crazietalk.net

I'm personally disgusted by the Dante Stalworth situation. He drives drunk and runs over a pedestrian who he SEES according to eyewitness accounts (flashed his high beams at them twice supposedly), and gets off with 30 days in prison because of an undisclosed financial agreement with the family. That's just so gross to me. So, basically, the rich can just buy a life? A daughter is left without a father cause of this guy, and he just walks? I thought the way it works is you send the vermin to jail, THEN sue him in civil court.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdo ... nfl,170659
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4261769

It's supposed to be Donte Stallworth, isn't it? Crap. Sorry 'bout that.

Playing devil's advocate, the family took the money, right?

Well, duh, that's my point. Prosecutors can't press for a stiffer sentence on their own? So if somebody really rich decides it'd be fun to murder someone, he can now get away with it by buying off the family? Is that the next step? I understand financial settlements in civil cases, but not in criminal cases where someone loses a life.

Was listening to this on the radio this morning. Donte called 911 himself, he reported himself as the driver, took the BAC test, offered to plead guilty, and offered to give the family money as they probably sue anyway, sparing the family the horrors of 1 or 2 trials.

'BOUT DAMN TIME SOMEONE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS!

bjornolf wrote:Well, duh, that's my point. Prosecutors can't press for a stiffer sentence on their own? So if somebody really rich decides it'd be fun to murder someone, he can now get away with it by buying off the family? Is that the next step? I understand financial settlements in civil cases, but not in criminal cases where someone loses a life.

This isn't correct. There was not a financial settlement in the criminal action and what you've described as the "next step" is not a reality (for many reasons including, "murder" being different than what Stallworth was charged with)

Criminal and civil actions are independent of one another. Generally speaking, it is the District Attorneys Office--and not the complaining witness or, in cases where he/she was killed, its family--who decides whether to maintain a prosecution. Certain types of crimes (domestic abuse, sexual assault), however, rely very heavily on the cooperation of the complaining witness and usually cannot proceed without him/her. Homicides, naturally, are not such crimes.

What we have here is a preemptive financial settlement for the likely tort action that the victim's family would have brought against Mr. Stallworth. The DA, in her discretion, decided that, in light of the civil settlement, the wishes of the family, and the lack of a previous criminal record, a plea deal was appropriate. The key point is that this was within the DA's discretion and she could've continued with the prosecution without the family's support.

And the judge doesn't have to support the plea deal either, does he/she? Couldn't the judge have delivered a harsher/more lenient verdict? Isn't the DA's acceptance of the plea deal sort of a suggestion to the judge, not a be all end all?

I still just don't get this. Thirty days just doesn't seem like enough to me. I thought Leonard Little not serving ANY time was a miscarriage of justice as well. I appreciate that both parties were happy to avoid the civil suit with the financial settlement, but a person's life ended here. A father. It just seems wrong to me somehow that he gets off with thirty days. That's not even going to affect ONE NFL season for him if he gets into serving his term now. And they said his house arrest time would allow him to play. It just feels to me like he should get at least six months and have to spend a season in the poke so that he feels it a little more.

bjornolf wrote:And the judge doesn't have to support the plea deal either, does he/she? Couldn't the judge have delivered a harsher/more lenient verdict? Isn't the DA's acceptance of the plea deal sort of a suggestion to the judge, not a be all end all?

I still just don't get this. Thirty days just doesn't seem like enough to me. I thought Leonard Little not serving ANY time was a miscarriage of justice as well. I appreciate that both parties were happy to avoid the civil suit with the financial settlement, but a person's life ended here. A father. It just seems wrong to me somehow that he gets off with thirty days. That's not even going to affect ONE NFL season for him if he gets into serving his term now. And they said his house arrest time would allow him to play. It just feels to me like he should get at least six months and have to spend a season in the poke so that he feels it a little more.

My understanding is that the defense could have make a strong case over the fact that the pedestrian was jaywalking, and the prosecutor knew it. Also, judges tend to be a little, perhaps a lot, more lenient if the defendant is remorseful, which Donte is.

I think you are hung up over the fact that he has money and you don't, thus he is getting "a break." Yeah, the guy wakes up every day and probably feels guilty about what happened, but again, at least he feels guilty and owns up to his mistake. How many of us would have called 911 on ourselves and claimed responsibility immediately. Give the guy a freakin' break already, he is really sorry this happened. The pedestrian deserves a little responsibility in all this as he broke the law too.

There was a case a couple years ago here in VA where a drunk driver going through a GREEN light got t-boned by a driver that just missed the light. The other driver was sober. The guy that got t-boned blew a .13. The drunk guy was told he was automatically at fault for the accident. Guess it depends on what state you're in.

Also, in states like California, the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, even if not in a cross walk. Again, guess what state you live in. I'm not mad that he has money and I don't. Look, in VA, you get a stiffer penalty than this for your second DUI, even if you've never gotten in an accident or even run a red light while drunk. The DJs on my favorite radio show were talking about a friend of theirs that got 30 days for a DUI. He was a plumber. He lost his job for not being able to come to work while he was in jail. All I'm saying is that I think taking a life, even by accident, should at least INCONVENIENCE Donte in some way. He owned up for what he did, yes. I'm glad of that. But he also GOT BEHIND THE WHEEL WHILE DRUNK AND TOOK A LIFE. He made the decision to drive that car while WAY over the limit. He handled this whole thing in one off season and never even missed a game. Like I said, give him six months and make him serve it during an NFL season so that it actually hurts a little. Something like that. This isn't even going to be a blip in the radar of his life at the current rate.

Bjornolf, it sounds to me like your beef is more with the system. You can't blame Donte for not getting a harsher sentence. You can blame the lawyers, prosecutors, judge, current laws, sentencing structure, etc, but Donte didn't give himself the sentence.

No, i know that. I don't blame Donte at all for doing whatever he can to get off. I blame Donte for driving drunk and killing somebody. Like I said, if he were in California, the jaywalking wouldn't have been an issue. If he were in Virginia, it wouldn't have been an issue.

The thing that annoyed me the most is that I saw one account that said he clearly saw the guy and flashed his high beams at him before hitting him. Instead of flashing his beams, why wasn't he braking?

TillyGalore wrote: My understanding is that the defense could have make a strong case over the fact that the pedestrian was jaywalking, and the prosecutor knew it. Also, judges tend to be a little, perhaps a lot, more lenient if the defendant is remorseful, which Donte is.

I think you are hung up over the fact that he has money and you don't, thus he is getting "a break." Yeah, the guy wakes up every day and probably feels guilty about what happened, but again, at least he feels guilty and owns up to his mistake. How many of us would have called 911 on ourselves and claimed responsibility immediately. Give the guy a freakin' break already, he is really sorry this happened. The pedestrian deserves a little responsibility in all this as he broke the law too.

Word. I'm not sure what to think when Michael Vick gets a harsher sentence for dog fighting (and then being totally non-remorseful and covering it up, etc, etc,) than Stallworth got for running a guy over (I voted accordingly).

However, the more I read about it, the more I'm thinking justice was or may have been served. He's on probation for ten years. He won't be driving anytime soon (not legally anyway, and it would be a violation of probation if he does). He showed remorse and took responsibility for his actions. The victim's family is satisfied with the results. I predict the league will suspend him for several games, too. It's a bad situation all around. I agree with the poster who said the problem (if there is one) is with the justice system, and disagree with the characterization of the situation as being one in which Stallworth "bought a life" - he immediately accepted responsibility.

The whole situation is tragic.

The license thing isn't such a huge inconvenience for a guy with money. He can just hire a driver. The team will probably hire him one to help him stay out of trouble.

bjornolf wrote:The license thing isn't such a huge inconvenience for a guy with money. He can just hire a driver. The team will probably hire him one to help him stay out of trouble.

So because he has money he should be given a different penalty?

bjornolf wrote:And the judge doesn't have to support the plea deal either, does he/she? Couldn't the judge have delivered a harsher/more lenient verdict? Isn't the DA's acceptance of the plea deal sort of a suggestion to the judge, not a be all end all?

I still just don't get this. Thirty days just doesn't seem like enough to me. I thought Leonard Little not serving ANY time was a miscarriage of justice as well. I appreciate that both parties were happy to avoid the civil suit with the financial settlement, but a person's life ended here. A father. It just seems wrong to me somehow that he gets off with thirty days. That's not even going to affect ONE NFL season for him if he gets into serving his term now. And they said his house arrest time would allow him to play. It just feels to me like he should get at least six months and have to spend a season in the poke so that he feels it a little more.

The judge does have to accept the plea and can reject if he/she believes it isn't legitimate. That obviously didn't happen here.

Thirty days in jail is nothing, you're right. But, in addition to that, he is on probation for ten years, house arrest for two years, and, obviously, will not be driving anytime soon. The big part is the two years house arrest, IMO. Yes, this is a light sentence. But that's the point of a plea. Further, contrary to your assertion, this will impact an NFL season. Roger Goodell will almost certainly suspend Mr. Stallworth for a long time. 8 games minimum is what I'd like to see, but really, he should be out for a year.

With that said, the title of this thread indicates that this had to do with money and nothing else. While that may be the case, that assumes facts not in the record--at least not yet.

Perhaps this was a financial decision for the county. In these tough economic times municipalities are struggling and prosecutions are expensive. DAs are more likely to agree to pleas where they can get an easy end to the matter...especially when the victim/family is on board. That Mr. Stallworth is the prime candidate for a plea (no previous history, signs of remorse and responsibility, etc.) makes his case for an agreement even more compelling.

More importantly, perhaps this type of sentence is standard for a plea agreement with a first time offender with no DUI history. If it is, then the money complaint goes out the window. Without knowing what someone else in the same situation--but with less cash on hand--would have received, I'll save my disgust.

Sue71 wrote:

bjornolf wrote:The license thing isn't such a huge inconvenience for a guy with money. He can just hire a driver. The team will probably hire him one to help him stay out of trouble.

So because he has money he should be given a different penalty?

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the license thing isn't nearly as much of an inconvenience for him as it is for someone without money. How's the plumber supposed to get to work if he can't drive? And, like I said, the team will probably hire him a driver, just like the team hired the driver/bodyguard to try to keep Pacman out of trouble.

rockymtn devil wrote: Thirty days in jail is nothing, you're right. But, in addition to that, he is on probation for ten years, house arrest for two years, and, obviously, will not be driving anytime soon. The big part is the two years house arrest, IMO. Yes, this is a light sentence. But that's the point of a plea. Further, contrary to your assertion, this will impact an NFL season. Roger Goodell will almost certainly suspend Mr. Stallworth for a long time. 8 games minimum is what I'd like to see, but really, he should be out for a year.

With that said, the title of this thread indicates that this had to do with money and nothing else. While that may be the case, that assumes facts not in the record--at least not yet.

Perhaps this was a financial decision for the county. In these tough economic times municipalities are struggling and prosecutions are expensive. DAs are more likely to agree to pleas where they can get an easy end to the matter...especially when the victim/family is on board. That Mr. Stallworth is the prime candidate for a plea (no previous history, signs of remorse and responsibility, etc.) makes his case for an agreement even more compelling.

More importantly, perhaps this type of sentence is standard for a plea agreement with a first time offender with no DUI history. If it is, then the money complaint goes out the window. Without knowing what someone else in the same situation--but with less cash on hand--would have received, I'll save my disgust.

rockymtndevil has my proxy for this thread. Very good post, especially the fist and last paragraphs above.

What pisses me off more than anything is he gets 30 days for killing a human and Michael Vick gets 23 months for killing some dogs. Now I'm not saying what Vick did was right, but lets please gets our priorities straight. And Vick has to suffer even more public criticism than Stallworth ever will. Part of that comes from the fact Vick is a huge name, but seriously this is just ridiculous.

Jaywalking should be an issue. If I ever hit somebody who is jaywalking and they try to sue me, I'm suing back. I did almost hit a guy once who was jaywalking, at night, and wearing all black. I did not see him until the last possible moment. You cannot tell me the accident, had it happened, would have been my fault. Crosswalks are there for the drivers as much as for the pedestrians, it says to me, here's a place you need to check for pedestrians. There are often too many other things going on that require a driver's attention to be constantly aware of jaywalking pedestrians. California is wrong. Jaywalking is a driving hazard and should be treated accodingly. So are cyclists who ignore the rules of the road.

Ben63 wrote:What pisses me off more than anything is he gets 30 days for killing a human and Michael Vick gets 23 months for killing some dogs. Now I'm not saying what Vick did was right, but lets please gets our priorities straight. And Vick has to suffer even more public criticism than Stallworth ever will. Part of that comes from the fact Vick is a huge name, but seriously this is just ridiculous.

I think that the big difference here is the difference in attitude. As Tilly pointed out, Stallworth actually took responsibility for his actions. So many people don't step up and try to do the right thing. He did. I'm sure that, for all parties involved in the legal side of this case, that's a breath of fresh air. Too many people today are completely unwilling to "man up" an accept the consequences for their actions. We live in a society where passing the buck is the rule rather than the exception. Personally, I'm tired of it. I'm not saying that his actions weren't bad - in fact, they were horrible. Sounds like he is willing to admit to that. And he's paying for it on multiple levels. I would guess that this incident has affected him profoundly and that it will change his behavior. (In my experience, someone willing to accept responsibility for their actions isn't going to repeat their mistakes.) I don't want to see others following his example with the DWI, but it would sure be nice to see others admit when they're guilty rather than trying to pass the buck.

(stepping down from soap box...)