PDA

View Full Version : Pro Football Player--kills guy, 30 days in jail



SaintLouieWoman
06-16-2009, 05:23 PM
This really bothers me. Donte Stallworth at least admitted he hit the guy, but he was driving drunk. I wonder if he would get 30 days for killing someone driving drunk if he weren't a pro football player for the Cleveland Browns. And how convenient, he'll be able to continue playing football. :mad::rolleyes:

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CD98RRTL02%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS



Browns' Stallworth pleads guilty and gets 30 days

By CURT ANDERSON AP Legal Affairs Writer The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
http://web.charter.net/api/hangar.php/c21hcnRjcm9wOjMwMDoyMDAsc21hcnRyZXNpemU6MzAwOjIwMD ox/http://newsimages.charter.net/ap_photos//6dec2553-1a29-4cd1-b888-339c86cacec1.jpeg (http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15623728&ps=1013&cat=&cps=0&show=big&lang=en)Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth, left, arrives at the Miami-Dade... (AP Photo/Alan Diaz)





MIAMI (AP) — Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth took full responsibility for killing a pedestrian while driving drunk in Florida and began serving a 30-day jail sentence Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter.
Stallworth also reached a confidential financial settlement to avoid a potential lawsuit from the family of 59-year-old Mario Reyes, according to Stallworth attorney Christopher Lyons. Reyes was struck and killed March 14 by Stallworth, who was driving his black 2005 Bentley after a night drinking at a swanky hotel bar.
Stallworth, 28, told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Dennis Murphy that he hopes to get involved in drunken driving education programs.

"I accept full responsibility for this horrible tragedy," said Stallworth, who was accompanied at the hearing by his parents, siblings and other supporters. "I will bear this burden for the rest of my life."

Stallworth faced 15 years in prison. After his release from jail, Stallworth must serve two years of house arrest and spend eight years on probation.
The NFL has said it will review the matter for possible disciplinary action. Lyons said the plea agreement will allow Stallworth to resume his football career.

Stallworth also must undergo drug and alcohol testing, will have a lifetime driver's license suspension and must perform 1,000 hours of community service. Lyons said after five years, Stallworth could win approval for limited driving such as for employment.

Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth's lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal. Rundle also said the Reyes family — particularly the victim's 15-year-old daughter — wanted the case resolved to avoid any more pain.

snip.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 05:52 PM
This really bothers me. Donte Stallworth at least admitted he hit the guy, but he was driving drunk. I wonder if he would get 30 days for killing someone driving drunk if he weren't a pro football player for the Cleveland Browns. And how convenient, he'll be able to continue playing football. :mad::rolleyes:

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1013&rip_id=%3CD98RRTL02%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

This is unheard of in Florida. I got 30 days in jail and lost my license for 10 years and I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident. I was just speeding They just sentenced a lady here in town to something like 5 years after an accident that killed her daughter who was a passenger in the car. You know, I really don't mind the strict DUI laws considering I've been on the wrong side of them a few times, but when they aren't applied fairly across the board, well that is immoral.

AlmostThere
06-16-2009, 05:54 PM
He didn't flee the scene either. He supposedly called 911 and waited for the cops. I hate people who drive drunk but at least he didn't run. I wonder how many million Mr. Reyes' family got? My guess is double digit.

lacarnut
06-16-2009, 06:47 PM
In Louisiana his fine would have been a min. of $2k and a min. of 2 years up to 30 years in prison.

I think the law must have been changed years ago because I thought it was a min. of 5 years in prison.

Bubba Dawg
06-16-2009, 08:12 PM
Okay, Stallworth drives drunk and kills someone and gets 30 days in jail. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges of dog fighting and got put away for two years.

I'm not saying Vick shouldn't have been punished, but 30 days for a DUI killing? Jeez. Where's the proportionality?

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 08:19 PM
Our"justice" system is geared toward fines and making revinue for the states it is basically tax collection at gunpoint. when you put someone in jail it costs you money. Unless there is a huge public out cry they don't put you in jail for long anymore.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 08:40 PM
Our"justice" system is geared toward fines and making revinue for the states it is basically tax collection at gunpoint. when you put someone in jail it costs you money. Unless there is a huge public out cry they don't put you in jail for long anymore.

Would you like to guess how much my DUI cost me?

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 08:41 PM
Probably ten grand. My last one was in 1985 and cost me 2000.00

Jumpy
06-16-2009, 08:44 PM
Okay, Stallworth drives drunk and kills someone and gets 30 days in jail. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges of dog fighting and got put away for two years.

I'm not saying Vick shouldn't have been punished, but 30 days for a DUI killing? Jeez. Where's the proportionality?

The Vick incident was the first thing I thought of too.

FlaGator
06-16-2009, 08:45 PM
Probably ten grand. My last one was in 1985 and cost me 2000.00

My lawyer cost more than that. It's up to $25,000 and still counting. It happened over 3 years ago and by the time its over I suspect it will be $30,000+

Rockntractor
06-16-2009, 08:47 PM
My lawyer cost more than that. It's up to $25,000 and still counting. It happened over 3 years ago and by the time its over I suspect it will be $30,000+

You should of quit drinking back in 92 when I did.

Shannon
06-16-2009, 08:48 PM
My lawyer cost more than that. It's up to $25,000 and still counting. It happened over 3 years ago and by the time its over I suspect it will be $30,000+

That was the third one though, right?

SaintLouieWoman
06-16-2009, 10:54 PM
Okay, Stallworth drives drunk and kills someone and gets 30 days in jail. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges of dog fighting and got put away for two years.

I'm not saying Vick shouldn't have been punished, but 30 days for a DUI killing? Jeez. Where's the proportionality?

None of this makes any sense. 30 days is ridiculous. I guess if you're a celebrity, you just don't have to serve the time.

thinker
06-16-2009, 10:58 PM
This is nothing new...same sort of thing with "Pacman" Jones. It's one of the reasons I can't stand most pro sports, especially pro football and basketball...a good half the playerbase are nothing but thugs.

AlmostThere
06-16-2009, 11:18 PM
My lawyer cost more than that. It's up to $25,000 and still counting. It happened over 3 years ago and by the time its over I suspect it will be $30,000+

What is the big legal deal about a DUI? You get caught, you pay a fine, maybe some jail. What would a lawyer have to do to earn himself 30K? :confused:

thinker
06-16-2009, 11:45 PM
Judges and minimum sentences on DUIs are rather inclined towards pwning the sh*t out of the defendants. I've seen pro se defendants get the maximum for speeding while drunk, much less having a wreck, hitting someone, or god forbid killing anyone.

lacarnut
06-17-2009, 12:30 AM
Okay, Stallworth drives drunk and kills someone and gets 30 days in jail. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges of dog fighting and got put away for two years.

I'm not saying Vick shouldn't have been punished, but 30 days for a DUI killing? Jeez. Where's the proportionality?

Someone without money and a good lawyer would have gotten serious jail time.

thinker
06-17-2009, 12:37 AM
Someone without money and a good lawyer would have gotten serious jail time.

And a name. You forgot that part.

hazlnut
06-18-2009, 04:10 PM
None of this makes any sense. 30 days is ridiculous. I guess if you're a celebrity, you just don't have to serve the time.

It does not make sense at all --very unfair. However, when I read this:


Tallworth also must undergo drug and alcohol testing, will have a lifetime driver's license suspension and must perform 1,000 hours of community service.

I think I know what the court is doing.

If he is sincerely remorseful, he can be used as a powerful tool as far as speaking to young people about alcohol and drunk driving. This happens from time to time in CA with celebrities. But the usual sentence is 6mos. to 1 year.

Also, the fact that the guy didn't flee the scene -- that says something to a judge.

Rebel Yell
06-18-2009, 04:25 PM
Okay, Stallworth drives drunk and kills someone and gets 30 days in jail. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges of dog fighting and got put away for two years.

I'm not saying Vick shouldn't have been punished, but 30 days for a DUI killing? Jeez. Where's the proportionality?

I've been hearing the "it's just dogs" shit til I'm sick of it. Not from you Bubba, but I saw Jumpy thought of it too. You live in Ga too so you know how much I have to hear about how wrong Vick was done.


MICHAEL VICK WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR DOG FIGHTING. HE SERVED TIME FOR VIOLATING THE RICO ACT. JESUS JUMPED UP MARY, PEOPLE. ENOUGH WITH THE VICK SHIT.:mad:


Nothing personal Bubba, Jumpy.:D

On edit: Vick also failed a piss test while out on bail.

Phillygirl
06-18-2009, 05:53 PM
This is unheard of in Florida. I got 30 days in jail and lost my license for 10 years and I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident. I was just speeding They just sentenced a lady here in town to something like 5 years after an accident that killed her daughter who was a passenger in the car. You know, I really don't mind the strict DUI laws considering I've been on the wrong side of them a few times, but when they aren't applied fairly across the board, well that is immoral.

Applying them fairly across the board, in your example, would require federal sentencing guidelines. Are you ready to go there?

NJCardFan
06-19-2009, 12:32 AM
As you may or may not know, I am a corrections officer and believe you me there are some inmates who are baffled by this because they're doing 5 years for a bag of weed. Hell, Paris Hilton got 45 days on a probation violators. But not that this makes it any better, he's been suspended indefinitely from the NFL.

PoliCon
06-19-2009, 02:08 AM
I'm sorry but if you drive drunk and kill someone - that's murder. EVERYONE knows that driving drunk is stupid and that you can kill someone - and to get behind the wheel knowing that takes premeditation.

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 06:46 AM
What is the big legal deal about a DUI? You get caught, you pay a fine, maybe some jail. What would a lawyer have to do to earn himself 30K? :confused:

He only earned 12,000, the rest when to the city, state and various agencies that get involved. The lawyer got me minimums. The max sentence in my case was 5 years in prison and a fine that could run as high $20,000. Because I had means I had to pay for each day I was in jail, I had to pay for each month I was on probation, I had to pay for mandatory substance abuse classes, I had to pay for DUI school, I had to pay to have my car impounded for 90 days, I have to pay a lot extra for my hardship license. I have pay for the program I am in to keep my hardship license, I have to pay to install an interlock device (breathalyzer) in my car, I have to pay a monthly fee to have the interlock device maintained and serviced. This are just the big expenses.

Do get me wrong, I deserve every bit of this and more for my behavior and poor decision making. My issue is with someone driving drunk and killing some one and getting a slap on the wrist. 30 days is nothing. If I can do 30 days then anyone can do 30 days. My issue here is with the law being applied fairly. No one to my knowledge has ever killed someone in a DUI/Manslaughter case in Florida and not gone to prison for at least a couple of years. Several attorneys were interviewed none had ever heard minor of a sentence being accepted by a judge in a plea deal.

Again, I am not whining about my sentence, I believe that I my crime and the sentence I received was perfectly fair considering my crime. I didn't cause any damage to any thing and no one was hurt. I was pulled over for speeding and I got what I deserved. I am all about forgiveness but I am also concerned with fairness and justice and celebs can have the money to purchase adjudication that sets justice aside for them. Where does that leave everyone who doesn't have the money to pay off the family?

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 06:50 AM
Applying them fairly across the board, in your example, would require federal sentencing guidelines. Are you ready to go there?

I am not sure why the feds would want jurisdiction in a case like this? Why wouldn't it be considered fair if the state handled this and sentenced based on what the average sentence is for a DUI manslaughter offense? Under what grounds would the feds become involved?

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 06:54 AM
It does not make sense at all --very unfair. However, when I read this:



I think I know what the court is doing.

If he is sincerely remorseful, he can be used as a powerful tool as far as speaking to young people about alcohol and drunk driving. This happens from time to time in CA with celebrities. But the usual sentence is 6mos. to 1 year.

Also, the fact that the guy didn't flee the scene -- that says something to a judge.

So you are saying that he should be rewarded for obeying the law? I would say that his reward for obeying the law was not being charged with breaking it. His reward was not getting a felony hit and run charge or a felony eluding charge.

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 06:57 AM
I'm sorry but if you drive drunk and kill someone - that's murder. EVERYONE knows that driving drunk is stupid and that you can kill someone - and to get behind the wheel knowing that takes premeditation.

I would argue that last point out based on diminished capacity but I am to tired to make the effort.:)

Rebel Yell
06-19-2009, 08:50 AM
I'm sorry but if you drive drunk and kill someone - that's murder. EVERYONE knows that driving drunk is stupid and that you can kill someone - and to get behind the wheel knowing that takes premeditation.

That's why I stay on dirt roads if I decide to ride around and drink. Can't drive more than 20-25 mph and can't hurt anyone but myself, and whoever is in the truck with me.:D

Shannon
06-19-2009, 08:59 AM
That's why I stay on dirt roads if I decide to ride around and drink. Can't drive more than 20-25 mph and can't hurt anyone but myself, and whoever is in the truck with me.:D

You're going straight to hell.:p

Rebel Yell
06-19-2009, 09:00 AM
You're going straight to hell.:p

Just take it easy on me when I get there.:D

lacarnut
06-19-2009, 09:08 AM
I'm sorry but if you drive drunk and kill someone - that's murder. EVERYONE knows that driving drunk is stupid and that you can kill someone - and to get behind the wheel knowing that takes premeditation.

It is dumb to drink and drive. I doubt that anyone that does has any desire to hurt himself or anyone else. At least that was my experience. The only time I did not give a shit whether I wiped myself out was when I broke up with my g.f. and did not get a promotion that I thought I had a lock on getting. Cold sober, I drove from Baton Rouge to Pensacola Beach FL which is 250 miles. in 2 1/2 hours and that included checking in, putting my bags up and hitting the hotel tavern.

Phillygirl
06-19-2009, 09:21 AM
I am not sure why the feds would want jurisdiction in a case like this? Why wouldn't it be considered fair if the state handled this and sentenced based on what the average sentence is for a DUI manslaughter offense? Under what grounds would the feds become involved?

My mistake. I just realized that the story posted was from Florida as well. I thought we were talking about different states, that's why my reference to federal guidelines.

I have a difficult time with sentencing guidelines because I think you put judges in there for a reason, otherwise we could just have defendants go to a computer court, put in the "facts" and then it will spit out the punishment. But I do recognize the problem with inconsistency of sentences.

When I first interviewed with the D.A.'s office, at the end of the interview they asked if I wouldn't be more comfortable with the P.D.'s office, as there wasn't one hypothetical with mandatory sentencing that I agreed with.

Someone above mentioned a 5 year jail term for a woman whose daughter was killed because of her drunk driving. I don't agree with those types of sentences. If the death of her daughter isn't punishment enough, or rehab enough to make her change her ways, jail sure isn't going to be.

I understand the need to really crack down on the wanton drunk driving that has gone on. However, it's become a political issue more than anything else. Pennsylvania has become almost draconian in their laws regarding DUI. I don't agree with them. Everyone can make a mistake...once. I do agree with harsh punishment when the defendant is shown to be a repeat offender. But having one too many one time is not necessarily indicative of a problem. I know, I know...I sound like a liberal.

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 10:13 AM
My mistake. I just realized that the story posted was from Florida as well. I thought we were talking about different states, that's why my reference to federal guidelines.

I have a difficult time with sentencing guidelines because I think you put judges in there for a reason, otherwise we could just have defendants go to a computer court, put in the "facts" and then it will spit out the punishment. But I do recognize the problem with inconsistency of sentences.

When I first interviewed with the D.A.'s office, at the end of the interview they asked if I wouldn't be more comfortable with the P.D.'s office, as there wasn't one hypothetical with mandatory sentencing that I agreed with.

Someone above mentioned a 5 year jail term for a woman whose daughter was killed because of her drunk driving. I don't agree with those types of sentences. If the death of her daughter isn't punishment enough, or rehab enough to make her change her ways, jail sure isn't going to be.

I understand the need to really crack down on the wanton drunk driving that has gone on. However, it's become a political issue more than anything else. Pennsylvania has become almost draconian in their laws regarding DUI. I don't agree with them. Everyone can make a mistake...once. I do agree with harsh punishment when the defendant is shown to be a repeat offender. But having one too many one time is not necessarily indicative of a problem. I know, I know...I sound like a liberal.

I don't agree with minimum sentences. The judge in my case would have sentenced me to time served but the minimum was 30 days. The rules seem to remove from judges their ability to make character decisions and judgements on the circumstances surrounding the crime. It also removes from the judge the ability to show compassion where it may be warranted. I don't think you sound like a liberal. I think you sound like a human being concerned about the fairness of a sentence.

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 10:20 AM
It is dumb to drink and drive. I doubt that anyone that does has any desire to hurt himself or anyone else. At least that was my experience. The only time I did not give a shit whether I wiped myself out was when I broke up with my g.f. and did not get a promotion that I thought I had a lock on getting. Cold sober, I drove from Baton Rouge to Pensacola Beach FL which is 250 miles. in 2 1/2 hours and that included checking in, putting my bags up and hitting the hotel tavern.

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if we are to view DUI manslaughter as vehicular homicide or murder then simple DUI arrests should be attempted murder. Premeditated murder requires a premeditated intent and possibly a premeditated target. If these prerequisites are to be waived to make a DUI manslaughter a crime of premeditated murder all sorts of doors are opened up that would better be left closed.

PoliCon
06-19-2009, 05:21 PM
It is dumb to drink and drive. I doubt that anyone that does has any desire to hurt himself or anyone else. At least that was my experience. The only time I did not give a shit whether I wiped myself out was when I broke up with my g.f. and did not get a promotion that I thought I had a lock on getting. Cold sober, I drove from Baton Rouge to Pensacola Beach FL which is 250 miles. in 2 1/2 hours and that included checking in, putting my bags up and hitting the hotel tavern.


To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if we are to view DUI manslaughter as vehicular homicide or murder then simple DUI arrests should be attempted murder. Premeditated murder requires a premeditated intent and possibly a premeditated target. If these prerequisites are to be waived to make a DUI manslaughter a crime of premeditated murder all sorts of doors are opened up that would better be left closed.



We as a society are far too tolerant of drunk driving. That being said - can anyone out there actually claim going in that they are unaware of the harm they can cause as a drunk - let alone as a drunken driver? No. They need to face murder charges if they kill someone as a result of these premeditated STUPID choices.

PoliCon
06-19-2009, 05:24 PM
I don't agree with minimum sentences. The judge in my case would have sentenced me to time served but the minimum was 30 days. The rules seem to remove from judges their ability to make character decisions and judgements on the circumstances surrounding the crime. It also removes from the judge the ability to show compassion where it may be warranted. I don't think you sound like a liberal. I think you sound like a human being concerned about the fairness of a sentence.

We are far to permissive and tolerant of drunken driving. Make it HURT and people will be far less likely to do it in the first place - or repeat offend. AND I say give someone 1 mistake. Second time - you don't drive again EVER.

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 05:41 PM
We are far to permissive and tolerant of drunken driving. Make it HURT and people will be far less likely to do it in the first place - or repeat offend. AND I say give someone 1 mistake. Second time - you don't drive again EVER.

You know what they say about opinions...

PoliCon
06-19-2009, 05:47 PM
You know what they say about opinions... Give me one good reason to excuse people over and over again for it. I'm okay with a second chance - but 3rd, 4th, and 10th chances is too much. I lost a car load of my loved ones to some dumbass redneck drunkard who had 10 priors for drunk driving. 5 people dead because he was still on the road. SCREW THAT. :mad:

FlaGator
06-19-2009, 07:49 PM
Give me one good reason to excuse people over and over again for it. I'm okay with a second chance - but 3rd, 4th, and 10th chances is too much. I lost a car load of my loved ones to some dumbass redneck drunkard who had 10 priors for drunk driving. 5 people dead because he was still on the road. SCREW THAT. :mad:

God used my drinking as a call to faith. If it hadn't have been for my 3rd DUI I would not have come to realize that I need him. The state took my license for 10 years and I will not argue that I didn't deserve it or worse but the Lord had other plans and he had my driving privilege returned to me last week. I'm sorry to hear about your loved ones, perhaps God used their passing to change the life of others. Nothing happens that God does not use for good, even something tragic and even when we are never aware of the good that comes from it.

With that being said, I am grateful to God that He had mercy on me and that He led the court to show mercy to me. It is because of the mercy shown to me when I did not in any way deserve it that has led me to understand that I am required to show the same love, mercy and forgiveness to others that has been so strongly demonstrated in my life. To forgive someone is to pardon them of their debt and that is what the Lord has done for me directly by both His forgiveness of my drunken behavior and by the faith and salvation that He has lovingly bestowed upon me. I take very seriously the passage that one must forgive if he is to be forgiven so I seek to forgive those who have wronged my like I was forgiven for my wrong.

Nurture and nourish your anger if that is where you find the strength to deal with your loss. I am no more able to judge you than you are to judge me but I can in all honestly say that I grieve with you at the loss of people that you keep in your heart. You can believe that or not. It is entirely your choice. You can go to sleep tonight thinking I should have lost my license for ever and I can not say that you are wrong on how you feel because I do deserve what you suggest and worse. Still I am grateful for mercy and I pray that I can always keep the desire for mercy foremost in my heart.

G

PoliCon
06-19-2009, 11:47 PM
God used my drinking as a call to faith. If it hadn't have been for my 3rd DUI I would not have come to realize that I need him. The state took my license for 10 years and I will not argue that I didn't deserve it or worse but the Lord had other plans and he had my driving privilege returned to me last week. I'm sorry to hear about your loved ones, perhaps God used their passing to change the life of others. Nothing happens that God does not use for good, even something tragic and even when we are never aware of the good that comes from it.

With that being said, I am grateful to God that He had mercy on me and that He led the court to show mercy to me. It is because of the mercy shown to me when I did not in any way deserve it that has led me to understand that I am required to show the same love, mercy and forgiveness to others that has been so strongly demonstrated in my life. To forgive someone is to pardon them of their debt and that is what the Lord has done for me directly by both His forgiveness of my drunken behavior and by the faith and salvation that He has lovingly bestowed upon me. I take very seriously the passage that one must forgive if he is to be forgiven so I seek to forgive those who have wronged my like I was forgiven for my wrong.

Nurture and nourish your anger if that is where you find the strength to deal with your loss. I am no more able to judge you than you are to judge me but I can in all honestly say that I grieve with you at the loss of people that you keep in your heart. You can believe that or not. It is entirely your choice. You can go to sleep tonight thinking I should have lost my license for ever and I can not say that you are wrong on how you feel because I do deserve what you suggest and worse. Still I am grateful for mercy and I pray that I can always keep the desire for mercy foremost in my heart.

G
See the thing is Gator - just because God is merciful - and rightfully so - does not mean that society should excuse bad behavior and bad choices. I'm all about God's mercy and forgiveness. But the courts have a responsibility to justice. Killing someone through drunken driving is murder. Full stop. No excuses. It's not anger on my part that makes me say that - and I resent the implication - it's a sense of justice.

Shannon
06-19-2009, 11:58 PM
See the thing is Gator - just because God is merciful - and rightfully so - does not mean that society should excuse bad behavior and bad choices. I'm all about God's mercy and forgiveness. But the courts have a responsibility to justice. Killing someone through drunken driving is murder. Full stop. No excuses. It's not anger on my part that makes me say that - and I resent the implication - it's a sense of justice.

It's not murder. It's manslaughter. They didn't intend to kill anybody. I don't think that anyone thinks that should be excused but it is certainly different than pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

PoliCon
06-20-2009, 12:08 AM
It's not murder. It's manslaughter. They didn't intend to kill anybody. I don't think that anyone thinks that should be excused but it is certainly different than pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

Every time you sit down behind the wheel of a car drunk - you are more or less aiming a gun at someone. A very LARGE and very heavy gun.

FlaGator
06-20-2009, 11:31 AM
See the thing is Gator - just because God is merciful - and rightfully so - does not mean that society should excuse bad behavior and bad choices. I'm all about God's mercy and forgiveness. But the courts have a responsibility to justice. Killing someone through drunken driving is murder. Full stop. No excuses. It's not anger on my part that makes me say that - and I resent the implication - it's a sense of justice.

God wants all people to show mercy, Christians and Government? Besides I am not talking about excusing bad behavior I am talking about making the punishment fit the crime. Some people probably should have their license permanently revoked after 2 DUI, others should be given more chances depending on the nature of the violations. A one size fits all penal system does not work. Judges should be allowed to judge the appropriateness of a sentences. To say that all DUI man slaughter cases should be turned in to murder one cases is in no way consistent with the law of man or God. Very few people have gotten behind the wheel drunk and said I'm going to kill somebody. Most, like me, felt they are capable of driving even though they are not. They suffer from diminished capacity in reasoning due to the alcohol. When they started drinking that day the had the ability to discern their driving skills but after a couple of drinks that ability was lost. Not only was it lost, in many cases it is replaced by a chemically induced sense of confidence.

I did not say that to excuse behavior, I said that in order to give you a basis ofunderstanding of what it is like to be a habitual drunk. I offer no excuses for my misbehavior or did I ever whine about my punishment. In my case the punishment matched the crime and the good that came out of my bad behavior far exceeded my previous bad behavior.

Here is what I am suggesting my friend, instead of blanket punishments leave things up to the judge to decide. Personally I believe that the judge made an unjust decision in the case of Donte Stallworth because you can look at the punishments handed out for similar offensives and realize that Stallworth got off with a slap on the wrist and will probably learn nothing from the sentence. That being said, to imprison him for the rest of his life for first degree murder because of an accident swings the pendulum in the opposite direction. Justice should be found somewhere in the middle. All in all, in the case justice was not served but we, regardless of how a crime personally affects us, should see our main interest as desiring true justice being handed down. Justice and possible mercy in the same vein as God would hand down.

FlaGator
06-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Every time you sit down behind the wheel of a car drunk - you are more or less aiming a gun at someone. A very LARGE and very heavy gun.

Working with that same analogy, its like pointing a large gun at someone and not knowing that the gun is loaded.

PoliCon
06-20-2009, 12:03 PM
God wants all people to show mercy, Christians and Government? Yes - PEOPLE. The government exists to ensure justice.



Besides I am not talking about excusing bad behavior I am talking about making the punishment fit the crime. Some people probably should have their license permanently revoked after 2 DUI, others should be given more chances depending on the nature of the violations. I agree - the punishment SHOULD fit the crime. And if someone is so stupid that they repeatedly drink and drive - then they should not be allowed to drive. Lets consider something here - how many times does the average drunk driver drive drunk without getting caught? One drunk driving offense does not mean that they only ever drove under the influence just once.



[QUOTE]

A one size fits all penal system does not work. Judges should be allowed to judge the appropriateness of a sentences. To say that all DUI man slaughter cases should be turned in to murder one cases is in no way consistent with the law of man or God. When did I say they should all be found guilty of murder? I think if you go back you will see that I said they should face murder charges. I personally believe that those who drive drunk and kill are plain and simple murderers - but I specifically said that they should face murder charges not be automatically convicted of murder.



Very few people have gotten behind the wheel drunk and said I'm going to kill somebody. That's the point. They NEED to start thinking that way.



Most, like me, felt they are capable of driving even though they are not. They suffer from diminished capacity in reasoning due to the alcohol. When they started drinking that day the had the ability to discern their driving skills but after a couple of drinks that ability was lost. Not only was it lost, in many cases it is replaced by a chemically induced sense of confidence. And yet there are tons of people who know - because they obviously lack the degree of arrogance you speak of - not to drive even when full on drunk.


Justice should be found somewhere in the middle. All in all, in the case justice was not served but we, regardless of how a crime personally affects us, should see our main interest as desiring true justice being handed down. Justice and possible mercy in the same vein as God would hand down.
Justice is spelled out in spades in the OT.

PoliCon
06-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Working with that same analogy, its like pointing a large gun at someone and not knowing that the gun is loaded.

And aren't we always supposed to assume that the gun is loaded with regards to safe gun handling techniques?

FlaGator
06-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Justice is spelled out in spades in the OT.

Exactly, he did, but he also allowed room for sentencing to fit the crime and for the situation to dictate the punishment. For example:

To eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was death yet God gave Adam and Eve exile. He showed them mercy.

Cain killed Abel and should have received death, yet God was merciful and exiled him instead.

David was an adulterer and murderer but God punished him by taking the throne away from him and then restoring it to him when God determined that David now needed mercy. The punishment for either crime was death.

God also said through Jonah that anyone who hears and obeys the Word of the Lord and repents then the wrath and judgment of God will be turned away.

There are countless examples in the old testament of the punishment being altered to fit the crime and God showing mercy instead of executing the letter of the law.

FlaGator
06-20-2009, 12:21 PM
And aren't we always supposed to assume that the gun is loaded with regards to safe gun handling techniques?

Yes and that is my point. How many times does this happen a year and to my knowledge no one has ever been charged with premeditated murder. Manslaughter or negligent homicide are what is usually charged and that is usually plead down.

PoliCon
06-20-2009, 11:35 PM
Yes and that is my point. How many times does this happen a year and to my knowledge no one has ever been charged with premeditated murder. Manslaughter or negligent homicide are what is usually charged and that is usually plead down.
It happens far less often than jackasses getting behind the wheel of a car drunk. One is a stupid accident - the other is repetitive stupidity. Be honest - how many times did your drive drunk? And you got caught what? 2? 3 times? For every time you got caught - I'll wager there were 20 or 50 times you dove drunk without getting caught.

PoliCon
06-20-2009, 11:36 PM
Exactly, he did, but he also allowed room for sentencing to fit the crime and for the situation to dictate the punishment. For example:

To eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was death yet God gave Adam and Eve exile. He showed them mercy.

Cain killed Abel and should have received death, yet God was merciful and exiled him instead.

David was an adulterer and murderer but God punished him by taking the throne away from him and then restoring it to him when God determined that David now needed mercy. The punishment for either crime was death.

God also said through Jonah that anyone who hears and obeys the Word of the Lord and repents then the wrath and judgment of God will be turned away.

There are countless examples in the old testament of the punishment being altered to fit the crime and God showing mercy instead of executing the letter of the law.

HE showed mercy. HIM. Not the nation if Israel. He always had the state hand out justice not mercy.

FlaGator
06-21-2009, 07:25 AM
HE showed mercy. HIM. Not the nation if Israel. He always had the state hand out justice not mercy.

So your saying that God uses the state to be the bad guy. Kind of a spiritual good cop bad cop thing... interesting.

Then you should be pleased with the way the state handles DUI cases. God created the state to be an instrument of His justice; the state is acting with His authority in how it punishes DUI. Christ all said that we are to forgive those who sin against us so to be true to Christ and his teaching you should seek for mercy for those who have sinned against you regardless as to whether the state deals out justice or mercy. Being the image bearers we should seek to be like Jesus and desire mercy.

On Edit: There are examples in the Old Testament where the state showed mercy instead of the prescribed punishment.

FlaGator
06-21-2009, 07:53 AM
It happens far less often than jackasses getting behind the wheel of a car drunk. One is a stupid accident - the other is repetitive stupidity. Be honest - how many times did your drive drunk? And you got caught what? 2? 3 times? For every time you got caught - I'll wager there were 20 or 50 times you dove drunk without getting caught.

After the first time I rarely drove drunk. I usually had a designated driver and I was only pulled over once because I appeared to be driving drunk. It takes a relatively small amount of alcohol to blow a positive test. In the 23 years between the 1st DUI and the last I might have drove after drinking 50 times total. I usually drank at home or I drove with someone else.

I understand what you are getting at. I know people who drive drunk everyday and have never been caught. I was caught because the Lord was using my weakness to open the door to faith for me. My only point here is that handling each case on an individual basis provides for possibility for real justice vs. a blanket condemnation which eliminates the role of judges. If what you are suggesting was to become the norm for all punishment then we can eliminate the need for trial judges.

I personally will take the side that provides justice, what you are advocating seems to be more along the lines of revenge. You were hurt and you wish to hurt someone back. I can understand that and sympathize with it. I understand you dislike for me and those like me, but God has used my alcoholism to help others. He leads me council others on the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, to do 12-step interventions for people who seek help and to talk to young people about the negative path that I took. Now I ask you which serves justice more, my losing my license forever and possibly going to jail for a long time or using my license to help others and possibly prevent a tragic accident like the one your loved ones experienced. If somehow the Lord has used me to convince one person not to drive drunk and that stopped them from killing 5 people would you say that the books are balanced and justice is served?

Bubba Dawg
06-21-2009, 11:38 AM
I've been hearing the "it's just dogs" shit til I'm sick of it. Not from you Bubba, but I saw Jumpy thought of it too. You live in Ga too so you know how much I have to hear about how wrong Vick was done.


MICHAEL VICK WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR DOG FIGHTING. HE SERVED TIME FOR VIOLATING THE RICO ACT. JESUS JUMPED UP MARY, PEOPLE. ENOUGH WITH THE VICK SHIT.:mad:


Nothing personal Bubba, Jumpy.:D

On edit: Vick also failed a piss test while out on bail.

It's a natural comparison so I'll go with it: Two NFL players with two very different crimes and two very different sentences that seem to be perversely dissimilar. What sunk Vick was that he wasted time and didn't settle with state authorities and allowed the Feds to come in with the RICO statutes. The Federal sentencing guidelines are not so flexible as might have been the case with the state and local authorities involved. And Yeah, it was RICO but it was RICO related to dog fighting charges.

Al Capone went to prison for Federal Income Tax Evasion. It is still obvious that he was a gangster.

PoliCon
06-21-2009, 07:38 PM
So your saying that God uses the state to be the bad guy. Kind of a spiritual good cop bad cop thing... interesting. Bull. That is not what I am saying and you know it. God clearly states that the state is to be a vehicle for JUSTICE. FULL STOP without partiality. Mercy is found in GOD not in the state.


Then you should be pleased with the way the state handles DUI cases. God created the state to be an instrument of His justice; the state is acting with His authority in how it punishes DUI. The state is giving out justice? It measurse out price for price - an eye for an eye? If not - then the state is not handling these cases in justice.



Christ all said that we are to forgive those who sin against us so to be true to Christ and his teaching you should seek for mercy for those who have sinned against you regardless as to whether the state deals out justice or mercy..So let me get this straight - I come over to your house and smash a window - as for forgiveness and I'm off scot free? Lets assume that you say yes - now I break another window. I ask for forgiveness again. We'll assume you forgive again - now I smash your TV . . . . When is it that we switch to pure forgiveness and to restitution and justice? I am more than willing to forgive - that does not mean that in forgiveness I excuse the person forgiven from restitution or from justice.



Being the image bearers we should seek to be like Jesus and desire mercy. Like Christ - I would that all men be saved. But lets not forget that this same Christ who wants all men to be saved also turned over the tables of the money changers and DROVE them out of the temple with a whip.


On Edit: There are examples in the Old Testament where the state showed mercy instead of the prescribed punishment.okay - list one.

PoliCon
06-21-2009, 07:42 PM
After the first time I rarely drove drunk. I usually had a designated driver and I was only pulled over once because I appeared to be driving drunk. It takes a relatively small amount of alcohol to blow a positive test. In the 23 years between the 1st DUI and the last I might have drove after drinking 50 times total. I usually drank at home or I drove with someone else.

I understand what you are getting at. I know people who drive drunk everyday and have never been caught. I was caught because the Lord was using my weakness to open the door to faith for me. My only point here is that handling each case on an individual basis provides for possibility for real justice vs. a blanket condemnation which eliminates the role of judges. If what you are suggesting was to become the norm for all punishment then we can eliminate the need for trial judges.

I personally will take the side that provides justice, what you are advocating seems to be more along the lines of revenge. You were hurt and you wish to hurt someone back. I can understand that and sympathize with it. I understand you dislike for me and those like me, but God has used my alcoholism to help others. He leads me council others on the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, to do 12-step interventions for people who seek help and to talk to young people about the negative path that I took. Now I ask you which serves justice more, my losing my license forever and possibly going to jail for a long time or using my license to help others and possibly prevent a tragic accident like the one your loved ones experienced. If somehow the Lord has used me to convince one person not to drive drunk and that stopped them from killing 5 people would you say that the books are balanced and justice is served? Define justice please and since scripture is in the mix - use a biblical definition for justice.

FlaGator
06-21-2009, 09:47 PM
Define justice please and since scripture is in the mix - use a biblical definition for justice.

The Hebrew and Greek words used in the Old and New Testaments for Justice are the words used for righteousness (צדקה, cedhāḳāh; צדק, cedheḳ; διακιοσύνη, dikaiosúnē). I don't think that this is what you are looking for so how about we use a biblical example of justice and lets see if we agree on that. How about some examples of injustice. From Exodus 23:1 - 3


"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.


Can we agree that Biblical justice is fairly applying the law given to Moses by God to individuals regardless of their class or status. That an authorized judge then reviews the evidence and holds the accused accountable for his actions should it be determined by that judge that the evidence shows that the accused is guilty of his or her crime. And that the punishment is within the scope of punishments for that crime as defined in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?

If we can agree on that then here is the situation. Two people get in to a fight and in the course of the fight one of the men dies and the other does not flee to a city of refuge. Using the above definition, what does Biblical Justice say the state most do?

FlaGator
06-21-2009, 10:11 PM
Bull. That is not what I am saying and you know it. God clearly states that the state is to be a vehicle for JUSTICE. FULL STOP without partiality. Mercy is found in GOD not in the state.
The state is giving out justice? It measurse out price for price - an eye for an eye? If not - then the state is not handling these cases in justice.
So let me get this straight - I come over to your house and smash a window - as for forgiveness and I'm off scot free? Lets assume that you say yes - now I break another window. I ask for forgiveness again. We'll assume you forgive again - now I smash your TV . . . . When is it that we switch to pure forgiveness and to restitution and justice? I am more than willing to forgive - that does not mean that in forgiveness I excuse the person forgiven from restitution or from justice.
Like Christ - I would that all men be saved. But lets not forget that this same Christ who wants all men to be saved also turned over the tables of the money changers and DROVE them out of the temple with a whip.
okay - list one.

If you break my window,I will also tell you that what you did was wrong and that you are behaving badly. I also tell you that I forgive you. I tell the cops that I'm not interested in pressing charges. I fix the window myself and I go about my business. You break it a second time, I forgive you, I tell the cops that I am pressing charges and I get the window fixed again. What the state decides to do with you at that point is up to them. If they release you then fine if they jail you then that is fine too. I have forgiven you your debt to me and left your faith in the hands of God.

You are correct, mercy is found in the hands of God but he wishes for us to be merciful as well. You know your scripture so you know this to be true. Christ being God knows what is in the hearts of the men He drove from the temple. You and I and the state to have that luxury so we operate from a less the perfect version of justice than Christ does. Now if they men Christ drove out of the Temple would have asked Him for forgiveness and mercy do you think that he would have given it to them? I believe that he would have forgiven them and explained to them the nature of their sin.

Now lets turn the table around a bit. Is what Christ did in the temple a violation of the law? If so what should his just punishment have been? There was no Jewish law that prohibited the money changers from doing what they did and if I understand my history correctly He didn't run them out because they were exchanging the foreign currency for temple currency. It had to do with an unjust system put in place by the priests and the money changers where the priests would declare that the sacrifice brought to the temple by the worshiper was declared imperfect and unworthy of sacrifice. The only option the worshiper had was to sell his sacrifice, exchange the currency for temple currency and then buy a "worthy" sacrifice from the venders and the priests got a cut of the profits from the money changers. That is why Christ referred to them as a den of thieves.

PoliCon
06-21-2009, 10:58 PM
The Hebrew and Greek words used in the Old and New Testaments for Justice are the words used for righteousness (צדקה, cedhāḳāh; צדק, cedheḳ; διακιοσύνη, dikaiosúnē). I don't think that this is what you are looking for so how about we use a biblical example of justice and lets see if we agree on that. How about some examples of injustice. From Exodus 23:1 - 3Have you ever read my signature?

But What does God require for justice to be satisfied under the law?




Can we agree that Biblical justice is fairly applying the law given to Moses by God to individuals regardless of their class or status. That an authorized judge then reviews the evidence and holds the accused accountable for his actions should it be determined by that judge that the evidence shows that the accused is guilty of his or her crime. And that the punishment is within the scope of punishments for that crime as defined in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?

If we can agree on that then here is the situation. Two people get in to a fight and in the course of the fight one of the men dies and the other does not flee to a city of refuge. Using the above definition, what does Biblical Justice say the state most do? The punishments given in Torah are non-negotiable and like it or not - amount to an eye for an eye - which is in fact justice. And what is the punishment for causing the death of someone though "negligence?"

PoliCon
06-21-2009, 11:06 PM
If you break my window,I will also tell you that what you did was wrong and that you are behaving badly. I also tell you that I forgive you. I tell the cops that I'm not interested in pressing charges. I fix the window myself and I go about my business. You break it a second time, I forgive you, I tell the cops that I am pressing charges and I get the window fixed again. What the state decides to do with you at that point is up to them. If they release you then fine if they jail you then that is fine too. I have forgiven you your debt to me and left your faith in the hands of God. So what your saying is - one strike you get a do over - second strike you want full penalties.


You are correct, mercy is found in the hands of God but he wishes for us to be merciful as well. You know your scripture so you know this to be true. Yes. He does. He wants us to be merciful in our individual dealings one with another. Between you and me - mercy. The state has other obligations. The state has the obligation of justice.



Christ being God knows what is in the hearts of the men He drove from the temple. You and I and the state to have that luxury so we operate from a less the perfect version of justice than Christ does. Now if they men Christ drove out of the Temple would have asked Him for forgiveness and mercy do you think that he would have given it to them? I believe that he would have forgiven them and explained to them the nature of their sin. He still would have driven them from the temple though.


Now lets turn the table around a bit. Is what Christ did in the temple a violation of the law? If so what should his just punishment have been? There was no Jewish law that prohibited the money changers from doing what they did and if I understand my history correctly He didn't run them out because they were exchanging the foreign currency for temple currency. It had to do with an unjust system put in place by the priests and the money changers where the priests would declare that the sacrifice brought to the temple by the worshiper was declared imperfect and unworthy of sacrifice. The only option the worshiper had was to sell his sacrifice, exchange the currency for temple currency and then buy a "worthy" sacrifice from the venders and the priests got a cut of the profits from the money changers. That is why Christ referred to them as a den of thieves.NO what Christ did was not a violation of the Mitzvot. He might have violated Talmudic interpretation of the law - but not the law itself. If he had - they would have had him up on charges. You are also overlooking a very basic concept here - the one that got Him all fired up in the first place - injustice. The money changers were using God and the obligations we owe to Him to make themselves rich.

FlaGator
06-22-2009, 03:25 PM
Have you ever read my signature?

But What does God require for justice to be satisfied under the law?


The punishments given in Torah are non-negotiable and like it or not - amount to an eye for an eye - which is in fact justice. And what is the punishment for causing the death of someone though "negligence?"

You never answered either question. Was my definition exceptable to you and if so who would the situation I proposed by handled by a Judge under the Laws in the Torah.

FlaGator
06-22-2009, 03:54 PM
So what your saying is - one strike you get a do over - second strike you want full penalties.

Where did you get the idea that I stated one strike and then full penalties? Did you actually read what I wrote?



Yes. He does. He wants us to be merciful in our individual dealings one with another. Between you and me - mercy. The state has other obligations. The state has the obligation of justice.

Then why does He give authority to the state as is stated in Romans 13:1-6 and yet the state is not penalized when it shows mercy from time to time? The state as the obligation to do what is right and sometimes the right thing is to show mercy.



He still would have driven them from the temple though.


Perhaps he would have and then again maybe he wouldn't have.



NO what Christ did was not a violation of the Mitzvot. He might have violated Talmudic interpretation of the law - but not the law itself. If he had - they would have had him up on charges. You are also overlooking a very basic concept here - the one that got Him all fired up in the first place - injustice. The money changers were using God and the obligations we owe to Him to make themselves rich.

I didn’t over look that. Again you attribute to me something that I didn't state or even imply. No wonder you and I have such a hard time agreeing on things. In this one post you have twice misrepresented my views when you restated them to me. What I related what I understand of the behind the scenes history confirms exactly what you just wrote above and you say that I overlooked it. Please go back and review my posts and you will confirm that I didn't overlook what got Jesus fired up and that I never stated I was for one strike and then full penalties.

Another thing I think that you have misunderstood is that I was not calling for mercy in all cases. I was stating that some cases are not cut and dry and should be judged on their own merits. When I entered this thread I was bemoaning the fact that Donte Stallworth got off light for the crime he committed. I wasn't inclined for the court to show him mercy after his particular act. I guess I shouldn't have commented on you statement of blanket punishment for all because that seems to be were all the misunderstandings started. I was not nor have I been saying that mercy should be shown to all by the court system but in some cases it might be appropriate. Most criminal cases that go to court are pretty cut and dry but for the cases that may have some type of mitigating circumstances I have no issues with a judge who wants to show mercy.

We are each entitled to our opinions and fortunately opinions are neither right nor wrong. They are just opinions. I value your input in all the discussions that you participate in and I respect you as a person. Sometime I agree with you, sometimes I don't but that is the nature of opinions and these forums are all about sharing opinions.

Maybe I'll start a thread and everyone can state their personal theology and it might save some confusion in the future and it would most certainly be an interesting (and probably heated) discussion. What you and I are tossing back and forth is one of those debatable matters that Paul references in Romans!

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 04:19 PM
We are just never going to agree on things. We're not coming at this issue - or just about ANY issue from the same angle. We both see a need to have mercy and justice - we just completely disagree on when each is called for and who should administer each. The church should bring mercy - and the state should stand for justice. When the two get confused we end up with people who think that the government should be dealing in charity and that deviancy in doctrine is worthy of death. :(

You and I and the body of Christ should be ready and willing to forgive any repentant soul - there should still be some measure of restitution - but forgiveness and mercy should be the rule of our lives. The state however should stand strong and uncompromisingly for justice. The state itself should never advocate for anything less than justice. And the way the laws are written currently with regards to driving under the influence - are NOT written to attain justice. Excuses are written right into the law and these laws need to be changed. There is no justice for the victims of drunk drivers - and when someone says that we need justice that person is accused of wanting revenge.

People have no problem driving drunk because people have no concern over the penalties that they might face if caught. This case is a prime example. Kill someone while driving drunk and you can expect a slap on the wrist.

FlaGator
06-22-2009, 06:57 PM
We are just never going to agree on things. We're not coming at this issue - or just about ANY issue from the same angle. We both see a need to have mercy and justice - we just completely disagree on when each is called for and who should administer each. The church should bring mercy - and the state should stand for justice. When the two get confused we end up with people who think that the government should be dealing in charity and that deviancy in doctrine is worthy of death. :(

You and I and the body of Christ should be ready and willing to forgive any repentant soul - there should still be some measure of restitution - but forgiveness and mercy should be the rule of our lives. The state however should stand strong and uncompromisingly for justice. The state itself should never advocate for anything less than justice. And the way the laws are written currently with regards to driving under the influence - are NOT written to attain justice. Excuses are written right into the law and these laws need to be changed. There is no justice for the victims of drunk drivers - and when someone says that we need justice that person is accused of wanting revenge.

People have no problem driving drunk because people have no concern over the penalties that they might face if caught. This case is a prime example. Kill someone while driving drunk and you can expect a slap on the wrist.

Hey we both agree on this! :D Hey I do respect your opinion and a look forward comparing notes on other things, but this one seems to have run its course. At any rate I appreciate picking your brain on stuff like this.

Oh, perhaps I can give you some insight on the addicted mind. For some people (addicts like me) it isn't t a matter of not being concerned over the penalties of drinking and driving. I was very concerned about what would happen and I was even more fearful of the potential consequences like what happened to your loved ones. However, once a drug has control of someone the need for the drug overrides all that. The desire for a drug becomes a physical need with physical consequences for not getting the drug. It's like being a person dying of thirst. An addict will do whatever it takes to get the drug including risking imprisonment or death.

Peace and blessing,
Gary

Space Gravy
06-22-2009, 07:08 PM
Per this report it sounds like this guy walked right in front of Stallworth's car. Given this information I can understand the lenient sentence. Who knows, even if he hadn't been drinking he might have hit the guy anyway.


The contents of the video apparently had a significant impact on the ultimate plea deal. Though the 30-day prison term and two years of house arrest light have triggered significant criticism, the ultimate question for a jury would have been whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stallworth caused or contributed to the death of Mario Reyes. At a minimum, the contents of the tape, as they have been described to us, indicate that a reasonable jury could have found reasonable doubt.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/22/video-exists-of-stallworth-accident/

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 08:13 PM
Hey we both agree on this! :D Hey I do respect your opinion and a look forward comparing notes on other things, but this one seems to have run its course. At any rate I appreciate picking your brain on stuff like this.

Oh, perhaps I can give you some insight on the addicted mind. For some people (addicts like me) it isn't t a matter of not being concerned over the penalties of drinking and driving. I was very concerned about what would happen and I was even more fearful of the potential consequences like what happened to your loved ones. However, once a drug has control of someone the need for the drug overrides all that. The desire for a drug becomes a physical need with physical consequences for not getting the drug. It's like being a person dying of thirst. An addict will do whatever it takes to get the drug including risking imprisonment or death.

Peace and blessing,
Gary

I understand the addiction aspect - but we're not talking about getting a fix - we're talking about doing things once you've got that fix.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 08:14 PM
Per this report it sounds like this guy walked right in front of Stallworth's car. Given this information I can understand the lenient sentence. Who knows, even if he hadn't been drinking he might have hit the guy anyway.



http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/22/video-exists-of-stallworth-accident/

Possibly - but more likely the jury came to an emotional decision rather than a rational one.

Space Gravy
06-22-2009, 09:07 PM
Possibly - but more likely the jury came to an emotional decision rather than a rational one.

It was a plea. It never went to trial.

It's still a tragedy but it's not like he mowed this guy down on the sidewalk.

FlaGator
06-22-2009, 10:14 PM
I understand the addiction aspect - but we're not talking about getting a fix - we're talking about doing things once you've got that fix.

Perhaps you don't understand addiction as well as you believe. Your making an assumption that all people get sober between drinks or that crackheads come down from their high. Addicts go and get their drugs or booze long before they need a new fix. Once addicted they have to keep a constant supply in their system. In short, some alcoholics never completely sober up and drug addicts are always high or going through withdrawal. When I drank the scariest thing I could imagine was looking in my fridge and seeing less than a 12 pack. Do you wait to run out of food before you go shopping?