Stallworth to serve 30 days

[dall-assblows]

unbelieveable. disgusting

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think you're probably right. The man who was killed was running across the street trying to catch a bus at 7:15AM to get home AFTER a construction shift. We're talking a 59 year-old man with no automobile working a construction graveyard shift. It's pretty easy to assume that their family didn't have much money. I guess their idea of justice was focused more on dollars and cents than jail time.

I don't want to judge the family or try to diminish their love for this man. But IMO it's totally valid to judge their motives. I'm sure the attorney working the case was pretty darn influential on that matter as well. He likely sold them on the idea that they could make a boatload of cash (of which he'd get a nice %), and how that was the best course of action.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's not awful either.

You mean to question their motives? I find it hard to judge them without knowing the full story. I find it best not to judge anyway. They have their reasons I'm sure and nothing is going to bring him back. Tragic accident.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

You mean to question their motives? I find it hard to judge them without knowing the full story. I find it best not to judge anyway. They have their reasons I'm sure and nothing is going to bring him back. Tragic accident.

Well, I'm sure we could get into a big debate as to what "justice" means in this case. Money for the family? The harshest punishment for the plaintiff? As I said in an earlier post, I'm glad the family has been taken care financially. They certainly deserve that given the circumstances, and I'm sure they are devastated by their loss. I just think it smells a little like "take the money and run." You've got to admit, the pre-arranged financial agreement smells a helluva lot like Stallworth buying down the family and prosecution's ire. I'm in no way saying victim's relatives are happy about the situation, but I know that if I were in their shoes, I'd be appalled at a 30 day jail term for Stallworth.

I dunno. I wish both sides the best to be honest with you. I don't think Stallworth is a bad dude at all. I really don't. But I also think the victims family got dealt a shitty hand as well.

[skins89moss]

Originally Posted by skins89moss

Our legal system vary from state to state on the punishment for crimes. Stallworth isn't the 1st person to drink and drive but he used bad judgement which resulted in taken a human life away. Lets be honest , I know I have used bad judgement driving home from the bar after drinking with the fellas. I was fortunate not to have gotten in a accident or struck a pedestrian. That was in my younger years, now I don't even drink any more.

I new when the story 1st broke that Stallworth had been drinking prior to the accident based on the fact that he never made a statement that he had not been drinking. The standard line is due to the on going investigation I can not comment on this incident. If it was me and I new I was not guilty of DUI you would bet I would have said that. When your guilty you dont want to make a statement that they can use against you later in court. Attorney always advise not to talk , let them prove your guilty.

His sentence 30 days in county jail for a felony drunk driving / Manslaughter conviction is way to short. People get sentenced to 30 days for writing bad checks. This is a joke of the legal system and If your famous you get a lesser sentence. Stallworth is a millionaire who can afford to call a taxi or Limo to pick him up there is no excuse for him to drive and risk all that he has obtained from playing in the NFL, but he decided to drive. Is this his 1st time driving DUI? I doubt it but these things seem to come back and bite us when we least expected it.


Vick kills dogs and Stallworth kills a human being. I know it was an accident that he hit the pedestrian out of the cross walk but he was DUI. If he was not drinking than it would be a accident that took a human being. He would not be jailed and he would not be liable. His car insurance may have paid out some money but thats about it. Stallworth broke the law like thousands of people due but it resulted in a death. His money played a huge part in him only serving 30 days due to the settlement he made with the victims family. The victim just got off from work so he had a family to provide for. Who knows their financial situation if the victim had life insurance. So the family Attorney saw a opportunity to help the victim's family financially due to the wealth of Stallworth. In court the vicitms family could have out more pressure on the DA's office if they did not the deal Stallworth was pleading to. This deal had to be worked out by both the DA's Office and the victims Attorney.


The family took the deal to be financially compensated and Stallworth would receive little jail time. Thats how the courts rule on these incidents. They all are happy, DA office gets a guilty conviction and family gets paid.

Anyone remember Jason Williams ( NJ Nets) he still has not done any jail time for Involunantary Manslaughter. Not even sure how long ago that case was in court.

At least the NFL is not going to tolerate this and take a stand to clean up the league. It is a privillage to play in the NFL and make $200,000 or more a year to play football. Some players take it for granted that they get to play a sport that most of us would do for free let alone get paid to do.

[freddyg12]

Does anyone know the details re: the man running across the street "in a hurry to catch a bus" mid block, not in a crosswalk? Fact is, there is a reason for crosswalks, they demarcate a zone where pedestrians have the right-of-way (pending signals). Thus, the man jay walking may have been a major part of why he was killed.

You have to consider at least, that maybe Stallworth would've hit him anyway. I know there was something about him flashing his lights. Maybe he would've done the same if he were sober?

So if you look at it that way, Stallworth then could've had his lawyer argue that he was only guilty of a dui, not manslaughter. His lawyer could've argued that the man jay walked, was in a hurry & would've been hit by anybody, drunk or not.

The fact that Stallworth admitted fault & cooperated from the get go was likely a blessing for the victim's family IMO. They wouldn't want to go through a long trial. It sounds to me like Stallworth did the right thing.

Has anyone considered that maybe the victim's family acknowledged that he was at fault to some degree?

Comparing this to Vick is simply not apples to apples. Like it or not, intent has a lot to do w/punishment in our legal system. Stallworth killed someone in an accident. Yes it's his fault he was drinking & driving, but that was not the only circumstance that caused it to happen.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by coggs

Plaxico Burress will do more time for hurting himself.

why does everyone keep trying to compare Stallworth to Burress to Vick. All three cases involves different crimes with different motivations in different states with different laws. They also behaved differently after committing the crime. You can't compare all three as if they are the same. So lets talk about the differences and maybe you'll see why the punishments are different.

While Stallworths crime had the greatest negative impact, he's the only one of the three to show any semblance of genuine remorse.

Vick deliberately and willfully committed multiple sadistic and illegal crimes for a period of YEARS. When confronted with his crime, he lied - repeatedly. If he had come clean initially, displayed remorse, openly said he wanted to become a force to prevent dog-fighting, and entered a plea agreement, i highly doubt he would have spent any time at all in jail. Even now, Vick is only showing superficial remorse - he's bankrupt and needs money to pay his creditors so he's putting on a show to get back into the NFL.

Burress carried a loaded gun into a nightclub - what kind of person does that? i'll tell you - a thug. Carrying a loaded and concealed handgun has one and only one purpose - to deliberately harm another human being. Don't give me any crap about him needing it for protection either - if he felt he couldnt go somewhere without concealing a handgun, then he shouldnt be going to that place. Burress also tried to conceal his identity after his crime, and he's been dragging out his case so he can play in the NFL this year. He has rejected all plea deals that involved a short amount of jail time (even though the state carries a mandatory minimum 3 year sentence). So not only is he an unrepentant thug, but he's also an idiot.

Stallworth did a horrible horrible thing. it was irresponsible, but it was also unintentional. he has demonstrated genuine remorse and repentance. he's accepted a plea deal. And so his punishment is less than that of Vick and probably Burress.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

why does everyone keep trying to compare Stallworth to Burress to Vick. All three cases involves different crimes with different motivations in different states with different laws. They also behaved differently after committing the crime. You can't compare all three as if they are the same. So lets talk about the differences and maybe you'll see why the punishments are different.

While Stallworths crime had the greatest negative impact, he's the only one of the three to show any semblance of genuine remorse.

Vick deliberately and willfully committed multiple sadistic and illegal crimes for a period of YEARS. When confronted with his crime, he lied - repeatedly. If he had come clean initially, displayed remorse, openly said he wanted to become a force to prevent dog-fighting, and entered a plea agreement, i highly doubt he would have spent any time at all in jail. Even now, Vick is only showing superficial remorse - he's bankrupt and needs money to pay his creditors so he's putting on a show to get back into the NFL.

Burress carried a loaded gun into a nightclub - what kind of person does that? i'll tell you - a thug. Carrying a loaded and concealed handgun has one and only one purpose - to deliberately harm another human being. Don't give me any crap about him needing it for protection either - if he felt he couldnt go somewhere without concealing a handgun, then he shouldnt be going to that place. Burress also tried to conceal his identity after his crime, and he's been dragging out his case so he can play in the NFL this year. He has rejected all plea deals that involved a short amount of jail time (even though the state carries a mandatory minimum 3 year sentence). So not only is he an unrepentant thug, but he's also an idiot.

Stallworth did a horrible horrible thing. it was irresponsible, but it was also unintentional. he has demonstrated genuine remorse and repentance. he's accepted a plea deal. And so his punishment is less than that of Vick and probably Burress.

Outstanding post.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Does anyone know the details re: the man running across the street "in a hurry to catch a bus" mid block, not in a crosswalk? Fact is, there is a reason for crosswalks, they demarcate a zone where pedestrians have the right-of-way (pending signals). Thus, the man jay walking may have been a major part of why he was killed.

You have to consider at least, that maybe Stallworth would've hit him anyway. I know there was something about him flashing his lights. Maybe he would've done the same if he were sober?

So if you look at it that way, Stallworth then could've had his lawyer argue that he was only guilty of a dui, not manslaughter. His lawyer could've argued that the man jay walked, was in a hurry & would've been hit by anybody, drunk or not.

The fact that Stallworth admitted fault & cooperated from the get go was likely a blessing for the victim's family IMO. They wouldn't want to go through a long trial. It sounds to me like Stallworth did the right thing.

Has anyone considered that maybe the victim's family acknowledged that he was at fault to some degree?

Comparing this to Vick is simply not apples to apples. Like it or not, intent has a lot to do w/punishment in our legal system. Stallworth killed someone in an accident. Yes it's his fault he was drinking & driving, but that was not the only circumstance that caused it to happen.

well said, freddy. i'm also appalled that so many people are criticizing the man's family and accusing them of money.

Money ALWAYS gets paid in these sorts of situations. We dont even know for sure whether Stallworths wealth factored into the payout... he had a 5MM umbrella (and we should all have atleast 1MM) and plantiffs usually dont sue for more than what an insurance policy will cover. Also, there is no reason to believe the family got more money from Stallworth by asking the prosecution to settle the case than they would have gotten after a DUI/Manslaughter conviction and subsequent civil case... something that would have dragged out in the courts for months or years. Maybe the family - like many of us - recognized that this was a horrible accident, stallworth showed genuine remorse, and their husband/father was partially at fault. Maybe they have no malice towards stallworth and didnt think he deserved to spend years in prison for an accident. Maybe theyve forgiven him (as much as humanly possible). Maybe they just wanted this all to be over with so they can move on with their lives and grieve - instead of spending the next few months or years of their lives in court... But to question their motives in settling is disgustingly insensitive in my opinion. Theyve suffered a tremendous loss and their loved one is gone forever. We don't know what played into their decision but to accuse them of not loving their father/husband or just wanting money... its grossly insensitive and ignorant.

[MTK]

The cases are apples and oranges. Comparing them all "as is" really is pointless.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

well said, freddy. i'm also appalled that so many people are criticizing the man's family and accusing them of money.

Money ALWAYS gets paid in these sorts of situations. [i]We dont even know for sure whether Stallworths wealth factored into the payout... he had a 5MM umbrella (and we should all have atleast 1MM) and plantiffs usually dont sue for more than what an insurance policy will cover. There is no reason to believe the family got MORE money from Stallworth by asking the prosecution to settle the case than they would have gotten after a DUI/Manslaughter conviction and subsequent civil case... something that would have dragged out in the courts for months or years. Maybe the family - like many of us - recognized that this was a horrible accident, stallworth showed genuine remorse, and their husband/father was partially at fault. Maybe they have no malice towards stallworth and didnt think he deserved to spend years in prison for an accident. Maybe theyve forgiven him (as much as humanly possible). Maybe they just wanted this all to be over with so they can move on with their lives and grieve - instead of spending the next few months or years of their lives in court... But to question their motives in settling is disgustingly insensitive in my opinion. Theyve suffered a tremendous loss and their loved one is gone forever. We don't know what played into their decision but to accuse them of not loving their father/husband or just wanting money... its grossly insensitive and ignorant.

Thanks, good points from you as well.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Nothing here that we haven't already discussed, but here's a letter Stallworth's lawyer sent to PFT:

ProFootballTalk.com - Cornwell Addresses Critics Of Stallworth Sentence

Cornwell Addresses Critics Of Stallworth Sentence
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2009, 12:09 p.m. EDT
[Editor’s note: David Cornwell, counsel for Browns receiver Donte’ Stallworth, submit this item to us on Friday, and he asked us to post it in its entirety.]

On March 14, 2009, shortly after 2:00 a.m., I answered my cell phone in Hawaii and heard the following: “DC, this is bad. I hit a man.”

With this simple declaration, Donte’ Stallworth described a tragedy and took personal responsibility for it. Over the next three months, Donte’ and his mother, Donna, guided this process with a simple yet profound directive: “I am responsible. Do the right thing.”

I am baffled by the outcry and criticism of Donte’s punishment. In tragic circumstances such as these, our civil and criminal laws are designed to determine who is responsible and hold that person accountable. By immediately accepting his responsibility and agreeing to be held accountable, Donte’ spared the Reyes family the pain of reliving a tragedy and spared the State of Florida the expense and risks of attempting to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in what would have been a highly publicized and hotly contested trial.

Everyone who was involved in this process approved of the result: law enforcement, Florida State Court Judge Dennis Murphy, State Attorney, Katherine Rundle, the Miami/Dade County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and, most importantly, Mr. Reyes’ family. Ms. Rundle stated that: “the unique facts involved with this charge, Mr. Stallworth’s excellent pre-incident history of community service, abundant references that attest to his good character, his lack of any traffic violations or criminal convictions, his full and complete post-incident cooperation with law enforcement, and his willingness to accept complete responsibility for his actions” confirmed that “a just resolution of this case has been reached.” This is precisely how the criminal justice system in this country is supposed to work.

We have been asked to justify Donte’s sentence by comparing it to Michael Vick’s sentence. We cannot do so any better than we can explain the difference between an apple and an orange. Sometimes a difference is so obvious that describing it is illusive.

Under our system of justice, every case stands on its own merits and the facts drive the results. A major factor in this resolution was the Reyes family’s desire not to relive this tragedy through a trial, so we will not try this case in the media. However, it must be noted that given “the unique facts involved,” causation was in dispute and would have been the central focus of Donte’s defense.

Critics of Donte’ punishment are essentially accusing the judge and the prosecutor of complicity in a scheme that defies description. Had we forced a trial and won an acquittal based on “the unique facts involved,” Donte’ would have been exonerated, Mr. Reyes’ daughter would have been psychologically scared, and our critics would have gotten their train wreck. The public has every right to express its opinion, but judicial
determinations are based on facts and evidence.

Any assertion that financial considerations drove the result is offensive, tramples on Mr. Reyes’ memory, and is a vicious accusation about his family. Donte’ accepted his responsibility minutes after the tragedy and accepted his civil responsibility to Mr. Reyes’ family. There was no reason to delay resolution of the civil issues with the family.

Donte’ is a good person who did a bad thing. The authenticity of Donte’s remorse and good character is revealed in the consistency of his conduct throughout this tragic ordeal. From his pained acknowledgment “DC . . . I hit a man” to his statement in open court “I
offer my plea and I accept my responsibility for this tragedy,” Donte’ Stallworth has consistently accepted personal responsibility for his conduct and the pain that he caused.

“I am responsible. Do the right thing.”

What more could we ask?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Are you really trying to compare these crimes? Who gives a s--- if Burress was sober. He didn't hurt a soul. Stallworth killed a human being. Bottom line.

Shoot yourself in the leg or kill a human being. No comparison.

Or are you mad that he probably cost you a title?

Yeah he wasn't charged with shooting somebody. That's the law in NY as far as guns go.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Does anyone know the details re: the man running across the street "in a hurry to catch a bus" mid block, not in a crosswalk? Fact is, there is a reason for crosswalks, they demarcate a zone where pedestrians have the right-of-way (pending signals). Thus, the man jay walking may have been a major part of why he was killed.

You have to consider at least, that maybe Stallworth would've hit him anyway. I know there was something about him flashing his lights. Maybe he would've done the same if he were sober?

So if you look at it that way, Stallworth then could've had his lawyer argue that he was only guilty of a dui, not manslaughter. His lawyer could've argued that the man jay walked, was in a hurry & would've been hit by anybody, drunk or not.

The fact that Stallworth admitted fault & cooperated from the get go was likely a blessing for the victim's family IMO. They wouldn't want to go through a long trial. It sounds to me like Stallworth did the right thing.

Has anyone considered that maybe the victim's family acknowledged that he was at fault to some degree?

Comparing this to Vick is simply not apples to apples. Like it or not, intent has a lot to do w/punishment in our legal system. Stallworth killed someone in an accident. Yes it's his fault he was drinking & driving, but that was not the only circumstance that caused it to happen.

Thanks, you chose to expound upon that and it is exactly how I feel about the situation.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Are you really trying to compare these crimes?

Or are you mad that he probably cost you a title?

No , someone else did and I was explaining the difference but I think that went by you.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Does anyone know the details re: the man running across the street "in a hurry to catch a bus" mid block, not in a crosswalk? Fact is, there is a reason for crosswalks, they demarcate a zone where pedestrians have the right-of-way (pending signals). Thus, the man jay walking may have been a major part of why he was killed.

You have to consider at least, that maybe Stallworth would've hit him anyway. I know there was something about him flashing his lights. Maybe he would've done the same if he were sober?

So if you look at it that way, Stallworth then could've had his lawyer argue that he was only guilty of a dui, not manslaughter. His lawyer could've argued that the man jay walked, was in a hurry & would've been hit by anybody, drunk or not.

The fact that Stallworth admitted fault & cooperated from the get go was likely a blessing for the victim's family IMO. They wouldn't want to go through a long trial. It sounds to me like Stallworth did the right thing.

Has anyone considered that maybe the victim's family acknowledged that he was at fault to some degree?

Comparing this to Vick is simply not apples to apples. Like it or not, intent has a lot to do w/punishment in our legal system. Stallworth killed someone in an accident. Yes it's his fault he was drinking & driving, but that was not the only circumstance that caused it to happen.

Very Good POINT! It was actually one of the reason for settling....all the witness's said ,the man was J-walking and in FL. in the civil trial he would have been considerd" as contributing negligence in his own death " and would not have gotten a thing,intent has everything to do with it and so does accountablility.