Donte Stallworth

[Greenday]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11206-Detr...ght-a-sentence

Sorry I can't find an article that's actually unbiased, but google news search is epically failing at it. Every article is severely slanted against Stallworth. I'll sum it up in my own way:

Donte Stallworth, an amazing wide receiver in the NFL, was driving on a major highway when a pedestrian decided to run across the highway because he was late for a bus. Stallworth honked his horn and flashed his lights, but was unable to avoid the pedestrian in time and struck and killed him. He finally got his vehicle to stop and called the cops. He waited until the cops came, complied with all their requests, and it turns out he had a BAC of 0.126. The legal limit in Florida is a 0.08. In most cases, the law makes it so if you are drunk and are in an accident, it is automatically completely your fault.

There is an exception though. If it is clearly NOT your fault, you cannot be guilty of DUI homocide.

Donte Stallworth pled guilty anyway and his punishment is: 30 days in prison, 2 years of house arrest, 8 years of probation, banned from ever driving again, and is currently suspended by the NFL until they say otherwise with no time limit on the ban. He also settled with the family and has paid them damages in the millions.

Personally? I think he got screwed. Drunk driving is beyond stupid, I won't deny that. But that much punishment because some DUMBASS decided it was smart to run across an EXTREMELY busy highway and dodge cars, jaywalking, just so he could make the bus? I feel the accident is clearly not Stallworth's fault and absolutely falls under the exception. DUI is the most I feel Stallworth should have gotten.

[kibbles]

I agree, drunk driving is stupid and I also agee that Donte got a raw deal and shouldn't have plead guilty. Even sober, a pedestrian cannot just expect a driver to be able to stop if they jump out with a seconds notice.

[Flyndaran]

I'll take a different tack. I think he should have gotten far more jail time for drunk driving irrespective of killing someone.
Besides what proof is there that he wouldn't have been able to stop the vehicle i,n time if he hadn't been drinking?

[Greenday]

Besides what proof is there that he wouldn't have been able to stop the vehicle i,n time if he hadn't been drinking?

Personally, I look at it this way. If I'm doing 55-60 mph and some idiot a hundred feet or so runs in front of me, there will not be enough time to react and stop before hitting him. And I'm not putting myself into a concrete barrier or a light post in order to get out of the way of someone thinking jaywalking on a really busy highway is a good idea.

[Flyndaran]

I'm not saying he was directly at fault in a literal sense. I'm just saying that the benefit of the doubt is lost when drunk driving is involved.
He wasn't an innocent. He was committing a gross selfish screw everyone else on earth felony. I won't be crying over his plight.

[BroomJockey]

I think without hearing some eyewitness testimony, or seeing video evidence, it's basically impossible to know what a sober person could or could not have done. However, I'm going with Greenday on this one. The guy complied at every step of the way, plead guilty, and still got nailed to the wall much worse than anyone else in a similar situation would have been. Losing his licence forever? On a first DUI offence, when there's extenuating evidence? Overzealous prosecution, I'd say.

[Flyndaran]

Extenuating circumstances? Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that someone put a gun to his head and forced him to down alcoholic drinks.
I retract my postion and suggest that this horrible person that forced him to drive drunk be put in jail instead.

Oh wait... nope he gave up his right to drive. Everyone convicted of such wanton disregard for human life by drunk driving should have their licenses revoked permanently.

[BroomJockey]

Everyone convicted of such wanton disregard for human life by drunk driving should have their licenses revoked permanently.

Emphasis mine.
Because that's not the law. Someone flinging themselves in front of a vehicle negates the actions of the driver, that's the law. He should be sentenced according to the law that is. Not the law that should be. We can argue all day about what the penalties should be, but that's not what Greenday was asking, as I interpreted it. He asked if, under the law, it seemed like a harsh penalty. I think it does seem harsh, under the laws as presented.

Now, if you really wanna get in to what I think the laws should be, then here we go: You get one warning. You're found over the legal limit, you lose your licence for one year. If you're found driving during that one year, any BAC or not, you go to jail. For how long, I'm willing to negotiate. If, after that one year, you're found driving under the influence again, you lose the licence forever, in every state. National database. Also, your car is seized, auctioned off, and proceeds go to medical treatment of people injured in drunk driving accidents. And you go to jail. For attempted murder, no chance of parole. You serve at least the minimum of the area you were caught in.

If anyone else is in the car while the driver is drunk, they're fined $500 each for reckless disregard, since they didn't stop him from driving. Same if the person's driving with a suspended licence.

[Cats]

Everyone convicted of such wanton disregard for human life by drunk driving should have their licenses revoked permanently.

Not that I entirely disagree with you, but that rarely happens. Every few months in the local paper here, there is an article about how some jackass got a DUI (or a DWI) for like the 7th time, and STILL hasn't had their license taken away permanantly, or even served significant jail time or other punishment. And while I can sort of see the reasoning behind this, if you get a subsequent DUI in between the time you're indicted for the first but not yet convited, they can't hold that against you when they indict you for the next one(s). I am aware of innocent until proven guilty and whatnot, but it's crap like this that is the reason the repeat offenders get away with lighter punishments. Apparently, if you get caught often enough between your court dates, it doesn't count as much that you're continuously breaking the laws and putting people in danger. I find that bullshit.

In respect to that, yes, Donte seriously got kicked in the pants. Even Sober, there's only so quickly someone can react, and on the speeds on a highway, you do need a certain distance to stop. I see it in my town too, nevermind a highway, and everytime, I say how someone is going to get themselves killed, and it's not going to be the drivers fault. Some highways have like turtle and deer crossing signs. I have never once seen a sign warning of "stupid people" crossing.

[Flyndaran]

In all fairness I should probably mention why I'm not the most objective person.... My father was hit and subsequently died from injuries recieved from a drunk driver.
Our family really blames the incompetent doctor and his perjury for dad's death and only feels pity for the near lethally drunk elderly scumball that hit dad.

[tropicsgoddess]

I personally think he got off pretty good in terms of jail time,mostly due to the settlement he gave the family of the victim. But to have a permanent revocation of his driver's license is well within the state of Florida's guidelines for DUI Manslaughter.

[Greenday]

From what I understand, Florida is pretty lame in that they easily let people drive anyway with temporary licenses so they can work and stuff. Kinda defeats the purpose.

[tropicsgoddess]

From what I understand, Florida is pretty lame in that they easily let people drive anyway with temporary licenses so they can work and stuff. Kinda defeats the purpose.

Depends on the severity of your case (ie. DUI versus DUI manslaughter) but also how many times you've been convicted. Besides that, they can also put the boot on your car too for x amount of days depending on the amount of DUI convictions you have unless there's no other transportation and provides hardship to the family of the defendant.

[blas87]

Never being able to drive again?

Are you kidding me? There are people in Wisconsin, average joes, on their 5th, 6th, 7th, even 8th DUI....and they are still driving (of course, not legally). You don't get your license completely revoked until at least your 3rd or 4th DUI.

And even after that, you can get an occupational or complete a HTO class and get it back after a certain amount of years.

I don't think a person who was stone cold sober could stop in time for a pedestrian running across a busy highway. I've lost count of how many times I've had to slam on the brakes when they pull those kinds of stunts on the busy highways where I live.

[Flyndaran]

As a life long pedestrian, I can't count the number of times I've nearly been hit by some bad driver.
Without witnesses, Iwonder how they determine how at fault a driver is.

One time I was nearly ran over by a freaking cop! He never did see me as I jumped out of the way.
That's why I have difficulty trusting drivers' statements without boat loads of evidence. Though I have seen crazy walkers run across the road like they were immortal.