driving drunk and killing someone is not an accident. to have a financial settlement in a criminal case is ridiculous and the prosecutor there sure isnt protecting the citizens of florida. so had that been an unemployed drunk driver with no insurance and no savings would they have served 24 days?

vick getting prison time was a joke.

(08-20-2009 10:31 PM)50Cent Wrote:  driving drunk and killing someone is not an accident. to have a financial settlement in a criminal case is ridiculous and the prosecutor there sure isnt protecting the citizens of florida. so had that been an unemployed drunk driver with no insurance and no savings would they have served 24 days?

vick getting prison time was a joke.

Driving drunk was not an accident, killing someone was. Are you really this simple minded?

And your 2nd statement shows your ignorance well.

The fact that this article got this much heated debate, with the most passionate favoring the drunk driver who killed a family man, and I've heard nobody say sh!t about the family that now resides WITHOUT the husband and father they had up until Stallworth's drunken drive...

This debate over intent is stupid. Donte Stallworth intended to drink. He intended to drink a lot. The amount of drink he consumed got him so inebriated that he wasn't in control of his faculties - and should never have gotten behind the wheel. Donte Stallworth's intent that night was to party and get drunk. Whether or not he meant to run over the man he killed is irrelevant. He knew he was going to get drunk. That's why he went to party. So he's responsible...

(08-20-2009 04:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Stallworth's case just proved that if you pay enough money to the right people, you can pretty much get away with anything...

That's all it proved...

The fact that we have to argue this point baffles and concerns me...

Bingo!

CA$H is KING!

Responsibility for your actions...and how our justice systems doles out punishment for the results of those actions...is what's key here. It could be argued that a man is dead because Stallworth got drunk. He made a bad decision, got high, and the result is an impairment that ultimately killed a man. Had Michael Vick killed those dogs in a fit of rage while high and inebriated, could he argue that it was because he was impaired, and should be at least somewhat absolved from guilt? More than likely, in our court system, yes. In my mind, the illegal action (deciding to operate a motor vehicle under the influence) doesn't absolve the result (a human was murdered.)

(08-21-2009 09:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The fact that this article got this much heated debate, with the most passionate favoring the drunk driver who killed a family man, and I've heard nobody say sh!t about the family that now resides WITHOUT the husband and father they had up until Stallworth's drunken drive...

This debate over intent is stupid. Donte Stallworth intended to drink. He intended to drink a lot. The amount of drink he consumed got him so inebriated that he wasn't in control of his faculties - and should never have gotten behind the wheel. Donte Stallworth's intent that night was to party and get drunk. Whether or not he meant to run over the man he killed is irrelevant. He knew he was going to get drunk. That's why he went to party. So he's responsible...

YES IT IS!!! You really need to learn more about the us legal system.

Quote:If vick was driving drunk one night and ran a dog over, he wouldnt have gotten the punishment that stallworth got, and no one would have complained, not even peta. Likewise, had stallworth ran a human fighting league where he killed dozens of humans, he would have been executed for it, or at the very least spent the rest of his life in jail, and once again, no one would have complained.

^^^ I cant put it any better than i did right here. If you cant understand that you are comparing 2 incomparable things after reading that example, you obviously lack the critial thinking skills to be commenting on something like this.

(08-21-2009 12:00 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  

(08-21-2009 09:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The fact that this article got this much heated debate, with the most passionate favoring the drunk driver who killed a family man, and I've heard nobody say sh!t about the family that now resides WITHOUT the husband and father they had up until Stallworth's drunken drive...

This debate over intent is stupid. Donte Stallworth intended to drink. He intended to drink a lot. The amount of drink he consumed got him so inebriated that he wasn't in control of his faculties - and should never have gotten behind the wheel. Donte Stallworth's intent that night was to party and get drunk. Whether or not he meant to run over the man he killed is irrelevant. He knew he was going to get drunk. That's why he went to party. So he's responsible...

YES IT IS!!! You really need to learn more about the us legal system.

The intent was implied after he intentionally got drunk. All decisions have consequences. And his decision to get drunk and then go out driving was one of 'em...

(08-21-2009 12:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(08-21-2009 12:00 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  

(08-21-2009 09:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The fact that this article got this much heated debate, with the most passionate favoring the drunk driver who killed a family man, and I've heard nobody say sh!t about the family that now resides WITHOUT the husband and father they had up until Stallworth's drunken drive...

This debate over intent is stupid. Donte Stallworth intended to drink. He intended to drink a lot. The amount of drink he consumed got him so inebriated that he wasn't in control of his faculties - and should never have gotten behind the wheel. Donte Stallworth's intent that night was to party and get drunk. Whether or not he meant to run over the man he killed is irrelevant. He knew he was going to get drunk. That's why he went to party. So he's responsible...

YES IT IS!!! You really need to learn more about the us legal system.

The intent was implied after he intentionally got drunk. All decisions have consequences. And his decision to get drunk and then go out driving was one of 'em...

So lets charge everyone who accidentally does something that results in human death with murder. Great idea.

I didn't say charge him with murder. But I would've let the vehicular manslaughter charge stand, which is what that was. But I think a stupid mistake that deprives a woman of her husband, and children of their father, deserves more than a payoff, and some community service...

The funny thing about this is that you'd be singing a far different tune if it was your parent or spouse that was killed by Stallworth...