tbgfan 856 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2009/06/17/vick_stallworth.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab Life has many choices---eternity two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/falcons/stories/2009/06/17/vick_stallworth.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab Life has many choices---eternity two The victim's family took a sizable monetary settlement, that's the reason why the sentence is so lenient, IMO. Generally, parties settle their claims by EITHER criminal or civil means, not BOTH. Interesting topic, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhs7695 185 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Hell no it's not fair to get 30 days for DUI vehicular manslaughter! Plaxico is looking at several months in jail for shooting himself in the leg. Being a dog lover, Vick wasn't in jail long enough for my liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhs7695 185 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 The victim's family took a sizable monetary settlement, that's the reason why the sentence is so lenient, IMO. Generally, parties settle their claims by EITHER criminal or civil means, not BOTH. Interesting topic, indeed. Just a bad example to put out there. If you hit and kill someone drunk, as long as you have money, you can damn near get out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Just a bad example to put out there. If you hit and kill someone drunk, as long as you have money, you can damn near get out of it. Not that I disagree with you, and in fact, I agree. But it takes two to tango, and the victim's family chose to accept the large sum of money rather than say: "Forget it, Stallworth, we're taking you to the mat on this one". Were that my son, my brother, I'd leave any sum of money behind and go right for Stallworth's jugular. Get him prison time. End his livelihood, just like he ended the life of my son/brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 What is unfair is comparing the two incidents. Like UVA said there is more to the story then just the sentence for Stallworth, there was a settlement. Also I hate when I hear people say Stallworth got 30 days for killing someone and Vick got 2 years for killing a dog. 1. Vick didn't kill A dog, but it was multiple dogs. 2. Vick didn't just kill dogs, he tortured them. What they both done was very wrong but there is no way you can compare the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefield_Rules 46 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) Killing someone with your car is horrible, but being drunk makes it 100 times worse. In my eyes Stallworth didn't commit manslaughter, he committed murder. When you get behind the wheel of a car drunk you know the huge risk you're taking. The man should be locked up for no less than five years and never be allowed to have a license again. This is another example of the joke our legal system has become. BTW: There was a similar such case in Roanoke recently involving two drunk drivers hitting and killing a construction worker. Both were sentenced to two and half years in prison; still too short. Thirty days is so disgusting. Here's a link to the most recent article regarding that case. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/203279 Edited June 18, 2009 by Bluefield_Rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I've dug a little deeper into this. Again, I'm just the messenger here: (a) Stallworth has a clean record prior to this. (b) Stallworth stayed at the scene and cooperated fully with police. © Stallworth reached out to the family to begin reparations, reducing the family's desire to pursue more aggressive punishment. But also: (d) The victim is alleged to have darted out into the street, not in a crosswalk. This raises the question of whether Stallworth (or anyone else) could have avoided him even if he were stone cold sober. Apparently, witness interviews made this a very significant possibility. (e) Florida is one of 4 states (along with Virginia) that is a "zero-neligence" state (see Florida code, 336-139). If the victim is even .000001% negligent, then there is no recovery in tort for the victim's family, and involuntary manslaughter is unusable on the criminal side. If Stallworth's legal team went to court and argued this, the DA wasn't sure he'd get a conviction and Stallworth would walk. Since the DA wasn't sure he could win the case, he settled to try to salvage something out of the case. And here we go. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuceswild 15 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I've dug a little deeper into this. Again, I'm just the messenger here: (a) Stallworth has a clean record prior to this. (b) Stallworth stayed at the scene and cooperated fully with police. © Stallworth reached out to the family to begin reparations, reducing the family's desire to pursue more aggressive punishment. But also: (d) The victim is alleged to have darted out into the street, not in a crosswalk. This raises the question of whether Stallworth (or anyone else) could have avoided him even if he were stone cold sober. Apparently, witness interviews made this a very significant possibility. (e) Florida is one of 4 states (along with Virginia) that is a "zero-neligence" state (see Florida code, 336-139). If the victim is even .000001% negligent, then there is no recovery in tort for the victim's family, and involuntary manslaughter is unusable on the criminal side. If Stallworth's legal team went to court and argued this, the DA wasn't sure he'd get a conviction and Stallworth would walk. Since the DA wasn't sure he could win the case, he settled to try to salvage something out of the case. And here we go. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. :( That shifts my view a bit. Really does make the "apples" to "oranges" thing stick out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Well, Vick's sentence had a little more behind it than just the dogs http://weblogs.dailypress.com/sports/etcblog/2009/06/equal_justice.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Well, Vick's sentence had a little more behind it than just the dogs http://weblogs.dailypress.com/sports/etcblog/2009/06/equal_justice.html Good find, that is why it angers me that people are comparing the two. If you want to debate Stallworths light sentence then fine but do not use another disgusting crime(s) to compare. In my view it makes the person comparing the two look not so credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue5Ramblin 10 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I think that we are living in a messed up world when killing dogs will get you more time in jail than killing a person. I love dogs and I think Vick deserved to get the time that he got, but now a days you would be better off killing a person than an animal. I think people are putting more emphasis on animals than people, and that is just messed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I think that we are living in a messed up world when killing dogs will get you more time in jail than killing a person. I love dogs and I think Vick deserved to get the time that he got, but now a days you would be better off killing a person than an animal. I think people are putting more emphasis on animals than people, and that is just messed up. Nooo had Donte Stallworth committed a pre meditated crime such as taking a human and torturing them and then killing them then he would get the DEATH penalty. Once again you can't compare the two crimes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I know what you are saying JJ, and I somewhat agree in these cases, but aside from these 2 overly publicized cases, you may well be better killing a person compared to a dog... Maybe it just seems that way from the media or something, but I see where Blue5 is coming from... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I know what you are saying JJ, and I somewhat agree in these cases, but aside from these 2 overly publicized cases, you may well be better killing a person compared to a dog... Maybe it just seems that way from the media or something, but I see where Blue5 is coming from... Yeah I understand the point a little bit, I just think they are totally different. Personally, I am not a pet person whatsoever and PETA really turns me off. I think they are the biggest problem. Heck they are even coming after Obama for killing a fly on tv, how ridiculous is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 IMO, Vick got a very deservable sentence. Stallworth would have gotten more for sure if the family would not have taken the settlement. This is hard to compare, but if I had to: Vick intnentionally owned and operated a dogfighting "business." He knowingly put animals health at risk frequently. If that wasn't bad enough, he tortured them and killed them for under performing. Those animals were defenseless against the mess they were put in. Stallworth didn't have the intention of hitting someone nor killing them that we can prove. He did however get loaded up and then drove....which makes him an idiot. I guess the way I look at it.....is the intent of the whole thing. Yes a human life is worth more than an animals, but the intent was an accident after using horrible judgment vs. planning and carrying out murder and planned fights to the death of dogs. Both horrible, but there was noone to take a cash settlement or Vick would have done the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Im not talking about either person, honestly. I just think any animal crime is portrayed by the media and the special interest groups, the criminal, if in the spotlight, gets the book thrown at them. I feel the Judge has no choice but to give them a large sentence as almost an insurance policy. And I think that is unjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VHSLhelper 571 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 you nailed it, fieldgeneral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Im not talking about either person, honestly. I just think any animal crime is portrayed by the media and the special interest groups, the criminal, if in the spotlight, gets the book thrown at them. I feel the Judge has no choice but to give them a large sentence as almost an insurance policy. And I think that is unjust. In SOME cases you are correct. Had the family of the deceased not taken the settlement, his trial would have been televised and followed closely. I doubt he plays next year anyway as Vick did not. The judge has a choice and he is SUPPOSED to rule w/o personal opinion. The jury also has a choice and PETA or noone else is supposed to talk to them or sway their decision. We know that personal feelings and what not do weigh in. Once again no matter if it was an athlete or not, an accident is different from planning something out and then carrying out the act that was planned. It's premeditated vs. accidental. I think stallworth should have went to jail and forced to pay a good portion of his salary when he returned to the family for years to come. This is just two different things to be compared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 I know. Everytime I post on this thread I have said, Im not comparing these two crimes. Ive said Im not talking about Vick. Someone posted that killing a dog creates more problems and punishment than killing a person, and I think he is right. And I think that type of thinking is wrong, but it still happens. Everyone understand now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Once again no matter if it was an athlete or not, an accident is different from planning something out and then carrying out the act that was planned. It's premeditated vs. accidental. I think it is more than an accident when someone CHOOSES to get behind the wheel of a car when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If some one walks out in the street with a loaded gun and starts firing off shots, not aimed at anyone one, but hits someone in the process, is that still an accident? Maybe a bit of a stretch for an example, but I feel that getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated is the same as using any other deadly weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I know. Everytime I post on this thread I have said, Im not comparing these two crimes. Ive said Im not talking about Vick. Someone posted that killing a dog creates more problems and punishment than killing a person, and I think he is right. And I think that type of thinking is wrong, but it still happens. Everyone understand now? I think we all got that, but I think most were talking about whether it was fair or not that Stallworth got a smaller sentence than Vick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldgeneral 10 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 I think it is more than an accident when someone CHOOSES to get behind the wheel of a car when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If some one walks out in the street with a loaded gun and starts firing off shots, not aimed at anyone one, but hits someone in the process, is that still an accident? Maybe a bit of a stretch for an example, but I feel that getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated is the same as using any other deadly weapon. It's a huge stretch.....but I understand what you are saying. Walking out in a street and firing a gun consciously and accidently killing someone is very different from having your judgement impaired and accidentally killing someone. Neither is good, but intent and state of mind is the difference and I'm sure in a court of law those things would be deciding factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 It's a huge stretch.....but I understand what you are saying. Walking out in a street and firing a gun consciously and accidently killing someone is very different from having your judgement impaired and accidentally killing someone. Neither is good, but intent and state of mind is the difference and I'm sure in a court of law those things would be deciding factors. Intent and state of mind are HUGE in criminal law, but not exactly in the way you're describing. The law purposefully does not take intoxication into account when determining mental states, mainly to eliminate a defense of "well, I must've done it, but I was drunk so I should get some leeway". For example, there have been people convicted of negligent homicide (a variation of 2nd-degree murder) for simply handing their keys over to someone they knew was intoxicated while being drunk themselves, much less driving the vehicle themselves. Though, the law is clear that one's state of mind is important. Hence, accidentally running over a 5-year-old running out in the street to retrieve a toy will get you 1-5 (if you plead), whereas you're looking at death for pre-meditated, deliberate murder. In short, being drunk is no excuse, and having been to law school, I can only agree in part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Hence, accidentally running over a 5-year-old running out in the street to retrieve a toy will get you 1-5 (if you plead), whereas you're looking at death for pre-meditated, deliberate murder. Even if you are not drunk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.