This just shows the stupidity of our legal system. I'm sorry, but for Mike Vick to spend more time for killing DOGS than someone who killed a PERSON while driving under the influence is ridiculous.

 

Amen-Amen!

I don't buy the whole "remorse" thing from Stallworth. If paying off the victim's family is remorse than I guess he has shown some remorse. With all the legal counsel Stallworth has I highly doubt anything he does or says is 100% genuine, not that I fault him for that, but that's just how it goes these days.

 

For all those trying to justify Stallworth's punishment as fair ask yourself thsi...If it were a child that had been killed by Stallworth driving drunk would your opinion change? Jay walking or not, being drunk definitely decreases reaction time. It's sickening that he only got 30 days in jail.

How does this compare to when Leonard Little killed someone while driving drunk? He wasn't banned for life and neither should Stallworth. He has a right to earn a living just like any ex-con.

 

Leonard Little served 90 days and an 8 game suspension.

 

What makes Little more sickening is that he received another DUI after this. I have no use for him.

I don't buy the whole "remorse" thing from Stallworth. If paying off the victim's family is remorse than I guess he has shown some remorse. With all the legal counsel Stallworth has I highly doubt anything he does or says is 100% genuine, not that I fault him for that, but that's just how it goes these days.

 

For all those trying to justify Stallworth's punishment as fair ask yourself thsi...If it were a child that had been killed by Stallworth driving drunk would your opinion change? Jay walking or not, being drunk definitely decreases reaction time. It's sickening that he only got 30 days in jail.

 

I stated off the bat that I was playing devil's advocate in the aspect that there was no proof to him being at fault other than his bac. I must clarify that I believe 30 days is far to lenient but I stilll cannot liken this to murder without a tremendous amount of evidence that has not been shown so far.

For those of you who think it's sickening that Stallworth didn't get sentenced for life.

 

Why?

 

What good will it do you to see Dante Stallworth in jail? The guy made a horrible mistake & has to live with the consequences. But he can do a lot more good for society if he's able to go various places & speak about the consequences of drinking & Driving. It's a lot more beneficial to society to have him serve 1,000 hours of community service & have kids who look up to him learn from his mistakes.

 

If the family is okay with it, then so am I. I truly believe that Stallworth is remorseful for hsi actions. To be honest, I am disturbed by those who think that he's not remorseful for his actions simply because he reached a settlement with the family. The man is human and has taken full responsibility for his actions. Although I won't condone his actions, Stallworth has handled the situation with class & as good as anyone could possibly handle it. I can't imagine the guilt & weight that he is under after what he's done.

 

My problem is not with Stallworth & his attorneys. They did what was the best for him. My problem is not with the family for accepting the money. My problem is with those who try to act like everyone is treated equally in the justice system. They're not, nor should they be, IMO. It's great in theory, but it's simply not practical.

Edited June 18, 200917 yr by ColonelCrazy

I don't buy the whole "remorse" thing from Stallworth. If paying off the victim's family is remorse than I guess he has shown some remorse.

 

Who said the family had to take the money. They could say screw him and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Just some random observations from reading this thread:

 

Michael Vick showed an incredible amount of inhumanity in fighting the dogs first, and in his treatment of the dogs as he "eliminated" them. He didn't just shoot them or euthanize them to put them out of their misery, he tortured them. Yes, they were dogs. But at it's core, it's an incredibly deep capacity for cruelty that would allow one's conscience to ignore the inhumanity of such actions.

 

Dante Stallworth had an accident. He didn't set out to hurt, maim, or kill. Although legally drunk, he stopped, attempted to render aid and did not at any point try to flee the scene, nor escape responsibility for the events.

 

I don't think the situations are apples to apples comparisons, and I don't think that it's fair to judge the crimes equally. IMO, two crimes were committed. But one criminal was a viscious and cruel person, who knowingly and willingly committed crimes. And not only that, knowingly and apparently gleefully tortured living animals. He also tried to deny and hide his involvement.

 

The other was a person who became a criminal by making an incredibly stupid mistake, but stood there and accepted responsibility and didn't point the finger at anyone else.

 

I'm sure the victim's family was devastated. But it also seems they are willing participants in the settlement. Who's to say that the punishment is not right, when it's the victim's family who has the right to refuse any settlement offer?

 

One last observation....If I had to choose either of these as my son, I'd pick Stallworth. For although he committed a crime, and although he killed someone, he accepted the responsibility. Even if he'd gotten a longer sentence than Vick, as a mother I'd be proud of my son for taking responsibility and attempting to help the victim of his crime. I'd never be able to look at Vick again, if I were his mother. To know I'd raised such a cruel person would make me hate myself as well.

Here is what I get out of it.....It's fine to go out and kill someone, just as long as you "man up" and apologize for it. Reading some of the stuff the lawyer said makes me sick. He acts like Stallworth is a Saint.

Here is what I get out of it.....It's fine to go out and kill someone, just as long as you "man up" and apologize for it. Reading some of the stuff the lawyer said makes me sick. He acts like Stallworth is a Saint.

 

No, it's not OK to kill someone for any reason. But if a mistake happens, you accept responsibility.

 

But, there's a difference between a person who willfully kills someone, and someone who accidentally kills someone.

 

Stallworth's lawyer is paid to defend his client and to paint him in the best light. It didn't make his job harder that his client tried to help the victim, which does indicate he's not a bad person at heart.

 

I'm not condoning what Stallworth did. But I will defend the justice system in this case. The victim's family was given a settlement offer, which they agreed to accept. Justice was served.

No, it's not OK to kill someone for any reason. But if a mistake happens, you accept responsibility.

 

But, there's a difference between a person who willfully kills someone, and someone who accidentally kills someone.

 

Stallworth's lawyer is paid to defend his client and to paint him in the best light. It didn't make his job harder that his client tried to help the victim, which does indicate he's not a bad person at heart.

 

I'm not condoning what Stallworth did. But I will defend the justice system in this case. The victim's family was given a settlement offer, which they agreed to accept. Justice was served.

 

C'mon. Justice was served?

C'mon. Justice was served?

 

 

In who's eyes is justice? The victim/the victim's family. If the victim's family agreed to this settlement, justice has been served.

Just some random observations from reading this thread:

 

Michael Vick showed an incredible amount of inhumanity in fighting the dogs first, and in his treatment of the dogs as he "eliminated" them. He didn't just shoot them or euthanize them to put them out of their misery, he tortured them. Yes, they were dogs. But at it's core, it's an incredibly deep capacity for cruelty that would allow one's conscience to ignore the inhumanity of such actions.

 

Dante Stallworth had an accident. He didn't set out to hurt, maim, or kill. Although legally drunk, he stopped, attempted to render aid and did not at any point try to flee the scene, nor escape responsibility for the events.

 

I don't think the situations are apples to apples comparisons, and I don't think that it's fair to judge the crimes equally. IMO, two crimes were committed. But one criminal was a viscious and cruel person, who knowingly and willingly committed crimes. And not only that, knowingly and apparently gleefully tortured living animals. He also tried to deny and hide his involvement.

 

The other was a person who became a criminal by making an incredibly stupid mistake, but stood there and accepted responsibility and didn't point the finger at anyone else.

 

I'm sure the victim's family was devastated. But it also seems they are willing participants in the settlement. Who's to say that the punishment is not right, when it's the victim's family who has the right to refuse any settlement offer?

 

One last observation....If I had to choose either of these as my son, I'd pick Stallworth. For although he committed a crime, and although he killed someone, he accepted the responsibility. Even if he'd gotten a longer sentence than Vick, as a mother I'd be proud of my son for taking responsibility and attempting to help the victim of his crime. I'd never be able to look at Vick again, if I were his mother. To know I'd raised such a cruel person would make me hate myself as well.

 

 

You are right about one thing. The situations are not the same. What Stallworth did was 10x worse. He should be in jail, and for a very long time. Vick killed a bunch of animals, Stallworth killed a person. How some people are defending him and saying this was fair is mind-boggling.

You are right about one thing. The situations are not the same. What Stallworth did was 10x worse. He should be in jail, and for a very long time. Vick killed a bunch of animals, Stallworth killed a person. How some people are defending him and saying this was fair is mind-boggling.

 

 

First, I'm not defending him...I'm defending the justice system.

 

I'm also pointing out that there are points to consider if looking at this from a legal sense that do weigh into the outcome.

 

Let's say you are driving down the street, you're texting your buddies, and you fail to see someone step into the cross walk in front of you. You hit them and kill them.

 

Should you go to jail for years?

First, I'm not defending him...I'm defending the justice system.

 

I'm also pointing out that there are points to consider if looking at this from a legal sense that do weigh into the outcome.

 

Let's say you are driving down the street, you're texting your buddies, and you fail to see someone step into the cross walk in front of you. You hit them and kill them.

 

Should you go to jail for years?

 

 

Well, first off, they are completely different situations, as texting while driving, isn't illegal (yet), at least I don't think it is. But yes, if you kill a person you should go to jail for an extended period of time, not a mere matter of days.

Well, first off, they are completely different situations, as texting while driving, isn't illegal (yet), at least I don't think it is. But yes, if you kill a person you should go to jail for an extended period of time, not a mere matter of days.

 

Do you consider it murder?