Unnamed Team Working Out WR Donte Stallworth

[JDL]

Stallworth to work out for unnamed team Wednesday
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 9, 2010 3:55 PM ET

We don't have to wait until March 5 for free agency to kick off. We've got Donte' Stallworth!

Since Stallworth was released by the Browns Monday, he is free to sign with any team immediatley. His agent Drew Rosenhaus tells the Boston Globe that an unnamed team will work Stallworth out Wednesday and should sign with a team "in the next couple weeks at the latest."

"We are very pleased with the amount of teams interested," Rosenhaus said.

Rosenhaus could be bluffing, but there should be interest if Stallworth is willing to work for relatively cheap. Stallworth signed a one-year, $3.6 million contract with New England in 2007 to help repair his image after it was learned he was in the league's substance abuse program.

We'd be surprised if he gets that much on a one-year deal this time around.


================================================== =======

McDaniels had Stallworth in 2007-08 with New England. He knows him well, so it is conceivable that we could be that unnamed team working him out. How would people feel about it?

[Lonestar]

If the price is right I could live with him.

[rationalfan]

if he can still provide a legit deep threat, cool.

on a different tangent: i find it odd that people (not necessarily on this board) have much less disdain for stallworth than they do for vick. quite amazing.

[T.K.O.]

da bears !:laugh:

[claymore]

If the price is right I coupled live with him.

So you would have sex with him for the right price? :confused:

[dogfish]

not interested. . .

there's nothing he does on the field that we can't get from somebody else-- why bring the bad publicity on the franchise with this particular guy? who cares if he knows the system-- you can always teach it to the next guy. . .

besides, he has some of the worst chronic hamstring problems of anyone in the league. . . dude typically falls apart after a month or so. . . pass. . .

[Nomad]

It's the Lions!!

[weazel]

2 words for not even talking with him... Drew Rosenhaus

2 more words... vehicular manslaughter

2 more words... Donte Stallworth

2 more words... beneath Browns

[KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128]

Raiders for sure.

[Northman]

if he can still provide a legit deep threat, cool.

on a different tangent: i find it odd that people (not necessarily on this board) have much less disdain for stallworth than they do for vick. quite amazing.


Probably because the guy who was crossing the street is "supposedly" more intelligent than the dogs. I personally dont want Stallworth but torturing dogs is just flat out cruel and unacceptable.

[weazel]

Probably because the guy who was crossing the street is "supposedly" more intelligent than the dogs. I personally dont want Stallworth but torturing dogs is just flat out cruel and unacceptable.

yeah, leave the dogs alone, theres plenty of people that need killing :confused:

[Northman]

yeah, leave the dogs alone, theres plenty of people that need killing :confused:

Are you saying that Stallworth killed the man on purpose? :confused::lol:

[weazel]

Are you saying that Stallworth killed the man on purpose? :confused::lol:

maybe... how else do two people end up in the same road near the beach at 5 in the morning. Unless Donte was cruising the bathrooms for some gay encounters with George Michael.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Are you saying that Stallworth killed the man on purpose? :confused::lol:

He was high at the time, right? Yeah, it's pretty close. Killing someone due to your own negligence, especially if you're under the influence, is about as close as you can get to it being "on purpose". It's almost worse because it's more like just randomly firing a gun in a crowded room. Maybe you hurt/kill someone, maybe you don't. At least when you mean to kill someone, usually there's some kind of motive. In this case it's just a lack of give a shit for anyone but yourself.

Don't forget, though. Nobody will be interested in Marshall because of his off-field issues...

Stallworth has been reinstated for what, a day? He KILLED SOMEBODY and they still want to give this guy a job!

[KCL]

if he can still provide a legit deep threat, cool.

on a different tangent: i find it odd that people (not necessarily on this board) have much less disdain for stallworth than they do for vick. quite amazing.

What's odd as well is Vick served time and Stallworth didn't...gotta love the
judicial system in this country!

[roomemp]

I was thinking about this earlier today. I would not be suprised at all if it was us. I wouldn't mind if he came at the right price which he probably would. One year incentive laden deal

[HORSEPOWER 56]

What's odd as well is Vick served time and Stallworth didn't...gotta love the
judicial system in this country!

Wait now, KCL. Stallworth got 60 days in the pokey for KILLING SOMEONE.

Vick got 26 months in "federal pound me in the ass prison" for killing some dogs. That's not fair to you? ;)

I am a dog owner/lover, but Geez Louise, even I can see this is F'ed up!

[KCL]

Wait now, KCL. Stallworth got 60 days in the pokey for KILLING SOMEONE.

Vick got 26 months in "federal pound me in the ass prison" for killing some dogs. That's not fair to you? ;)

I am a dog owner/lover, but Geez Louise, even I can see this is F'ed up!

I stand corrected,he did serve time...while I agree what Vick did was bad..but to get 60 days for being irresponsible by drinking/driving and who knows what else and hitting the guy..I guess he had better lawyers than Vick...if you or I had done that...we would have been serving alot more time than that in the pokey..didn't mean to derail the thread...well I guess I originally didn't but I added it to it...but yep we both agree.

[T.K.O.]

Source: Stallworth is working out with the Lions
Posted by Mike Florio on February 9, 2010 6:13 PM ET
Agent Drew Rosenhaus said Tuesday that receiver Donte' Stallworth, who was reinstated Sunday night and cut by the Browns on Monday, will be working out for an unnamed NFL team on Wednesday.

Per a league source, that team is the Lions.

Stallworth entered the league as a first-round draft pick in 2002. The Lions used a first-round pick on wideouts in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007.

Stallworth was suspended for the entire 2009 season after pleading guilty to felony DUI manslaughter. He spent 2008 with the Browns, 2007 with the Patriots, and 2006 with the Eagles. In his first four seasons, he played with the Saints.

[T.K.O.]

Wait now, KCL. Stallworth got 60 days in the pokey for KILLING SOMEONE.

Vick got 26 months in "federal pound me in the ass prison" for killing some dogs. That's not fair to you? ;)

I am a dog owner/lover, but Geez Louise, even I can see this is F'ed up!

it was 30 days....only 30 days and you can bet it was a pretty comfy 30 days at that......:shocked:

[T.K.O.]

I stand corrected,he did serve time...while I agree what Vick did was bad..but to get 60 days for being irresponsible by drinking/driving and who knows what else and hitting the guy..I guess he had better lawyers than Vick...if you or I had done that...we would have been serving alot more time than that in the pokey..didn't mean to derail the thread...well I guess I originally didn't but I added it to it...but yep we both agree.

its really screwy the way our justice system has always had an "easy escape clause" for alcohol related crimes.
i think its the fact that billions of dollars in taxes are generated through sales of alcohol . almost as powerful as "big oil".
i mean we have known for decades that more people die from alcohol and tobacco than all other "ilicit drugs" combined yet,since the gov't gets a huge cut we turn a blind eye.
im not preaching lifestyle.....but the fact remains,there is a time and a place for exersising our freedom and when it hurts or kills others something has to be done.
we have all seen stories of people with 5,6 or more dui's killing some innocent child ....why they should have either been locked up or had their fingers removed so they could not operate a vehicle !!!!!!!!!

[rcsodak]

What's odd as well is Vick served time and Stallworth didn't...gotta love the
judicial system in this country!

he served 26 days.

isn't that enough for you?

[Northman]

He was high at the time, right? Yeah, it's pretty close. Killing someone due to your own negligence, especially if you're under the influence, is about as close as you can get to it being "on purpose". It's almost worse because it's more like just randomly firing a gun in a crowded room. Maybe you hurt/kill someone, maybe you don't. At least when you mean to kill someone, usually there's some kind of motive. In this case it's just a lack of give a shit for anyone but yourself.

Don't forget, though. Nobody will be interested in Marshall because of his off-field issues...

Stallworth has been reinstated for what, a day? He KILLED SOMEBODY and they still want to give this guy a job!

There's a huge difference between negligence and pre-meditated. But, i agree. Stallworth shouldnt be in the league but thats not what i was talking about here.

[Northman]

Wait now, KCL. Stallworth got 60 days in the pokey for KILLING SOMEONE.

Vick got 26 months in "federal pound me in the ass prison" for killing some dogs. That's not fair to you? ;)

I am a dog owner/lover, but Geez Louise, even I can see this is F'ed up!

I guess the dogs couldnt come to a settlement.

[DenBronx]

who knows....could pan out because he does know the system but is he even any better than our 4th wr gaffney? if not then i say it's a waste. why not draft a deep threat on day two?

[BroncoWave]

Vick's actions were pre-meditated and took place over a long period of time and were done to helpless animals.

Stallworth's actions were not at all pre-meditated and it was a one-time incident. Also, the guy he killed was just as stupid for running in front of a moving car. If you're dumb enough to run out in front of a moving car, it's hard for me to feel sorry for you when you get killed.

It's not even close IMO how much worse Vick's actions were.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Vick's actions were pre-meditated and took place over a long period of time and were done to helpless animals.

Stallworth's actions were not at all pre-meditated and it was a one-time incident. Also, the guy he killed was just as stupid for running in front of a moving car. If you're dumb enough to run out in front of a moving car, it's hard for me to feel sorry for you when you get killed.

It's not even close IMO how much worse Vick's actions were.

I'm not going to argue the morality of your argument here or even try to get into one of those animals vs human beings PETA-esque debates, but that man that was killed was someone's husband and father who was trying to catch a bus after getting off the night shift at a construction site at 7:15 in the morning! It wasn't like he was some crack addict stumbling across the street in the middle of the night high out of his mind.

Stallworth was DRUNK and SPEEDING. He ran a human being down in cold blood. Vick provided a means to kill animals for sport. Vick went to prison for federal interstate gambling violations, not killing dogs. Had it just been killing some dogs, he probably would've gotten a slap on the wrist.

I find it slightly disturbing that you value the lives of some dogs that would have probably just been destroyed in a pound somewhere over a human being, but that's just your prerogative. Not so sure whatever higher power you believe in (if in fact you do) feels the same way. Just saying.

[BroncoWave]

I'm not going to argue the morality of your argument here or even try to get into one of those animals vs human beings PETA-esque debates, but that man that was killed was someone's husband and father who was trying to catch a bus after getting off the night shift at a construction site at 7:15 in the morning! It wasn't like he was some crack addict stumbling across the street in the middle of the night high out of his mind.

Stallworth was DRUNK and SPEEDING. He ran a human being down in cold blood. Vick provided a means to kill animals for sport. Vick went to prison for federal interstate gambling violations, not killing dogs. Had it just been killing some dogs, he probably would've gotten a slap on the wrist.

I find it slightly disturbing that you value the lives of some dogs that would have probably just been destroyed in a pound somewhere over a human being, but that's just your prerogative. Not so sure whatever higher power you believe in (if in fact you do) feels the same way. Just saying.

You're either telling a flat out lie here or you are misinformed. He didn't kill anyone in "cold blood". No one is excusing him for being drunk and speeding, but the other guy clearly saw a speeding car and ran out in front of it anyway. Excuse me for not feeling sorry for someone doing something that stupid. Also, why does it matter that he was a dad instead of a crack addict? How does that make him any more worthy to live or any less stupid for running out in front of a speeding car?

It has nothing to do with killing humans vs. killing dogs. Everyone makes this misrepresentation of the argument and it has NOTHING to do with it at all.

It ALL has to do with intent. Vick's actions were pre-meditated and done over a long period of time. Stallworth's was accidental and a one time incident. THAT's what makes Vick's worse. It has nothing to do with humans vs. dogs. It has EVERYTHING to do with intent vs. accidental. If you REALLY think Stallworth intentionally ran that dude down you're an idiot, sorry.

Also, Vick lied to cops and the commissioner time and time again until he had no other choice. The first thing Stallworth did after the incident was call the police and turn himself him. He was honest and forthright the whole time while Vick lied and covered it up until he was in so deep he had to come clean.

But go ahead and deflect and claim that I value dogs lives over humans. It's all anyone else on your side of the argument does.

[Shazam!]

Sort of going off topic here-

DO NOT downplay Vick's actions as 'just killing dogs.'

You have to be a special kind of piece of trash to do what he did over and over.

People who feel this way have never witnessed dogs fight either by accident or arranged. I have and it's horrible.

Not only that, but he played the Falcons and all their fans for fools, lying right to everyone's faces as BTB said.

He ran a criminal bloodsport ring for years and all the garage that goes with it. I wouldn't want him representing my team's uniform.

Mike Vick is a goldplated piece of shit and I tell you if he ever was to come to the Broncos my days as a fan are done. I feel so strongly on the subject I could never view the Denver Broncos in the light I once did. They'd be a once proud franchise who once had real character players and leaders, who've stooped so low, like Raider low.

I also dont wanna hear 'then youre not a fan' either. I've followed this team for nearly 30 years. My morales on this sensitive subject far outweigh my loyalty to a team, I'd feel betrayed.

Back to topic- No Thanks on Donte.

[sneakers]

It would be a Killer move for whoever brings him in.

[Poet]

Vick's actions were pre-meditated and took place over a long period of time and were done to helpless animals.

Stallworth's actions were not at all pre-meditated and it was a one-time incident. Also, the guy he killed was just as stupid for running in front of a moving car. If you're dumb enough to run out in front of a moving car, it's hard for me to feel sorry for you when you get killed.

It's not even close IMO how much worse Vick's actions were.

Pre-meditated to kill dogs. Getting high and drunk and killing a human being.

Financing a dog fighting ring. Killing a human being with a car because you drove drunk and got high.

At a certain point I stop caring about intent and just look at the body count.

How it is you don't feel empathy for a man who was killed by Stallworth but worse for dogs is beyond me. That's the most backward thing ever.

[Shazam!]

Stallworth was careless, irresponsible, reckless and clearly lacking judgement.

Vick's actions were deliberate, ongoing, violent, criminal involvement and finance.

Stallworth was an isolated incident. Vick kept it up for who knows how long.

I don't think anyone is saying what Donte did wasnt as bad, but to dismiss Vick's crime because it was 'just dogs' isnt a valid point IMO.

[Poet]

Stallworth was careless, irresponsible, reckless and clearly lacking judgement.

Vick's actions were deliberate, ongoing, violent, criminal involvement and finance.

Stallworth was an isolated incident. Vick kept it up for who knows how long.

I don't think anyone is saying what Donte did wasnt as bad, but to dismiss Vick's crime because it was 'just dogs' isnt a valid point IMO.

Stallworth's actions are worse because the worst case scenario is that he kills another human being.

Vick's actions are terrible because he helped pay for the torture and deaths of dogs. That's the worst case scenario though, they're dogs. No one lost their father, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin etc etc etc, they lost dogs. Animals that no one knew specifically existed.

I'm not saying Vick is the best guy ever, I'm just saying that BTB's stance is borderline ridiculous because it is. Vick's actions of paying for the death of dogs is somehow worse than being an uber rich guy who could pay for a cab OR use the hotline number that the NFL gives out to players to drive home who goes 'aww to hell with it' and risks the life of everyone that is around him on the road?

But hell, it's ok because the moron ran out in front of him to catch a bus to go to work. Don't feel bad for him, he basically deserved.

That is literally one of the most absurd notions I have ever heard.

Vick lost millions upon millions of dollars, lost years of his career, had his name ran through the mud, missed the birth of his child and had the very friends that he ran the ring for stab him in the back.

What Vick actually lost DWARFS what Stallworth lost. Northman made the crack that they couldn't get the dogs to settle, that's too bad for Vick because if he could done that he would have lost way less money and gotten a more lenient sentence.

And I'm actually for both of them playing in the NFL. I used to think that Stallworth shouldn't, and if one of them shouldn't it's hand downs Stallworth for anyone who is halfway attached to reality. However, it's rarely correct to punish someone for the rest of their lives because of one mistake.

Now if dumbass Vick does something stupid with animals past housebreaking a dog, or, if dumbass Stallworth gets a DUI they should be banned on the spot.

I understand the intent argument; Vick very well knew what the results of his actions would lead to, Stallworth didn't, but ignorance isn't an excuse. Especially when you consider that Stallworth has a league that provides taxi service (it could very well be a damn limo service too) for their players in that situation.

Give me a friggin break, planning on paying for the death of dogs isn't as bad as getting behind a wheel and killing someone because you're drunk. Everyone knows that drinking and smoking and then driving is a great way to kill someone. It's not like accidentally shooting someone when you're hunting or anything like that.

[frauschieze]

I'm not saying Vick is the best guy ever, I'm just saying that BTB's stance is borderline ridiculous because it is. Vick's actions of paying for the death of dogs is somehow worse than being an uber rich guy who could pay for a cab OR use the hotline number that the NFL gives out to players to drive home who goes 'aww to hell with it' and risks the life of everyone that is around him on the road?

But hell, it's ok because the moron ran out in front of him to catch a bus to go to work. Don't feel bad for him, he basically deserved.

That is literally one of the most absurd notions I have ever heard.



I disagree. Here's why:

Several years ago I was witness to the death of a pedestrian killed crossing the street, to the extent that I spent a couple hours giving testimony at the police station that night. It scarred me badly enough that I refused to drive for two weeks and to this day, I have an irrational fear of hitting a pedestrian while driving.

The circumstances were different than Stallworth's situation. The driver was sober, it was midnight, drizzling and in an area without streetlights. Speed was not an issue. But that man stepped out to cross in front of several cars, even though he should have been able to see their headlights. And he lost his life. That was clearly his own fault and not the driver's.

Now in Stallworth's case, he clearly deserves most of the blame. There's a chance that if he was sober and not speeding that he could have avoided the accident. But the man who chose to cross the street in front of a car bears some blame as well. His actions helped to bring about his own death. The dogs whose death Vick was responsible for were born to the wrong mom.

Now, I'm not arguing that one crime is worse than the other. Only pointing out that BTB's stance is far from asinine. The man clearly made a choice that brought about his own death.

[KCL]

I had to go back and look at the article that SI had on it...it says the victim was not in the crosswalk...Stallworth says he saw him and flashed his lights at him...does not being in a crosswalk means he ran out in front of him? I wouldn't think so..and instead of just flashing his lights why not try using the brakes as well?

I know he didn't set out to kill anyone but he knew drinking and driving was wrong.

The guy should have served time...most people in a case like this would have.I believe this is a case where money talked...JMO

[Nomad]

Anytime you get behind the steering wheel of a car and you're impaired(drunk or high) it should be considered/treated as pre meditated murder if you kill someone while driving the car!! You know it's wrong and you did it anyway!!

BTW, told ya it was the Lions and I agree with dogfish because the BRONCOS doesn't need anymore neg publicity!! I would honestly lose all respect for McDaniels if Stallworth became a BRONCO!

[Nomad]

I had to go back and look at the article that SI had on it...it says the victim was not in the crosswalk...Stallworth says he saw him and flashed his lights at him...does not being in a crosswalk means he ran out in front of him? I wouldn't think so..and instead of just flashing his lights why not try using the brakes as well?

I know he didn't set out to kill anyone but he knew drinking and driving was wrong.

The guy should have served time...most people in a case like this would have.I believe this is a case where money talked...JMO

Normally KCL when someone flashes their lights at you (it's an unwritten rule), they are telling you a speed trap is ahead, turn on your lights, or go ahead before yourself! The pedestrian could have considered Stallworth was telling him to go ahead and cross the road!:whoknows: And now he going to make millions while a family is without their family member because someone couldn't comprehend what they were doing because they were drunk!!

[claymore]

How in the hell a normal adult gets hit by a car is beside me. We need to put the onus of safety back in the pedestrians hands.

If the car jumps a sidewalk and kills a family of three, then hell yeah prosecute. But if the person is in the middle of the road and gets ran over, its darwinisim.

[Nomad]

How in the hell a normal adult gets hit by a car is beside me. We need to put the onus of safety back in the pedestrians hands.

If the car jumps a sidewalk and kills a family of three, then hell yeah prosecute. But if the person is in the middle of the road and gets ran over, its darwinisim.

As KCL said Stallworth flashed the lights at him and like I said normally you'd take that as go ahead. Yeah, it takes a little common sense to fend for yourself and judge for yourself but maybe the guy figured he'd slow down or stop and didn't figure the guy was speeding!

[CoachChaz]

It still astonishes me that people can compare the lives of dogs to the lives of humans. And people still wonder why our society is so pathetic? Maybe we should start there.

[Mike]

I don't remember, but I thought Vick's sentence had to do with the federal offense and not the actual cruelty to animals.

If that is the case (and I admit I don't remember it all very well), then wouldn't the sentence most likely be the result minimum requirements for the crime committed or what the DA could/could not prove.

In any case, no to Stallworth. I think the Broncos are ok at WR...for now. Better places to spend money to fix the team.

[claymore]

As KCL said Stallworth flashed the lights at him and like I said normally you'd take that as go ahead. Yeah, it takes a little common sense to fend for yourself and judge for yourself but maybe the guy figured he'd slow down or stop and didn't figure the guy was speeding!

I usually take slowing down as a sign of allowing me to cross!

[CoachChaz]

I don't remember, but I thought Vick's sentence had to do with the federal offense and not the actual cruelty to animals.

If that is the case (and I admit I don't remember it all very well), then wouldn't the sentence most likely be the result minimum requirements for the crime committed or what the DA could/could not prove.

In any case, no to Stallworth. I think the Broncos are ok at WR...for now. Better places to spend money to fix the team.

Yep...Vick did time for running an interstate gambling ring...not for cruelty to animals.

Funny how you can kill a dog (even though thousands are killed each day by shelters) or shoot YOURSELF in the leg...and get more prison time than if you negligently killed another human being. Society is great.

[CoachChaz]

I usually take slowing down as a sign of allowing me to cross!

I guess I'm not shocked that you and others are trying to justify this, but the bottom line is that Donte was drunk, high and speeding. He gave up all justification when he chose to operae a vehicle in that condition.

[claymore]

I don't remember, but I thought Vick's sentence had to do with the federal offense and not the actual cruelty to animals.

If that is the case (and I admit I don't remember it all very well), then wouldn't the sentence most likely be the result minimum requirements for the crime committed or what the DA could/could not prove.

In any case, no to Stallworth. I think the Broncos are ok at WR...for now. Better places to spend money to fix the team.

I think it was for crossing state lines. Which means the Govt was pissed because they didnt get taxes from it.

[claymore]

I guess I'm not shocked that you and others are trying to justify this, but the bottom line is that Donte was drunk, high and speeding. He gave up all justification when he chose to operae a vehicle in that condition.

Thanks Jesus for the moral direction. I just know that anyone hit by a car in the middle of the road probably wasnt all there either.

[frauschieze]

At some point, common sense should enter the debate. One simply should not cross a street without verifying the cars have both seen you and are slowing down to allow you to cross.

I don't understand why some of you think the victim was blameless.

[Nomad]

Common sense on both sides failed, but more on the side of Stallworth and he got off too easy! KCL, where is the SI article and was it dark outside??

[KCL]

Common sense on both sides failed, but more on the side of Stallworth and he got off too easy! KCL, where is the SI article and was it dark outside??

No it was not dark I wouldn't think...it was 7:15 AM...Here is the link to the
story..IMO if someone is driving the speed limit and sober like they should be,then this accident is avoided...hell who knows what else he was doing while driving..if anything...I feel bad that people wanna blame the victim.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/04/01/stallworth.ap/index.html

[GEM]

Pre-meditated to kill dogs. Getting high and drunk and killing a human being.

Financing a dog fighting ring. Killing a human being with a car because you drove drunk and got high.

At a certain point I stop caring about intent and just look at the body count.

How it is you don't feel empathy for a man who was killed by Stallworth but worse for dogs is beyond me. That's the most backward thing ever.

Isn't it pre meditated the minute you get drunk and get behind the wheel? And to say the guy that got killed saw a speeding car and jumped in front of it. The guy was at the bus stop, he saw a speeding car veering toward him and tried to jump out of the way...but hey, play it off like it's the innocent guy waiting for the bus to go to work's fault.

The excuses we as a society make for people is beyond ridiculous.

[Nomad]

No it was not dark I wouldn't think...it was 7:15 AM...Here is the link to the
story..IMO if someone is driving the speed limit and sober like they should be,then this accident is avoided...hell who knows what else he was doing while driving..if anything...I feel bad that people wanna blame the victim.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/04/01/stallworth.ap/index.html

Around here in March it's usually dark here! :ohwell: I've made my opinion known on the incident! Stallworth better be glad I wasn't the judge and I sure the hell don't want him in a BRONCOS uni!!

[CoachChaz]

This thread has become the twilight zone. people shouldnt cross the street because a drunk moron might be hauling ass. I cross the street all the time. If I see a car half way down a street with a speed limit that I beleive gives me time to cross...I do it. WE ALL DO. So let's not play like the victim did anything that isnt commone practice by every human being on the planet.

Regardles of what "negligence" you want to pin on the pedestrian, the bottom line is that this doesnt happen if Stallworth is sober and driving the speed limit.

[BroncoWave]

It still astonishes me that people can compare the lives of dogs to the lives of humans. And people still wonder why our society is so pathetic? Maybe we should start there.

It's more astonishing to me that people have absolutely NO reading comprehension. How many times to we have to say it's about intent vs. accidental, NOT dogs lives vs. humans lives? How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

[BroncoWave]

I usually take slowing down as a sign of allowing me to cross!

I, personally, never cross unless the car is at a complete stop or if it's so far away I know I will get across in plenty of time. If you're dumb enough to cross the street right when the car is going by as well, it's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for you.

Not saying this absolves Stallworth, as he still should have received a harsh punishment for driving drunk, but let's face it. People drive drunk every single day. It's a stupid mistake but it happens to lots of people and most people either learn from it and don't do it again, or get the harsh legal punishment they deserve if those actions continue.

It takes a special kind of ass hole to do what Vick did day after day, year after year, and show not a drop of remorse for it until his millions of dollars were on the line.

[CoachChaz]

It's more astonishing to me that people have absolutely NO reading comprehension. How many times to we have to say it's about intent vs. accidental, NOT dogs lives vs. humans lives? How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

Accidental? Is that a joke?

It's not hard to comprehend. But there are PEOPLE out there that will never equate the intentional killing of an animal to the NEGLIGENT...not accidental...killing of a human being.

Personally, I just didnt think I lived in a world where the guy that intentionally kills animals of any kind is a bigger criminal than the guy that negligently kills human beings. Obviously I do.

[Northman]

I don't think anyone is saying what Donte did wasnt as bad, but to dismiss Vick's crime because it was 'just dogs' isnt a valid point IMO.

Funny how some just dont understand that. :lol:

[BroncoWave]

Isn't it pre meditated the minute you get drunk and get behind the wheel? And to say the guy that got killed saw a speeding car and jumped in front of it. The guy was at the bus stop, he saw a speeding car veering toward him and tried to jump out of the way...but hey, play it off like it's the innocent guy waiting for the bus to go to work's fault.

The excuses we as a society make for people is beyond ridiculous.

Wait, what? You are the first person I have ever seen tell the story like this. You either just completely made that up or you've read an account of it that no one else has read.

[Northman]

I had to go back and look at the article that SI had on it...it says the victim was not in the crosswalk...Stallworth says he saw him and flashed his lights at him...does not being in a crosswalk means he ran out in front of him? I wouldn't think so..and instead of just flashing his lights why not try using the brakes as well?

I know he didn't set out to kill anyone but he knew drinking and driving was wrong.

The guy should have served time...most people in a case like this would have.I believe this is a case where money talked...JMO


Money did talk, obviously pretty much to the victim's family. I guess everyone has a price. They could of easily declined the settlement money if they felt that Stallworth deserved a harsher penalty.

[CoachChaz]

I dont know that anyone is absolving Vick of his crimes so much as they are comparing the two. Yes...when it comes to the death of a human and the death of a dog...what Vick did pales in comparison. Unless of course Stallworth runs over Claymore. In that case, Vick's crimes were much worse.


:joking:

[Northman]

Yep...Vick did time for running an interstate gambling ring...not for cruelty to animals.

Funny how you can kill a dog (even though thousands are killed each day by shelters) or shoot YOURSELF in the leg...and get more prison time than if you negligently killed another human being. Society is great.

Ridiculous Coach. Shelters are not purposely torturing dogs to death. Come on now.

[BroncoWave]

Accidental? Is that a joke?

It's not hard to comprehend. But there are PEOPLE out there that will never equate the intentional killing of an animal to the NEGLIGENT...not accidental...killing of a human being.

Personally, I just didnt think I lived in a world where the guy that intentionally kills animals of any kind is a bigger criminal than the guy that negligently kills human beings. Obviously I do.

And no one is saying that Stallworth shouldn't be punished for that. No amount of jail time is going to bring the guy back and I think the punishment that Stallworth received (jail time plus being suspended for a year) will more than keep him from ever doing that again.

I personally think anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license permanently on the first offense (or second at the absolute latest) and possibly serve a short jail sentence. It's a very stupid thing to do and it should be punished justly.

I don't think getting a DUI makes you a horrible human being though. I bet you have at least one friend or family member who has driven drunk before. Is that person a horrible human being too? Or is it ok since a pedestrian didn't jump out in front of them and get killed?

Now if Stallworth had swerved off the road and hit the guy, then I would be on the lynch mob with yall. But when the guy walks into the road into moving traffic and gets hit, well as claymore said, that's just darwinism at work.

[Northman]

At some point, common sense should enter the debate. One simply should not cross a street without verifying the cars have both seen you and are slowing down to allow you to cross.

I don't understand why some of you think the victim was blameless.


I got hit by a car running a red light before. I also almost got hit again when i was on my bike. But i was running a stop sign. Both times i was in my young teens. Do you think i look both ways now when crossing the street and making sure ANY car is slowing down to allow me to cross? YOU BET YOUR ASS.

[BroncoWave]

Money did talk, obviously pretty much to the victim's family. I guess everyone has a price. They could of easily declined the settlement money if they felt that Stallworth deserved a harsher penalty.

Another great point. If his family was perfectly ok with getting a big sum of money and making it go away, why should anyone else have a problem with his punishment?

[Nomad]

Money did talk, obviously pretty much to the victim's family. I guess everyone has a price. They could of easily declined the settlement money if they felt that Stallworth deserved a harsher penalty.

I didn't look at it that way as far as him not getting a stiffer punishment! I tell my wife that if something happens to me because I have a really good life ins policy, that she won't miss me once that check gets in her hand!!:D

I still believe if one jumps in a vehicle while high or drunk, and if they kill someone it's pre meditated murder and if they hurt someone attempted murder!!

[Northman]

Common sense on both sides failed, but more on the side of Stallworth and he got off too easy! KCL, where is the SI article and was it dark outside??

He got off easy because the victim's family let him off. Again, evidently they had a price.

[BroncoWave]

I didn't look at it that way as far as him not getting a stiffer punishment! I tell my wife that if something happens to me because I have a really good life ins policy, that she won't miss me once that check gets in her hand!!:D

I still believe if one jumps in a vehicle while high or drunk, and if they kill someone it's pre meditated murder and if they hurt someone attempted murder!!

So everyone who gets charged with a DUI should be charged with attempted first degree murder as well? Good luck convincing any rational policy maker to pass that into law.

[CoachChaz]

Ridiculous Coach. Shelters are not purposely torturing dogs to death. Come on now.

I never compared the methods to be equal...dont get me wrong there. My point is...had this case not gone national and those dogs were put in shelters...how many of them would have been adopted by quality families?

[GEM]

It's more astonishing to me that people have absolutely NO reading comprehension. How many times to we have to say it's about intent vs. accidental, NOT dogs lives vs. humans lives? How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

How many times do we need to say it.....driving a car drunk is not accidental, nor is hitting someone and killing them because you are drunk. How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

[CoachChaz]

And no one is saying that Stallworth shouldn't be punished for that. No amount of jail time is going to bring the guy back and I think the punishment that Stallworth received (jail time plus being suspended for a year) will more than keep him from ever doing that again.

I personally think anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license permanently on the first offense (or second at the absolute latest) and possibly serve a short jail sentence. It's a very stupid thing to do and it should be punished justly.

I don't think getting a DUI makes you a horrible human being though. I bet you have at least one friend or family member who has driven drunk before. Is that person a horrible human being too? Or is it ok since a pedestrian didn't jump out in front of them and get killed?

Now if Stallworth had swerved off the road and hit the guy, then I would be on the lynch mob with yall. But when the guy walks into the road into moving traffic and gets hit, well as claymore said, that's just darwinism at work.

Really? Embellishing much?

[BroncoWave]

How many times do we need to say it.....driving a car drunk is not accidental, nor is hitting someone and killing them because you are drunk. How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

Had he hit someone not standing in the middle of the road you would have a point. When you walk in front of a moving car, you get what's coming to you, drunk driver or not. That may sound horrible to you but it's just the truth.

From the facts I've read it sounds to me like even a sober driver would have had a hard time stopping in time for the guy to cross.

[Northman]

I didn't look at it that way as far as him not getting a stiffer punishment! I tell my wife that if something happens to me because I have a really good life ins policy, that she won't miss me once that check gets in her hand!!:D

I still believe if one jumps in a vehicle while high or drunk, and if they kill someone it's pre meditated murder and if they hurt someone attempted murder!!


Well, two things. I was talking to my wife last night about this very thread. And i said to her, if she got hit by a drunk driver and they tried to pay me off it wouldnt be happening. And trust me, i could use the money. But, you cant put a price on someone's life but that seems to be the big thing that some of these people here are missing. Stallworth didnt do "time" because the victims family made it that way. They felt that getting a settlement was going to ease their pain (i dont see how) and all is great in the world.

Secondly, although i agree that once you start toking up or drinking booze and you get behind the wheel that you are indeed intentionally asking for trouble. However, today's laws dont see it that way yet we are trying all of a sudden to hold Stallworth to a standard that the law doesnt have in place. Right now, driving under the influence and killing someone is considered manslaughter out of negligence. So who really is to blame here? Stallworth? Or society for not pushing to get the law changed?

I will also add that although i consider Vick's crimes more heinous when it comes to torturing animals (how any sick **** can get off that and then defend it is ridiculous to me) im not giving a pass to Stallworth and his crime. But the difference is, the victim's family gave Donte a way out by agreeing to the settlement. You want to send a message? Dont agree to the settlement. Simple as that.

[Northman]

I never compared the methods to be equal...dont get me wrong there. My point is...had this case not gone national and those dogs were put in shelters...how many of them would have been adopted by quality families?

There's no doubt a good portion of them would of been euthanized because they would just not be fit for family homes. But Vick was actually taking a tazer (or whatever device he had) and electrocuting those animals. I just cant see how anyone can defend that like its no big deal. And unfortuantely everytime i see you discuss this you act like its no big whoopee. Im not making light of Stallworth's actions but according to law his wasnt pre-meditated. And even though Vick was convicted for gambling i just find it very unacceptable and deplorable for anyone to torture animals.

[CoachChaz]

Anyone ever been driving and an animal or even a child darts out in front of you? I'm willing to bet most have had that happen. Odds are most...if not all of us have been able to slam on the brakes and avoid disaster.

However...if we were drunk, high and exceeding the speed limit...what are the odds that disaster would have struck? probably A LOT higher. So even if this pedestrian did "jump out into the street" as some choose to believe...isnt it possible that a sober, slower-driving Stallworth would have been able to slam on the breaks, flip his finger and curse the guy without killing him?

I dont care what sum of money the living family accepted. it has nothing to do with the fact that a human life was taken due to negligence. Yes...it's a negligence that I know I've taken in the past and probably will again...and if I kill someone in the process...I deserve just punishment. Much more punishment than if I were to beat my neighbors annoying dog with a bat after electrocuting it

[CoachChaz]

There's no doubt a good portion of them would of been euthanized because they would just not be fit for family homes. But Vick was actually taking a tazer (or whatever device he had) and electrocuting those animals. I just cant see how anyone can defend that like its no big deal. And unfortuantely everytime i see you discuss this you act like its no big whoopee. Im not making light of Stallworth's actions but according to law his wasnt pre-meditated. And even though Vick was convicted for gambling i just find it very unacceptable and deplorable for anyone to torture animals.

I dont necessarily blow it off. I just take the stance that if you torure dogs, you are probably a sociopath. If you run someone over...sober or drunk...you are a killer.

The two commons? Poor choices. Doing something dumb and intentional (torture) to kill a dog will never be equal to doing something dumb (drinking and driving) to kill a human. That's just my opinion.

[claymore]

How many times do we need to say it.....driving a car drunk is not accidental, nor is hitting someone and killing them because you are drunk. How freaking hard is that to comprehend?

Gem thats ridiculous. Using that logic we should throw everyone who has ever had an abortion in prison for murder.

[Northman]

Gem thats ridiculous. Using that logic we should throw everyone who has ever had an abortion in prison for murder.

Believe it or not, there are those who share that view.

[CoachChaz]

Gem thats ridiculous. Using that logic we should throw everyone who has ever had an abortion in prison for murder.

Well, let's not pretend there arent a ton of people out there that would agree with that notion

[claymore]

I dont necessarily blow it off. I just take the stance that if you torure dogs, you are probably a sociopath. If you run someone over...sober or drunk...you are a killer.

The two commons? Poor choices. Doing something dumb and intentional (torture) to kill a dog will never be equal to doing something dumb (drinking and driving) to kill a human. That's just my opinion.

One is intentional one is not. No one gets in there car ands says "Im going to kill someone". Its a bi product of a poor decision.

[GEM]

Had he hit someone not standing in the middle of the road you would have a point. When you walk in front of a moving car, you get what's coming to you, drunk driver or not. That may sound horrible to you but it's just the truth.

From the facts I've read it sounds to me like even a sober driver would have had a hard time stopping in time for the guy to cross.

Maybe I misheard it or perhaps the account I heard came from a family member who embellished a bit, but the story I heard was that he was at the bus stop waiting for the bus to go to work? I apologize if I heard incorrectly and jumped to conclusions.

Though I don't have any sympathy for drunk drivers, they kill alot of innocent people because they are selfish asses. :shrugs:

[BroncoWave]

Anyone ever been driving and an animal or even a child darts out in front of you? I'm willing to bet most have had that happen. Odds are most...if not all of us have been able to slam on the brakes and avoid disaster.

However...if we were drunk, high and exceeding the speed limit...what are the odds that disaster would have struck? probably A LOT higher. So even if this pedestrian did "jump out into the street" as some choose to believe...isnt it possible that a sober, slower-driving Stallworth would have been able to slam on the breaks, flip his finger and curse the guy without killing him?

I dont care what sum of money the living family accepted. it has nothing to do with the fact that a human life was taken due to negligence. Yes...it's a negligence that I know I've taken in the past and probably will again...and if I kill someone in the process...I deserve just punishment. Much more punishment than if I were to beat my neighbors annoying dog with a bat after electrocuting it

Wait, so you're saying that you've driven drunk? If that's the case, and if you're saying that Stallworth should be charged with premeditated (first degree) murder for what he did, it is only fair that you should have been charged with attempted first degree murder since you took the exact same actions Stallworth did short of hitting a pedestrian. Do you not agree?

[GEM]

One is intentional one is not. No one gets in there car ands says "Im going to kill someone". Its a bi product of a poor decision.

Bullshit.

If you get behind the wheel drunk you know damn well before hand that you very well could kill yourself or someone else. It's a selfish act to knowingly get behind the wheel drunk. To say differently is to make an excuse for such a stupid act.

[claymore]

Well, let's not pretend there arent a ton of people out there that would agree with that notion

Im one of them. Abortion is the intentional murder of a human being. Accidentaly killing someone in a drinking and driving case is an ACCIDENT. One that might have been avoided if better judgment was excercised, but an accident none the less.

[GEM]

Im one of them. Abortion is the intentional murder of a human being. Accidentaly killing someone in a drinking and driving case is an ACCIDENT. One that might have been avoided if better judgment was excercised, but an accident none the less.

It's not an accident, you chose to drive drunk. You could have taken a cab, gotten a ride with a sober driver, walked. It was a clear choice.

[pnbronco]

There's no doubt a good portion of them would of been euthanized because they would just not be fit for family homes. But Vick was actually taking a tazer (or whatever device he had) and electrocuting those animals. I just cant see how anyone can defend that like its no big deal. And unfortuantely everytime i see you discuss this you act like its no big whoopee. Im not making light of Stallworth's actions but according to law his wasnt pre-meditated. And even though Vick was convicted for gambling i just find it very unacceptable and deplorable for anyone to torture animals.

I do not want either of them in Denver to be honest. I would never make lite of what Stallworth did. He made a horrible choice and person was killed.

I find what Vick did deplorable. He took a creature that we have trained to be loyal to humans and trust completely and tortured them. Empathy for those that have no choices is important for living in a society. I will always feel like torturing the helpless to be unacceptable.

[claymore]

Bullshit.

If you get behind the wheel drunk you know damn well before hand that you very well could kill yourself or someone else. It's a selfish act to knowingly get behind the wheel drunk. To say differently is to make an excuse for such a stupid act.
That can be said everytime you drive your car. Drinking just increases those chances.

Not saying its the right decision. Just saying it isnt intentional murder.

[CoachChaz]

One is intentional one is not. No one gets in there car ands says "Im going to kill someone". Its a bi product of a poor decision.

One could also twist the fact that they didnt electrocute the dogs in order to kill them...only to make them mean.

Both sides can be broken down to little details that work for or against any argument. The bottom line is they were both wrong and both deserved fitting punishment. IMO and many others...one got a fitting punishment and the other didnt. I mostly find it interesting because I had a friend that git 2 DUI's in a year. he didnt kill anyone, but he had to wear an ankle bracelet for 8 months and do 30 days in jail. Compared to Stallworth... either my friends punishment was excessive or Stallworths was lenient.

[claymore]

It's not an accident, you chose to drive drunk. You could have taken a cab, gotten a ride with a sober driver, walked. It was a clear choice.

If you didnt intend on the outcome, than it is an accident. One that could have been prevented using better judgement.

[CoachChaz]

Im one of them. Abortion is the intentional murder of a human being. NEGLIGENTLY killing someone in a drinking and driving case is NEGLIGENCE. One that might have been avoided if better judgment was excercised, but NEGLIGENCE none the less.

Edited for accuray

[GEM]

That can be said everytime you drive your car. Drinking just increases those chances.

Not saying its the right decision. Just saying it isnt intentional murder.

We can agree to disagree then. To me it is. When you get behind the wheel after going to a bar KNOWING that you are going to get drunk and drive home, it's not an accident. If you know you are going to a bar and are going to drink, if you are responsible you either set up a ride home, a cab, walking, etc...

Have someone close to you killed by a guy that got behind the wheel after dropping the likeness of 5 shots of jack in the matter of half an hour, then tell me that it was an accident.

[CoachChaz]

If you didnt intend on the outcome, than it is an accident. One that could have been prevented using better judgement.

The first sentence of your statement is true if it ends there. but once you add the element of using poor judgement, it is no longer an accident and is the definition of negligence. There is a significant difference between the two.

Driving a car while sober and doing the speed limit and hitting someone that steps into the street recklessly and not having the scientific capabilites to stop in time is an accident.

Driving a vehicle at a high rate of speed while under the influence and hitting someone that allegedly stepped into the street recklessly is negligence.

[GEM]

If you didnt intend on the outcome, than it is an accident. One that could have been prevented using better judgement.

So you intended to drink, you intended to get drunk, you intended to get behind the wheel, but because you didn't mean to hit that kid on his bike it's an accident?

[claymore]

One could also twist the fact that they didnt electrocute the dogs in order to kill them...only to make them mean.

Both sides can be broken down to little details that work for or against any argument. The bottom line is they were both wrong and both deserved fitting punishment. IMO and many others...one got a fitting punishment and the other didnt. I mostly find it interesting because I had a friend that git 2 DUI's in a year. he didnt kill anyone, but he had to wear an ankle bracelet for 8 months and do 30 days in jail. Compared to Stallworth... either my friends punishment was excessive or Stallworths was lenient.

BS, electrocuting dogs is sick and twisted too! Its a known cruel thing. Drinking and driving although bad, isnt usally an intentional way of hurting someone.

Your freind and stallworth were charged for seperate things. If you dont learn from the first DUI, the penalty should be expodentially worse.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

"After Stallworth spent the night drinking at a bar in Miami Beach's Fountainebleau hotel, police said he hit Reyes, a construction crane operator who was rushing to catch a bus after finishing his shift at about 7:15 a.m.

Stallworth told police he flashed his lights in an attempt to warn Reyes, who was not in a crosswalk when he was struck."

If the above is accurate, could there be a possibility that even if Stallworth had not been drinking, he could not have stopped in time?

[claymore]

So you intended to drink, you intended to get drunk, you intended to get behind the wheel, but because you didn't mean to hit that kid on his bike it's an accident?

Yes.

If you get drunk and fall down the stairs, does it mean you intended to fall down the stairs?

[CoachChaz]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

"After Stallworth spent the night drinking at a bar in Miami Beach's Fountainebleau hotel, police said he hit Reyes, a construction crane operator who was rushing to catch a bus after finishing his shift at about 7:15 a.m.

Stallworth told police he flashed his lights in an attempt to warn Reyes, who was not in a crosswalk when he was struck."

If the above is accurate, could there be a possibility that even if Stallworth had not been drinking, he could not have stopped in time?

I guess that's my question. You have the time to flash your lights, but you dont have the time to apply your brakes?

Guess we'll never know. The only witness cant very well say any different

[GEM]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

"After Stallworth spent the night drinking at a bar in Miami Beach's Fountainebleau hotel, police said he hit Reyes, a construction crane operator who was rushing to catch a bus after finishing his shift at about 7:15 a.m.

Stallworth told police he flashed his lights in an attempt to warn Reyes, who was not in a crosswalk when he was struck."

If the above is accurate, could there be a possibility that even if Stallworth had not been drinking, he could not have stopped in time?

If you have time to flash your lights, isn't it pretty fair to say you should have time to lay on the horn and slam on your brakes? :confused: Ohhhhh wait, your reaction time is impaired. OOOOpps, what an accident. :rolleyes:

[claymore]

So you intended to drink, you intended to get drunk, you intended to get behind the wheel, but because you didn't mean to hit that kid on his bike it's an accident?

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
Date: 14th century
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

[CoachChaz]

Yes.

If you get drunk and fall down the stairs, does it mean you intended to fall down the stairs?

No...you acted negligently. if someone is sober and slips on stairs at a store or building, they can sue that location for negligence in maintaining a safe public area. however...if you are drunk...your case is screwed. Plenty of precedence in the US Courts to back that up

[Buff]

We can agree to disagree then. To me it is. When you get behind the wheel after going to a bar KNOWING that you are going to get drunk and drive home, it's not an accident. If you know you are going to a bar and are going to drink, if you are responsible you either set up a ride home, a cab, walking, etc...

Have someone close to you killed by a guy that got behind the wheel after dropping the likeness of 5 shots of jack in the matter of half an hour, then tell me that it was an accident.

You're both right to a certain extent. Under that scenario, someone would be exercising extreme negligence, but it's still an accident. I think the key there is intent. Did someone intend to kill someone with their car? No. But could it have been prevented? Yes.

[Mike]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

"After Stallworth spent the night drinking at a bar in Miami Beach's Fountainebleau hotel, police said he hit Reyes, a construction crane operator who was rushing to catch a bus after finishing his shift at about 7:15 a.m.

Stallworth told police he flashed his lights in an attempt to warn Reyes, who was not in a crosswalk when he was struck."

If the above is accurate, could there be a possibility that even if Stallworth had not been drinking, he could not have stopped in time?

Possible. But the fact that alcohol impairs your motor functions, reactions, thought process renders that possibility useless, IMO.

To argue on either's behalf is a waste of time...both guys are worthless.

[GEM]

Yes.

If you get drunk and fall down the stairs, does it mean you intended to fall down the stairs?

Validate reasons why it's ok for people to get behind the wheel of a 2500+ lb vehicle and put others lives at risk.

Part of the reason I don't drink....I fall down stairs well enough without it. :laugh:

[pnbronco]

Possible. But the fact that alcohol impairs your motor functions, reactions, thought process renders that possibility useless, IMO.

To argue on either's behalf is a waste of time...both guys are worthless.

Thank you, I agree.....:salute:

[CoachChaz]

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
Date: 14th century
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

neg⋅li⋅gence  /ˈnɛglɪdʒəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [neg-li-juhns] Show IPA
–noun 1. the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities.
2. an instance of being negligent: a downfall brought about by many negligences.
3. Law. the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

–adjective 4. Law. pertaining to or involving a civil action for compensation for damages filed by a person who claims to have suffered an injury or loss in an accident caused by another's negligence: a negligence suit; a large negligence award.

Use negligence in a Sentence
See images of negligence
Search negligence on the Web

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; ME, var. of necligence < L necligentia. See negligent, -ence

[claymore]

No...you acted negligently. if someone is sober and slips on stairs at a store or building, they can sue that location for negligence in maintaining a safe public area. however...if you are drunk...your case is screwed. Plenty of precedence in the US Courts to back that up
You are not screwed if you are drunk. If you can prove that you were put in unreasonable danger by the property owner. And you were hurt, you have a case.

[CoachChaz]

You are not screwed if you are drunk. If you can prove that you were put in unreasonable danger by the property owner. And you were hurt, you have a case.

I guess I just dont see too many judges or juries having alot of compassion for a guy that fell down the stairs while drunk...and wants to be compensated for it. Maybe I'm crazy.

[BroncoWave]

Some of you really need to educate yourselves on the difference between murder and manslaughter before you continue to post on this, because you're not making yourselves look smart by trying to claim that what Stallworth did was even anything close to murder.

If you want to argue that the law should be changed that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

The argument is if Stallworth's punishment was fitting, and given that it was manslaughter (NOT murder) and that the victim's family was more than ok with the punishment, I really don't see why this is a debate.

[claymore]

The first sentence of your statement is true if it ends there. but once you add the element of using poor judgement, it is no longer an accident and is the definition of negligence. There is a significant difference between the two.

Driving a car while sober and doing the speed limit and hitting someone that steps into the street recklessly and not having the scientific capabilites to stop in time is an accident.

Driving a vehicle at a high rate of speed while under the influence and hitting someone that allegedly stepped into the street recklessly is negligence.


neg⋅li⋅gence  /ˈnɛglɪdʒəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [neg-li-juhns] Show IPA
–noun 1. the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities.
2. an instance of being negligent: a downfall brought about by many negligences.
3. Law. the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

–adjective 4. Law. pertaining to or involving a civil action for compensation for damages filed by a person who claims to have suffered an injury or loss in an accident caused by another's negligence: a negligence suit; a large negligence award.

Use negligence in a Sentence
See images of negligence
Search negligence on the Web

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; ME, var. of necligence < L necligentia. See negligent, -ence
I just saw your first post. Im not arguing against neglicence. Im just saying that no one intends on hurting another person in a drinking and driving accident.

Negligence can be used in all accidental deaths. Speeding, falling, overdose, shooting, etc...

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Possible. But the fact that alcohol impairs your motor functions, reactions, thought process renders that possibility useless, IMO.

To argue on either's behalf is a waste of time...both guys are worthless.

I know that alcohol impairs your motor functions, reactions, etc. And I am not arguing on either's behalf - I just posted another article, and ask a question.

[claymore]

I guess I just dont see too many judges or juries having alot of compassion for a guy that fell down the stairs while drunk...and wants to be compensated for it. Maybe I'm crazy.

Like I said, if he can prove he was placed in an environment that had an unreasonable amount of danger, he has a case.

My wife won a lawsuit similar to this.

[GEM]

Well, shut down the conversation. We're not supposed to discuss things on a message board. It's all black and white, there is no gray and there is definitely no room for opinions.


:rolleyes:

[Buff]

Like I said, if he can prove he was placed in an environment that had an unreasonable amount of danger, he has a case.

My wife won a lawsuit similar to this.

What was the lawsuit?

Is that why you're rich enough to buy an F150 and a double wide?

[underrated29]

I am not going to say for or against. Just wanted to throw out there though.

That I am sure EVERYONE here has had it where they are going through an intersection, at speed limit, and the light turns. You can either SLAM on your brakes and maybe come to a complete stop in the middle of the intersection, or FLASH your brights and let the cars who are turning know that you do not have enough time, sober or not, to stop; and that you are going through.



So even though Mr. Stallworth had some drinks, and flashed his lights, he still might not have had enough time to stop. Stoping and pulling back on a stick are two totally different things and totally different amounts of time.

[BroncoWave]

Well, shut down the conversation. We're not supposed to discuss things on a message board. It's all black and white, there is no gray and there is definitely no room for opinions.


:rolleyes:

Well it's pretty hard to debate with people about manslaughter and murder when they don't know the difference between the two.

And I never said we're not supposed to debate things on a message board or that there is no room for opinions, but way to put words in my mouth. I simply said that given the facts presented, I don't see why there is any debate on what his sentence should have been, given the law as it reads currently and how the victim's family went about resolving the case.

[claymore]

What was the lawsuit?

Is that why you're rich enough to buy an F150 and a double wide?

LMAO! No... Many a fence was stretched to pay for Old Blue and the Doublewide...


J/K...

She was unknowingly given a flaming Dr pepper shot on her 21st B-day... It didnt end up well.

[CoachChaz]

Some of you really need to educate yourselves on the difference between murder and manslaughter before you continue to post on this, because you're not making yourselves look smart by trying to claim that what Stallworth did was even anything close to murder.

If you want to argue that the law should be changed that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

The argument is if Stallworth's punishment was fitting, and given that it was manslaughter (NOT murder) and that the victim's family was more than ok with the punishment, I really don't see why this is a debate.

I guess it's the opinion that when a crime takes place in a public area it's a crime against society. it's a situation where even if the family chooses not to press charges...the state can.

I wont go so far as to call Stallworths action MURDER...but they were definitley negligent homicide. By legal definition negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die. Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. Negligent homicide may be charged as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter. It is also sometimes referred to as "involuntary manslaughter". State laws vary, so local law should be consulted for specific requirements.

The following is an example of a state statute dealing with negligent homicide:

"(a) (1) A person commits negligent homicide if he or she negligently causes the death of another person, not constituting murder or manslaughter, as a result of operating a vehicle, an aircraft, or a watercraft:

(A) While intoxicated; or

(B) If at that time there is an alcohol concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08) or more in the person’s breath or blood…as determined by a chemical test of the person’s blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance.

(2) A person who violates subdivision (a) (1) of this section is guilty of a Class C felony.




What is a Class C Felony in terms of punishment by law?

(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;
(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;
(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;
(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;
(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;
(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;
(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;
(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or
(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

[claymore]

I am not going to say for or against. Just wanted to throw out there though.

That I am sure EVERYONE here has had it where they are going through an intersection, at speed limit, and the light turns. You can either SLAM on your brakes and maybe come to a complete stop in the middle of the intersection, or FLASH your brights and let the cars who are turning know that you do not have enough time, sober or not, to stop; and that you are going through.



So even though Mr. Stallworth had some drinks, and flashed his lights, he still might not have had enough time to stop. Stoping and pulling back on a stick are two totally different things and totally different amounts of time.

I throw beer bottles at the car to let them know Im wasted, and kinda pissed off, and to stay out of my way./

[underrated29]

I throw beer bottles at the car to let them know Im wasted, and kinda pissed off, and to stay out of my way./



That is an alternate tactic. But you have to remember to roll down the window first.

[GEM]

Well it's pretty hard to debate with people about manslaughter and murder when they don't know the difference between the two.

And I never said we're not supposed to debate things on a message board or that there is no room for opinions, but way to put words in my mouth. I simply said that given the facts presented, I don't see why there is any debate on what his sentence should have been, given the law as it reads currently and how the victim's family went about resolving the case.

No one has stated that Stallworth should or should not have been charged with one or the other. It's moved away from that. The conversation has moved to whether drunk driving is intentional or not intentional in general. There is no pinpointing exactly what the conversation is because it's moved away from the original topic which was Stallworth working out with a team. It's moved to Stallworths' crime vs. Vicks' crime onto manslaughter vs. murder onto intentional vs. non-intentional. There's no single one conversation going on, it's layers.

In Stallworth's case, there should be no debate based on the fact that he's already served his sentence.

[pnbronco]

LMAO! No... Many a fence was stretched to pay for Old Blue and the Doublewide...


J/K...

She was unknowingly given a flaming Dr pepper shot on her 21st B-day... It didnt end up well.

Wow Clay I didn't know you had a Doublewide........:shocked: Maybe you could give a lesson on how to stretch a fence, wait who am I talking to....:confused:

(:D....:laugh:)

[pnbronco]

That is an alternate tactic. But you have to remember to roll down the window first.

I guess that would make a difference, love the hockey boy.

[Nomad]

No one has stated that Stallworth should or should not have been charged with one or the other. It's moved away from that. The conversation has moved to whether drunk driving is intentional or not intentional in general.

In Stallworth's case, there should be no debate based on the fact that he's already served his sentence.

I did so the kid is getting his panties in a wad! I know the difference (it may be a little extreme)and if charging them with murder would get more drunks off the road then I don't care if it's extreme.

God forbid this situation does happen to any of you advocating for Stallworth because I would expect you to hold the same stance and another drunkard would get off.

[GEM]

I did so the kid is getting his panties in a wad! I know the difference (it may be a little extreme)and if charging them with murder would get more drunks off the road then I don't care if it's extreme.

God forbid this situation does not happen to any of you advocating for Stallworth because I would expect you to hold the same stance and another drunkard would get off.

Some should try going to a funeral of someone killed by a drunk driver and see just how many lives are affected by the stupidity of one. It might change some minds.

[CoachChaz]

Some should try going to a funeral of someone killed by a drunk driver and see just how many lives are affected by the stupidity of one. It might change some minds.

Useless. Pride would never allow them to admit a change of heart.

[GEM]

Useless. Pride would never allow them to admit a change of heart.

Yep. They should try going into a high school after a student is killed. My goodness, it is heart wrenching. One of the biggest reasons I don't drink except in very social situations. I saw a mother who will never hold her child again, a father who will never walk his daughter down the aisle, a sister who will never just pick up the phone to the person's voice, and friends just the number of friends whose lives were changed forever the day that girl was killed.

[claymore]

Some should try going to a funeral of someone killed by a drunk driver and see just how many lives are affected by the stupidity of one. It might change some minds.Same can be said about alot of funerals.


Useless. Pride would never allow them to admit a change of heart.

I dont think anyone here is saying they love seeing people die in Drinking and Driving accidents.

[BroncoWave]

I'm arguing from a strictly legal standpoint. If you don't like the law, write a letter to your state's senators and ask them to change it.

Based on the law as it's currently written, Stallworth did not commit murder and it would be ridiculous to charge him as such.

I'm not arguing what the law SHOULD be or what his punishment SHOULD be in an ideal world. That's not the point of this discussion. If someone wants to start a thread discussing if drunk driving laws or murder laws should be changed I'd gladly participate, but saying you think he should have gotten a stiffer penalty just because you disagree with the law is not a valid argument at all.

[GEM]

Same can be said about alot of funerals.



I dont think anyone here is saying they love seeing people die in Drinking and Driving accidents.

Drunk driving accidents don't need to happen. PERIOD. All the excuses in the world and building it up that it's just a quick drive home and all the other excuses are all just that. Excuses made by selfish people.

[BroncoWave]

Drunk driving accidents don't need to happen. PERIOD. All the excuses in the world and building it up that it's just a quick drive home and all the other excuses are all just that. Excuses made by selfish people.

Like I said then, contact your senators and congressmen and ask them to push through reform to make those laws tougher. I fully agree that drunk driving laws should be more strict than they are, but given the laws as they are now, Stallworth's punishment was fitting IMO.

[CoachChaz]

I'm arguing from a strictly legal standpoint. If you don't like the law, write a letter to your state's senators and ask them to change it.

Based on the law as it's currently written, Stallworth did not commit murder and it would be ridiculous to charge him as such.

I'm not arguing what the law SHOULD be or what his punishment SHOULD be in an ideal world. That's not the point of this discussion. If someone wants to start a thread discussing if drunk driving laws or murder laws should be changed I'd gladly participate, but saying you think he should have gotten a stiffer penalty just because you disagree with the law is not a valid argument at all.

I just posted the law. His action was negligent homicide. With alcohol involved, negligent homicide is a Calss C felony. A Class C felony carries a sentence of 10-24 years.

The law is already there...no need to change it. The system is what fails on a regular basis

[GEM]

Like I said then, contact your senators and congressmen and ask them to push through reform to make those laws tougher. I fully agree that drunk driving laws should be more strict than they are, but given the laws as they are now, Stallworth's punishment was fitting IMO.

What part of it's moved away from the Stallworth thing are you not understanding?

Coach just pulled up proof that what Stallworth got wasn't even the letter of the law that IS IN place. He got superstar treatment because he paid off the family. How is writing my congressman going to change that?

[CoachChaz]

I dont think anyone here is saying they love seeing people die in Drinking and Driving accidents.

Did I accuse anyone of that?

[GEM]

I just posted the law. His action was negligent homicide. With alcohol involved, negligent homicide is a Calss C felony. A Class C felony carries a sentence of 10-24 years.

The law is already there...no need to change it. The system is what fails on a regular basis


Thank you! You can post the friggen black and white that some want and it's still not enough. :yardog:

[Poet]

Another great point. If his family was perfectly ok with getting a big sum of money and making it go away, why should anyone else have a problem with his punishment?

Because just because they're cool with going "my dad's dead but it's cool cause now I'm rich," doesn't make it ok for someone who is rich to avoid punishment because they're rolling in dough.

[KCL]

Another great point. If his family was perfectly ok with getting a big sum of money and making it go away, why should anyone else have a problem with his punishment?

I think he would have gotten the same jail time even if he wouldn't have settled with the family...I have no idea how much money that family received but I would guess it was probably a hell of alot less than if they had sued him and took it before a jury.

Were there any witnesses to the accident.I put the SI article in my post earlier.Someone says he ran out in front of the car...all I read was that he wasn't in the crosswalk.. and he claims he was doing 50 in a 40...also it didn't say that he had attempted to stop,only that he flashed his lights at him and who knows if he even did that.

He had been drinking and he probably couldn't or didn't have the sense to react fast enough to avoid hitting him,I still think he got a slap on the wrist.

As far as Vick goes..the dogs that he used were pitbulls.I know people have them as pets.These dogs were not pets.They were dogs that were bred and trained to fight.It's not like Vick gathered up a bunch of stray dogs and taught them to turn on one another.

Perhaps Vick's sentence was too harsh :whoknows:

[claymore]

Drunk driving accidents don't need to happen. PERIOD. All the excuses in the world and building it up that it's just a quick drive home and all the other excuses are all just that. Excuses made by selfish people.

Would you be more angry at a person who was talking on their cell phone or driving over the legal limit?

[GEM]

Would you be more angry at a person who was talking on their cell phone or driving over the legal limit?

Cell phone. Distraction.

Hell, I was driving into work just this week and a moron behind me almost rear ended me because in the middle of stop and go traffic she is putting on makeup. Stupidity just pisses me off.

[CoachChaz]

Would you be more angry at a person who was talking on their cell phone or driving over the legal limit?

that would also legally qualify as negligent homicide. Only difference is it doesnt fall under the DUI portion of that law and therefore is only a Class Misdemeanor which carries a sentence of 6-12 months.

Big difference and for the record...I think that law should be stricter as well. Anything that distracts or impairs your ability to properly operate 2000 pounds of moving death should be MUCH STRICTER

[claymore]

Did I accuse anyone of that?

You said something about a change of heart. Which to me implies that I wouldnt be sad at someones untimely death because of a Drinking and driving accident.

[Poet]

I disagree. Here's why:

Several years ago I was witness to the death of a pedestrian killed crossing the street, to the extent that I spent a couple hours giving testimony at the police station that night. It scarred me badly enough that I refused to drive for two weeks and to this day, I have an irrational fear of hitting a pedestrian while driving.

The circumstances were different than Stallworth's situation. The driver was sober, it was midnight, drizzling and in an area without streetlights. Speed was not an issue. But that man stepped out to cross in front of several cars, even though he should have been able to see their headlights. And he lost his life. That was clearly his own fault and not the driver's.

Now in Stallworth's case, he clearly deserves most of the blame. There's a chance that if he was sober and not speeding that he could have avoided the accident. But the man who chose to cross the street in front of a car bears some blame as well. His actions helped to bring about his own death. The dogs whose death Vick was responsible for were born to the wrong mom.

Now, I'm not arguing that one crime is worse than the other. Only pointing out that BTB's stance is far from asinine. The man clearly made a choice that brought about his own death.

The thing is you said "the dogs".

The guy that Stallworth killed shouldn't have ran out in the middle of the street, that was a mistake. However, I find it ironic that people are taking up more for the guy who made the much bigger mistake by drinking and driving and smoking.

Did he kill him in cold blood? No, I don't think that Stallworth is a brilliant liar and managed to pull off getting drunk/high and running down someone for fun and then fool the cops. It wasn't in cold blood.

But accidentally killing a human being is worse than intentionally or financing dog fighting.

Look at the casualties.

[BroncoWave]

I just posted the law. His action was negligent homicide. With alcohol involved, negligent homicide is a Calss C felony. A Class C felony carries a sentence of 10-24 years.

The law is already there...no need to change it. The system is what fails on a regular basis

If it can be reasonably argued that even a sober driver in the exact same situation may not have been able to stop in time or that the pedestrian was just as much at fault for illegally jaywalking and running into oncoming traffic, then you can argue that the alcohol wasn't the primary cause of the death and therefore it's not negligent homicide. From what I have read, that appears to be the case but given that we aren't privy to all of the facts it's hard to say. Given what his sentence was, though, I think it's safe to say that what he did wasn't negligent homicide.

[Poet]

So everyone who gets charged with a DUI should be charged with attempted first degree murder as well? Good luck convincing any rational policy maker to pass that into law.

Yeah, DUI's aren't a big deal at all, unless you hit someone.

The penalty for a DUI should be astronomical, and the second DUI should result in the loss of a driver's license for at least two years.

[GEM]

If it can be reasonably argued that even a sober driver in the exact same situation may not have been able to stop in time or that the pedestrian was just as much at fault for illegally jaywalking and running into oncoming traffic, then you can argue that the alcohol wasn't the primary cause of the death and therefore it's not negligent homicide. From what I have read, that appears to be the case but given that we aren't privy to all of the facts it's hard to say. Given what his sentence was, though, I think it's safe to say that what he did wasn't negligent homicide.

By the letter of the law that you keep insisting we stick to, it was and it was aggravated by the fact that alcohol was involved.

Don't insist that we stick to the letter of the law and then change the rules of conversation when they are provided to you and they don't match your argument.

[KCL]

I guess that's my question. You have the time to flash your lights, but you dont have the time to apply your brakes?

Guess we'll never know. The only witness cant very well say any different
That's what I posted earlier..what effin good does flashing your lights do? How about using the brakes and honking the horn? :rolleyes:

[KCL]

Yes.

If you get drunk and fall down the stairs, does it mean you intended to fall down the stairs?

no..we expect that out of you clay.

[CoachChaz]

If it can be reasonably argued that even a sober driver in the exact same situation may not have been able to stop in time or that the pedestrian was just as much at fault for illegally jaywalking and running into oncoming traffic, then you can argue that the alcohol wasn't the primary cause of the death and therefore it's not negligent homicide. From what I have read, that appears to be the case but given that we aren't privy to all of the facts it's hard to say. Given what his sentence was, though, I think it's safe to say that what he did wasn't negligent homicide.

The sentence definately doesnt reek of the crime...but his actions did. he shelled out some money and got off easy. Happens all the time

[KCL]

If you have time to flash your lights, isn't it pretty fair to say you should have time to lay on the horn and slam on your brakes? :confused: Ohhhhh wait, your reaction time is impaired. OOOOpps, what an accident. :rolleyes:

lol..I keep quoting and responding,going back and reading and I see I have the same thoughts as you and coach.

[BroncoWave]

By the letter of the law that you keep insisting we stick to, it was and it was aggravated by the fact that alcohol was involved.

Don't insist that we stick to the letter of the law and then change the rules of conversation when they are provided to you and they don't match your argument.

They have to prove that the alcohol aggravated the incident though. Like I said, if they can reasonably prove that a sober driver would have had just as hard a time stopping for the pedestrian, or if they can prove that the pedestrian illegally crossing the street was just as much to blame, then you can reasonably argue that the alcohol didn't aggravate the incident and that it doesn't fall under a class C felony. Yes that would be difficult to argue, but I think the argument could definitely be made.

[GEM]

They have to prove that the alcohol aggravated the incident though. Like I said, if they can reasonably prove that a sober driver would have had just as hard a time stopping for the pedestrian, or if they can prove that the pedestrian illegally crossing the street was just as much to blame, then you can reasonably argue that the alcohol didn't aggravate the incident and that it doesn't fall under a class C felony. Yes that would be difficult to argue, but I think the argument could definitely be made.

And the money to pay it off and make it go bye bye was a big help.

[CoachChaz]

You said something about a change of heart. Which to me implies that I wouldnt be sad at someones untimely death because of a Drinking and driving accident.

No, I implied that seeing the pain of those that lost a loved one might change how they feel about the punishment of the offender, but that PRIDE wouldnt allow them to admit as much.

[CoachChaz]

They have to prove that the alcohol aggravated the incident though. Like I said, if they can reasonably prove that a sober driver would have had just as hard a time stopping for the pedestrian, or if they can prove that the pedestrian illegally crossing the street was just as much to blame, then you can reasonably argue that the alcohol didn't aggravate the incident and that it doesn't fall under a class C felony. Yes that would be difficult to argue, but I think the argument could definitely be made.

By your standard...OJ, Manson and Hitler were innocent too.

[TXBRONC]

And no one is saying that Stallworth shouldn't be punished for that. No amount of jail time is going to bring the guy back and I think the punishment that Stallworth received (jail time plus being suspended for a year) will more than keep him from ever doing that again.

I personally think anyone who gets a DUI should lose their license permanently on the first offense (or second at the absolute latest) and possibly serve a short jail sentence. It's a very stupid thing to do and it should be punished justly.

I don't think getting a DUI makes you a horrible human being though. I bet you have at least one friend or family member who has driven drunk before. Is that person a horrible human being too? Or is it ok since a pedestrian didn't jump out in front of them and get killed?

Now if Stallworth had swerved off the road and hit the guy, then I would be on the lynch mob with yall. But when the guy walks into the road into moving traffic and gets hit, well as claymore said, that's just darwinism at work.

So because no amount of jail time will bring back person Stallworth hit 60 days in jail is more than enough? Hell I'm surprised you not saying that wasn't excessive. By the way when do you become Stallworth's BFF? You know for fact Stallworth will never do it again? Ok ever here of Leonard Little?

I agree Frau your argument is asinine and cold blood.

[KCL]

Well it's pretty hard to debate with people about manslaughter and murder when they don't know the difference between the two.

And I never said we're not supposed to debate things on a message board or that there is no room for opinions, but way to put words in my mouth. I simply said that given the facts presented, I don't see why there is any debate on what his sentence should have been, given the law as it reads currently and how the victim's family went about resolving the case.

It's the off season..give us a break Mr.College Man..:lol:

[BroncoWave]

And the money to pay it off and make it go bye bye was a big help.

Possibly, I was just providing what I think could be valid legal arguments as to why it wasn't a class C felony. Now it may be tough to prove those arguments and arguing that may not work, but that's why they have trials and that's why they have judges and juries to decide these things.

[BroncoWave]

By your standard...OJ, Manson and Hitler were innocent too.

:lol: wow please do explain.

[claymore]

Possibly, I was just providing what I think could be valid legal arguments as to why it wasn't a class C felony. Now it may be tough to prove those arguments and arguing that may not work, but that's why they have trials and that's why they have judges and juries to decide these things.
I think the easiest answer is ... Reyes was running across the street to catch a bus and got whacked.

It was an accident. If it was done on purpose, they would still be looking for who did it.

[CoachChaz]

Possibly, I was just providing what I think could be valid legal arguments as to why it wasn't a class C felony. Now it may be tough to prove those arguments and arguing that may not work, but that's why they have trials and that's why they have judges and juries to decide these things.

"valid" arguments can be made for any crime. Who's to say that if a guy wasnt neglected by his mother he wouldnt have had anger issues against women and therefore wouldnt have committed rape.

At some point, common sense and reason have to be considered.

[BroncoWave]

"valid" arguments can be made for any crime. Who's to say that if a guy wasnt neglected by his mother he wouldnt have had anger issues against women and therefore wouldnt have committed rape.

At some point, common sense and reason have to be considered.

Your example is a much weaker argument than can be made for Stallworth IMO.

[claymore]

No, I implied that seeing the pain of those that lost a loved one might change how they feel about the punishment of the offender, but that PRIDE wouldnt allow them to admit as much.

Depends on the scenario. If they were hit and killed while running across the street, I would probably mourn the loss, but feel kind of bad for Stallworth.

[CoachChaz]

:lol: wow please do explain.

Well, if Nicole hadnt flaunted her new lover in OJ's face, it wouldnt have enraged him and he wouldnt have killed them...but then again...the glove didnt fit either.

Manson dropped people off at a house and told them to kill someone. he didnt actually touch the people, so he technically didnt murder them.

Same with Hitler. he hated Jews and the Nazis in the camps gassed them and tortured them. How many of them did Hitler personally kill?


A ridiculous argument can be made for anything.

[CoachChaz]

Depends on the scenario. If they were hit and killed while running across the street, I would probably mourn the loss, but feel kind of bad for Stallworth.

Did I miss the witness statement that confirmed without a doubt that the victim was "running across the street"? Or are we taken the drunken Mr. Stallworth's word on this?

[BroncoWave]

Well, if Nicole hadnt flaunted her new lover in OJ's face, it wouldnt have enraged him and he wouldnt have killed them...but then again...the glove didnt fit either.

Manson dropped people off at a house and told them to kill someone. he didnt actually touch the people, so he technically didnt murder them.

Same with Hitler. he hated Jews and the Nazis in the camps gassed them and tortured them. How many of them did Hitler personally kill?


A ridiculous argument can be made for anything.

OJ's was intentional, and ordering someone to kill someone is still murder. All the of your examples are of intentional, premeditated murder. None of those correlate with Stallworth's case at all. Nice try though.

[CoachChaz]

Your example is a much weaker argument than can be made for Stallworth IMO.

Of course it is...because it's not the argument you choose to believe. Strange how that works both ways

[KCL]

Did I miss the witness statement that confirmed without a doubt that the victim was "running across the street"? Or are we taken the drunken Mr. Stallworth's word on this?

This is exactly what I think.All I read was that he wasn't in the crosswalk.

[CoachChaz]

OJ's was intentional, and ordering someone to kill someone is still murder. All the of your examples are of intentional, premeditated murder. None of those correlate with Stallworth's case at all. Nice try though.

You ask for a point...I lay it out there and you still dont see it. Why ask?


The POINT is...an argument can be made for ANYTHING. If someone can justify that a victim can be at fault when being run over by a drunk driver...then reason stands that justification can be made for someone else's crimes.

I mean...if OJ, Manson and Hitler were drunk and high and their victims "ran in front of them"...it should be okay. Right?

[claymore]

Did I miss the witness statement that confirmed without a doubt that the victim was "running across the street"? Or are we taken the drunken Mr. Stallworth's word on this?

Just going off of what i remember. What evidence are you privy too? Where is it written that he wasnt running? Was there a crosswalk? Or did he get hit because he used negligence in not finding a legal way to cross the street?

[CoachChaz]

I guess ignorance truly is bliss. I give up. Stallworth is a stand up guy...sign him today!!!

[GEM]

So because no amount of jail time will bring back person Stallworth hit 60 days in jail is more than enough? Hell I'm surprised you not saying that wasn't excessive. By the way when do you become Stallworth's BFF? You know for fact Stallworth will never do it again? Ok ever here of Leonard Little?

I agree Frau your argument is asinine but also cold blood.

Go into the records of most that have been convicted of a DUI.....most do it again, multiple times.

[BroncoWave]

You ask for a point...I lay it out there and you still dont see it. Why ask?


The POINT is...an argument can be made for ANYTHING. If someone can justify that a victim can be at fault when being run over by a drunk driver...then reason stands that justification can be made for someone else's crimes.

I mean...if OJ, Manson and Hitler were drunk and high and their victims "ran in front of them"...it should be okay. Right?

OJ, Manson, and Hitler all premeditated their crimes and had full intent on killing someone, so the point you are trying to make just doesn't work, sorry. You can't justify the victim being at fault when their murder was premeditated.

You can justify it if the case was an accident, as in Stallworth's case.

[GEM]

Possibly, I was just providing what I think could be valid legal arguments as to why it wasn't a class C felony. Now it may be tough to prove those arguments and arguing that may not work, but that's why they have trials and that's why they have judges and juries to decide these things.

But none of that was allowed to happen because he paid the family off.

[KCL]

What he did was as bad as a drunk driver hitting someone head on and killing them..IMO.

[BroncoWave]

Go into the records of most that have been convicted of a DUI.....most do it again, multiple times.

And if Stallworth does it again, they should throw the book at him, but basing your idea of what his punishment should be based on the fact that you think he MAY do it again is a very slippery slope to start on. Unless he actually DOES do it again, it's wholly unfair to just assume he will.

[BroncoWave]

But none of that was allowed to happen because he paid the family off.

Then the family should have told him and his money to F off. If they thought his punishment was fitting, who am I to disagree?

[GEM]

And if Stallworth does it again, they should throw the book at him, but basing your idea of what his punishment should be based on the fact that you think he MAY do it again is a very slippery slope to start on. Unless he actually DOES do it again, it's wholly unfair to just assume he will.

I dunno, to me killing one human being is enough. Was it wholly fair that he did it the first time?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The sentence definately doesnt reek of the crime...but his actions did. he shelled out some money and got off easy. Happens all the time

Once again - This is not my opinion, but only posting what is in the following article, in regards to the statement "he shelled out some money and got off easy". If the article is correct, possibly the outcome was the way the Reyes family wanted it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth's lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal. Rundle also said the Reyes family -- particularly the victim's 15-year-old daughter -- wanted the case resolved to avoid any more pain.

[GEM]

Then the family should have told him and his money to F off. If they thought his punishment was fitting, who am I to disagree?

They really should have. They should have let the court carry out his due punishment and then taken his sorry ass to civil court.

[claymore]

Go into the records of most that have been convicted of a DUI.....most do it again, multiple times.

Its an addiction. People dont always do the right thing when there is an addiction involved.

[BroncoWave]

I dunno, to me killing one human being is enough. Was it wholly fair that he did it the first time?

Just to be clear, are you saying his punishment should have been more harsh because most drunk drivers commit the same crime again? I just want to be sure this is what you are arguing.

[GEM]

Just to be clear, are you saying his punishment should have been more harsh because most drunk drivers commit the same crime again? I just want to be sure this is what you are arguing.

I'm saying his punishment should have been more harsh because he killed a human being. He got behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk and killed someone.

[GEM]

Its an addiction. People dont always do the right thing when there is an addiction involved.

There is help out there for addiction. Most choose not to use it. They will make the conscious choice to get behind the wheel, but they won't make a decision to change the behavior.

Believe me, I know about addiction. IT'S A CHOICE!

[claymore]

I'm saying his punishment should have been more harsh because he killed a human being. He got behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk and killed someone.

On accident.

[Poet]

BTB, do you love your mom/dad?

[BroncoWave]

I'm saying his punishment should have been more harsh because he killed a human being. He got behind the wheel of a vehicle drunk and killed someone.

And I'm saying that given the other circumstances as I understand them, you can't simply throw all the blame on Stallworth when the victim was crossing the street illegally and into oncoming traffic nonetheless.

[BroncoWave]

BTB, do you love your mom/dad?

Of course. Why do you ask? :confused:

[GEM]

And I'm saying that given the other circumstances as I understand them, you can't simply throw all the blame on Stallworth when the victim was crossing the street illegally and into oncoming traffic nonetheless.

I actually do. He was drinking before he got behind the wheel.

[BroncoWave]

I actually do. He was drinking before he got behind the wheel.

Then I guess we should just eliminate crosswalks and jaywalking laws since those apparently don't matter according to you.

[GEM]

On accident.

It's not an accident if you made a conscious choice before hand to drink and then to drive.

[GEM]

Then I guess we should just eliminate crosswalks and jaywalking laws since those apparently don't matter according to you.

Had he had the reaction time of a person who wasn't drunk or high, would the accident have definitely happened? He had enough time to flash his lights but not hit his brakes and lay on his horn? The choices he made were diminished because he didn't have full control of himself.

[Poet]

Of course. Why do you ask? :confused:

Because if I got drunk and plowed them I doubt that you would take money (if I had THAT much).

[CoachChaz]

On accident.

He accidentally drank liquor...accidentally smoked pot, accidentally sped and accidentally killed someone.

Holy shit...I guess I stand corrected.:rolleyes:

[BroncoWave]

Had he had the reaction time of a person who wasn't drunk or high, would the accident have definitely happened? He had enough time to flash his lights but not hit his brakes and lay on his horn? The choices he made were diminished because he didn't have full control of himself.

Ok, but the pedestrian still illegally crossed the street and walked into oncoming traffic. The fact that Stallworth has nothing to do with the fact that what the pedestrian did was idiotic. Sorry but if you cross the street in a non-crossing area into oncoming traffic, you are just asking to get run over.

[BroncoWave]

Because if I got drunk and plowed them I doubt that you would take money (if I had THAT much).

No, but the victim's family happily took the money, so if they were fine with his punishment then I see no reason to argue with them.

[claymore]

It's not an accident if you made a conscious choice before hand to drink and then to drive.
You are obviously emotionally invested in some way. I am black and white on some things too. So Im not going to try and get you to see my point any more.

[Poet]

No, but the victim's family happily took the money, so if they were fine with his punishment then I see no reason to argue with them.

And that doesn't speak very well about them.

[GEM]

Ok, but the pedestrian still illegally crossed the street and walked into oncoming traffic. The fact that Stallworth has nothing to do with the fact that what the pedestrian did was idiotic. Sorry but if you cross the street in a non-crossing area into oncoming traffic, you are just asking to get run over.

Equally as idiotic as driving drunk. Except crossing the street puts your life in danger. Driving drunk puts everyone else's in danger. I'm fully ok with ******* myself up, I don't have the right, drunk or not to do that to someone else.

Personal responsibility. Something no one believes in anymore and a lot of the reason our country is so ****** up.

[CoachChaz]

No, but the victim's family happily took the money, so if they were fine with his punishment then I see no reason to argue with them.

They were...but what about the rest of society that has to live with the precedent that was set in this ruling?

[claymore]

He accidentally drank liquor...accidentally smoked pot, accidentally sped and accidentally killed someone.

Holy shit...I guess I stand corrected.:rolleyes:

And Reyes purposeley ran out and got killed. I hope Stallworth can sue for the damages inflicted on his car.

[GEM]

You are obviously emotionally invested in some way. I am black and white on some things too. So Im not going to try and get you to see my point any more.

Just like you are somehow invested. You've said you have driven drunk, Clay. Making excuses doesn't make it ok, no matter how hard you try. There is right and there is wrong. Driving drunk is wrong and selfish to boot.

[CoachChaz]

And Reyes purposeley ran out and got killed. I hope Stallworth can sue for the damages inflicted on his car.

Are you going to add anything serious and relevant to the conversation? I mean seriously...I know you like to goof around and say silly shit, but this has to be the dumbest comment ever posted on this forum.

[claymore]

Just like you are somehow invested. You've said you have driven drunk, Clay. Making excuses doesn't make it ok, no matter how hard you try. There is right and there is wrong. Driving drunk is wrong and selfish to boot.

I never once said it was ok to do. I said that driving drunk and killing someone isnt something you plan. Its an accident.

People who talk on cell phones and drive are 4 times more likely to get in an accident than a drunk driver.

All of us has done either one of these things (Except Carol).

I refuse to demonize Stallworth when he hit a guy in the middle of the road.

[GEM]

By emotionally invested, yes I am. I had a very good friend killed by a drunk driver. She was driving down the street when a guy crossed the center median, struck her head on and killed her instantly. He tested out to have the equivalent of 5 tall shots of Jack Daniels in less than an hour.

There is absolutely no reason to drive drunk. Get a cab, get a designated driver, walk, whatever. There is NO reason to drive drunk.

[claymore]

Are you going to add anything serious and relevant to the conversation? I mean seriously...I know you like to goof around and say silly shit, but this has to be the dumbest comment ever posted on this forum.

The only thing dumber was the post I was replying too.

[Northman]

It's not an accident, you chose to drive drunk. You could have taken a cab, gotten a ride with a sober driver, walked. It was a clear choice.

Well, some would say when your under the influence that you dont think clearly. Thus, making your decision making impaired.

[GEM]

I never once said it was ok to do. I said that driving drunk and killing someone isnt something you plan. Its an accident.

People who talk on cell phones and drive are 4 times more likely to get in an accident than a drunk driver.

All of us has done either one of these things (Except Carol).

I refuse to demonize Stallworth when he hit a guy in the middle of the road.

You plan to go to the bar, right?

You plan your way home, right?

You plan to drive home, right?

Your reaction time and driving skills are diminished after drinking, right?

Then yes....you have made a plan to drive drunk and you don't have the skills necessary to avoid a wreck.

Just because everyone calls car accidents accidents doesn't really mean they are accidents, that's why people get tickets if they are at fault.

[CoachChaz]

The only thing dumber was the post I was replying too.

It was a response to your implication that everything Stallworth did that night was an "accident".

[GEM]

Well, some would say when your under the influence that you dont think clearly. Thus, making your decision making impaired.

Exactly, thus why you shouldn't be operating a vehicle that weighs 2500+ lbs.

[claymore]

By emotionally invested, yes I am. I had a very good friend killed by a drunk driver. She was driving down the street when a guy crossed the center median, struck her head on and killed her instantly. He tested out to have the equivalent of 5 tall shots of Jack Daniels in less than an hour.

There is absolutely no reason to drive drunk. Get a cab, get a designated driver, walk, whatever. There is NO reason to drive drunk.

Sorry to hear about your loss. But in no way do I believe the driver intentionaly killed your freind.

[GEM]

Sorry to hear about your loss. But in no way do I believe the driver intentionaly killed your freind.

He intentionally got in his car.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

First off - I do not drink, but I am wondering about the following: If Stallworth had not drank before this happened, would some of the opinions still be the same - i.e. - (sober - it still would have been his fault), or would it have then been taken into consideration that there is the possibility that he could not have stopped in time to avoid this.

I once read an article posted by a smoker, and his point was:

If a smoker goes to the doctor because something is wrong with him, if it is something that being a smoker could have caused, "smoking" gets blamed, but if a non smoker goes to the doctor, because there is something wrong, then the doctor gets down to what actually caused the problem.

[claymore]

You plan to go to the bar, right?

You plan your way home, right?

You plan to drive home, right?

Your reaction time and driving skills are diminished after drinking, right?

Then yes....you have made a plan to drive drunk and you don't have the skills necessary to avoid a wreck.

Just because everyone calls car accidents accidents doesn't really mean they are accidents, that's why people get tickets if they are at fault.
They dont call them accidents if they werent accidents. They call it assault, or murder, or an attack.


It was a response to your implication that everything Stallworth did that night was an "accident".

I never said that. I said he didnt plan on killing anyone. That makes it an accident.

[underrated29]

Thats the point I was trying to make about going through the intersection. Sometimes, there is just not enough time to stop. Even though there is time to flash lights, honk horn, and or throw beer bottles at people...(<---which is probably the most effective means to get someone to move).

Why a car wouldnt be reason enough, but projectiles get people moving quick.




Good job RUN DNC

[claymore]

He intentionally got in his car.

Yes getting in his car was on purpose.

[CoachChaz]

You plan to go to the bar, right?

You plan your way home, right?

You plan to drive home, right?

Your reaction time and driving skills are diminished after drinking, right?

Then yes....you have made a plan to drive drunk and you don't have the skills necessary to avoid a wreck.

Just because everyone calls car accidents accidents doesn't really mean they are accidents, that's why people get tickets if they are at fault.

I think society has corruptly skewed the line between accidentally and negligently.

[GEM]

They dont call them accidents if they werent accidents. They call it assault, or murder, or an attack.



I never said that. I said he didnt plan on killing anyone. That makes it an accident.

Bullshit they don't. When you're talking to people do they say....you should have seen this accident this morning, it was horrendous. or do they say you should have seen this drunk driving murder, it was horrendous.

[Northman]

Well it's pretty hard to debate with people about manslaughter and murder when they don't know the difference between the two.

And I never said we're not supposed to debate things on a message board or that there is no room for opinions, but way to put words in my mouth. I simply said that given the facts presented, I don't see why there is any debate on what his sentence should have been, given the law as it reads currently and how the victim's family went about resolving the case.

This. All ive been hearing is how Stallworth intentionally tried to kill someone when the law itself states otherwise. Its one thing to have an opinion but its something entirely different when you dont understand the law that is in place to begin with. Throw in the fact that although Donte used very poor judgement getting behind the wheel while intoxicated you would have a very hard time as a panel or judge to determine that he "intentionally" wanted to kill someone. Pre-meditated murder is when you actively seek out to kill someone. Negligence is not using common sense which can result in a tragedy such as Donte's case.

[Poet]

Exactly, thus why you shouldn't be operating a vehicle that weighs 2500+ lbs.

And that's why in a society where everyone is aware about DUI's and what can happen of them the whole 'accident' crap needs to stop.

We need to stop looking at it as an accident, it excuses it. I'm not saying they should go to jail for murder, but I would honestly support much stricter laws than what we have.

[GEM]

Yes getting in his car was on purpose.

:lol: You get in your car on accident? Your brain doesn't say get in the car or get in a cab?

[BroncoWave]

And that doesn't speak very well about them.

But it was still their decision nonetheless and should be respected.


They were...but what about the rest of society that has to live with the precedent that was set in this ruling?

This was only a precedent if future families decide to take money instead of wanting full prsecution. If a family wants ful prosection, I highly doubt they look back to this case as precedent.

[Buff]

You plan to go to the bar, right?

You plan your way home, right?

You plan to drive home, right?

Your reaction time and driving skills are diminished after drinking, right?

Then yes....you have made a plan to drive drunk and you don't have the skills necessary to avoid a wreck.

Just because everyone calls car accidents accidents doesn't really mean they are accidents, that's why people get tickets if they are at fault.

But you don't "plan" to kill someone with your car. That's the whole point here--there is no intent to crash the vehicle. There is negligence and poor decision making, but not intent--therefore it's an accident. People get ticketed for accidents all the time.

[Northman]

Same can be said about alot of funerals.



I dont think anyone here is saying they love seeing people die in Drinking and Driving accidents.


Oh, but we are Clay dont you know? Just like they know that Donte wanted to kill someone they know that we dont care about people dying from drunk driving. :rolleyes:

[CoachChaz]

First off - I do not drink, but I am wondering about the following: If Stallworth had not drank before this happened, would some of the opinions still be the same - i.e. - (sober - it still would have been his fault), or would it have then been taken into consideration that there is the possibility that he could not have stopped in time to avoid this.

I once read an article posted by a smoker, and his point was:

If a smoker goes to the doctor because something is wrong with him, if it is something that being a smoker could have caused, "smoking" gets blamed, but if a non smoker goes to the doctor, because there is something wrong, then the doctor gets down to what actually caused the problem.

Interesting concept, but as a smoker, I know the risks I am taking. I know that if I get cancer or a respiratory infection or emphysema...I took that risk and most likely...the smoking caused it. Now, if I go to a doctor and he tells me my chest hurts becasue I smoke or my sinuses are whacked because I smoke...most likely he's right. But, If I go to him with pain in my leg and he tells me the cigarettes did it...I'm finding a new doctor.

But I'll reiterate. As a smoker...I am completely aware of the risks I take every time I light up. And tonight, when I leave the bar...I am totally aware that if I kill someone, it's all Clay's fault because he drove me to drink today. If he hadnt been so inane i wouldnt have needed a drink to relax and wouldnt have had an "accident" on the way home.

[GEM]

But you don't "plan" to kill someone with your car. That's the whole point here--there is no intent to crash the vehicle. There is negligence and poor decision making, but not intent--therefore it's an accident. People get ticketed for accidents all the time.

As Coach pointed out, it's negligence, not an accident.

Whether you plan it or not, you don't have the necessary tools to stop it from happening.

[claymore]

Bullshit they don't. When you're talking to people do they say....you should have seen this accident this morning, it was horrendous. or do they say you should have seen this drunk driving murder, it was horrendous.You are assuming they would know the cause of the accident. And Murder only happens when there is intent or malice.


:lol: You get in your car on accident? Your brain doesn't say get in the car or get in a cab? Getting in your car, or a cab is on purpose.

If the drunk driver decided to kill someone on purpose, that shows malice and is considered murder.

[claymore]

Interesting concept, but as a smoker, I know the risks I am taking. I know that if I get cancer or a respiratory infection or emphysema...I took that risk and most likely...the smoking caused it. Now, if I go to a doctor and he tells me my chest hurts becasue I smoke or my sinuses are whacked because I smoke...most likely he's right. But, If I go to him with pain in my leg and he tells me the cigarettes did it...I'm finding a new doctor.

But I'll reiterate. As a smoker...I am completely aware of the risks I take every time I light up. And tonight, when I leave the bar...I am totally aware that if I kill someone, it's all Clay's fault because he drove me to drink today. If he hadnt been so inane i wouldnt have needed a drink to relax and wouldnt have had an "accident" on the way home.
How about if you gave someone cancer from 2nd hand smoke? Was that on purpose?

[CoachChaz]

But it was still their decision nonetheless and should be respected.



This was only a precedent if future families decide to take money instead of wanting full prsecution. If a family wants ful prosection, I highly doubt they look back to this case as precedent.

Doesnt matter. I cant take money and ahve the state decide not to convict someone for murdering my kids. Society has something at stake here and while there is a civil case, there is also a criminal case. Society was jipped

[GEM]

We can all agree to disagree.

Drive drunk, have fun, kill someone then claim it was an "accident". Have fun folks. :rolleyes:

[Northman]

The sentence definately doesnt reek of the crime...but his actions did. he shelled out some money and got off easy. Happens all the time

And whose fault is that?

[CoachChaz]

How about if you gave someone cancer from 2nd hand smoke? Was that on purpose?

I would have to blow smoke in someone's face for a VERY long time to give them cancer from second hand smoke. If that happened, then that person obviously made a decision to be around me for that time period regardless of my bad habits.

[CoachChaz]

And whose fault is that?

I wont argue that the system fails all the time. i completely agree with that. but it doesnt make the crime any less important.

[Northman]

We can all agree to disagree.

Drive drunk, have fun, kill someone then claim it was an "accident". Have fun folks. :rolleyes:

Quit being a drama queen already. No one has said anything like that. :rolleyes:

[Northman]

I would have to blow smoke in someone's face for a VERY long time to give them cancer from second hand smoke. If that happened, then that person obviously made a decision to be around me for that time period regardless of my bad habits.

Is that like making a decision to jump in front of a moving vehicle? :laugh:

[claymore]

I would have to blow smoke in someone's face for a VERY long time to give them cancer from second hand smoke. If that happened, then that person obviously made a decision to be around me for that time period regardless of my bad habits.

That person knew the danger and chose to be around you. So I guess you should go to prison. Because even though there was no malice or intent, you knew it was hypothetically possible.

[CoachChaz]

Is that like making a decision to jump in front of a moving vehicle? :laugh:

If there is a suicide note or any proof that this dude had the complete intention of being killed and wanted to jump in front of traffic, then I'm cool with Stallworth not being convicted. but we dont have that proof. All we have is a drunk driver.

[CoachChaz]

That person knew the danger and chose to be around you. So I guess you should go to prison. Because even though there was no malice or intent, you knew it was hypothetically possible.

So then we agree.

[GEM]

Quit being a drama queen already. No one has said anything like that. :rolleyes:

So if you say your opinion and you stick to it vehemently it makes you a drama queen. What's the male version of that because I have seen you fit into that category quite often, especially as of late.

And actually, yea it has been said. Driving drunk is just something that happens, so I've been told. It's just an outcome that happens sometimes, but a person doesn't mean to do it intentionally, so it's ok.

[claymore]

We can all agree to disagree.

Drive drunk, have fun, kill someone then claim it was an "accident". Have fun folks. :rolleyes:

All of my hate is wrapped up in child molesters and people that get abortions.

[claymore]

So then we agree.

No!

[GEM]

All of my hate is wrapped up in child molesters and people that get abortions.

And that's a good place to center it, Clay. ;) We all have our own irks and things that make our blood boil.

[Northman]

If there is a suicide note or any proof that this dude had the complete intention of being killed and wanted to jump in front of traffic, then I'm cool with Stallworth not being convicted. but we dont have that proof. All we have is a drunk driver.

Well, to be honest you dont have to have a suicide note. I was crossing the street and got hit by a car when i was younger. The guy ran a red light and wasnt drunk. However, in hindsight i should of taken the extra precaution to make sure the cars were going to stop. Although Stallworth gets the brunt of the blame here because he was intoxicated one would have to wonder if it would of played out the same if he had been sober. From what i understand the guy trying to catch the bus was not in the crosswalk. I mean, you can truly be sober and drive down and in DC and have someone just walk out in front of you at the last minute. Would you still be guilty of intent at that point? I think thats what most of us are trying to explain here. Although Stallworth may of had the intent to drink and drive there is nothing to prove that he intended to kill someone. Does he deserve more punishment? Sure, but whatever deal was struck by him, his lawyer, and the victim's family got him out of it so everything becomes a mute point in his situation.

[Poet]

All of my hate is wrapped people that get abortions.

Yes, let them grow up so they can get run over by drunk people cuz it's no biggie.;)

[Northman]

So if you say your opinion and you stick to it vehemently it makes you a drama queen. What's the male version of that because I have seen you fit into that category quite often, especially as of late.

And actually, yea it has been said. Driving drunk is just something that happens, so I've been told. It's just an outcome that happens sometimes, but a person doesn't mean to do it intentionally, so it's ok.

It does when you constantly try to state people are claiming one thing when they arent. So yea, your being a drama queen. You want to argue your point feel free. But leave out the other BS already.

[claymore]

Yes, let them grow up so they can get run over by drunk people cuz it's no biggie.;)

I say we just teach them to not run across the street unless there isnt a car coming.

Reyes died because of natural selection.

If Reyes died on the sidewalk, then I would be pissed at stallworth.

Roads are for Cars, Sidewalks are for people.

[GEM]

It does when you constantly try to state people are claiming one thing when they arent. So yea, your being a drama queen. You want to argue your point feel free. But leave out the other BS already.

Thanks boss! I wasn't aware that you were the discussion mediator around here.

[Northman]

Thanks boss! I wasn't aware that you were the discussion mediator around here.

Your welcome. :salute:

[Poet]

I say we just teach them to not run across the street unless there isnt a car coming.

Reyes died because of natural selection.

If Reyes died on the sidewalk, then I would be pissed at stallworth.

Roads are for Cars, Sidewalks are for people.

He made a small mistake. How do you crucify someone who not looking both ways but not crucify someone for drinking and driving?

Hell, just put a grenade in a nursery. If a baby activates it it's natural selection.

[claymore]

So, Lets wrap this up and go kill someone!!! :werd:

[GEM]

He made a small mistake. How do you crucify someone who not looking both ways but not crucify someone for drinking and driving?

Hell, just put a grenade in a nursery. If a baby activates it it's natural selection.

I'm changing your username to DramaQueen.


:laugh:

[Northman]

So, Lets wrap this up and go kill someone!!! :werd:


Time to go kill some street crossers! And puppies too!!!

[Poet]

I'm changing your username to DramaQueen.


:laugh:

If you make my avatar that one of you in that 'shirt' I'm all for it.

Leave the 87 though, that's my number. :salute:

[claymore]

He made a small mistake. How do you crucify someone who not looking both ways but not crucify someone for drinking and driving?

Hell, just put a grenade in a nursery. If a baby activates it it's natural selection.

It was a pretty damn big mistake. And if he was hit in the middle of the road, it was probably his fault.

[Northman]

If you make my avatar that one of you in that 'shirt' I'm all for it.

Leave the 87 though, that's my number. :salute:

That would work perfectly. :lol: