/dev/null Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Stojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Stojan f-ck that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Rae Carruth...cold-blooded murderer. Â PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Out of those 3, Vick by a landslide. Anyone who purposely commits a crime is a far worse person than anyone who commits a crime by accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I drove drunk once in my life (not wasted, mind you, but drunk nonetheless)...When I woke up the next morning, I was so terrified of what I could have done that I'll never even consider doing it again. Stallworth wasn't so lucky. He deserves everything he gets and more, but I still empathize with him. Â Pretty good for a college kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, intent plays a big part. That, and the fact that the prosecution had a pretty weak case. Â But obviously the majority of drunk manslaughter charges are people who had no intent on running over and killing someone else. If intent is the difference between Vick and Stallworth, then what's the difference between Stallworth and the average citizen? Stallworth gets 24 days, most other people average 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 But obviously the majority of drunk manslaughter charges are people who had no intent on running over and killing someone else. If intent is the difference between Vick and Stallworth, then what's the difference between Stallworth and the average citizen? Stallworth gets 24 days, most other people average 5 years. I just spelled out why he got 30 days. Do i have to go over everything real slowly for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I just spelled out why he got 30 days. Do i have to go over everything real slowly for you? apparently you do....he bolds a line in my post but ignored the word vicious...never knew jay-walking was a vicious crime LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I just spelled out why he got 30 days. Do i have to go over everything real slowly for you? Â I don't understand why no one can just tell me the difference between Stallworth's crime and the average citizen's same crime. The intent for manslaughter such as Stallworth's are usually the same from case to case in an overwhelming fashion. If you think there's a difference, let me know so we can have a decent conversation. Otherwise, pull out your frontal wedgie and I'll tuck you in for bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, intent plays a big part. That, and the fact that the prosecution had a pretty weak case. It wasn't weak. Stallworth hit a man and killed him, and was legally drunk. The defense was trying to claim that even if Stallworth were sober, he still would have hit and killed the man, which would have been very hard to prove. The plea was accepted because it saves the taxpayers an expensive trial, a lot of time, and the vic's family got anywhere from $3-5M as well as some conditions (can't drive, ever). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamRoller67 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Stallworth, Vick, Leonard Little?Little is the man. Â Carruth Vick Stallworth & Little tied for 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Quint Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 CarruthVick Stallworth & Little tied for 3rd  Yes. 1 Deliberately taking a human's life. 2 Deliberately killing dogs. 3 Accidents when they shouldn't have been in those situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 It wasn't weak. Stallworth hit a man and killed him, and was legally drunk. The defense was trying to claim that even if Stallworth were sober, he still would have hit and killed the man, which would have been very hard to prove. The plea was accepted because it saves the taxpayers an expensive trial, a lot of time, and the vic's family got anywhere from $3-5M as well as some conditions (can't drive, ever). Actually, every single legal opinion I've heard states that the prosecution had a weak case. The prosecution must prove their case, NOT the defense. It would have been very hard to conclusively show that Stallworth could have avoided the man if he was sober. Per reports, the man darted out in front of Stallworth's car, who was driving down a multiple lane roadway. Â Â No DA would strike a plea deal for 2% of the jail time that would be given for such a serious crime, if he had a strong case. Also, Stallworth's insurance company is most likely footing the bill for the settlement, and such settlements are routine in wrongful death cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I don't understand why no one can just tell me the difference between Stallworth's crime and the average citizen's same crime. The intent for manslaughter such as Stallworth's are usually the same from case to case in an overwhelming fashion. If you think there's a difference, let me know so we can have a decent conversation. Otherwise, pull out your frontal wedgie and I'll tuck you in for bed. Maybe you should learn to read. The prosecution had a weak case. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bflojohn Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ESPN's Roger Cossack earlier tonight said that he was told that the prosecution had a weak case because the man was NOT in a crosswalk and darted out in front of Stallworths' car, possibly to get to a bus stop. Stallworth never fled the scene of the crime and willingly cooperated with authorities. By the way, Stallworth also has a permanent suspended or revoked license, and has 1,000 hours of community service, and is technically under "house arrest" for two years and he has "made peace" with the victims family, both asking for forgiveness and monetarily too, I believe. So, I'd say that he didn't completely walk away with JUST the months incarceration. It was more than meets the eye, in my opinion, plus Stallworth also said that he is left with the anguish of carrying this tragedy with him for his entire life!! He has genuinely shown himself to be a standup guy who accepted his plight and made the right decisions throughout! How many football players today can we say that about.... oh, I'd say not many!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Stallworth, Vick, Leonard Little?Little is the man. Â None of the above. Â Biggest Sack-o-dung: Â Our very own O.J. Simpson -regardless of the verdict. Â The anniversary of 'the Bronco Chase' is TODAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Dead on. It's completely missed up, but the only difference between Stallworth, Lynch, & the majority of the board, is Stallworth was very unlucky. I know have been guilty of being really dumb in the past. Luckily, I've never been in Stallworth position because I don't know I'd live with myself. It's also because of stories like Stallworth that people finally get the picture of how dumb drunk driving is. There is absolutely no evidence that ML was drinking that night. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Actually, every single legal opinion I've heard states that the prosecution had a weak case. The prosecution must prove their case, NOT the defense. It would have been very hard to conclusively show that Stallworth could have avoided the man if he was sober. Per reports, the man darted out in front of Stallworth's car, who was driving down a multiple lane roadway.  No DA would strike a plea deal for 2% of the jail time that would be given for such a serious crime, if he had a strong case. Also, Stallworth's insurance company is most likely footing the bill for the settlement, and such settlements are routine in wrongful death cases.  I doubt that Stallworth's insurer is footing the bill for the settlement. Drunk driver = no coverage. Maybe they kick in a little to avoid having to defend a lawsuit, but I'm pretty confident that Stallworth is paying the bulk of the settlement on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Stallworth is no bigger a sack of dung that anyone who has ever driven drunk. (half this board) 90% at least once in life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paup 1995MVP Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 So how does Michael Vick get 1 year in prison for killing dogs, and Donte Stallworth gets 1 month in prison for killing a human being? Because the guy who he killed walked in front of Stallworth's car. It wasn't like Donte ran a light, or drove up on the curb and creamed the guy. I believe there was some very strong contributory negligence on the victim. Nonetheless, it is a sad situation when anyone is killed like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts