- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 7,611
Oh, yeah the death of person is just a minor difference in the cases.
I can't help but think that had Stallworth been sober he might not have killed the guy. But, alas, he wasn't.
no, you've caricatured my position so you could make a rhetorical point. i think i went out of my way to say it was a tragedy. my point was that under the law there were circumstances that differentiated the two cases. burress tried to game the system at every step of the way. stallworth faced his crime from the moment he committed it; his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, but wasn't in the zone that suggests he was obscenely drunk. i am familiar with the road on which this accident occurred; especially at dawn, someone running across the street in dark clothing, outside the crosswalk would be in danger from any driver, drunk or sober. that doesn't excuse Stallworth's actions, but i think the judge took that into account when he handed down the sentence. what happened was terrible and yes, we will never know if the guy would still be alive if Stallworth had been legally sober.
as for drunk driving, i am completely intolerant of it, never get in a car with even one beer or one glass of wine in me and wish the laws were much more stringent (including for cell phone use and texting while driving, but that's another topic). in this instance, i was commenting on the applicable laws and the relative behavior of the defendants in each case.