Reply With Quote
I agree with the two posts above.
I'm actually siding with B2B on this one, partially. If the report says that Stallworth did nothing wrong, and the accident was unavoidable, no matter whether Stallworth was drunk or not, then it's tough to blame Stallworth.
The question is, if he wasn't drunk, could he have avoided the accident?
I'll lay blame on both Stallworth and the guy who ran out into the street if that question isn't answerable.
I agree with the two posts above.
This just in on the Millionaires Who Get Off Easy In Court channel
Chris Brown has reached a plea deal after beating Rihanna to a pulp, he faces no jail time, with 180 days of community service and 5 years probation.
Seriously, we have more people in prison than any other country in the world. What do these millions of guys do that is so much worse than beating a girl to a hash brown, and killing a man, driving over the speed limit, with a .12 BAC
Didn't Rihanna stay with him though?This just in on the Millionaires Who Get Off Easy In Court channel
Chris Brown has reached a plea deal after beating Rihanna to a pulp, he faces no jail time, with 180 days of community service and 5 years probation.
Seriously, we have more people in prison than any other country in the world. What do these millions of guys do that is so much worse than beating a girl to a hash brown, and killing a man, driving over the speed limit, with a .12 BAC
Actually, the law doesn't agree with you, or he wouldn't have been charged with the crime.
Yes. She didn't testify against him either. The same kind of thing happened with Stallworth either. The family didn't want to go through the rehashing of the memories if it went to trial, so they didn't really pursue a longer jail time sentence for Stallworth.
Stallworth said victim surprised him
MIAMI -- Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth said on a 911 call that the man he struck with his car while driving drunk "came out of nowhere" before the crash.
Stallworth is serving a 30-day jail sentence after pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter in the March 14 death of 59-year-old Mario Reyes. Stallworth also reached an undisclosed financial settlement with Reyes' family.
Stallworth has also been suspended indefinitely by the NFL. Attorney David Cornwell, who is representing Stallworth in that matter, released a statement Tuesday after the Miami Herald reported on its Web site, citing unidentified sources, that the receiver tested positive for marijuana after the accident.
Cornwell stated any facts surrounding the case that might soon become public were fully known by law enforcement officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judge when the plea agreement was reached.
Those facts could include the presence of marijuana in Stallworth's blood, according to the lawyer's statement. An individual can test positive for marijuana weeks after its use, meaning its presence in Stallworth's blood doesn't necessarily mean he was under the influence at the time of the accident.
While the marijuana hasn't appeared to play a role in Stallworth's criminal case, it could affect his standing with the NFL and its drug policies.
"The NFL's substance abuse policy addresses the specific discipline that may be imposed for use of illegal substances," Cornwell said in his statement. "We are confident that Commissioner [Roger] Goodell will respect existing league polices and consider all of the evidence when making his disciplinary assessment."
On the 911 call released Monday, Stallworth describes how the victim "just ran in front of my car" before he was struck. Police have said Reyes was not in a crosswalk and was rushing to catch a bus when he was hit.
"You got to send an ambulance right now, man," Stallworth told the 911 operator.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4297460
Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press
He was just barely stoned, so he should be given a trophy and a night with the victim's wife instead of being punished.
He wasn't charged with anything until his blood alcohol content was founded. So basically they assumed he was innocent of any crime. There were zero charges until the technicality of his blood alcohol became an issue. No manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter charges existed because it was assumed to be an accident not a crime. That is until they were forced to charge him.
Then the law protected him from doing big time because his action weren't the result of the death "specifically". Even his lawyer cited the provision to help keep him from doing big time.
He wasn't arrested at the scene. If there isn't a crime they typically let you go. It wasn't a crime until they popped him on a technicality. Its pretty obvious.
OK...B2B...are you still standing up for the guy? His BAC was over the legal limit, and he was smoking weed....AND he killed a guy...are you still on his side? Weed DOES slow down your reactions...bigtime. A guy from my hometown ran into a building with his car after smoking pot. His excuse? He didn't even see it.
Well if Dante would have jumped the curb and plowed the guy over I wouldn't be in his corner. If Dante would have been speeding, driving recklessly or had run a red light I wouldn't be in his corner. If Dante would have shown signs of being inebriated or if his 911 call sounded like he was impaired I wouldn't be in his corner. If Dante would have fled the scene I wouldn't be in his corner. If Dante was arrested on the spot for any infraction I wouldn't in his corner.
The fact of the matter is that he didn't have any moving violations immediately prior to or during the incident. He showed no signs of being impaired and not one officer at the scene thought he was being reckless or careless. No field sobriety test and no arrest. Had Dante been "smashed" I guarantee you they would have cuffed him on the spot. If he was even slightly impaired it would have shown and the officers would have taken the appropriate actions.
Had that man not been so careless as to dart into the street none of this would have happened.
Its not as if there are dozens of reports floating around about a guy whizzing through traffic meandering drunk all over the place.
Dante acted with sound mind through the entire incident and was released an innocent man until the tests came back. 100% guarantee you that doesn't happen if you even show an inkling of impairment.
So the guy was drunk and high, and you still believe him? You don't think that him being a star athlete had anything to do with him getting off? And you don't think marijuana has something to do with slow reaction time?
Slow reaction time or not the moron still ran out into the street. I'm sure there are millions of elderly who drive with even worse reaction times than Dante.
I think the driving factors in him getting off easy were the fact that he wasn't 100% at fault and the family didn't push the issue.
Being high profile probably did help. If you take away the weed and take away the notion of being under the influence of anything its obvious that he wasn't breaking the law.
If this guy was so massively impaired then why didn't anyone give him a field sobriety test or arrest him?
Answer: He showed no signs of breaking the law.
There is literally no indication that his reaction time was slow. No indication that he acted any differently than any one else would have sober. Thats the driving facts in him getting off easy.
Show me where it reads that he was swerving all over the road, speeding and ultimately failed to yield the right of way properly.
Dude...how hard is this to understand...he was HIGH...and DRUNK!! He got behind the wheel of a vehicle while high and drunk. That in itself deserves more than 30 days. He's putting everyone he comes in contact with in danger. I can't believe you're standing up for this guy..you're disgusting. He didn't even slow down before he hit the guy, yet he says he gave the guy plenty of warning. If this guy just "jumped out in the street out of nowhere" as you say, how did he give him plenty of warning? That doesn't make sense.
He was high and drunk...his BAC was at a level where reaction time is slowed, and marijuana slows reaction time as well...there's your indication...God...are you 12? Do you even drive?
We can continue the conversation if you want but if you're going to start acting like a ing child and hurl insults then I'm not going to waste my time.
I drive. I've driven drunk. I've driven high. I've driven drunk and high. None of that matters. What matter is the facts.
He committed a crime and he's going to do time for that.
Being impaired doesn't automatically make you responsible for other peoples stupidity.
I said earlier on this thread that its the same situation if the moron who ran out into the street would have been behind the wheel and ran a red light plowing into Dante. If that had been the case it'd be just as obvious that the guy who ran the red light caused the accident however the same holds true that Dante would have been guilty of driving under the influence.
The real problem is that people are incapable of seeing the entire picture. They're only concerned with him being over the legal limit and not the actual events that transpired.
How far does it go? How far do you take it. If this guy would have pulled out a gun from the side of the road and shot a passenger in Dante's vehicle do you think Dante would have been charged with murder because a sober Dante could have dodged the bullets? How ridiculous does the situation have to be for the man to be predominately innocent of other crimes and just be guilty of the actual infraction of driving impaired.
At what point is this moron responsible for his own action. When is it on him to not walk out in the road in front of oncoming traffic. As far as I'm concerned the family lucked the out because outside of being technically impaired no crime was committed and this family wouldn't have seen a dime. In fact it might have been the other way around had Dante come up clean.
BTW testing positive for dope doesn't equate to being high during the moment of the accident.
It's not a technicality, it's a law. If you're impaired after a no-fault accident, you're automatically at fault.
Yeah, because if he were a poor nobody and had done the same thing he'd have gotten the exact same treatment.
As stated multiple time in this thread. There is a provision in the state where the accident took place to protect people who are illegally driving in a no fault accident.
My point is that he wouldn't have been able to afford the good representation or the large payoff. Which along with the no-fault provision exploited by said lawyer he managed to get off with a reasonable sentence.Yeah, because if he were a poor nobody and had done the same thing he'd have gotten the exact same treatment.
not necessarily.
the article says that weed can stay in your system for up to weeks and thats actually not true. It can stay in your system for up to a year, if your a habitual smoker.
but anyway, you usually stay high for up to 3 hours but weed will stay in your system for weeks, months, years when you're normal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
