Thread: Vick vs. Stallworth

Very true. It wasn't about dogs. That's just what made him public enemy number one. The organization of the crime was the real kicker.

Take Madoff for example. He got 150 years for stealing millions from billionaires. (just kidding )

I had a long discussion with a co-worker about this a few weeks ago. Long and short of it is (IMO) that intent has a huge deal with sentencing. As does showing remorse. As does attempting to deny the crime. As does the .....

All of that goes into the sentencing process and the judge (who sets the sentence) and the jury (who recommend the sentences) are people like you and me and are sensitive to the circumstances of the crime and the accused party's demeanor throughout the process.

As for the sentence being 30 days in jail...that is (again IMO) a bit deceptive, possibly for the purposes of spurring discussion.

Here are my comments from that discussion a few weeks back

Topic was: Stallworth gets 30 days killing a person and Vick gets 2 years for killing a dog?
To be honest - I wasn't very familiar with the story (I do not watch TV) so I did a very quick search. The only thing I can think that would've played into the lighter sentencing for the DUI Manslaughter was the fact that the person he hit was running across a highway (I know that doesnt' make any of it more "right") and not walking across a street... Read More at a crosswalk, or on a sidewalk, or in a parking lot. He hit someone that should've never been in that location to begin with and so that might've had an influence on sentencing. Jury recommends sentence, Judge levies sentence....so who knows.

...

true - drunk is drunk and bad either way - but it might be that he "handled" the situation a bit better than Mr. Vick. That goes along way when sentencing is determined.

...

as for the NFL. I think that they (and the rest of the professional leagues) need to begin making major examples out of "bad actors" regardless of when/how/who.

These people make millions playing a game (that is a privilege) and there ought to be stiff consequences for criminal activity. Might make the whole lot of them shape up. Drug violations - year suspension, Banned Substances - year suspension, 2nd offense - gone permanently, Criminal Felony convictions - year suspension, 2nd one - gone permanently.

I mean, in any other job - could you get convicted of a felony, serve 1 year or more and still expect to keep your job? I think not

...

I am a dog lover - and what Vick did pissed me off. I'll be honest. No more than someone needlessly dying due to DUI. Stallworth was convicted of vehicular manslaughter(?). Those two crimes are obviously very different. With different penalties and sentencing guidelines to be sure. The big difference that I see comes down to intent (though it may be splitting hairs) but Vick's intent was fairly clear. If I recall correctly, he even denied involvement in the entire ordeal until the evidence was overwhelming. That plays very poorly to the public, the jury, and the judge who are doing the sentencing. In Stallworth's case, there was no intent to kill. Plain and simply. It was a horrid accident. One that could have certainly been avoided had he not been drinking, but an accident nonetheless. I am not certain (as I've not gone to look up the sentencing guidelines on Vehicular Manslaughter) but I do not recall hearing of cases in recent memory were the convicted was sentenced to more than a year. It is because Intent plays a very large role in the sentencing process.

As for the comment regarding attempts by the media to portray Vick as "some big, bad, evil black man" I think that is fairly silly. His actions were reprehensible regardless of his color or size. I'll gladly support the same sentencing for the same scenario against anyone else, period. His media problem stemmed from denial to a large degree.

In fact, any who know me, know that I'll gladly support very harsh measures against violent criminals, crimes against children, and crimes against animals. They are all bad. Innocents deserve some protection under the law and since law is not a deterrent (and never has been), nor are our country's current penalties (given the level of recidivism across all types of crimes) the question becomes what measures can be taken by the population (government) to ensure that certain classes of crimes are not repeated (or at least have the rate of recidivism reduced significantly)? In my opinion, stiffening the penalties is about the only manner in which to accomplish this.

To wit, gone are the "cushy" prisons that we all see in the news. Gone are the TV's and computers in prison. Bring back mandatory labor for prison inmates (especially violent offenders). Make parole harder to get.

In other words, make absolutely certain that the law-abiding citizenry desire the re-introduction of the convicted to society. Prison is supposed to hard and life altering (in a mindset and decision making way) not "time-out."

And for reference - here is a brief synopsis of the statute related to Vehicular Manslaughter. There are several gradients depending on circumstance and the level of crime that Stallworth was charged with.

http://searchwarp.com/swa67553.htm

And I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "bad breed" of dog. I've been in close and regular contact with quite a few pit bulls over the years. They can be as sweet and mild mannered or as mean and ornery as the owner wants then to be. The meanest dog I've ever encountered in my life was a standard poodle. Tried to bite anyone who came close. Putting dogs down simply due to the breed is an asinine idea. The only thing that comes of that, is people who want a mean dog will train the "next" (insert any other breed) dog to be mean. Give that one 10-15 years and several tragedies later and people will be crying to have that breed put down as well. Never ending cycle unless you go after the people who are training the dogs.

Same with alcohol. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. People either acquired it illegally, or turned to other less regulated substances. Doesn't work out well either. The punishment must be enough to force people to act responsibly or nothing changes.

I've never stated (or implied) that drinking and driving was an accident. You are correct that it takes a conscious decision to do so. I lost a very good friend many years ago to a drunk driver, in broad daylight. I was in another car a lane over and watched it happen. I routinely call the police if I am ... Read Moreat a gas station and witness someone (all the time) buy a single BIG beer, drop it in a bag, and walk out so they can get a preemptive buzz before the real drinking begins at home. I follow them and stay on the line wit the police. Silly perhaps, but a big deal to me. As for vehicular manslaughter and murder being the same, I strongly disagree. Yes, but resulted in a death. But the intent was not to kill. Murder, by definition requires an intent to kill. If you remove that distinction, then a great many people would be charged with murder (and all of the penalties that implies) for making a mistake which resulted in death. That is why there is a difference. By that logic, someone who commits suicide, would also be guilty of murder, attempted suicide? Attempted murder. It does not logically make sense. The difference in time served still must boil down to intent. Not only in regards to the commission of the crime, but to the acceptance of the penalties and/or remorse in the situation. If someone accidentally starts a fire (or more to the point purposely starts a fire but loses control of the fire)and a person dies as a result, should the person responsible for the fire be charge with murder? Again, the answer must be no as they did not intend to kill someone (murder). The death was accidental. Not the act that caused the death (fire or in the case of Stallworth DUI).

...

On to the media....I own a TV, but do not watch. I detest/despise most media with vehemence. PETA is awful. end of story.

As for media purposely portraying all black men as "bad" (insert any applicable adjective) I fail to see that as a uniform and concerted effort. Stallworth is black is he not? Where was the same media outcry an condemnation? There wasn't (at least I can't see it from the searching I've done thus far). And in the sake of honesty and transparency, Stallworth's sentence is not as light as "30 days" makes it appear. His actual sentence is 30 days in jail, two years of house arrest (during which he can continue to play football), and eight years of probation (though with the NFL commissioner's stance thus far (indefinite suspension without pay) makes the chances of him playing football again (or making money doing so) less certain).

Plaxico Burress - got a much tougher sentence (differnt crime).
Michael Vick - got a much tough sentence (different crime)
Leon Little - same crime (even lighter sentence - 90 days in work house, 1000 hours community service, 4 years probation, 8 game suspension from NFL)

Things are not always black and white (pun intended) and sentencing even less so. There are a huge number of factors that go into the sentencing phase of a crime.

And I do consider myself colorblind. Nor do I consider the aspiration to "colorblindness" naive. It makes no difference to me. I gauge things based on intellect and ignorance. Has served my well thus far.

That was my take on it then.

the whole story in the case of Stallworth is not being presented in this thread

apparently there were some sort of video cameras taping the scene when Stallworth killed the person and it seemed that the person was responsible for walking out into traffic when he shouldn't have or whatever. BUT since Dante was drunk, he shares part of the blame.


(I do not have any sources, but this is what I remember hearing about the incident)

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I think the NFL should give lifetime bans to any player who is convicted of a felony.

That I could probably get behind and support. If me being convicted of a felony might (read definitely) cause me to lose my job (and most likely career) I see no reason why someone else who simply has a different job should immune to that. Because they are good at what they do? So am I. None of that would matter for the vast majority of the "general" population.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I think the NFL should give lifetime bans to any player who is convicted of a felony.

I agree with this. Same with NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.

Originally Posted by 33knight33

the whole story in the case of Stallworth is not being presented in this thread

apparently there were some sort of video cameras taping the scene when Stallworth killed the person and it seemed that the person was responsible for walking out into traffic when he shouldn't have or whatever. BUT since Dante was drunk, he shares part of the blame.


(I do not have any sources, but this is what I remember hearing about the incident)

From my very rudimentary searches on the matter, I didn't come across any references to video tape, but the point about someone walking out into traffic is a well represented theme in most of the accounts I've read. Doesn't mitigate the manslaughter, as that depends upon negligence and DUI is nothing if not negligent. Howeve that, too, probably played a role in the sentencing.

The guy ran into traffic through the street to catch a bus...not a crosswalk.

Stallworth got screwed b/c he was drinking. If he was sober he still would have hit the poor guy.

It was around 7am, not sure of the sunrise in florida when this happened in March but I imagine the light was slightly compromised as well.