slaga Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Are you sure everything you said there is true. I'm not sure, but I don't think Vick plead guilty to all those things.In my mind, yes I am sure he did those things. I am just as sure that he plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the probability of a longer sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 In my mind, yes I am sure he did those things. I am just as sure that he plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the probability of a longer sentence. You're not sure. You're assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 First off.I don't drink. Secondly, you can never ever justify what he did. He was drunk. Plain and simple. Regardless if you think it's a 'tragic' mistake. The facts of the matter are that he killed someone. Was it in self defense? Was he fearful of his life? No. He was drunk and hit a pedestrian. Drunk or not the pedestrians actions have to be considered. All facts must be considered in criminal cases. Our justice system doesn't need to be dumbed down any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 You asked me if I was sure, and I am. I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willmb5 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The only thing I don't understand about the Stallworth thing is that, for some unknown reason, he flashed his lights at the man and honked his horn, but he didn't slow down to stop? What an iddiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Way to show your toughness and "strict nfl policy" on a non-high player Mr. Commish! What's a "non-high player"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willmb5 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 How about a debate on driving under the influence? If Stallworth had a .06 BAC, would he have gotten off with nothing? Why is .08 the legal limit? Why not .06? Why not .1 or .15. I'm assuming testing done by scientists led to this number, but I'd love to see why that is. Also, I think that it's interesting to use a number like BAC because some people could have a .15 BAC and be a more capable driver than someone with a .06 BAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilandil Tasardur Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Isn't Haynesworth guilty of vehicular manslaughter while sober and no one seems to care? Bottom line is the victim walked out in the middle of a high way. He would have been killed whether or not Stallworth was drunk or not. Stallworth should be tried for two SEPERATE CASES. One for a DUI, and one for vehicular manslaughter. Since the alcohol had no bearing on the man running out in front of him, it is a seperate case. He is guilty of a DUI, and he is guilty of killing a man with his vehicle, but the two do not seem related. That is why his sentence was so light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share Posted August 13, 2009 What's a "non-high player"? i think he meant a non-prominent player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Killing someone on accident is forgivable under certain circumstances. This is not one of them. I sincerely wish the worst for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I got no problem with this. And that's probably saying something considering my stances on stuff like this. A year? So what. Other dude is dead. Ain't no coming back from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah, I'm tired of it. They KNOW what they're doing is wrong, yet they continue to do it. Remember, it's not Stallworth's first time in trouble with the law. And it'd been hard for Stallworth to deny his crime, don't ya think? What did Stallworth do before the manslaughter charge? The manslaughter charge was the first incident I had heard of that involved Stallworth. I believe other people/athletes would have hit the guy and then driven away to try to avoid getting into any trouble. Stallworth did the right thing and stayed at the scene and tried to get help for the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fieldy Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Two disclaimers before this: I do not condone drunk driving and I am in no way, shape or form a psychologist. I'll start with this: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/vehicular.html. The third paragraph states: The consequences for a conviction on a vehicular manslaughter charge can range from imprisonment, probation or parole, loss of driving privileges, steep fines, or other punishment. A vehicular manslaughter sentence will vary on the severity of the damages caused by the accident. He got jail time, he paid money. Previous behavior and the way he acted at the scene and during the trial had a lot to do with his sentencing. He got out, he should be VERY grateful that he is both alive and free. He did the right thing after he committed the crime - he waited at the scene for the cops to show up, he admitted he did it, pled guilty instead of looking for a plea bargain, served exactly what the court told him to do without any complaint. Then he got suspended for a year. What message does this send to other players? It certainly won't encourage them to do "the right thing" if it happens to them. They're going to see that Goodell gave Stallworth a year penalty and say "I'm going to try to get away with this or serve less time because Goodell doesn't care what you do." The personal conduct policy has nothing to do with the law of the United States of America and the two should be held completely seperate. It has to do with how the players conduct themselves in public. Dante Stallworth did the right thing by pleading guilty, not making the guy's family go through a long investigation and trial (the goal of the PCP and something I wish more players would do) and he got punished for his crime. Michael Vick conducted himself in a way detrimental to the NFL by lying to the commissioner and making the state conduct a long investigation into the activities, finally accepting a plea bargain so he would get less time. Seperate the PCP from the law (both of them served their government mandated sentences...if Goodell takes them into account in his sentencing he is practically saying his authority is above the courts and questioning their judgements) Vick did the wrong thing and will get MAX 6 games, Stallworth did the right thing and will get at least 16. It should be the governments responsibility to punish the action and the leagues responsibility to react to the way they conduct themselves throughout the ordeal. That being said, I believe no player/felon should be simply reinstated. They should have a conditional reinstatement where they have to donate a certain % of their pay to a charity (league's choice) dealing with the crime they committed (Vick to ASPCA or Stallworth to MADD) and spend the offseason fulfilling a certain number of hours of community service for said charities. I also don't think that NO suspension is the way to deal with Stallworth, just not as big of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fieldy Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I mentioned this in a little more of a longwinded manner in the other thread, but bottom line is, conduct policy should be held separately from the law and should consider how the player "CONDUCTED" himself. Vick lied, denied and drew out his trial before agreeing to a plea bargain that lightened his sentence. Stallworth stayed at the scene, pleaded guilty and didn't make the family go through a long investigation and trial. Yet, Goodell (using the CONDUCT policy) will be punishing Stallworth a lot more than Vick (MAX 6 games). They both paid their dues to society as proclaimed by the state, so in essence, Goodell is punishing Stallworth for doing the right thing. They should be punishing bad conduct (Vick) while reinforcing good behavior (Stallworth). *Stallworth does need to be punished a little because he did conduct himself poorly by driving drunk in the first place, but this is extreme and sends the message that it's ok to do what Vick did if you can keep the jail time down. Every player convicted of a felony should have their wages garnished to some related charity and have to do related community service in the offseason. Sorry, I did get a little longwinded here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Isn't Haynesworth guilty of vehicular manslaughter while sober and no one seems to care? Bottom line is the victim walked out in the middle of a high way. He would have been killed whether or not Stallworth was drunk or not. Stallworth should be tried for two SEPERATE CASES. One for a DUI, and one for vehicular manslaughter. Since the alcohol had no bearing on the man running out in front of him, it is a seperate case. He is guilty of a DUI, and he is guilty of killing a man with his vehicle, but the two do not seem related. That is why his sentence was so light. Haynesworth didn't kill anyone. He did injure someone while driving and being classified as DUI, although I can't find what his B.A.C. was at the time of the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The punishment seems way too severe. Stallworth has already had to serve 30 days in jail, and is now on probation. I mean, seriously, how much longer does he have to pay for killing someone? Vick organized a crime ring. Stallworth got drunk and wasn't even found completely responsible for the accident. Are you really arguing that a drunk driver that hits a person that ran out into traffic is a bigger criminal, a bigger threat to society, than someone that organizes and illegal crime organization spanning multiple states?Oh right... Vick just hurt some dogs right? yeah... keep telling yourself that bull****. I've allegedly organized illegal march madness betting pools spanning multiple states. Am I a bigger criminal and threat to society than Dante Stallworth, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 What's a "non-high profile/prominent player"? is what I meant my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.