If Michael Vick had killed a Cuban, he'd be playing today

[Sniper15 0]

Donte Stallworth gets 30 days for his DUI manslaughter of a Cuban born man crossing a Miami road.

Michael Vick gets 2 1/2 years for killing dogs.

discuss.

[K9 Unit 1]

coz dogs are more important than cubans ;)

blah but i like dogs...used to be one of my fav. nfl players now i hate him

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

One was a one off incident and unplanned

One was the systematic abuse and torture of animals over a number of years, and gambling across state lines

Why do you think dany heatley didn't get the time either

[team50 20]

Mctavish did time.

[barrett 0]

iirc heatley wasnt a dui though , where as stallworth was. Ridiculous that a man gets 2 and a half for dog fighting and a dui manslaughter is 30 days

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

iirc heatley wasnt a dui though , where as stallworth was. Ridiculous that a man gets 2 and a half for dog fighting and a dui manslaughter is 30 days

Again, one is an isolated incident, the other is systematic torture

If you can't see the difference in the two, then it's pointless to discuss further

[sitzlejd 0]

Systematic abuse of dogs does not even begin to compare to killing a human being through intentional negligence. If you can't see that then you're right, there is no need to discuss further.

What's crazy is how his monetary payment to the victim's family played a role in his light criminal sentence. When did justice go up for sale? Oh yeah, a long time ago...

[troy 12]

I don't think any NFLer that did what Stallworth did would be playing today. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4270311

[Ahriman 1]

I don't think any NFLer that did what Stallworth did would be playing today. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4270311

I disagree.

[mack 44]

The guy wasn't a shortstop or pitcher so they felt it wasn't a big deal.

All the jokes aside, I'm pretty sure it's a stiffer deal than Leonard Little got for killing a lady ten years ago. Which also nullifies this:

I don't think any NFLer that did what Stallworth did would be playing today. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4270311

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Intent has always been a significant part of our legal system. Vick's actions were dripping with wanton malice, the fact he was doing it in large part to make money when he was a highly paid athlete didn't help him. Stallworth hitting the guy was not intentional. If the family accepted the money why shouldn't that factor into his sentencing? Why you may make a run at moral outrage on a message board, your life will go on tomorrow with little thought about this. The family of the dead individual are the victims here. If Mr. Stallworth's payment is acceptable to them, who are you to tell them what their family member was worth? Perhaps it's not fair that everyone couldn't make a similiar payment, but then again life isn't fair.

[sitzlejd 0]

Intent has always been a significant part of our legal system. Vick's actions were dripping with wanton malice, the fact he was doing it in large part to make money when he was a highly paid athlete didn't help him. Stallworth hitting the guy was not intentional. If the family accepted the money why shouldn't that factor into his sentencing? Why you may make a run at moral outrage on a message board, your life will go on tomorrow with little thought about this. The family of the dead individual are the victims here. If Mr. Stallworth's payment is acceptable to them, who are you to tell them what their family member was worth? Perhaps it's not fair that everyone couldn't make a similiar payment, but then again life isn't fair.

First off, while he may not have intentionally hit the guy, he did intentionally commit the crime that led to the man's death (driving drunk). Second, I'm sure whatever the settlement was, it is not the same as what their family member was "worth." The settlement should remain in the realm of civil court. The criminal trial should be completely separate.

If Dante Stallworth worked at Taco Bell and drunkenly killed someone, he wouldn't be walking out in 30 days. More than "not fair;" corrupt.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Intent has always been a significant part of our legal system. Vick's actions were dripping with wanton malice, the fact he was doing it in large part to make money when he was a highly paid athlete didn't help him. Stallworth hitting the guy was not intentional. If the family accepted the money why shouldn't that factor into his sentencing? Why you may make a run at moral outrage on a message board, your life will go on tomorrow with little thought about this. The family of the dead individual are the victims here. If Mr. Stallworth's payment is acceptable to them, who are you to tell them what their family member was worth? Perhaps it's not fair that everyone couldn't make a similiar payment, but then again life isn't fair.

First off, while he may not have intentionally hit the guy, he did intentionally commit the crime that led to the man's death (driving drunk). Second, I'm sure whatever the settlement was, it is not the same as what their family member was "worth." The settlement should remain in the realm of civil court. The criminal trial should be completely separate.

If Dante Stallworth worked at Taco Bell and drunkenly killed someone, he wouldn't be walking out in 30 days. More than "not fair;" corrupt.

1. He wasn't drunk, he was a couple of points over the legal limit, there is a difference. That's why it's called DUI, not DD

2. The guy he hit was rushing to get a bus, and ran out in front of his car, he didn't see him until it was too late.

What he did was get behind the wheel and got in an accident. It was not pre-mediated, it was not malicious. It was very very very stupid. But his sentence was also in accordance with similar sentences in the state. He is not getting any special treatment from the law.

What Vick did was starve dogs to make them more aggressive, throw pups and cats into their kennels/cages to "train" them, losing dogs he soaked with water then electrocuted, or he hung them and beat them until they died, or he shot them.

You may not value a dog as much as a human, but that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that what vick done was reprehensible, pre-meditated and brutal.

What stallworth done was stupid, and tragic for the family of the man killed, but not pre-meditated, not torture, not a pattern of violent aggression over years, not a pattern of cruelty over years.

You can't even begin to compare the two.

[sitzlejd 0]

You've got valid points and I agree that Vick got what he deserved, and maybe should've gotten more. His actions make anyone with a conscience sick to their stomach.

I'm not arguing for Vick to get less, I just don't think it would have hurt to set a better precedent and give Stallworth a little more than 30 days. I think a year or more could be justified.

agree to disagree.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

First off, while he may not have intentionally hit the guy, he did intentionally commit the crime that led to the man's death (driving drunk). Second, I'm sure whatever the settlement was, it is not the same as what their family member was "worth." The settlement should remain in the realm of civil court. The criminal trial should be completely separate.

If Dante Stallworth worked at Taco Bell and drunkenly killed someone, he wouldn't be walking out in 30 days. More than "not fair;" corrupt.

Actually, Stallworth was only slightly over the legal limit and from what information there was the guy that got hit was also partially to blame as it seems he rushed out in front of Stallworth's car. Nothing Stallworth did added up to any form of malicious negligence, nor could it have been reasonably expected that driving slightly over the legal limit (and really, unless you drive around with a breathalyzer how would you know you were) would result in this accident. That's exactly what it was, an accident.

Mr. Stallworth sitting in jail doesn't help the family of the dead man, the money actually does something. Let's put this way: say you have two guys in a bar. One is returning from the bathroom to see the other talking to his girlfriend and in a rage he hits the guy with a beer bottle. If the guy that did the hitting offers to cover medical bills and say 5 grand for pain, and the individual that was struck accepts it, I see no reason not to consider it a closed matter. After all, why shouldn't the primarily wronged party have a legit chance to actually get something of benefit for his suffering? Not to mention that not having someone in jail saves us all money. Justice and fairness are not the same thing.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

You've got valid points and I agree that Vick got what he deserved, and maybe should've gotten more. His actions make anyone with a conscience sick to their stomach.

I'm not arguing for Vick to get less, I just don't think it would have hurt to set a better precedent and give Stallworth a little more than 30 days. I think a year or more could be justified.

agree to disagree.

The problem is, that Staaworth got a sentence that is in line with the sentencing procedures for the state of florida, which requires no jail time, but can be up to 15 years, and $10,000 fine.

It only requires a mandatory minimum sentance to be applied if a firearm was involved.

In this instance, Stallworth had the alcohol in his system from the night before (or so it is claimed), the man he hit was not in a marked crosswalk, he was running to catch a bus across the road, Stallworth pled guilty etc.

It wasn't a case that could set a precedent, he has to be treated the same as everyone else, and while you may find it distasteful to think he only got 30 days, it's pretty much the same sentence that a first offender would have got here too, given the same set of facts

[fawn111 0]

Look at the actions of each man....

Stallworth's actions......

He was driving an estimated 50 in a 40 mph. And drunk. Speeding yes, but in the realm of reality nearly everyone drives 5-10 mph over the limit.... and remember, it was estimated.... could have been a tad more or a tad less. Stallworth also honked twice at the MArio Reyes. Reyes was struck while running in the street, NOT in the crosswalk, NOT at an intersection to catch a bus. There are many legal experts that could and would in heartbeat argue that even despite being under the influence, there was a fair amount, if not more blame placed on the man he struck....ANYWAY......Stallworth reported the accident and was completely cooperative with the police and the entire situation. What he did was stupid, stupid beyond all belief, but he placed himself in a terrible position and the outcome was one that resulted in the death of a good, hardworking father. Stallworth OWNED his actions. He may have been a stupid immature boy behind the wheel, but he was a MAN about the situation. He did not run, lie or attempt to cover up his actions. He used his financial stability to pay whatever he could to the family to help make amends for taking Reyes from them. Most who only read the typical one or two sentences of Yahoo articles do not realize the logistics of this accident and immediately condemn a man for taking a life in an accident. Leonard little was drunk and ran a red light and killed a woman in her car.... he was 100% wrong.

Vick's actions:

For years he ran an illegal dogfighting business. He abused, tortured and killed dogs for profit. Abusing, and killing an animal is disgusting, vile and villainous. Doing so to profit off this torture is what makes Vicks actions all the more condemnable. Further Vick, repeatedly denied any involvement in the dog fighting ring even after he was caught red handed.

Stallworth reacted like a MAN.

Vick reacted like a criminal, because that is what he is.

America is a VERY forgiving country. Given the circumstances with Stallworth, I feel so much more for this man as a human and a contributing member of our society. Vick is soooo much tougher to forgive. Honestly I do not see this man being capable of ever convincing the public, or himself that he is indeed remorseful and a changed man. But who knows.... I'd love to be proved wrong about him, and in all honestly I'd love to forgive hom and if he does the right thing and means, it then over time he certainly will do just that.

[fieldofdreams 0]

1. He wasn't drunk, he was a couple of points over the legal limit, there is a difference. That's why it's called DUI, not DD

There is NOT a difference. 1 point over the limit, or 10. You are over the limit, you are drunk, and should not be driving. The penalties are the same.

I can NOT belive that anyone, ANYONE, would type such a ridiculous statement, while trying to defend someone who took anothers life through sheer negligence, and disregard for the laws.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

1. He wasn't drunk, he was a couple of points over the legal limit, there is a difference. That's why it's called DUI, not DD

There is NOT a difference. 1 point over the limit, or 10. You are over the limit, you are drunk, and should not be driving. The penalties are the same.

I can NOT belive that anyone, ANYONE, would type such a ridiculous statement, while trying to defend someone who took anothers life through sheer negligence, and disregard for the laws.

Actually, there is a difference, which is while DUI penalties range from fines and points on a license, to suspension of license, to jail time.

I wasn't saying it as a flip statement. If you go out and have several beers tonight, they will stay in your system, roughly 4 hours per beer.

You go home, get a good nights sleep, eat a heavy breakfast, you are sober, but you can still test over the limit.

Thats why a log of cops set up checkpoints in the mornings.

Being over the limit is not the same as being drunk.

I was not saying it as a defense of drunk driving, I was saying there is a difference in the actions

[mattzilla 0]

I know people who have 1 beer and they are done but legally sober, i know people who have 10 and are fine but legally drunk.

The victims family does have a role in this, I've seen this situation up close and if the victims family hadn't forgiven him in front of the judge, he surely wouldve faced time in jail. Sure, there was a lot of stupid decisions leading up to the events that killed the guy, but there was no malicious intent. Technically the other guy broke the law by jay walking as well... just sayin.

[Officer Dangle 0]

Personally, I think both of their sentences were just. If anything, Stallworth should have gone without the jail time. He took full responsibility for his actions, cooperated completely, pled guilty, offered to settle out of court, and the victims family accepted it. Out of court settlements are not uncommon at all. Alot of the time a victims family will want to move on as quickly as possible instead of dragging out a conflict in the court system for years. And, as it was already stated, his case was accidental, and truthfully, Reyes was partially at fault himself. There are alot of unknown variables that effect the case, and the judge has to consider those too.

Vick on the other hand...

[foppa21 0]

In interests of full disclosure, Stallworth was also sentenced to two years house arrest and eight years of probation along with a lifetime suspension of his driver's license.

[fieldofdreams 0]

Lifetime suspension? That is rough. But, hopefully another deterrent for others.

[eric42434224 1]

I wasn't saying it as a flip statement. If you go out and have several beers tonight, they will stay in your system, roughly 4 hours per beer.

I thought that for the average size male, the body will metabolize one "drink" per hour.

Of couse one "drink" is smaller than what most peoples idea of a "drink" would be. I think a pint of beer is 2 "drinks".

Also, this metabolism is for people with a healthy liver.

In other words, you can drink one drink per hour and be fine.......is this correct, or was I misinformed?

[Ahriman 1]

I wasn't saying it as a flip statement. If you go out and have several beers tonight, they will stay in your system, roughly 4 hours per beer.

I thought that for the average size male, the body will metabolize one "drink" per hour.

Of couse one "drink" is smaller than what most peoples idea of a "drink" would be. I think a pint of beer is 2 "drinks".

Also, this metabolism is for people with a healthy liver.

In other words, you can drink one drink per hour and be fine.......is this correct, or was I misinformed?

You're pretty much spot on. But to clarify:

If you take a shot (1.5oz) of 80 proof liquor at 4:00pm you will show a BAC of zero if your body size is average. Take another shot at 4:01pm, at 5:01pm you will still be at zero, you can do that for as long as you like.

There really isnt much standard about the amount of alcohol in a glass of wine, or the amount of liquid in it. A standard beer will be around 3% (6 proof) but there large variation in the size - cans and bottles being 12oz, a standard american tap at 14oz and the traditional pint at 16oz. Beer can also go up to 13-15% in some cases though they almost always advertise that fact, wouldn't want to be caught unawares about that one. ;) Malt liquors and ciders which also come in same sizes as beers are usually around 5-6%.

There is also handy charts that alcohol awareness groups will give out that show you a calculated BAC based on amount drank, height, weight and gender.