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

Moderator: CameronBornAndBred
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)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.
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.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.
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).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.
So because he has money he should be given a different penalty?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.
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.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.
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.Sue71 wrote:So because he has money he should be given a different penalty?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.
rockymtndevil has my proxy for this thread. Very good post, especially the fist and last paragraphs above.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.
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.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.