Brady texted support to Stallworth after accident; more details from MMQB

[Bobs My Uncle]

You're free to debate the issue just like anyone else.

But when you say things like "I spoke about my dislike for Brady supporting his friend the murderer", it stifles discussion. A lot of people have brought up very valid points to which your general response is "Stallworth is a drunk murderer!!" It's sort of like trying to engage in a discussion with an angry mob.

An investigation and the legal process decided to give Stallworth some leniency based on the facts of the case, it had nothing to do with his celebrity. You might be wise to consider some of those facts and not just making such broad sweeping statements on something based on the surface of it, and also consider that there are certain grey areas in life - such as "good people do bad things" (or any of the things Kontra has pointed out re: drunk driving). You're oversimplifying the entire thing to an absurd degree.

The facts and the law don't always mesh.

Stallworth did murder a person. He used his car and his drunken stupor as his weapon of choice instead of say a gun.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

You gotta remember though, the guys' Canadian.

.... and American.

 

[BradyManny]

The facts and the law don't always mesh.

Stallworth did murder a person. He used his car and his drunken stupor as his weapon of choice instead of say a gun.

Who did you think is privy to more facts here? The law enforcers who investigated the case, or you? Have you even read the King article? Or any of the articles on the case? It seems as if you haven't.

No one here is defending Stallworth. Obviously, what he did was wrong and he has to live with that remorse for the rest of his life. The sad reality of the situation is that - whether alcohol is involved or not, or whether its texting, talking to a passenger, talking on the phone, eating, speeding, being affected by any momentary distraction, making a simple driving mistake, another driver/pedestrian making a mistake, etc., etc. - any one of us could kill a person while driving any time we get behind a wheel.

When it happens - like with any other crime - you have to take it on a case by case basis...you can't simple declare the person a murderous villain.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Who did you think is privy to more facts here? The law enforcers who investigated the case, or you? Have you even read the King article? Or any of the articles on the case? It seems as if you haven't.

No one here is defending Stallworth. Obviously, what he did was wrong and he has to live with that remorse for the rest of his life. The sad reality of the situation is that - whether alcohol is involved or not, or whether its texting, talking to a passenger, talking on the phone, eating, speeding, being affected by any momentary distraction, making a simple driving mistake, another driver/pedestrian making a mistake, etc., etc. - any one of us could kill a person while driving any time we get behind a wheel.

When it happens - like with any other crime - you have to take it on a case by case basis...consider the other facts of the case, consider the perp's character & history, etc. You can't simple declare the person a murderous villain.

OK, Stallworth is a killer then.

 

[BradyManny]

OK, Stallworth is a killer then.

Can you tell me definitively that - based on that one night, and the one terrible mistake he made - Stallworth is a bad person?

Let's say a friend/family member of yours committed the same crime with the same circumstances - would you really offer up no support for them?

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't see what's odd about it. Kontra has a very reasonable and valid view on the situation. There are people on this forum that constantly want to polarize the issue and turn it into a black & white issue, when its not, and that's kind of frustrating. IE, when you have posters in this thread like BobsMyUncle or BostonPatriot basically trying to pre-empt any discussion on the issue with such simple rhetoric, it's kind of annoying.

Here's how much I care about SoonerPatriot calling me "odd"...

This message is hidden because SoonerPatriot is on your ignore list.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I think Brady was wrong for texting Stallworth while driving.

WOOOOOSHHH!!!

The sound of this post flying over heads...

 

[Deus Irae]

Because I know you are too intelligent not to agree that a 0.126 BAC is easily enough to impair someone's driving abilities? And that since both of our definitions of drunk reference impairment, he was indeed drunk?

1.) Your initial definition didn't mention impairment.

2.) Impairment, as a word on its own in these cases, is meaningless. That's why the police put people through the sobriety tests. Listening to music while driving leads to impaired driving, for crying out loud, as does talking to passengers, driving at night, driving in the rain, cell phone usage, eating, drinking, wearing sunglasses, not wearing sunglasses, underinflated tires, etc.... We know that he had a BAL that was higher than the .08 limit allowed by the state of Florida. What you seem to be ignoring is that such a result does not automatically mean a person is drunk, although it allows for a legal presumption. Your assertion was that Stallworth was drunk, which is a different thing, and we simply don't know that to be the case. The sobriety test released to the public, for example, had so little on it that we can't tell his state of intoxication.

 

[WhoaDirty]

1.) Your initial definition didn't mention impairment.

Which I corrected. Your definition did however mention impairment.

2.) Impairment, as a word on its own in these cases, is meaningless. That's why the police put people through the sobriety tests. Listening to music while driving leads to impaired driving, for crying out loud, as does talking to passengers, driving at night, driving in the rain, cell phone usage, eating, drinking, wearing sunglasses, not wearing sunglasses, underinflated tires, etc.... We know that he had a BAL that was higher than the .08 limit allowed by the state of Florida. What you seem to be ignoring is that such a result does not automatically mean a person is drunk, although it allows for a legal presumption. Your assertion was that Stallworth was drunk, which is a different thing, and we simply don't know that to be the case. The sobriety test released to the public, for example, had so little on it that we can't tell his state of intoxication.

It was not originally my assertion that Stallworth was drunk, all I did was comment that the word drunk was suitable by it's defiition. I gave you a link that listed four separate studies as evidence that people suffer impairment to driving skills at BAC 0.05. 0.126 > 0.05 thus DS was impaired. Not sure what I can say if you ignore the evidence I put in front of you.

 

[Boston Tim]

It was not originally my assertion that Stallworth was drunk, all I did was comment that the word drunk was suitable by it's defiition. I gave you a link that listed four separate studies as evidence that people suffer impairment to driving skills at BAC 0.05. 0.126 > 0.05 thus DS was impaired. Not sure what I can say if you ignore the evidence I put in front of you.

Have you also thoroughly researched the reliability of breathalyzers? Do you understand the concept of mouth alcohol, or maybe the impact GERD or plain reflux has on this test? Seems like you don't.

The United States has trashed its normal "innocent until proven guilty" stance in the case of DUI charges to appease the political might of MADD - allowing a person to be presumed guilty on the basis of nothing more than a unreliable piece of equipment. In the past, the machine was nothing more than one more piece of evidence used to prove impaired driving, but now it by itself is sufficient to send even a first time offender to jail.

Heck, I don't even know why they still call the charge OUI when it doesn't even matter if the person is impaired while driving. All that matters now is that the person had alcohol in his blood while driving - sober or drunk, it doesn't matter anymore to the courts.

If you're reading this and its new to you, take this piece of advice: NEVER under any circumstances should you ever willingly take a breathalyzer. The cops will threaten you with administrative punishment (loss of license for 6 months), but that is just an RMV punishment. Don't hand the courts the one piece of machine evidence that will make your case hopeless (because you probably don't deserve what you'll get given the post 2003 law changes).

 

[Deus Irae]

It was not originally my assertion that Stallworth was drunk, all I did was comment that the word drunk was suitable by it's defiition. I gave you a link that listed four separate studies as evidence that people suffer impairment to driving skills at BAC 0.05. 0.126 > 0.05 thus DS was impaired. Not sure what I can say if you ignore the evidence I put in front of you.

I'm not ignoring your evidence. I simply know that you kept giving inadequate definitions and arguments. Also, your logic on the impairment studies is terrible.

 

[WhoaDirty]

Have you also thoroughly researched the reliability of breathalyzers? Do you understand the concept of mouth alcohol, or maybe the impact GERD or plain reflux has on this test? Seems like you don't.

The United States has trashed its normal "innocent until proven guilty" stance in the case of DUI charges to appease the political might of MADD - allowing a person to be presumed guilty on the basis of nothing more than a unreliable piece of equipment. In the past, the machine was nothing more than one more piece of evidence used to prove impaired driving, but now it by itself is sufficient to send even a first time offender to jail.

Heck, I don't even know why they still call the charge OUI when it doesn't even matter if the person is impaired while driving. All that matters now is that the person had alcohol in his blood while driving - sober or drunk, it doesn't matter anymore to the courts.

If you're reading this and its new to you, take this piece of advice: NEVER under any circumstances should you ever willingly take a breathalyzer. The cops will threaten you with administrative punishment (loss of license for 6 months), but that is just an RMV punishment. Don't hand the courts the one piece of machine evidence that will make your case hopeless (because you probably don't deserve what you'll get given the post 2003 law changes).

I find the best way to avoid the breathalyzer test is to not drive after drinking ...

 

[RobAllan]

i find the best way to avoid the breathalyzer test is to not drive after drinking ...

+1,000,000

 

[Triumph]

Was there any eye witnesses to this crash or was it all the word of Donte?...Can't remember hearing about any witnesses at the scene

Stallworth ran him over.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

So if there was no eye witnesses and the dead can't speak, then we all have to assume Donte is telling the truth?....thats tough to swallow

I wonder how they investigated the accident to actually see if Donte was indeed telling the truth,they must have believed him without stone proof.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Have you also thoroughly researched the reliability of breathalyzers? Do you understand the concept of mouth alcohol, or maybe the impact GERD or plain reflux has on this test? Seems like you don't.

The United States has trashed its normal "innocent until proven guilty" stance in the case of DUI charges to appease the political might of MADD - allowing a person to be presumed guilty on the basis of nothing more than a unreliable piece of equipment. In the past, the machine was nothing more than one more piece of evidence used to prove impaired driving, but now it by itself is sufficient to send even a first time offender to jail.

Heck, I don't even know why they still call the charge OUI when it doesn't even matter if the person is impaired while driving. All that matters now is that the person had alcohol in his blood while driving - sober or drunk, it doesn't matter anymore to the courts.

If you're reading this and its new to you, take this piece of advice: NEVER under any circumstances should you ever willingly take a breathalyzer. The cops will threaten you with administrative punishment (loss of license for 6 months), but that is just an RMV punishment. Don't hand the courts the one piece of machine evidence that will make your case hopeless (because you probably don't deserve what you'll get given the post 2003 law changes).

Can you point me to any links on this? Thx

 

[rabthepat]

If, if, if Tom did in fact text to Dante, "A lot of people know the kind of person you are. You're a good person.''

Then Tom is a simpleton with no moral compass.

Tom should have text to Dante, "A lot of people know the kind of person you are now. You're a RECKLESS person.''

Do we really think Tom would have sent the same text if Dante killed one of Tom's kids or family members?

 

[alamo]

If, if, if Tom did in fact text to Dante, "A lot of people know the kind of person you are. You're a good person.''

Then Tom is a simpleton with no moral compass.

Your premise that a person who appears to have made a mistake (serious error in judgement) is automatically a bad person makes little sense, unless your goal is to treat the majority of the population as bad people.

Tom should have text to Dante, "A lot of people know the kind of person you are now. You're a RECKLESS person.''

I, and I hope others, would think MUCH less of Tom had he sent that message. Abandoning a friend is not an admirable trait. Tom's message didn't try to absolve Donte of responsibility, simply tried to help a friend who was no doubt feeling like his world was coming to an end.

Do we really think Tom would have sent the same text if Dante killed one of Tom's kids or family members?

Just a couple of weeks ago there was a story on the news about someone who had lost a loved one standing up in court to declare their forgiveness for the person responsible and to ask for leniency. Not everyone is hellbent on judgement and revenge.

 

[Boston Tim]

Can you point me to any links on this? Thx

Here is a PDF of the jury instructions taken from the mass.gov website.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...00-oui-liquor-or-08-percent-blood-alcohol.pdf


Some quotes:

"A person may violate the statute in two different ways:
• either by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor,
• or by operating a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater.
In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant violated the statute in at least one of those two ways."

"The Commonwealth is not required to show that the defendant actually drove in an unsafe or erratic manner, but it is required to prove that his (her) ability to drive safely was diminished by alcohol. The amount of alcohol necessary to do this may vary from person to person."

"Now instead of proving that the defendant was “under the influence” of alcohol, the Commonwealth may seek to prove that the defendant is guilty of this offense by showing beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of operation, the defendant had a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater by weight."

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Can you tell me definitively that - based on that one night, and the one terrible mistake he made - Stallworth is a bad person?

Let's say a friend/family member of yours committed the same crime with the same circumstances - would you really offer up no support for them?

I consider Stallworth to be a "bad" person because he killed someone.

I am unable to answer your hypothetical question other than to say that if I did offer up support I would be a hypocrite of the highest order.