Reply With Quote
ducks smarter then this
If that's the case, that's even more ed up.
ducks smarter then this
I'd also like to point out that in addition the families plea for a easy sentence one of the defining considerations was a law set into place to protect a person like Dante who was technically driving illegally but to be determined to have not caused the accident.
IE a drunk driver gets rammed by another careless driver. Non fault accident but you go down because you're impaired.
I don't expect any of you guys to see the big picture. I realize that living in a predefined little black and white box is the extent of your mental reasoning skills.
The only person to blame for being dead is the moron who decided to run out into oncoming traffic. None of this would be happening if that idiot wouldn't have chosen to do so.
Dante didn't jump the curve. Show me where it says he was speeding or driving recklessly. Show me where his motor skills are to blame for the mans death. He took the fall because he was technically drunk and an idiot hurled himself in front of his vehicle.
He was going 10 mph over the speed limit, if your that drunk why even give cops a chance to pull you over?
And what if this is a little kid next time? Is that little kid still a moron because a drunk driver couldn't take a taxi.
As for the bolded part, the same thing can be said if Dante doesnt get behind the wheel when DRINKING which is a far worse offense.
I wouldn't call the kid a moron. I'd call the kids parents a moron.
Judge: "B2B you just killed a man and will be doing jail time."
B2B: "Yeah Judge but he was jaywalking."
Judge: "You were well over the legal limit with a .12 and killed a man."
B2B: "Yeah Judge but he was jaywalking."
Judge: "You ran over a man while you were dunk, it's called dui manslaughter."
B2B: "Yeah Judge but he was jaywalking."
Judge: "If jaywalking get's you death buy a drunk ass football player, then for ur crime, we'll hang u up by ur balls. The ones you like to let wonder down ur pant legs because u wear no underwear."
B2B is right... if a guy jaywalks and you arent over the limit... thats not the driver's fault at all.
now its unfortunate what happened, and Donte should have obviously had more discretion, but it most definitely was due to a technicality that Donte got in the kind of trouble he got in for it.
Yeah, he was technically drunk.
Glad we could see eye to eye.
I think that B2B's point is that if you are driving, and a guy decides to jaywalk, and you arent driving wrecklessly, you can basically hit him on purpose, and still get off scot-free.
So consider what's worse... being 100% alcohol free and purposely killing a jaywalker because you know you won't get busted? or having had a little too much to drink, yet still acting and driving in perfect control, and unintentionally killing a jaywalker after having given him multiple warnings?
yet the first example gets off scot-free, and the latter gets imprisioned and sued.
kinda ed up, isnt it?
I don't think one would get away with killing a jaywalker on purpose. Just because they jaywalk doesn't give people a free shot at killing them.
Just for the sake of the argument I'm going to tell a story. Now this isn't a carbon copy of what went down with Dante but a prime example of a how a technicality can have massive implications.
My co-workers nephew has a young daughter. I think said about 14 years old. A guy on their street took a liking to her. Now this was some kid it was a 35 year old grown adult. The guy stalked the girl as she walked home from a friends house. He climbed through her window and thankfully her father was home off work that day. Caught him right in her room as he walked by.
A fight ensued, the girl fled the house, the father broke away and managed to get to his gun. As the struggle worsened a shot was fired hitting the stalker, then another shot as the stalker continued to pursue. Now wounded the stalker staggered to the front door to escape. He ultimately died in the middle of the street.
Because the man died in the street and not in the mans home. They couldn't find any blood in the house and only a moderate sign of a struggle. He was prosecuted and convicted of murder. Served five years in prison because of a technicality. Had the man died in his living room the story would have unfolded differently.
The point is that what actually happened and how the law interpreted it are two different things. The law interpreted this as drunken driving when what really happened was that a careless individual not only wrecked his life but others.
For the most part you can if you're not drunk. Remember there was no shoulder for Dante to pull over too. Single lane traffic with close barriers.
He should've hit him with a kill shot and not just injured him.
All you have to do is fake a couple tears and tell the authorities that you didn't see him.
By every measurable means, the guy was legally drunk, and easily so. Since we're going to play the blame game, if he'd done the right thing and decided not to get in his car and drive he wouldn't have been in the spot he was in when the guy stepped out. The law that makes you automatically responsible if you're impaired is another excellent reason to take a cab when you've had too much to drink.
If the ing law isn't going to punish him the way he deserves, maybe the NFL will. Lifetime ban. I won't root for the Browns if that stick suits up for them.
Well lets go even further in your unreasonable "blame game". If the guy who gave Stallworth his drinks hadn't gave him those, than he wouldnt have had any alcohol in his system, and since its the alcohol that killed the man (not the fact that Stallworth was driving in a rather safe manner, and the man walked out into a street with oncoming traffic in which the traffic would not be able to swerve around him due to construction), lets blame the guy or bartender that gave Stallworth the drinks. , if he hadn't went to take classes to be a bartender, he wouldn't be in position to make the drinks, so lets blame his school. Or perhaps if John Stallworth didn't Ms. Stallworth on the night that Donte was conceieved, than he wouldn't have been in this position today, so John Stallworth, let's imprison him for life and take away all his NFL credentials for raising a son that kills intentionally kills people.
Well lets go even further in your unreasonable "blame game". If the guy who gave Stallworth his drinks hadn't gave him those, than he wouldnt have had any alcohol in his system, and since its the alcohol that killed the man (not the fact that Stallworth was driving in a rather safe manner, and the man walked out into a street with oncoming traffic in which the traffic would not be able to swerve around him due to construction), lets blame the guy or bartender that gave Stallworth the drinks. , if he hadn't went to take classes to be a bartender, he wouldn't be in position to make the drinks, so lets blame his school. Or perhaps if John Stallworth didn't Ms. Stallworth on the night that Donte was conceieved, than he wouldn't have been in this position today, so John Stallworth, let's imprison him for life and take away all his NFL credentials for raising a son that kills intentionally kills people.
Go ahead....grasp.
I don't understand how people are trying to say that Stallworth is being victimized here. He drove drunk. It doesn't matter if he was swerving or driving erratically, he was driving drunk and killed someone. It doesn't matter if the guy was jaywalking. If he was completely sober maybe his reaction time wouldn't have been slowed down and he would've been able to slow down enough or swerve to miss the guy. Maybe his judgement wouldn't have been impaired and he could've been better prepared for something like that happening. The only thing that matters here is his .12 BAC.
i still
The thing is that he was never accused of having impaired judgment. The drunk driving and his actions played no fault in the mans death. Thats a big part of the reason he only got 30 days. The laws have written in contingencies to protect lawful actions of the unlawful when they aren't the cause of the problem.
The dead mans family doesn't decide his fate. The law protected the innocent actions of man that was technically driving illegally.
Not one report or article...even statement said he actions were indicative of being impaired. Just that he was over the legal limit.
What if the guy who walked into the street happened to be driving. Lets say he was driving and ran a red light and struck Dante's car. Lets say that guy died as a result of the wreck.
You do realize that even though it wasn't Dante's fault he would have faced the same charges. Even though Dante's actions played no part in the actions that caused the mans death. Basically the same thing.
What would you say then?
Dante should or would have been able to slow down and avoid the guy running the red light?
I would say the same charges need to apply. He was driving drunk and nobody can say what his sober reactions would have been able to prevent. It is known that having a BAC level about .08 impairs reaction time and judgment, even if it doesn't impair motor skills.
I agree. Same charges should apply. About the same kind of punishment as well.
Even at a hefty BAC I doubt that giant nog who is a world class athlete with world class reaction times had motor skills or reactions anywhere near the level of an average man.
As far as I'm concerned the punishment fit the crime.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
