Do you consider it murder?

 

No, because murder has intent, but it is manslaughter. That doesn't take away from the fact that he killed someone, and should be punished for it.

Note to self: As long as you have a bunch of money, you can run over whoever you want. :thumb:

Note to self: As long as you have a bunch of money, you can run over whoever you want. :thumb:

 

 

That's not it at all....

This is awful that some one can get away with murder just because they are rich and they are a pro athlete.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/01/akron_the_23yearold_akron.html

 

Got 7 years.

 

http://duivictimsvoice.blogspot.com/2009/03/24-year-old-drunk-driver-receives-5-yr.html

 

Got 5 years.

^ Were both those people J-Walking?

^ Were both those people J-Walking?

 

So J-Walking lessens the sentence by six years??? :lol:

So J-Walking lessens the sentence by six years??? :lol:

 

Just asking that it matters for sure.

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.

 

Good post, Rockmom. I don't agree with all of it, but I think you've nailed the main points of it. I disagree with your last sentence, but I think that was just your conclusion. :lol:

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you consider Vick's pre-meditated decision compared to Stallworth's poor decision making.

 

 

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.

 

The settlement took care of the civil suit that the family would file. It should not affect the criminal charges. That's what bothers me....

 

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.

 

I'm not sure which is worse. Vick's actions were premeditated. Although his actions were taken out on dogs / animals, they appeared to be filled with hate & rage. To me, that is troublesome.

 

 

Note to self: As long as you have a bunch of money, you can run over whoever you want. :thumb:

 

Capitalism at its finest. :thumb:

 

But let's don't pretend that Stallworth is getting off the hook. He's still being punished by the justice system. And, more importantly, he is forced to live with the guilt / burden of his actions.

 

 

This is awful that some one can get away with murder just because they are rich and they are a pro athlete.

 

It's not murder & he didn't get away with it. Carry on...

 

So J-Walking lessens the sentence by six years??? :lol:

 

Potentially yes. There are crosswalks for a reason. If you're walking outside the crosswalk or when the stop / don't walk / hand is showing, you could be precluded from recovering anything.

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.

 

I'm sorry, but Michael Vick killed dogs, Donte Stalworth killed a human being. Whether he meant to do it, or apologized doesn't matter, he killed a human being and is going to jail for 24 days. That doesn't make sense to me.

^ No, it does not make sense. Although it is really not discussed, you wonder how much of an influence the victim's parents had in this? Maybe they are compassionate people such as the people in the Oprah story I discussed earlier in the thread and wanted him integrated back in to society to speak out against drunk driving... who knows?

 

In full disclosure of Vick, it was not just "dog fighting" at his house. He was operating a full scale organized crime operation which included dog fighting, drugs, and racketeering over a 6 or 7 year time span. Federal felony charges. That is some serious stuff.

^ No, it does not make sense. Although it is really not discussed, you wonder how much of an influence the victim's parents had in this? Maybe they are compassionate people such as the people in the Oprah story I discussed earlier in the thread and wanted him integrated back in to society to speak out against drunk driving... who knows?

 

In full disclosure of Vick, it was not just "dog fighting" at his house. He was operating a full scale organized crime operation which included dog fighting, drugs, and racketeering over a 6 or 7 year time span. Federal felony charges. That is some serious stuff.

 

I would say that the victim's family were well advised with regard to accepting the settlement...the pros and the cons, which is why I feel justice was served.

 

There are many factors that we probably don't know, including the hearts and minds of the family, as well as Stallworth. But it seems to me, that in the eyes of the family, they believe Stallworth should be given a decent shot at a 2nd chance. It leads me to believe (along with his actions immediately following the accident), that Stallworth is a good person at heart and they recognize that. It leads me to believe that the court system, including the prosecutors, are of the mind that he can go forward without repeating the same mistake.

 

In the American Justice System, every person is judged individually. There are no "standard" punishments, really. There are mandatory sentences, but how often does anyone really serve their full sentence? Even after sentencing, a person who has been convicted of a crime can still have the time of incarceration reduced by their good behavior in prison.

 

The purpose of the justice system isn't to make sure everyone gets the same punishment. It's to make sure that the crime is punished fittingly. Even in the case of two seemingly similar crimes, there are circumstances that differ, therefore those two crimes cannot be punished identically.

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.

 

:thumb:

 

Excellent post! And as far as justice was served, since the family recieved the justice they wanted, I couldnt agree more.

^ No, it does not make sense. Although it is really not discussed, you wonder how much of an influence the victim's parents had in this? Maybe they are compassionate people such as the people in the Oprah story I discussed earlier in the thread and wanted him integrated back in to society to speak out against drunk driving... who knows?

 

In full disclosure of Vick, it was not just "dog fighting" at his house. He was operating a full scale organized crime operation which included dog fighting, drugs, and racketeering over a 6 or 7 year time span. Federal felony charges. That is some serious stuff.

 

I am sorry, but I think taking the life one human far outweighs running something like what Vick did, I'm not saying Vick should have gotten 0 prison time, indeed, he should have probably gotten more if they could have proved the drugs and racketeering charges. But Stalworth should have gotten more than 24 days. Should he be put away for life? No, but for goodness sakes, 24 days, that's amazing, regardless of the settlement that the victim's family and Stalworth had worked out, that's not justice to me.

I heard an interesting bit on this Saturday morning on the Erik Kuselias Show. He spoke with some of his lawyer friends, and basically he explained the difficulty of getting a strong conviction in Florida for this type case. I may totally screw this us, but basically you have to prove that Stallworth's actions were 100% completely as a result of alcohol before he would have gotten the ultimate sentence. With his BA level low, him stopping after the accident, and the guy jaywalking, the prosecution had a really difficult case. It was not as cut and dry as it looked on paper.