Stallworth gets 30 days for murder.

[ckad79]

i was thinking the same thing.

it's a sad commentary on our justice system.

One dog? WOW! Oh, what you meant to say wast that Vick electrocute, hung, or drowned, at least, 7 dogs in his swimming pool, right? No, that's what you meant to say.

Stallworth didn't know what he was doing. He was drunk, made a foolish decision to drive, but it wasn't predetermined or planned. It was an accident, and it's awful what happened. That's why he was charged with "manslaughter" and not "murder". Get it straight...

I'm not saying what he did was a good thing or that he didn't get off. He did. I knew this guy, years ago, who was at the beach partying with some friends. Everybody was drunk and two of his buddies encouraged him to drive to the store with them in the backseat. He crashed the car and both of his friends died. He lived. He got three years in prison which even I'd argue wasn't just. 30 days is downright absurd.

As far as comparing Vick... Vick knew what he was doing. He wasn't drunk. He was just upset because the dogs didn't win him money. So he sat in his backyard and personally electrocute and drowned 7 of them without a second thought.

I'm not saying the life of a dog is equal to that of a human being, but let's try not to brush what Vick did under the table like it was nothing.

Remember, torturing small animals is the sign of a serial killer. Vick is one messed up dude.

[Hawk]

I think you guys are missing the key....you decide to drink and then you decide to drive, then you are negligent! You don't accidentally drink and drive!

A drunk behind the wheel is a loaded weapon just waiting to be fired...the stats don't lie! You drink + you drive + you kill = you pay the price!

30 days is just incredible. Read the initial post...was facing up to 5 years and got 30 days!

[Fireball77]

I agree that D & D sucks the big one, Hawk. I also don't think they take it seriously enough most of the time (Justice system). That said, there's a difference between that contributing to/ being the main reason there was an accident and not significantly contributing to it.

[Hawk]

I hear ya Fireball...but people by now should know, that in the eye of the law, if you are drunk then you are responsible.

Worst part of this all...guy is a multi millionaire, he could afford alternate transportation!

[Udogg]

this whole situation is a tragedy.

law or not, i don't think the commsih will let him play.

This is a severe situation, stallworth killed a man without intent, but its his fault.

I agree he should be punished, but technically if he was jaywalking it was his fault.

[Udogg]

Yes, that was what the DA thought or he would have gone after him. It's an accident where the victim was also culpable in the problem. It would have been terribly hard to prove the case to the jury, in a trial, he would likely have been found not guilty. But he stood up and accepted his fate. Actually, I think that him coming up and accepting responsibility for it made it much harder on him than it would have been had he not. They had little they could prove, but he stood up and was a man. Don't know why he's being crucified for it... Really, all told, 30 days, the fine, the public service, the 2 year house arrest, the 10 year probation and permanent loss of license, he's paid a hard price for an accident, despite what you may think...

NM.. he put it way better.

[BlindSite]

It's vehicular manslaughter too, he hit some dude who was in the middle of a road and not at a cross walk, not murder.

[xerxes]

If the goal of the justice system is to be punitive, the sentence is laughable; however, if the objective is to protect and improve society, the sentence makes sense.

From all reports Stallworth has done everything right after the accident. He called 911 and attempted first aid. He cooperated with the investigation. He made reparations with the family (not saying money can replace a life, but it's the best he can do under the circumstances).

He'll never drive again, which should eliminate him as a repeat offender, and with the community service he has the potential to be a strong advocate against drunk driving.

If the circumstances of the accident had been different, and he hadn't shown remorse, I'd see the sense in a stiffer sentence, but really who benefits from him being put away?

[mantal]

I think you guys are missing the key....you decide to drink and then you decide to drive, then you are negligent! You don't accidentally drink and drive!

A drunk behind the wheel is a loaded weapon just waiting to be fired...the stats don't lie! You drink + you drive + you kill = you pay the price!

30 days is just incredible. Read the initial post...was facing up to 5 years and got 30 days!

Yes, you do accidentally drink and drive. When you drink, you lose your judgment and misjudge your ability to drive. Doesn't make it alright, but it happens much to my chagrin...

[Darth Biscuit]

If the goal of the justice system is to be punitive, the sentence is laughable; however, if the objective is to protect and improve society, the sentence makes sense.

From all reports Stallworth has done everything right after the accident. He called 911 and attempted first aid. He cooperated with the investigation. He made reparations with the family (not saying money can replace a life, but it's the best he can do under the circumstances).

He'll never drive again, which should eliminate him as a repeat offender, and with the community service he has the potential to be a strong advocate against drunk driving.

If the circumstances of the accident had been different, and he hadn't shown remorse, I'd see the sense in a stiffer sentence, but really who benefits from him being put away?

Excellent post here... I completely agree. The spokeswoman for MAD was on GMA this morning complaining about this sentence and saying that Stallworth should get far more time because drunk driving is a "violent crime"... I agree with her that drunk driving is a violent crime, but I firmly believe that any criminal case should be looked at with an eye to the individual circumstances for that case. Should Stallworth be punished for driving drunk, absolutely, and he is being punished. He does have to spend some jail time, but he also lost his drivers license forever, has to spend community service time hopefully being a good influence on others in society and he is on probation so that if something else happens, he will get much greater additional punishment. Also on top of that, the family of the man that was killed is now financially taken care of... what purpose would him going to jail longer serve? Vengeance?

I have no problem with the actions of the judge and DA in settling this case as they have. If he was not a wealthy football player, would he do more jail time? Probably, but he's lost something (lots of money) that most people don't have and that is both punishment for him and benefit for the family of the victim.

[SmootsDaddy89]

Well how long do you really expect the authorities to keep Stallworth in jail and prevent him from going out and being mediocre?

[Tweeder]

If the goal of the justice system is to be punitive, the sentence is laughable; however, if the objective is to protect and improve society, the sentence makes sense.

From all reports Stallworth has done everything right after the accident. He called 911 and attempted first aid. He cooperated with the investigation. He made reparations with the family (not saying money can replace a life, but it's the best he can do under the circumstances).

He'll never drive again, which should eliminate him as a repeat offender, and with the community service he has the potential to be a strong advocate against drunk driving.

If the circumstances of the accident had been different, and he hadn't shown remorse, I'd see the sense in a stiffer sentence, but really who benefits from him being put away?

Excellent post here... I completely agree. The spokeswoman for MAD was on GMA this morning complaining about this sentence and saying that Stallworth should get far more time because drunk driving is a "violent crime"... I agree with her that drunk driving is a violent crime, but I firmly believe that any criminal case should be looked at with an eye to the individual circumstances for that case. Should Stallworth be punished for driving drunk, absolutely, and he is being punished. He does have to spend some jail time, but he also lost his drivers license forever, has to spend community service time hopefully being a good influence on others in society and he is on probation so that if something else happens, he will get much greater additional punishment. Also on top of that, the family of the man that was killed is now financially taken care of... what purpose would him going to jail longer serve? Vengeance?

I have no problem with the actions of the judge and DA in settling this case as they have. If he was not a wealthy football player, would he do more jail time? Probably, but he's lost something (lots of money) that most people don't have and that is both punishment for him and benefit for the family of the victim.

^ This....excellent by both of you

For those that keep bring up the Vick comparison....STOP!! It is completely two different matters and was handled and sentenced two different ways like it should have been.

[Hawk]

If the goal of the justice system is to be punitive, the sentence is laughable; however, if the objective is to protect and improve society, the sentence makes sense.

From all reports Stallworth has done everything right after the accident. He called 911 and attempted first aid. He cooperated with the investigation. He made reparations with the family (not saying money can replace a life, but it's the best he can do under the circumstances).

He'll never drive again, which should eliminate him as a repeat offender, and with the community service he has the potential to be a strong advocate against drunk driving.

If the circumstances of the accident had been different, and he hadn't shown remorse, I'd see the sense in a stiffer sentence, but really who benefits from him being put away?

this is a very good post...I'll give you that. I guess for the last paragraph though, giving someone 30 days for drinking and driving and causing the death of a human being sure doesn't act as much of a deterant for the next person to do it. So who benefits from him being put away longer? Perhaps the parents or loved ones of the next potential victim of a drunk driver. I'm not saying an eye for an eye or anything like that, but 30 days isn't much of a deterant in my eyes....especially for a pro athlete who is supposedly a role model. Just my opinion

[CatMan72]

Wasn't "murder" it was "manslaughter" big difference from a legal standpoint. You also failed to mention he got 2 years of house-arrest and 8 years of probation meaning that the next time he does anything he's most likely going to the big-house.

I understand how serious of a crime it is, but Stallworth has no priors and I wouldn't consider him a danger to society at large. Prisons are over-crowded and I'm sure the courts in Miami have plenty of cases on the docket that involve violent repeat-offenders who ARE a danger to society at large that they need an open prison cell for.