Tcali Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Never mind about the link here's one. Thirty freaking days!!! I hope Goodell gives him a lot more than that. He had money...paid the family off..the family agreed not to pursue it.End of story. The best justice system that money can buy. -Although Stallworth--based on his actions--is not a COMPLETE scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 He had money...paid the family off..the family agreed not to pursue it.End of story. The best justice system that money can buy. -Although Stallworth--based on his actions--is not a COMPLETE scumbag. It's really not the fact that he has money, it's the fact that the prosecution was in for one hell of a long and hard fight if this went to trial. Stallworth stood a pretty decent chance of getting off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Woman gets 6 months in motorcyclist’s deathBy Matt Gryta NEWS STAFF REPORT Kathleen Manning tearfully spoke of losing one of her sons as she was sentenced Monday to six months in jail for the death of a motorcyclist in a crash last year after she’d been drinking and using cocaine. Her comments came after she was denounced by the mother of the victim. Police said the victim, Laurence Ross, was legally drunk when he crashed into Manning’s car. Manning, 45, of Hamburg, was sentenced by Erie County Judge Thomas P. Franczyk in the death of Ross, 49, who was an acquaintance. Ross was killed when his motorcycle slammed into Manning’s car as she pulled into her Southwestern Boulevard driveway, near Howard Road, last Sept. 25. She pleaded guilty Dec. 23 to criminally negligent homicide. As Franczyk ordered Manning to spend the next six months in Erie County Correctional Facility and probation for five years, he cited the many ironies in the fatal incident. The judge noted that Manning had a blood-alcohol reading of O. O6 percent but also had cocaine in her system, though she passed field sobriety tests after she called for police help moments after the crash. Ross, of Fisher Road, Lackawanna, had a blood-alcohol reading of 0.09 percent, which is over the state’s legal limit for drinking and driving. The judge stressed that neither Manning nor Ross should have been on the road that night. He said the fatal crash again “sends a message about the dangers of drugs and drinking” on the roads. Jean Ross-Franklin, the victim’s mother, told Manning that God would have to forgive her because she could not. The sentencing came on the eighth anniversary of the birth of one of Manning’s sons, who later died from sudden Infant death syndrome. Manning turned to the Ross family in court and said she was “truly, truly sorry” and knows the agony of a mother losing a child. Joel L. Daniels, Manning’s attorney, unsuccessfully asked the judge if she could serve her jail term on weekends so she could retain her job as an administrative assistant at Baker Victory Services, a job she has had for the past 25 years. In addition to ordering jail time, Franczyk fined Manning $1,875 and ordered her to submit to substance abuse counseling if ordered and attend a victim impact session after her release from custody, which court officials said would be in about four months. At the suggestion of prosecutor Lynette M. Reda, the judge indefinitely revoked Manning’s driver’s license and said that she will have to seek court permission to resume driving. Some contrast here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 MADD has become a draconian organization that is pretty much anti-alcohol. They are the people that lobbied the federal government to force states to make the drinking age 21. They want all cars to have breathalyzers in them, which don't let you drive even with a .001 BAC. They want to make it illegal to drive with any alcohol in your blood. They want to increase taxes on all alcoholic drinks. Even MADD's founder left the organization in disgust. Well the drinking age being 21 was not done just for driving it was done to make it harder for younger kids to obtain alcohol. The logic being that if 18 year olds can drink it makes it easier for 17,16, and 15 year olds to get alcohol due to the fact that a 15,16,and 17 year old is likely to have direct contact with an 18 year old and a lot less likely to have contact with a 21 year old. Personally I don't mind it due to the fact drinking is more fun when it was illegal and that its true that younger kids can get alcohol easier when the age is 18. Its not that law makers think an 18 to 20 year olds can't handle drinking they know its relatively easy for a 18 to 20 year old to get alcohol and that they aren't the ones they want to keep from obtaining alcohol As for the rest of those things its pretty much true that MADD has taken their message to the extreme to the point of being PETA to the point were they may be hurting there cause more than they are helping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Mills Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I am still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that he is only going to jail for 30 days after he killed a pedestrian while driving (legally) drunk. If any of us were in that situation we would be in jail for a very long time... I can't say that I wouldn't do the same thing if I were Stallworth but its frustrating knowing that our system is not fair and equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 JIA, I agree with you. That's an interesting article. Her six months was given for the guy hitting her! She was turning into her driveway and he must have been too close and drunk and hit her car. IMO, that's much different than the Stallworth deal. If the sentences had been reversed I would understand it a lot more but I really don't think anything she was on contributed to the crash. Thanks for posting that. Surprise, surprise justice can be bought in America. If you're rich enough you can get away with murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It's really not the fact that he has money, it's the fact that the prosecution was in for one hell of a long and hard fight if this went to trial. Stallworth stood a pretty decent chance of getting off. Yeah he may have gotten off because he had millions to pay lawyers with.Joe Shmoe would have gotten 30 days in jail for hitting and killing someone while legally drunk. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 What is done is done. The man is dead and not coming back. So the only question is what is the best resolution for the family. If they preferred a payoff, pay for the house and college education, to the man getting the max hammering the law would allow, then that is the legacy they want from their dead loved one. Their best interests are the only ones that matter IMO. Stallworth is lucky that he could afford to make that happen, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 What is done is done. The man is dead and not coming back. So the only question is what is the best resolution for the family. If they preferred a payoff, pay for the house and college education, to the man getting the max hammering the law would allow, then that is the legacy they want from their dead loved one. Their best interests are the only ones that matter IMO. Stallworth is lucky that he could afford to make that happen, yes. I believe the phrase is "pay your debt to SOCIETY" not buy the victims family a new pool. Only in a civil case is cash a acceptable punishment. This was a CRIMINAL case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I believe the phrase is "pay your debt to SOCIETY" not buy the victims family a new pool. Only in a civil case is cash a acceptable punishment. This was a CRIMINAL case. Victims rights trumping that. I have no problem with the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Victims rights trumping that. I have no problem with the resolution. You seem to have very little knowledge of how the justice system works. A criminal act is a criminal act. it has defined penalty's regardless of the victims opinion. Charges were filed,he pleaded guilty,and how the victims "relatives" feel[maybe they hated him] is irrelevant. Besides,since the victim is dead, why do you think he feels he's getting his"victims rights"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 You seem to have very little knowledge of how the justice system works. A criminal act is a criminal act. it has defined penalty's regardless of the victims opinion. Charges were filed,he pleaded guilty,and how the victims "relatives" feel[maybe they hated him] is irrelevant. Besides,since the victim is dead, why do you think he feels he's getting his"victims rights"? As noted, the main victim, is dead and not returning any time soon to the mortal plane. That leaves the still living victims, the family. Clearly, they prefer to not testify or pursue the issue, and equally clearly there was a quid pro quo in terms of financial settlement, which indiced this reluctance to pursue the matter. If this outcome was not possible, they have to go through years of expensive litigation to mtry and attach some of this guys wealth, which by then may be less as he cannot earn from prison and also has spent lots on his own lawyers defending himself. The Florida DA must have also been complicit in this arrangement and essentially agreed beforehand, with the families blessing, to go light on Stallworth. The entire situation saves taxpayer money, and strongly benefits the only LIVING victims in the case. Again, satisfactory resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 As noted, the main victim, is dead and not returning any time soon to the mortal plane. That leaves the still living victims, the family. Clearly, they prefer to not testify or pursue the issue, and equally clearly there was a quid pro quo in terms of financial settlement, which indiced this reluctance to pursue the matter. If this outcome was not possible, they have to go through years of expensive litigation to mtry and attach some of this guys wealth, which by then may be less as he cannot earn from prison and also has spent lots on his own lawyers defending himself. The Florida DA must have also been complicit in this arrangement and essentially agreed beforehand, with the families blessing, to go light on Stallworth. The entire situation saves taxpayer money, and strongly benefits the only LIVING victims in the case. Again, satisfactory resolution. What is it about a CRIMINAL charge do you not understand? It is not about paying people off. So by your logic I could kill a person with no family and it would be a 5 minute court case?"well he's dead,nothing to be done,defendant is free to go" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 What is it about a CRIMINAL charge do you not understand? It is not about paying people off. So by your logic I could kill a person with no family and it would be a 5 minute court case?"well he's dead,nothing to be done,defendant is free to go" If you were rich and you hit a construction worker, absolutely, free to go. LOL The guy went through the criminal justice system, he has 2 years house arrest, lifelong loss of license, etc. etc. Sorry, the Florida DA has more say than you. But I agree with the DA in taking into account, the future of the AFFECTED family (not your family), and, agreeing to go easy on the jail time in exchange for the family getting a payoff. I agree with it, so does the CRIMINAL justice system. I hope Stallworth does not do it again, though, thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I was shocked at the 30 day sentence. When this happened I thought for sure his career was over, and he'd be spending years in prison. I understand the reasoning after reading the article. And, I have to say that I have to give him credit for immediately calling 911, and owning up to the whole thing, even though he knew he was drunk, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackMamba Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 What is it about a CRIMINAL charge do you not understand? It is not about paying people off. So by your logic I could kill a person with no family and it would be a 5 minute court case?"well he's dead,nothing to be done,defendant is free to go" thats two different stories. he killed the man in an "accident". you going to kill a person shows that you have INTENT to kill that person. im not saying what he did was right because its not, but how many people on this board are guilty of driving not drunk but under the influence? how many of you have been lucky enough not to be caught, injure yourself or someone else? i am willing to bet just about half. he knows he killed a man and has to live with that burden for the rest of his life. he seems to be extremely remorseful. he hasnt lied and has cooperated with authorities. what would paying his debt to soceity do? the people most affected by his death were his family. if they and the prosecutors offered the plea to stallworth, who is anyone to criticize them? nobody knows there financial siutation. bottom line is that wealthy people have an advantage in getting the best legal assistance than your average joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If you were rich and you hit a construction worker, absolutely, free to go. LOL The guy went through the criminal justice system, he has 2 years house arrest, lifelong loss of license, etc. etc. Sorry, the Florida DA has more say than you. But I agree with the DA in taking into account, the future of the AFFECTED family (not your family), and, agreeing to go easy on the jail time in exchange for the family getting a payoff. I agree with it, so does the CRIMINAL justice system. I hope Stallworth does not do it again, though, thats for sure. there's obviously something very very wrong with the criminal justice system. the criminal justice system has become criminal itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 30 days? Gosh I wish I was a professional athelete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 30 days? Gosh I wish I was a professional athelete. Gosh, i wish people would actually research the subject before they commented. listen to the first link: http://search.espn.go.com/roger-cossack/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Didn't he also get 2 years house arrest and his license banned for life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts