.


Are you really that stupid? You don't think money can buy a verdict? It's happened every since we had a court system in some form or fashion. Now is really no different than 100 years ago, only the zeros at the end of the settlement.

go win the lottery, and you too can see what it's like to buy a human life. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!111!!!

[Kyle DeLexus]

I dunno man. Look at the controversy here. The money thing is a seperate issue. That case HAD to have been flawed in some way.

Or the family just had $$$$ in their eyes and took a settlement. I get what your saying, I just don't think it should happen in a man slaughter case no matter what. If someone is dead it should go to trial.

[Consistent1]

Are you really that stupid? You don't think money can buy a verdict? It's happened every since we had a court system in some form or fashion. Now is really no different than 100 years ago, only the zeros at the end of the settlement.

go win the lottery, and you too can see what it's like to buy a human life. AMERICA, **** YEAH!!!111!!!

Hey, fuck you for taking that tone with the stupid shit. Look at my posts. I didn't say it was right. They are going to be under severe heat for this deal. There has to be a little bit to it.

[crazycoffey]

Hey, fuck you for taking that tone with the stupid shit. Look at my posts. I didn't say it was right. They are going to be under severe heat for this deal. There has to be a little bit to it.


Ok, so to make sure I understand you;

I have a few million in the bank, I'm a famous athlete/movie star/porno king. I get drunk and hit someone, killing them. I know (based on previouis incidents with my profession) that I'm probably out of a job, for the most part. However, I see a potential flaw in the case and decide to pay an out of court settlement anyway, before the case gets dragged in all the media outlets, WHY?

So, I'm sorry if the comments ruffled your feathers, not trying to be a brock/dick. But if you think he payed because something wasn't right in the case, then I think that's not correct. Not even in the same category as "right", "correct", "normal", or "OK".....

[BWillie]

He was drunk and driving and killed someone. They were in there pretty tight. It doesn't matter if the dude threw himself in front all of a sudden as a form of suicide.

Actually it does. If he was drunk as shit, and somebody ran a red light and he t-boned and killed somebody would you feel the same way? What is really the difference? Bottom line the guy 1) ran out in front of traffic 2) was not at a cross walk 3) it was night out and he was not wearing special reflective gear. Give me a break, the guy was drinking and driving, but sometimes we are too results oriented. It's not like he went over the curb and ran into a kid sitting on the sidewalk.

There really is not much difference in if he hit this guy and he was intentionally texting on his cell phone and looking down. The only difference is the media/general public perceives drinking and driving much worse than doing something else irresponsible in an automobile. It's still going to be vehicular manslaughter.

[acesn8s]

Vince Neil got the same 20 years ago

[DenverChief]

Isn't life grand?


Shut up you f**king PIG!





















































:p:p

BTW for those that don't know PIG stands for Pride Integrity and Guts

[Bwana]

The family sounds like a bunch of whores. 30 days is a complete joke.

[tmax63]

First and foremost, I don't drink and drive, I support harsh penalties for it and have little tolerance for it. That said, there but for the grace of God go I. How easy could it happen that some idiot walks out in the street at night, you don't see them and boom, life is over for both only in different ways. It's a sad situation all around. I won't get too upset about the sentence that apparently everyone agreed to because I wasn't there and don't know what happened in the bargaining. I would hope that an average Joe would get some sort of consideration although he wouldn't get that good a deal in a similar situation.

[jiveturkey]

I worked with a guy that only did 90 days for killing two people while drinking and driving.

I was pretty much shocked when I heard that.

[Consistent1]

Ok, so to make sure I understand you;

I have a few million in the bank, I'm a famous athlete/movie star/porno king. I get drunk and hit someone, killing them. I know (based on previouis incidents with my profession) that I'm probably out of a job, for the most part. However, I see a potential flaw in the case and decide to pay an out of court settlement anyway, before the case gets dragged in all the media outlets, WHY?

So, I'm sorry if the comments ruffled your feathers, not trying to be a brock/dick. But if you think he payed because something wasn't right in the case, then I think that's not correct. Not even in the same category as "right", "correct", "normal", or "OK".....

I wasn't trying to start with you man, so for that I am sorry. I am just saying that most people are questioning the 30 days aspect, which does seem light. If the thing had been cut and dried guilty of manslaughter, they surely would have tried to put him away longer. The prosecution had to be missing something. I have heard people say it's because the guy jumped out improperly in spite of Stallworth's BAC, even heard that there were questions about actual proof of "impairment", etc. If there is a good chance that someone else (sober) would have hit him, then I guess it is just a DUI pretty much? I was simply agreeing that the 30 days seemed LOW. The money part doesn't surprise me a bit. I guess we all don't know everything on this deal.

[DenverChief]

I worked with a guy that only did 90 days for killing two people while drinking and driving.

I was pretty much shocked when I heard that.

Yeah we had a guy (IIRC 22-23 yo) in county that killed a family (4 of 5 died, mom, dad, and 2 of the three siblings died) when he was drunk driving the wrong way on I-70. He was depressed and trying to kill himself but was unsuccessful (obviously) anyway he got 12 months in county lockup and probation yada yada....most respectful kid I ever met working in the jail and I always wondered why he had done the things he did

[Red and Gold Mania]

I guess it was more important for the victim's family to get money than justice.

Oh well. Money can't bring back the dead, but it can buy the living lots of cool stuff.

:shake:

That is North Havana for you man. Banana republic people that live down there swear by their families unless there is a multi-million dollar deal in front of them.

[LaChapelle]

Good thing he wasn't drunk and ran over a dog. All hell would have broke lose.

[Coach]

What's funny to me is that Vick gets jailed for 19 some months for dogfighting, and Stallworth gets 30 days and community service, plus money to the family?

[DenverChief]

What's funny to me is that Vick gets jailed for 19 some months for dogfighting, and Stallworth gets 30 days and community service, plus money to the family?

I know....

[kepp]

What's funny to me is that Vick gets jailed for 19 some months for dogfighting, and Stallworth gets 30 days and community service, plus money to the family?

Pretty crazy.

[El Jefe]

we get tossed in jail for years.

Donte Stallworth does 30 days and community service. Victim's family get some money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

I was really pissed about this story, because I thought the same thing. I was talking to my brother and said, you or I do this and we get 10 plus years in jail at least. Donte gets 30 DAYS?? He must have paid a lot of money for that time he is getting out of, ridiculous to me.

[CoMoChief]

Do you have 5 mil to give to the family? No. You point is kind of killed by the fact that the victims family AGREED AND BARGAINED for this. If they had never agreed to it, then he would get years in jail. So it's not like its just his celebrity status that allowed him to get off so light.


But still, 30 days in jail, 10 years probation, 2 years house arrest, and 5 million gone is plenty.

How much do you think $5 Million is worth to him after signing that contract in CLE?

Most celebs and pro athletes can afford to give up that much just because of the fact. they're celebs/athletes, they make the most money.

[Molitoth]

I'm curious of Stallworth's BAC. If Stallworth was just insanley hammered and driving around then I feel he really should suffer more harsh of a penalty. If Stallworth had a few beers, and hit the guy because he was jacking with his stereo or something... then I am really glad he isn't in jail for multiple years. AN accident is an accident. I'm for certain Stallworth didn't hit the guy on purpose. There are people who actually MURDER people with intent and get out of jail quick. Putting people away for a DUI if you are just a tiny bit over our joke of a BAC is rediculas.

I would have settled if I was the family member as well. Stallworth losing that much money is a nice lesson learned to him, and it benefits the whole family. Putting his ass in prison for 10 years for a very common mistake doesn't bring any happiness to anyone. Granted losing a family member sucks, and money cannot buy that as a replacement.... when it's your time to go, it's your time to go. (Could argue it is what God intended)...
Death is a part of life.

How many people here have driven after a few beers? I would say damn near everyone that drinks. Now think if someone walked out in front of your car... you are screwed.

[pr_capone]

I'm curious of Stallworth's BAC. If Stallworth was just insanley hammered and driving around then I feel he really should suffer more harsh of a penalty. If Stallworth had a few beers, and hit the guy because he was jacking with his stereo or something... then I am really glad he isn't in jail for multiple years. AN accident is an accident. I'm for certain Stallworth didn't hit the guy on purpose. There are people who actually MURDER people with intent and get out of jail quick. Putting people away for a DUI if you are just a tiny bit over our joke of a BAC is rediculas.

I would have settled if I was the family member as well. Stallworth losing that much money is a nice lesson learned to him, and it benefits the whole family. Putting his ass in prison for 10 years for a very common mistake doesn't bring any happiness to anyone. Granted losing a family member sucks, and money cannot buy that as a replacement.... when it's your time to go, it's your time to go. (Could argue it is what God intended)...
Death is a part of life.

How many people here have driven after a few beers? I would say damn near everyone that drinks. Now think if someone walked out in front of your car... you are screwed.

His BAC was 1.2 IIRC.

He was hammered.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The family shouldn't be allowed to try a criminal case.

Exactly. What does a financial settlement have to do with legal ramifications. It's good to know that you can do more time in jail for smoking pot than you can for killing a person. We've really evolved as a species. Yeah, monkeys with thumbs.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Do you have 5 mil to give to the family? No. You point is kind of killed by the fact that the victims family AGREED AND BARGAINED for this. If they had never agreed to it, then he would get years in jail. So it's not like its just his celebrity status that allowed him to get off so light.


But still, 30 days in jail, 10 years probation, 2 years house arrest, and 5 million gone is plenty.

LMAO Plenty? Tell that to the dead guy.

[KCUnited]

You know things are twisted when a guy gets kudos for "being a man" and sticking around after running over and killing a man.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

You know things are twisted when a guy gets kudos for "being a man" and sticking around after running over and killing a man.

Did he? Seems to me they reported it was his car a couple of days before reporting he was involved. I thought he left the car and bounced.

[KCUnited]

Did he? Seems to me they reported it was his car a couple of days before reporting he was involved. I thought he left the car and bounced.
nah, he stopped, called 911, and took a sobriety test right there. I thought I remember reading after it happened that cops found him sitting on the curb saying 'I just killed that man'.

Either way, that should be expected.

[Molitoth]

Did he? Seems to me they reported it was his car a couple of days before reporting he was involved. I thought he left the car and bounced.

If that was the case, they would not have caught him with a BAC, therefor a hit and run, not a DUI. He stuck around.

[Demonpenz]

I think it is fair, of note he is on my keeper league

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Right on, I misremembered the details of the case. I remember being shocked as hell when it happened. I think I'm more shocked now at his 30 day sentence. I don't care if he fulfilled his legal obligation by staying at the scene of the crime or not. 30 days is crazy for killing someone. Although I did hear someone say the guy walked right out in front of his car. Is it confirmed that the fault really wasn't his? If that's the case, 30 days is just for being drunk during the accident. That would be totally different.

[Bugeater]

I'm curious of Stallworth's BAC. If Stallworth was just insanley hammered and driving around then I feel he really should suffer more harsh of a penalty. If Stallworth had a few beers, and hit the guy because he was jacking with his stereo or something... then I am really glad he isn't in jail for multiple years. AN accident is an accident. I'm for certain Stallworth didn't hit the guy on purpose. There are people who actually MURDER people with intent and get out of jail quick. Putting people away for a DUI if you are just a tiny bit over our joke of a BAC is rediculas.

I would have settled if I was the family member as well. Stallworth losing that much money is a nice lesson learned to him, and it benefits the whole family. Putting his ass in prison for 10 years for a very common mistake doesn't bring any happiness to anyone. Granted losing a family member sucks, and money cannot buy that as a replacement.... when it's your time to go, it's your time to go. (Could argue it is what God intended)...
Death is a part of life.

How many people here have driven after a few beers? I would say damn near everyone that drinks. Now think if someone walked out in front of your car... you are screwed.

That is very true, I remember seeing an episode of COPS one time where a guy hit someone who was walking along the freeway, they did a breath test and since he passed it there were no charges filed, but if he had failed he would've been charged with manslaughter. Doesn't really make sense.

[Frazod]

LMAO Plenty? Tell that to the dead guy.

Whether Stallworth rots in jail forever or gets off scott free, the dead guy will continue to be dead.

I thought about this a little, and if I was in that position, and if some dickbag drunken celebrity ran over my wife, and I got offered this deal - play along with a light sentence and get an assload of cash - I honestly couldn't say I wouldn't take that deal. In fact, I probably would. While it might feel wrong, having a big house up in the mountains and that red 1970 SS Chevelle LS-6 convertible I've always wanted would definitely feel right.

And if the rich celebrity ran over me instead, I think I'd like for my wife to have the money, since my life couldn't be bought back with anything.

So in the end, who I am to judge this family? The rich buy their way out of shit and always will.

[DenverChief]

While it might feel wrong, having a big house up in the mountains

You would move to Denver!?! Blasphemy!!!

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Whether Stallworth rots in jail forever or gets off scott free, the dead guy will continue to be dead.

I thought about this a little, and if I was in that position, and if some dickbag drunken celebrity ran over my wife, and I got offered this deal - play along with a light sentence and get an assload of cash - I honestly couldn't say I wouldn't take that deal. In fact, I probably would. While it might feel wrong, having a big house up in the mountains and that red 1970 SS Chevelle LS-6 convertible I've always wanted would definitely feel right.

And if the rich celebrity ran over me instead, I think I'd like for my wife to have the money, since my life couldn't be bought back with anything.

So in the end, who I am to judge this family? The rich buy their way out of shit and always will.

Honestly, if Stallworth was at fault he should go to jail, and pay the family. Their lives are ruined, his should be too. I don't think alcohol should be the mitigating factor though if the guy who was killed was negligent while crossing the street.

[Frazod]

Honestly, if Stallworth was at fault he should go to jail, and pay the family. Their lives are ruined, his should be too. I don't think alcohol should be the mitigating factor though if the guy who was killed was negligent while crossing the street.

In a perfect world they'd be able to get liquored up and run over Stallworth in his own goddamn Bentley - that would be true justice.

[Garcia Bronco]

It just amazes me that a judge would even consider this.

In a Commonwealth like Virginia or Mass this would not happen. He'd get charged and his playing days would be over. Vick for example violated intersate commerce and got almost two years. A DUI fatality? 30 days. Unreal.

[Garcia Bronco]

Right on, I misremembered the details of the case. I remember being shocked as hell when it happened. I think I'm more shocked now at his 30 day sentence. I don't care if he fulfilled his legal obligation by staying at the scene of the crime or not. 30 days is crazy for killing someone. Although I did hear someone say the guy walked right out in front of his car. Is it confirmed that the fault really wasn't his? If that's the case, 30 days is just for being drunk during the accident. That would be totally different.

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.

[Frazod]

You would move to Denver!?! Blasphemy!!!

Uh, there are no mountains in Denver. The sand on a beach isn't wet just because it's near the ocean. :)

[DenverChief]

Uh, there are no mountains in Denver. The sand on a beach isn't wet just because it's near the ocean. :)

LMAO I tried

[Consistent1]

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.

You are right. I think that is possibly the most bothersome aspect of this whole deal.

[penguinz]

He should get charged separately for the DUI. The fact he was drunk had nothing to do with hitting the guy. This is why the DA suggested only a 30 day since he knew the Defense had a legit argument.

[MOhillbilly]

Could be worse. anyone remember what happened to the guy who ran down Sinbad?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.

If that's the case, 30 days is a joke.

[LabRat38]

Seems about right for a punishment to me. Afterall, they are talking about a possible 158 year sentence for the 18 yo kid in Miami that killed 19 cats. I can see the logic.

[seclark]

Seems about right for a punishment to me. Afterall, they are talking about a possible 158 year sentence for the 18 yo kid in Miami that killed 19 cats. I can see the logic.

at 9 lives, that's only a little over 2 cats.
sec

[BWillie]

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.

That could even potentially helped his cause actually, because he did attempt to warn the jaywalking pedestrian. Just because he flashed his lights doesn't necessarily mean he could of stopped. He could even be lying about that, just going forward looking ahead and then all of a sudden the guy darts out in front of him. Nobody knows for sure.

[Frazod]

Seems about right for a punishment to me. Afterall, they are talking about a possible 158 year sentence for the 18 yo kid in Miami that killed 19 cats. I can see the logic.

FWIW, that kid's probably a complete psychopath - serial killers generally start by killing animals before moving up to people. I don't think there's much chance of Stallworth developing a taste for running over pedestrians and moving up to larger vehicles/bigger crowds.

[Molitoth]

at 9 lives, that's only a little over 2 cats.
sec

haha

[BWillie]

His BAC was 1.2 IIRC.

He was hammered.

I wouldn't call .12 hammered. .20, well I'd call that hammered. Either way, you people that are up on your perch, just because you are above the legal limit doesn't mean you can't get a DUI. If you had two beers at your grandma's birthday party and drove home and get in an accident that killed someone. As long as you had some fault in it, you could potentially get vehicular manslaughter if they felt it contributed. Like I said, you can get a dui/dwi if you blow a .03 or something if there is a strong enough case for it. Nobody wanted this to happen. While I agree something like 3 months would of been a better sentence, but I don't think anybody wanted this to go to trial because of the fact that other party was jaywalking and the defense probably had cases line up to try to dispute that intoxication was a factor in the accident.

[KCUnited]

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.
Our client woo wooing is not a clear indication that he saw the deceased prior to the accident. /the defense.

[Marcellus]

He was drunk and driving and killed someone. They were in there pretty tight. It doesn't matter if the dude threw himself in front all of a sudden as a form of suicide.

Do you actually believe that?

[Marcellus]

Stallworth said he flashed his lights at him. Meaning he saw him in time to stop.

Are you an accident investigator in the side?

So if you have time to flash your lights you have time to stop? :doh!:

I didn't realize the amount of time it takes to flash your lights is the same amount of time it takes to completely stop a car going 40 or 50 MPH.

[Demonpenz]

Are you an accident investigator in the side?

So if you have time to flash your lights you have time to stop? :doh!:

I didn't realize the amount of time it takes to flash your lights is the same amount of time it takes to completely stop a car going 40 or 50 MPH.

flick your light takes less than a second.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Do you actually believe that?Yes I do, only because I feel a DUI should have a sentence over 30 days by itself. I've been drinking since I was 14 and have not once drove when I had been drinking. Well unless it was 2 beers while watchin a game at a bar. When people get more upset about someone killing dogs that couldn't fight than they do about someone taking or possibly taking another human's life, something is wrong. And any time you drive while intoxicated you have the possibility of taking someones life IMO.......plus I had already heard that he flashed his lights at the guy meaning he wasn't slamming the breaks.


I do know that accidents can happen though. About 5 years ago, I hit a little kid on a bike. I was driving and they were riding on the other side of the street so I slowed down. This kid all of a sudden turned right in front of me without looking and I couldn't stop. He ended up being alright. Had I been drinking I might not have slowed down in the first place, and he might not have been alright.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Are you an accident investigator in the side?

So if you have time to flash your lights you have time to stop? :doh!:

I didn't realize the amount of time it takes to flash your lights is the same amount of time it takes to completely stop a car going 40 or 50 MPH.

So your about to hit someone, are you going to flash your lights or are you going to stop? If there is only enough time to flash you lights well thats not going to do any good they aren't going to get out of the way. If you slam on your breaks you might just slow down enough to not kill the person.

[pr_capone]

I wouldn't call .12 hammered. .20, well I'd call that hammered. Either way, you people that are up on your perch, just because you are above the legal limit doesn't mean you can't get a DUI. If you had two beers at your grandma's birthday party and drove home and get in an accident that killed someone. As long as you had some fault in it, you could potentially get vehicular manslaughter if they felt it contributed. Like I said, you can get a dui/dwi if you blow a .03 or something if there is a strong enough case for it. Nobody wanted this to happen. While I agree something like 3 months would of been a better sentence, but I don't think anybody wanted this to go to trial because of the fact that other party was jaywalking and the defense probably had cases line up to try to dispute that intoxication was a factor in the accident.

We are not talking about something relatively small like keeping money that a bank has accidentaly put in your account.

A man lost his life and the fact that Stallworth was drunk and driving contributed to that fact.

The Average Joe more than 30 days and 1k hours of community service. To be perfectly honest... I believe that 90 days for offing a pedestrian is a joke too.

/did not realize I was on any "perch"

[epitome1170]

People continue to mention this jay walking B.S. If he is drunk, that is all that matters.

In the eyes of the law, if you are driving drunk and you get in an accident and it is not "your fault" in the eyes of cops (assuming you are both sober). You are still at fault because you are on the road while driving drunk. Basically, any accident that happens while driving drunk is your fault because you should not be there in the first place.

[LaChapelle]

Donte was wearing a Death Race 2000 shirt.

~Is it too soon?

[Kyle DeLexus]

People continue to mention this jay walking B.S. If he is drunk, that is all that matters.

In the eyes of the law, if you are driving drunk and you get in an accident and it is not "your fault" in the eyes of cops (assuming you are both sober). You are still at fault because you are on the road while driving drunk. Basically, any accident that happens while driving drunk is your fault because you should not be there in the first place.

Thank you!

[Hootie]

His BAC was 1.2 IIRC.

He was hammered.

that's hammered ROFL

That's three or four beers in an hour. Five beers over three hours. Not hammered...

[pr_capone]

that's hammered ROFL

That's three or four beers in an hour. Five beers over three hours. Not hammered...

For staying at home and partying with friends... certainly not.

For driving around? Yeah... thats hammered.

[Marcellus]

So your about to hit someone, are you going to flash your lights or are you going to stop? If there is only enough time to flash you lights well thats not going to do any good they aren't going to get out of the way. If you slam on your breaks you might just slow down enough to not kill the person.

My point was he likely did both, just because he flashed his lights doesn't mean he had time to stop as has been mentioned here.

[Molitoth]

I've been drinking since I was 14 and have not once drove when I had been drinking. Well unless it was 2 beers while watchin a game at a bar.


hehe!

[Marcellus]

People continue to mention this jay walking B.S. If he is drunk, that is all that matters.

In the eyes of the law, if you are driving drunk and you get in an accident and it is not "your fault" in the eyes of cops (assuming you are both sober). You are still at fault because you are on the road while driving drunk. Basically, any accident that happens while driving drunk is your fault because you should not be there in the first place.

That's simply not true. In a lot of states there has to be another circumstance aside from BAC to come into play to convict on a manslaughter charge.Something like speeding, reckless driving etc....The simple fact you were driving does nto make you fully culpable. Something else obviously has to happen to cause an accident which somebody is going to be at fault.

If your driving home and your BAC is above the legal limit, and another car runs a stop sign and T-bones you and they die, is that your fault because you were on the road? You are going to be charged with DUI, not manslaughter.

[Garcia Bronco]

Are you an accident investigator in the side?

So if you have time to flash your lights you have time to stop? :doh!:

I didn't realize the amount of time it takes to flash your lights is the same amount of time it takes to completely stop a car going 40 or 50 MPH.

You do have time to stop, slow down, and avoid killing another human being. Further more in most cities you have to yield to pedestrian traffic. Either way this guys was killed for no good reason.

[BWillie]

People continue to mention this jay walking B.S. If he is drunk, that is all that matters.

In the eyes of the law, if you are driving drunk and you get in an accident and it is not "your fault" in the eyes of cops (assuming you are both sober). You are still at fault because you are on the road while driving drunk. Basically, any accident that happens while driving drunk is your fault because you should not be there in the first place.

No. You are EXTREMELY incorrect. If you are drunk, high, don't have insurance and are rear-ended at a stop light you are not negligent for the loss. You just aren't. You can be jumping on the hood of your stopped vehicle, making it rain on some hookers and punting a dog. Still not at fault for the other parties damages. Can you get a DUI? Yes. Can you get cited for not having insurance? Yes. Can you get sued in a court of law for the other parties damages? No. You have to look at proximate cause in a loss. Trust me on this one. I do this shit everyday. Sure in this case, certainly I can see some negligence being on Stallworth, but there is surely going to be comparable negligence in the loss if it went it went to litigation as it could be construed that Stallworth's intoxication contributed to the loss, but it certainly would not be the only factor. If the defense could prove that Stallworth's intoxication didn't have any contributing factor in the loss, he would be 0% liable whether he was drunk or not.

Some states law may differ somewhat, but generally that is how it will be. For example, the only state I know of when a liable party does not have to pay for damage to an uninsured motorist is in Louisiana as they have the no pay no play rule.

[crazycoffey]

that's hammered ROFL

That's three or four beers in an hour. Five beers over three hours. Not hammered...

not just for Hootie, for all the BAC posts;

The three - four beers in one hour ratio is for a basic comparision, there are other things to consider, his age, weight, any medicine/supplements could have an effect as well. Also, the report indicates he was coming from a hotel were he was drinking, did he stop drinking an hour before he left, were the number would have already reached a plateau? Or did he stop drinking a few hours before and the number was descending? It is possible he had a couple shots and finished his last drink right before he left, and the blood alcohol level was rising. Either way, he tested for .126 BAC, and that is maybe not "hammered" it most certainly impaired his motor skills, judgement, and reaction times.

I do say kudos for calling, staying and acting responsible for his actions, it is refreshing to see in these days, where everyone shifts blame to someone/something else.

http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com/images/bac_chart.jpg

[Frazod]

I don't know the specifics of this case, but I do know that pedestrians in urban areas are mindlessly bold when it comes to stepping out into the street - that "pedestrian has the right of way" mantra is pounded into their heads to the point that they think they're car-proof.

Pedestrians in downtown Chicago basically ignore the Walk/Don't Walk lights. I see people regularly begin to walk across a four lane street on yellow just like they would run a yellow light in a car, then flip off angry drivers who honk/yell at them like they did something wrong. One day I saw a woman pushing a baby in a stroller with one hand with a toddler holding her other hand cross a street on red. A cab driver, who clearly had the right of way, had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting them. What does the woman do? Remove her hand from the stroller so she can flip the cab driver off. No shit.

I'd estimate that pedestrian dumbassery like this is the cause of three-quarters of urban rush hour gridlock. There's nothing like packing a couple million people into a square mile or so of city that brings out the worst in human stupidity.

It's possible that this guy's dead just because he was stupid, and drunk or sober Stallworth would have greased him.

[BWillie]

I don't know the specifics of this case, but I do know that pedestrians in urban areas are mindlessly bold when it comes to stepping out into the street - that "pedestrian has the right of way" mantra is pounded into their heads to the point that they think they're car-proof.

Pedestrians in downtown Chicago basically ignore the Walk/Don't Walk lights. I see people regularly begin to walk across a four lane street on yellow just like they would run a yellow light in a car, then flip off angry drivers who honk/yell at them like they did something wrong. One day I saw a woman pushing a baby in a stroller with one hand with a toddler holding her other hand cross a street on red. A cab driver, who clearly had the right of way, had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting them. What does the woman do? Remove her hand from the stroller so she can flip the cab driver off. No shit.

I'd estimate that pedestrian dumbassery like this is the cause of three-quarters of urban rush hour gridlock. There's nothing like packing a couple million people into a square mile or so of city that brings out the worst in human stupidity.

It's possible that this guy's dead just because he was stupid, and drunk or sober Stallworth would have greased him.

Contrary to popular belief pedestrians do not have the ultimate right of way. How would you feel if you were driving straight on in the right lane and somebody ran out from a driveway at a perpendicular angle in front of you as you were driving straight? Pretty difficult to avoid such a thing.

[Frazod]

Contrary to popular belief pedestrians do not have the ultimate right of way. How would you feel if you were driving straight on in the right lane and somebody ran out from a driveway at a perpendicular angle in front of you as you were driving straight? Pretty difficult to avoid such a thing.

You're preaching to the choir. But if you hit a pedestrian, you'd damn well better be able to prove there was no way you could have avoided him.

[memyselfI]

I am appalled beyond belief. This country has finally lost it's collective soul...we lost our minds a long time ago. How is it that Michael Vick served more time for killing dogs than Stallworth will for killing a human?

This question coming from an animal rights supporter.

[Frazod]

Well, I think Vick's lawyers tried to buy off the dogs' mother, but the bitch refused.

[penguinz]

I am appalled beyond belief. This country has finally lost it's collective soul...we lost our minds a long time ago. How is it that Michael Vick served more time for killing dogs than Stallworth will for killing a human?

This question coming from an animal rights supporter.Because this had nothing to do with the man being drunk.

It was determined by DA that the man who was killed was mostly at fault. If Stallworth had been sober and driving at the same exact time at the same exact speed in that same exact spot he still would have more than likely hit and killed the man.

[patteeu]

If I were killed by a drunk driver, I'd rather have my family's financial security taken care of by the offender (since I wouldn't be around to do it myself) than have the offender punished. If it works for the family and it works for Stallworth, I'm fine with the light sentence. If I thought he was a serious danger to society (e.g. a mulitple offender) I might change my opinion, but based on what I've heard, I don't.

[Adept Havelock]

That POS Stallworth and Leonard Little should be sharing a cell for the rest of their lives.

Better yet, liquor up a couple of Highway Patrolmen, and let them run over Stallworth and Little.

Repeatedly.

[crazycoffey]

I am appalled beyond belief. This country has finally lost it's collective soul...we lost our minds a long time ago. How is it that Michael Vick served more time for killing dogs than Stallworth will for killing a human?

This question coming from an animal rights supporter.


That you still seperated yourself with the final comment, shows all anyone needs to know about you and your opinions....

[ClevelandBronco]

The law in Ohio when I was a younger man insisted that you had to have "complete control of your vehicle in the assured clear distance ahead." That means that if you hit someone, you're at fault. If you hit someone while you're drunk, you're in deep shit.

Paying money for civil damages is one thing. Paying time for bad behavior should be another.

Put the asshole in prison stripes. And make him pay the money.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Well at least now he's officially been suspended from the NFL

[crazycoffey]

The law in Ohio when I was a younger man insisted that you had to have "complete control of your vehicle in the assured clear distance ahead." That means that if you hit someone, you're at fault. If you hit someone while you're drunk, you're in deep shit...


My understanding as well, but the "assured distance" is also within the guides of what a normal prudent would percieve an assured distance, and this is where the debate becomes topical;
Can someone under any level of intoxication (when it's at a proven level, clinically, that they could have impaired judgement, motor skills and reaction times) be held to the same standards as a normal prudent person?

[-King-]

If I were killed by a drunk driver, I'd rather have my family's financial security taken care of by the offender (since I wouldn't be around to do it myself) than have the offender punished. If it works for the family and it works for Stallworth, I'm fine with the light sentence. If I thought he was a serious danger to society (e.g. a mulitple offender) I might change my opinion, but based on what I've heard, I don't.

Now that I think about it, you're right. What do I care if he goes to jail or not? Wont matter to me. I'd rather have my family live nicely. And he cant do it again, his license has been suspended for life. But yeah, Id rather know that my family will live nicely than care what happens to the guy, especially if my death is somewhat my fault.

[milkman]

If I were killed by a drunk driver, I'd rather have my family's financial security taken care of by the offender (since I wouldn't be around to do it myself) than have the offender punished. If it works for the family and it works for Stallworth, I'm fine with the light sentence. If I thought he was a serious danger to society (e.g. a mulitple offender) I might change my opinion, but based on what I've heard, I don't.

I have read through this thread, but have tried to stay away from commenting, because I'm biased on this subject.

But I have to say something here.

Yes, it's great that the family is being taken care of financilly, and a stronger prison sentence certainly won't bring back the lost family memeber.

However, having lost a father to a drunk driver before I even got a chance to know him, and having lost a brother to another drunk driver 30 years later, if I had my say in it, with the education and knowledge out there on the the effects of alcohol and the manner in which it impairs a person's ability to drive, there is absolutely no way in hell that a person who kills another person while driving impaired shouldn't be in prison for at least a minimum of 5 years, and when convicted, the court should award the family any assets that person has.

This, quite frankly, is bullshit.