Donte Stallworth

[GannonFan]

I'm not trying to jump all over this guy, and I'm sure he's wracked with guilt and will be for the rest of his life, but doesn't anyone else think he got off a little bit on the light side when it came time for sentencing? He drives with an alcohol level of .126, he has enough time to flash his lights at a pedestrian but doesn't stop the car and ends up killing the pedestrian, and he ends up with a 30 day jail sentence. Now granted, he has his driver's license suspended forever (could get employment consideration in a few years), has two years of house arrest, and some other conditions, but my question is, aren't there harsher penalties out there for people who drive drunk and don't kill anyone, let alone one that does?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/06/16/stallworth.ap/index.html

[Retro]

He did get off light as far as jail time, but 2 years house arrest and no drivers license is going to be tough on him and then 8 years of probation. The chances he stays out of trouble for 8 years is probably slim to begin with..

Of course the family of the victim likely got a large sum and then a portion of any future earnings, however i never liked stallworth when with the saints because he was way overpaid and overrated.. He dropped too many passes and the last few years he has just jumped from team to team for the money... I don't know if he will play in the NFL again though..

[GannonFan]

I don't know if he will play in the NFL again though..


Why do you say that? He's only 28, so he's got plenty of time left to play. Even if the NFL comes down harshly on him, the most I see him being suspended for is one year - if he only gets 30 days of jailtime how can you not let him play again, especially considering his behavior throughout these proceedings has been so good that that's one of the main reasons why he got a light sentence? And while he never played up to his talent level, he's still good enough to play for a whole bunch of teams, drops or no drops. I can see him in the NFL again, assuming he wants to do the work to get there.

[Retro]

Well, before he gets out of jail, provided he serves it right away, the commisioner will likely suspend him for a year or at least several games.. Either case, no team is likely to bring him in halfway thru this season.... Remember, the NFL doesn't need a certain kind of conviction on the outside to determine their own punishment, so i could easily see a year suspension based on the fact he did plead guilty, would've been found guilty in a trial and killed a person...

That being said, only a handful of teams will spend their time or money on a what is now an average player at best.. 2/3's of the league does not want any bad P.R. and thus will always shy away from the Vick's, Pacman Jones and such.. The one's that don't will likely only offer him min salary with lot's of stipulations.. Look at his numbers and he's obviously been on the downslope for productivity in last 3 years... Even so, i could see him in the upstart UFL or CFL if things don't work out..

[Skjellyfetti]

chances he stays out of trouble for 8 years is probably slim to begin with...

Why do you say this? He had no arrest history when he was with Tennessee or in his pro career prior to this incident...

[Retro]

Because when your on probation, a jaywalking ticket is bad.. Not saying he would likely do anything real bad, but it only takes a minor arrest to get it revoked. That plus being under house arrest are 2 tough things to swallow for any person used to going out on the town even occasionally.

[bluehenbillk]

This really pissed me off when I heard what "penalties" Stallworth was given. In comparison, Pennsylvania law when you're drunk behind the wheel & you kill someone is a mandatory minimum three-to-seven years. I'm sorry but you can't compare this to what Michael Vick did & all the outrage that he caused. Stallworth actually killed a human being because of his negligence, period, end of story.

Goddell should man up and give the guy a suspension longer than he's given anyone else, simply because no one did anything this bad. Disgusting.

[AshevilleApp2]

I'm not trying to jump all over this guy, and I'm sure he's wracked with guilt and will be for the rest of his life, but doesn't anyone else think he got off a little bit on the light side when it came time for sentencing? He drives with an alcohol level of .126, he has enough time to flash his lights at a pedestrian but doesn't stop the car and ends up killing the pedestrian, and he ends up with a 30 day jail sentence. Now granted, he has his driver's license suspended forever (could get employment consideration in a few years), has two years of house arrest, and some other conditions, but my question is, aren't there harsher penalties out there for people who drive drunk and don't kill anyone, let alone one that does?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/06/16/stallworth.ap/index.html

On the surface it seems that he got off easily. I'm curious to know what others with comparable situations have received as sentences. That may be indicative of whether he got some sort of "star treatment". Or whether he could afford a better attorney for that matter.

[Gil Dobie]

He got off easy because he has money. The money will never take away the guilt and remorse, or the sorrow the family feels. At least the family gets a financial settlement to help them with their mourning. Most cases the guy just goes to jail.

[CopperCat]

This really pissed me off when I heard what "penalties" Stallworth was given. In comparison, Pennsylvania law when you're drunk behind the wheel & you kill someone is a mandatory minimum three-to-seven years. I'm sorry but you can't compare this to what Michael Vick did & all the outrage that he caused. Stallworth actually killed a human being because of his negligence, period, end of story.

Goddell should man up and give the guy a suspension longer than he's given anyone else, simply because no one did anything this bad. Disgusting.

How about just booting his arse out of the NFL entirely? Seems to me that the league is riddled with problem children, and its time to take out the trash.

[mrklean]

Donte Stallworth: kills a person, get probation.
Mike Vick: kills several dogs get two years in prison.

Dayumn this is messed up!!!

[Retro]

Florida needs to toughen up it's minimum jail time for DUI's and Manslaughter cases and this won't happen.xoopsx

[CopperCat]

Donte Stallworth: kills a person, get probation.
Mike Vick: kills several dogs get two years in prison.

Dayumn this is messed up!!!

They are both being given too much leniency.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm curious. Suppose Stallworth had not a blood alcohol level above the legal limit and instead had simply run a red light because he was digging for a CD and killed somebody. Would there be the same kind of sentiment about how he should've gotten a much stiffer penalty?

[GannonFan]

I'm curious. Suppose Stallworth had not a blood alcohol level above the legal limit and instead had simply run a red light because he was digging for a CD and killed somebody. Would there be the same kind of sentiment about how he should've gotten a much stiffer penalty?

Of course not - drunk driving and simply being careless are not seen as equivalent no-no's, as nor they should.

[Skjellyfetti]

Eh, I dunno. The guy he hit ran out in the street in front of him (not on a crosswalk). Stallworth did everything right after hitting him... pulling over immediately, calling authorities, cooperating with authorities, etc.

[jstate83]

Eh, I dunno. The guy he hit ran out in the street in front of him (not on a crosswalk). Stallworth did everything right after hitting him... pulling over immediately, calling authorities, cooperating with authorities, etc.

Thank you.
Although Stallworth should be punished for DUI, he was not the cause of this accident.
It's not like he has a history of being a troublemaker and he didn't try to hide or use his fame to cover up anything.

Sorry but the guy that darted out into traffic, crossing 3 lanes of flowing traffic cause this and the result probably would have been the same if Stallworth had not had anything to drink.

If he had not had a drink or 2, the police would not have even detained him.

[JohnStOnge]

Of course not - drunk driving and simply being careless are not seen as equivalent no-no's, as nor they should.

I disagree. There are many, many behaviors that increase the risk of an accident. For some reason this society has singled out "drunk driving" as being "evil." At the same time, it's really watered down the definition of "drunk."

In this case, as in many other (most, actually), we do not even know that the alcohol in his system caused what happened. We don't know that it would not have happened if all other circumstances had been equal but alcohol had been absent. Typically, the thing is "A driver had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit and was in a fatal traffic accident. Therefore, drinking and driving caused a death." And, sure, there is no reasonable doubt that alcohol was a factor in some number of traffic deaths. But you can't legimately conclude that in an individual case drinking and driving caused a particular death unless it's something really indisputable like somebody passing out at the wheel due to really heavy alcohol consumption or you actually see somebody weaving all over the road and weave into somebody.

In 2007 there were an estimated 12, 998 deaths from traffic accidents involving "alcohol impaired" drivers and 28,061 that did not involve such drivers. So about 76% of deaths certainly had nothing to do with drunk driving. It's also virtually certain that, in cases involving some number of those 12,998 "alcohol related" deaths, the deaths would have occured without alcohol being in the picture if all other circumstances had been the same.

And I do not think there is any real rational basis for separating increasing risk through some other behavior and increasing risk by having something like a 0.126 blood alcohol level (that seems to be kind of the center point of what Stallworth's reported to have had). I think it's more of an emotional societal response promoted by zealots like those in Mothers against Drunk Driving through things like inflaming emotion with billboards sporting pictures of people "killed by a drunk driver" than anything else.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_473nrD5vEv8/SM4_WJX-DpI/AAAAAAAAAxI/WKM4I0Fubv4/s400/temperance-movement.jpg

[JohnStOnge]

Thank you.
Although Stallworth should be punished for DUI, he was not the cause of this accident.

I'd like to know more about that because I've wondered about that as I've listened to the ranting about the sentence over the past few days. If you're right this is a classic case of something that's going to go down in both public perception and the statistics as being an "alcohol related" accident when it may not be such at all. Yes, alcohol slows reaction time but that doesn't automatically mean that, all other circumstances being equal but alcohol being absent, the outcome would have been different.

[GannonFan]

Eh, I dunno. The guy he hit ran out in the street in front of him (not on a crosswalk). Stallworth did everything right after hitting him... pulling over immediately, calling authorities, cooperating with authorities, etc.


Thank you.
Although Stallworth should be punished for DUI, he was not the cause of this accident.
It's not like he has a history of being a troublemaker and he didn't try to hide or use his fame to cover up anything.

Sorry but the guy that darted out into traffic, crossing 3 lanes of flowing traffic cause this and the result probably would have been the same if Stallworth had not had anything to drink.

If he had not had a drink or 2, the police would not have even detained him.

Well, Donte did have time to flash his lights several times as a warning for the pedestrian. I have no doubt the guy not being in a crosswalk was part of the decision for the light sentence, but it's not like the guy darted out in front of Donte and he never saw the guy or had a chance to miss him.

[GannonFan]

I disagree. There are many, many behaviors that increase the risk of an accident. For some reason this society has singled out "drunk driving" as being "evil." At the same time, it's really watered down the definition of "drunk."

In this case, as in many other (most, actually), we do not even know that the alcohol in his system caused what happened. We don't know that it would not have happened if all other circumstances had been equal but alcohol had been absent. Typically, the thing is "A driver had a blood alcohol level over the legal limit and was in a fatal traffic accident. Therefore, drinking and driving caused a death." And, sure, there is no reasonable doubt that alcohol was a factor in some number of traffic deaths. But you can't legimately conclude that in an individual case drinking and driving caused a particular death unless it's something really indisputable like somebody passing out at the wheel due to really heavy alcohol consumption or you actually see somebody weaving all over the road and weave into somebody.

In 2007 there were an estimated 12, 998 deaths from traffic accidents involving "alcohol impaired" drivers and 28,061 that did not involve such drivers. So about 76% of deaths certainly had nothing to do with drunk driving. It's also virtually certain that, in cases involving some number of those 12,998 "alcohol related" deaths, the deaths would have occured without alcohol being in the picture if all other circumstances had been the same.

And I do not think there is any real rational basis for separating increasing risk through some other behavior and increasing risk by having something like a 0.126 blood alcohol level (that seems to be kind of the center point of what Stallworth's reported to have had). I think it's more of an emotional societal response promoted by zealots like those in Mothers against Drunk Driving through things like inflaming emotion with billboards sporting pictures of people "killed by a drunk driver" than anything else.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_473nrD5vEv8/SM4_WJX-DpI/AAAAAAAAAxI/WKM4I0Fubv4/s400/temperance-movement.jpg

Geez, wanted to get that off your chest??? xlolxxlolx

The difference lies in the assumption of responsibility and the effort associated with it. Reaching for a CD case that's falling is a split second decision, often made without thought. Getting drunk and then driving takes the effort to get up, go to a bar or to the refrigerator, drinking said beverage for probably up to an hour, and then getting behind the wheel. Obviously, there's going to be a difference between split second carelessness and the same carelessness that takes a conscious choice in the first place, and then plenty of time to reflect on that choice. If it took an hour for a CD case to fall and the same hour for someone to decide whether to take their eye off the road to catch it, you might have an argument. Otherwise, it's not anywhere close to the same scenario.

[bluehenbillk]

Kudos for Goddell for stepping up & indefinitely suspending Stallworth. Watched ESPN last night & saw 2 different perspectives on what the length will be. One commentator suggested 8 games, the other suggested 2 years, the length of his house arrest.

[DSUrocks07]

The Sheriff is putting his foot down. xthumbsupx

Accident or not, its the DUI that is the most important factor that goes against Stallworth in this case.

Leonard Little was one of Tags missteps...something that obviously Goddell is not to ever make.

The NFLPA is on notice.

[bluehenbillk]

I think Little got 8 games. The guy on ESPN's take was something along the lines of Goddell has tried to make his mark with disciplining the league's problem cases, do you really see him allowing a guy to play who's on house arrest?

[jstate83]

I'd like to know more about that because I've wondered about that as I've listened to the ranting about the sentence over the past few days. If you're right this is a classic case of something that's going to go down in both public perception and the statistics as being an "alcohol related" accident when it may not be such at all. Yes, alcohol slows reaction time but that doesn't automatically mean that, all other circumstances being equal but alcohol being absent, the outcome would have been different.

At the time of the accident, they said Stallworth was in the far lane, (I think the 3rd lane), on whatever street he was driving on.
The guy was rushing to catch the bus home from work and darted out into traffic crossing the lanes of traffic into Stallworth's path.


That's why I said even though he was legally drunk, he was not falling down, just from a ballers party drunk.
If you go out and have a couple glasses of wine with dinner and did the same thing Stallworth did, you would be in the same position because someone else didn't follow the rules.
The police didn't even know Stallworth was "legally drunk" until he took the test.

[jstate83]

Well, Donte did have time to flash his lights several times as a warning for the pedestrian. I have no doubt the guy not being in a crosswalk was part of the decision for the light sentence, but it's not like the guy darted out in front of Donte and he never saw the guy or had a chance to miss him.

I have blown my horn at dog's because the traffic on my bumper caused me not to hit the breaks.
I have done this to people also and the only reason I didn't hit them was because they jumped back out the way while I'm burning my tires out breaking so hard.
If they had not jumped back onto the curb, their arses would have been flying.

People have time to stop their cars when they are SOBER but you still have pet's and sometimes people laying in the road because the person could not stop.
If something dart's out in front of you at night driving on a trraffic filled flowing avenue like Stallworth was, you would have trouble avoiding the accident also.

Anyone that can dodge something like that everytime need to be driving for NASCAR or Formula one.
Anything could have caused that.
Other cars on his bumper, cars on the side of him, or anything.
You can't just sit here looking at that situation as BLACK and WHITE.
Other factors come into play.

Anyone here that can say they have NEVER got behind the wheel of their car after dinner/drinks, tailgating/football/drinks, or just being out and going home say I.
Not sloppy drunk but legally drunk.

[Big Al]

I think both Donte's & Vick's sentences are correct.

While Donte's actions killed a person, as others have stated, he has owned up to his responsibilities and never ran from his actions. Those are some major mitigating circumstances for sentencing.

Vick, on the other hand, didn't just kill dogs. If that were it, it wouldn't be remotely comparable to what Donte did. Vick, however, killed those dogs as part of an illegal gambling ring that he was spending tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) participating in. He flat out was committing organized crime and when the authorities found out, he tried to cover it up by buying off his "partners" and lying to the NFL. That is the part of his conviction that people keep on overlooking and is the reason I don't believe he should be reinstated to play.

Donte should be allowed to play once his jail and house arrest is complete.

[bluehenbillk]

I think both Donte's & Vick's sentences are correct.

While Donte's actions killed a person, as others have stated, he has owned up to his responsibilities and never ran from his actions. Those are some major mitigating circumstances for sentencing.



I'll digress. BULL-$#@!

OK, so Stallworth didn't do a hit & run & did originally plead not guilty & he's "sorry" for what he did. OK great, now let's look at the other side. He went out and drank himself silly, was more than 50% the legal limit to drive & was so smashed he was unable stop in a sufficient amount of time & plowed into a guy & killed him.

That's great that he stopped & it's great that's he's sorry, but the guys dead. Vick could've premeditatively (if that's even a word) killed 100 dogs, but they're dogs, they're not people. It wasn't an accident, it was drunk driving, it's a big problem everywhere except I guess Florida.....

By the way, Stallworth will actually only spend 24 days, not 30 in jail. We should all be so lucky.....

[jstate83]

Let's just say that no matter what the situation, anybody with any fame is going to get dogged and pissed on like some kind of monster.
People will foam at the mouth for the death penalty no matter the situation.

Any one of us on this board could have that happen to us but I'll bet there would be family member's in court crying thier eyes out, screaming about how the other guy ran out into traffic and what a great loving fater/mother, hard worker you are.

This is why I say for me, FAME can stay as far from me as possable.xsmhx

[GannonFan]

I have blown my horn at dog's because the traffic on my bumper caused me not to hit the breaks.
I have done this to people also and the only reason I didn't hit them was because they jumped back out the way while I'm burning my tires out breaking so hard.
If they had not jumped back onto the curb, their arses would have been flying.

People have time to stop their cars when they are SOBER but you still have pet's and sometimes people laying in the road because the person could not stop.
If something dart's out in front of you at night driving on a trraffic filled flowing avenue like Stallworth was, you would have trouble avoiding the accident also.

Anyone that can dodge something like that everytime need to be driving for NASCAR or Formula one.
Anything could have caused that.
Other cars on his bumper, cars on the side of him, or anything.
You can't just sit here looking at that situation as BLACK and WHITE.
Other factors come into play.

Anyone here that can say they have NEVER got behind the wheel of their car after dinner/drinks, tailgating/football/drinks, or just being out and going home say I.
Not sloppy drunk but legally drunk.

I don't get that, though, jstate, you're saying it's an option to just flat out hit a pedestrian with your car because you'd rather do that than have the guy behind you, who should be far enough away to stop even if you slammed on the brakes, rear end you? So when it comes down to running down a pedestrian or being hit from behind, it's alright to choose running down the pedestrian? You're in a car, with seat belts and air bags and so on - the odds of you surviving an accident where you get hit from behind is much more likely than the pedestrian surviving you plowing him down. Of course the situation's different if it's a dog or a squirrel or a deer, but I'd have to think trying to avoid killing a person is a worthwhile reason to slam on the brakes, regardless of the car behind you.

[GannonFan]

let's just say that no matter what the situation, anybody with any fame is going to dogged and pissed on like some kind of monster.
People will foam at the mouth for the death penalty no matter the situation.

Any one of us on this board could have that happen to us but I'll bet there would be family member's in court crying thier eyes out, screaming about how the other guy ran out into traffic and what a great loving fater/mother, hard worker you are.

This is why I say for me, FAME can stay as far from me as possable.xsmhx

I agree with that - Fame is a two way street, it can really help you (O.J.) or it could really screw you (Vick). Plenty of other examples as well.

[jstate83]

I don't get that, though, jstate, you're saying it's an option to just flat out hit a pedestrian .

Stopped reading right there cause you know damm well I didn't say that anywhere or come even close to saying that. xsmhx

I'm out....................next subject. xsmhx

[JohnStOnge]

Geez, wanted to get that off your chest??? xlolxxlolx

The difference lies in the assumption of responsibility and the effort associated with it. Reaching for a CD case that's falling is a split second decision, often made without thought. Getting drunk and then driving takes the effort to get up, go to a bar or to the refrigerator, drinking said beverage for probably up to an hour, and then getting behind the wheel. Obviously, there's going to be a difference between split second carelessness and the same carelessness that takes a conscious choice in the first place, and then plenty of time to reflect on that choice. If it took an hour for a CD case to fall and the same hour for someone to decide whether to take their eye off the road to catch it, you might have an argument. Otherwise, it's not anywhere close to the same scenario.

It's not the same scenario but the bottom line is that both actions impact the risk to other drivers. Another thing that impacts risk is doing something like taking a long drive just for fun. Like let's say I'm sitting around playing on the internet and drink the drink I like. It's a 16 ounce beer at 5.9% alcohol with 2 oz. grain alcohol poured in over ice. That puts my BAC at about 0.11. Let's say I drive two blocks to the supermarket to get something for supper.

Now, how much risk does that represent? Suppose I decide to drive 600 miles round trip to play around in Fort Walton Beach, FL? How much risk does that represent? I'd be willing to bet that I put other people more at risk by driving 600 miles round trip to Fort Walton Beach and back to have fun than I do by raising my BAC to 0.11 to have fun and driving four blocks round trip to the supermarket.

Why should people be allowed to drive long distances at great speeds just to have fun but not be allowed to drink just to have fun then drive short distances?

To me, the "drinking and driving" hysteria is way over the top right now. You shouldn't have to worry about going to a wedding, having a few glasses of champagne while you're there, and having your life ruined because some Deputy Dawg cop gets his jollies busting you for having a 0.09 BAC when the odds are overwhelming that you weren't going to hurt anybody by doing so.

[jstate83]

Stallworth's 911 call the night of the accident.

A guy just ran in front of my car. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9689030/Stallworth-911-call:-He-'just-ran-in-front-of-my-car')

[89Hen]

let's say I'm sitting around playing on the internet and drink the drink I like. It's a 16 ounce beer at 5.9% alcohol with 2 oz. grain alcohol poured in over ice. That puts my BAC at about 0.11. Let's say I drive two blocks to the supermarket to get something for supper.
What are your chances of getting pulled over on a two block trip when your BAC is that low? Are you opposed to DUI/DWI laws in entirety, or are you just for higher limits? Surely you would agree there's a point where you become a public hazard.