OT: Stallworth to enter guilty plea for DUI

[duce110]

3 Questions for you:

1.) If Stallworth had been completely sober when this all happened, would he have have been guilty of a crime?

2.) Was Stallworth's drinking the difference between the pedestrian being hit by Stallworth and the pedestrian NOT being hit by Stallworth?

3.) If you don't have sufficient actual information to answer those two questions and say "yes" beyond a reasonable doubt to at least one of them, why on Earth would you be hoping Stallworth rots in hell?

How about, did the pedestrian cross walk and cause the accident... Don't get me wrong, its a shame what happened but how do we even kno it could've been avoided either way...

 

[Deus Irae]

How about, did the pedestrian cross walk and cause the accident... Don't get me wrong, its a shame what happened but how do we even kno it could've been avoided either way...

Well, the pedestrian crossing clearly contributed, but that's a different part of the issue.

 

[duce110]

Well, the pedestrian crossing clearly contributed, but that's a different part of the issue.

Alot of people here might want to the throw the book at him and thats something to consider... That can be the reason on why he got let go lightly... Plex blew a hole through his own leg and they tryin to give him 4 years, which i agree wit cause for u to chedder bob urself, u gotta be ******ed...

 

[PatsFan24]

Blowing 0.125 on the breathalyzer, more than 50% over the legal limit, is widely accepted proof of intoxication. I think there were enough witnessess to determine he was driving (including his own testimony). So the fact that he was driving, and drunk, and in an accident, and that a man died in that accident are all indisputable facts. Nobody has to prove that being drunk was what caused the accident.

Fact is, going to trial is expensive. Florida jails are overcrowded. In Stallworth's case, he had no long record. The family of the dead man got what they wanted. It was a easy way to wrap it up and get it done at no added expense.

The added tidbit is a two year house arrest, which may affect his ability to play NFL football.

breath test does not mean much, what matters is the blood test. the breath test is not reliable enough to hold up in court most of the time. in fact in some sates the breath test is so bad that it can't even be used in court.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Just saw on the news that he will be allowed to play while serving his 2 years of house arrest (depending on what Goodell does) and he loses his driving priviledges FOR LIFE!

with the money he made on his Browns contract (didn't that roster bonus trigger a few hours before the accident?) he can afford to hire a chauffeur for life if he wants one

 

[BradyFTW!]

2.) Was Stallworth's drinking the difference between the pedestrian being hit by Stallworth and the pedestrian NOT being hit by Stallworth?

There's no way of knowing that, unfortunately... because he was driving drunk. At .125, you know you're driving drunk, and you know you're impaired.
Doesn't mean I wanted him to rot in jail, but it does mean that I think he got off more than a little light, and wouldn't have minded seeing him do more than 30 days.

Crap like this is why you're putting your life in the hands of every degenerate around you when you're on the road between 10pm and 5am friday-sunday. As someone who really, really enjoys his beer and whiskey, it's just not acceptable. I manage to find money for a taxi in my drinking budget, so I really don't see why Stallworth can't.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Burress is dealing with a putz of a mayor who thinks he was elected "tyrant for life". The real shame of these 'crimes' is that they aren't being used to shine the light on absurd laws, but are being used to complain about celebrities getting special treatment.

I agree with you in the Plaxico case; it's pretty ridiculous that he's looking at multiple years in jail for the crime of shooting himself (although it's largely his own damn fault for not just taking the plea offer).

But what to you mean by "these 'crimes'"? Are you grouping Stallworth in with that? Are DWI laws absurd to you?

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with you in the Plaxico case; it's pretty ridiculous that he's looking at multiple years in jail for the crime of shooting himself (although it's largely his own damn fault for not just taking the plea offer).

But what to you mean by "these 'crimes'"? Are you grouping Stallworth in with that? Are DWI laws absurd to you?

I think that they are among the most absurd laws ever passed in this country (although that's a pretty long list and not a particularly exclusive one) and are a triumph of emotion and stupidity over logic and reason.

P.S. I guess before I get the "You don't understand" posts from people, I should point out that I've been hit (while in another vehicle) by a drunk driver on at least 3 occasions. Two of those crashes were of the sort that could have killed me and one was just a back fender incident.

 

[Fencer]

3 Questions for you:

1.) If Stallworth had been completely sober when this all happened, would he have have been guilty of a crime?

2.) Was Stallworth's drinking the difference between the pedestrian being hit by Stallworth and the pedestrian NOT being hit by Stallworth?

Actually, I'm pretty sue accidentally killing somebody can be a crime in general.

Anyhow, you're missing the point of DUI laws. The crime is creating the RISK of a very bad outcome. The punishment just happens to vary according to whether the very bad outcome actually occurred.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, I'm pretty sue accidentally killing somebody can be a crime in general.

Anyhow, you're missing the point of DUI laws. The crime is creating the RISK of a very bad outcome. The punishment just happens to vary according to whether the very bad outcome actually occurred.

I'm not missing the point of DUI laws. I understand the point of them quite well, actually, as someone who's an attorney and has prosecuted people for DUI. Oddly enough, people can disagree with laws that make no sense on the grounds that they make no sense. Of course, I disagree with them for other reasons, too, but that's one perfectly valid reason, among several.

 

[Patjew]

That's the bizarre part. Stallworth saw the guy, for sure. Donte just wanted the guy to get out of HIS way, making his situation very different from the "guy running across the Mass Pike while I was fiddling with the radio and didn't see him" analogy.

He saw the dude, wanted him to get out of the way, and just assumed that he would. Such stupidity doesn't necessarily require alcohol, but our legal system permits us to assume as much.

I'm afraid he deserves a significant sentence.

Did he actually say that he didn't slow down? I know he said he flashed his lights but don't recall seeing a quote stating that he did not slow down.

 

[GostkowSKI]

In my opinion, here's my $.02 of how this shook out from my (limited) law school experience.

Stallworth agreed to pay the family an undisclosed monetary value, which is the key here.

Stallworth's lawyer probably made the following comment: "This can go either of two ways - my client can go to jail and have extremely limited earning potential once he gets out, or he can continue to play professional football for an exuberant amount of money, a significant chuck of which can be garnered to cover our settlement."

Again in my opinion, the family was then faced with the option of seeing Stallworth go to jail and get X amount of dollars in a civil trial, or letting Stallworth try to play in the NFL, make millions, and get a considerably larger settlement.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think that they are among the most absurd laws ever passed in this country (although that's a pretty long list and not a particularly exclusive one) and are a triumph of emotion and stupidity over logic and reason.

P.S. I guess before I get the "You don't understand" posts from people, I should point out that I've been hit (while in another vehicle) by a drunk driver on at least 3 occasions. Two of those crashes were of the sort that could have killed me and one was just a back fender incident.

So what do you propose as the alternative? No DUI penalty? Let people drive as drunk as they want as often as they want? Not being sarcastic- just legitimately interested in what you think would be a better solution.

 

[Deus Irae]

So what do you propose as the alternative? No DUI penalty? Let people drive as drunk as they want as often as they want? Not being sarcastic- just legitimately interested in what you think would be a better solution.

If someone is pulled over for reckless driving, bust him for reckless driving. If someone kills someone because he's driving like a maniac, arrest him for that.

The alcohol is separate from the underlying charge. The argument about DUI is that it increases the danger of an accident. Well, so does listening to the radio, talking on the phone or to a passenger, having a woman driver over the age of 35, having a male driver under the age of 20, having a teenage driver who's got passengers, and there are other factors which raise the danger level as well.

We laugh at college men and women who tell us the horror stories about their beer goggles because we appreciate that drinking can impair decision making. Somehow, though, we decide to criminalize the behavior of a driver who's decision to drive was made while being impaired, by definition/legislation. To make it worse, we've watched as they've lowered the 'impaired' threshold so that you're more than capable of going to jail for drunk driving when you weren't even drunk, so it's now "Driving while impaired a little, just not as much as if you were on a cell phone". Just like the 'crime' of public intoxication, it's a moronic law to have.

 

[Patjew]

I have some business associates in Russia. At dinner we plowed through several bottles of vodka. Getting into their Benz we asked them what the legal limit was for alcohol while driving. "0%, of course", they answered. "So what happens if the police stop you?". "Well, that is when the negotiations start."

 

[SmokeShowin]

I have some business associates in Russia. At dinner we plowed through several bottles of vodka. Getting into their Benz we asked them what the legal limit was for alcohol while driving. "0%, of course", they answered. "So what happens if the police stop you?". "Well, that is when the negotiations start."

I'll bet that was some really good Russian vodka too.

I'm jealous.

 

[eagle eye]

Donte Stallworth broke the law by getting behind the wheel drunk. He is a murderer and he should be doing serious time for it.

 

[Fencer]

I have some business associates in Russia. At dinner we plowed through several bottles of vodka. Getting into their Benz we asked them what the legal limit was for alcohol while driving. "0%, of course", they answered. "So what happens if the police stop you?". "Well, that is when the negotiations start."

And you got into the car with them -- why?

 

[Fencer]

I agree with you in the Plaxico case; it's pretty ridiculous that he's looking at multiple years in jail for the crime of shooting himself (although it's largely his own damn fault for not just taking the plea offer).

Plaxico's case really bothers me, as much as I hate guns, because it's somewhat tied to a duty that doctors have to rat out their patients (for having bullet wounds).

That law REALLY sux in my opinion.

 

[Fencer]

I'm not missing the point of DUI laws. I understand the point of them quite well, actually, as someone who's an attorney and has prosecuted people for DUI. Oddly enough, people can disagree with laws that make no sense on the grounds that they make no sense. Of course, I disagree with them for other reasons, too, but that's one perfectly valid reason, among several.

I originally meant to say "missing or intentionally disregarding", but I decided to not be that snarky. My bad.

Still, it's obvious you've thought this through to your satisfaction. So we should let it drop.