I guess money can buy one out of anything

[brettmcd]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4262751

I would have to say I am outraged that just because he is famous and has the money to buy off the family of the person he killed he is getting off with basically no real punishment.    He made the choices that in the end resulted in killing someone, he made the choice to drink that night, he made the choice to get behind the wheel of his car.   To only get 30 (now 24) days in jail, is just outrageous.   If it was you or me in the exact same circumstances and didnt have the money to buy off the family we would be going to jail for a far far longer time.  Its sad to see justice for sale again in the US.

[Crux]

err... He didn't buy his way out of any jail time. He plead guilty and was sentenced to the jail time. The 'financial settlement' was to prevent a civil lawsuit, which if he had lost it would have cost him money, not more time in jail.

[brettmcd]

err... He didn't buy his way out of any jail time. He plead guilty and was sentenced to the jail time. The 'financial settlement' was to prevent a civil lawsuit, which if he had lost it would have cost him money, not more time in jail.

He bought his way out of it in this way, he made sure the family wasnt going to push the prosecutor for any type of real punishment for the crime.   If the family was screaming for a more realistic punishment for the death, there would not have been a plea bargain like this.

[Windows95]

That does seem like a pretty lenient sentence for DUI manslaughter, but I think there are some mitigating circumstances with the case.  I recall reading that the victim was trying to get across a busy 40 MPH highway when he was struck and killed.  If that were true, it could make it difficult for the prosecution to prove that the accident was even avoidable, regardless of the defendant's blood alcohol level.  You'd need a good witness to show the accused was driving in a manner that was dangerous (10 MPH over doesn't cut it).  If that is the case, the plea is more understandable.  To his credit as well, Stallworth didn't flee the scene and never denied responsibility, which certainly doesn't make him a hero, but it's more than most celebs seem to do.

As for buying off the victim's family, I don't see how you've reached that conclusion. Your article simply states that the family reached a settlement without a lawsuit.  I'm sure lawyers were involved and they received a fair compensation, so why should they have to go through the process of court proceedings if they don't want to?  Imho it's a credit to them that they're not trying to seek "justice" by milking Stallworth for every penny he's worth.

[brettmcd]

That does seem like a pretty lenient sentence for DUI manslaughter, but I think there are some mitigating circumstances with the case.  I recall reading that the victim was trying to get across a busy 40 MPH highway when he was struck and killed.  If that were true, it could make it difficult for the prosecution to prove that the accident was even avoidable, regardless of the defendant's blood alcohol level.  You'd need a good witness to show the accused was driving in a manner that was dangerous (10 MPH over doesn't cut it).  If that is the case, the plea is more understandable.  To his credit as well, Stallworth didn't flee the scene and never denied responsibility, which certainly doesn't make him a hero, but it's more than most celebs seem to do.

As for buying off the victim's family, I don't see how you've reached that conclusion. Your article simply states that the family reached a settlement without a lawsuit.  I'm sure lawyers were involved and they received a fair compensation, so why should they have to go through the process of court proceedings if they don't want to?  Imho it's a credit to them that they're not trying to seek "justice" by milking Stallworth for every penny he's worth.

If he wasnt rich he couldnt have made a settlement that the family considered 'fair compensation' for the death, thats how I reached that conculsion.   Also, if he had not been driving drunk it is very likely he could have avoided killing this person, and driving drunk IS driving in a manner that is dangerous, they dont need anything else to prove that, not sure why you think they do.

[Crux]

err... He didn't buy his way out of any jail time. He plead guilty and was sentenced to the jail time. The 'financial settlement' was to prevent a civil lawsuit, which if he had lost it would have cost him money, not more time in jail.

He bought his way out of it in this way, he made sure the family wasnt going to push the prosecutor for any type of real punishment for the crime.   If the family was screaming for a more realistic punishment for the death, there would not have been a plea bargain like this.

As Windows pointed out, there really wasn't much of case for serious punishment to begin with. Secondly do you *really* think any DA isn't going to milk something like this for all the attention it is worth if there really was much of a case? And lastly, the last time I checked victim's families didn't really have a lot to say about how hard the prosecutors push a case or push for punishment.

[brettmcd]

err... He didn't buy his way out of any jail time. He plead guilty and was sentenced to the jail time. The 'financial settlement' was to prevent a civil lawsuit, which if he had lost it would have cost him money, not more time in jail.

He bought his way out of it in this way, he made sure the family wasnt going to push the prosecutor for any type of real punishment for the crime.   If the family was screaming for a more realistic punishment for the death, there would not have been a plea bargain like this.

As Windows pointed out, there really wasn't much of case for serious punishment to begin with. Secondly do you *really* think any DA isn't going to milk something like this for all the attention it is worth if there really was much of a case? And lastly, the last time I checked victim's families didn't really have a lot to say about how hard the prosecutors push a case or push for punishment.

DAs are usually elected, if the family was making a scene in the media about such a light punishment, yes that would make a difference.   Also the only thing you need, in my opinion, to have a case for serious punishment is the fact he was drunk driving when he killed the person.   You take that away the person would most likely still be alive today.

[Jaddison]

I think the family of the victim is actually lucky Stallworth was "rich".  They lost their bread winner but because Stallworth has money they will be covered.  if there is an afterlife I am sure the victim would be fine with the fact that his family will now be taken care of.

So in the end:

-the victims family is going to most likely not have to worry where their next meal is coming from.
-Stallworth will never legally drive again
-serves 2 years of of what they are likening to house arrest
-still gets to work and provide for his family

Given the circumstances it appears the DA thought this was the best he could do with the evidence he had.

Much like the guy who got 1 year for molesting a 4 year old in OK.

[Victoria Raverna]

err... He didn't buy his way out of any jail time. He plead guilty and was sentenced to the jail time. The 'financial settlement' was to prevent a civil lawsuit, which if he had lost it would have cost him money, not more time in jail.

He bought his way out of it in this way, he made sure the family wasnt going to push the prosecutor for any type of real punishment for the crime.   If the family was screaming for a more realistic punishment for the death, there would not have been a plea bargain like this.

As Windows pointed out, there really wasn't much of case for serious punishment to begin with. Secondly do you *really* think any DA isn't going to milk something like this for all the attention it is worth if there really was much of a case? And lastly, the last time I checked victim's families didn't really have a lot to say about how hard the prosecutors push a case or push for punishment.

DAs are usually elected, if the family was making a scene in the media about such a light punishment, yes that would make a difference.   Also the only thing you need, in my opinion, to have a case for serious punishment is the fact he was drunk driving when he killed the person.   You take that away the person would most likely still be alive today.

Someone crossing a street where cars are moving at 40 mph is risking his life. You don't have to be drunk to hit someone who suddenly run in front of your car that is moving at 40 mph.

[Rich]

That does seem like a pretty lenient sentence for DUI manslaughter, but I think there are some mitigating circumstances with the case.  I recall reading that the victim was trying to get across a busy 40 MPH highway when he was struck and killed.  If that were true, it could make it difficult for the prosecution to prove that the accident was even avoidable, regardless of the defendant's blood alcohol level.  You'd need a good witness to show the accused was driving in a manner that was dangerous (10 MPH over doesn't cut it).  If that is the case, the plea is more understandable.  To his credit as well, Stallworth didn't flee the scene and never denied responsibility, which certainly doesn't make him a hero, but it's more than most celebs seem to do.

As for buying off the victim's family, I don't see how you've reached that conclusion. Your article simply states that the family reached a settlement without a lawsuit.  I'm sure lawyers were involved and they received a fair compensation, so why should they have to go through the process of court proceedings if they don't want to?  Imho it's a credit to them that they're not trying to seek "justice" by milking Stallworth for every penny he's worth.

If he wasnt rich he couldnt have made a settlement that the family considered 'fair compensation' for the death, thats how I reached that conculsion.   Also, if he had not been driving drunk it is very likely he could have avoided killing this person, and driving drunk IS driving in a manner that is dangerous, they dont need anything else to prove that, not sure why you think they do.

I hate to take the side of the guilty but I haven't read any evidence that his being legally drunk is what caused the accident, as Windows said this could very well be a case of the accident being unavoidable regardless of what his blood alcohol reading was.  It's almost like they are treating the DUI and the manslaughter as seperate events.  I wasn't there to see if it could have been avoided or not so I'm not going to say he bought his way out of a "real" punishment.

[CeeKay]

I wonder if the Browns will keep him on. I bet his agreement to 2 yeas house arrest would look alot less appealing if he had no football to play.

[brettmcd]

Its not like he never saw the person, he stated he saw him and flashed his lights at him, so sayin the accident was unavoidable just doesnt seem right at all to me.   He was over .12 BAC, thats a huge hit to ones reaction times to do anything, and he was also speeding.   It almost seems like people want to blame the victim more then the idiot drunk driver.   I find that puzzling to say the least.

[Crux]

DAs are usually elected, if the family was making a scene in the media about such a light punishment, yes that would make a difference.

But for that same reason, the DA would get a lot of publicity and "face-time" by prosecuting a well known athlete.

Also the only thing you need, in my opinion, to have a case for serious punishment is the fact he was drunk driving when he killed the person.   You take that away the person would most likely still be alive today.

Based on what? Your extensive knowledge of traffic accidents? Your lifelong study of vehicular deaths? Your extensive knowledge the circumstances in this case? Your precise information on exactly how Stallworth's level of intoxication affected his judgment and physical reactions?

Lyons noted that Stallworth stopped immediately after the accident, called 911 and submitted to roadside alcohol testing despite spending most of the night drinking at a Miami Beach hotel.

"He acted like a man," Lyons said. "He remained at the scene. He cooperated fully."

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.

Now, let's take another DUI vehicular manslaughter plea:

A New Jersey man has been sentenced to more than four years in prison for an alcohol-related car crash that killed a 13-year-old girl.

Joshua Nicholas Giarra, 23, of Robbinsville, N.J., pleaded guilty on Jan. 22 to homicide by vehicle, driving under the influence, recklessly endangering another person, and related charges. He was sentenced yesterday.

On July 26, Giarra was driving his Jeep Cherokee at a high speed when he ran a red light at North Pottstown Pike and Marchwood Road, and crashed into a car, killing Hannah Robb of Downingtown.

Giarra also was ordered to pay more than $70,000 in restitution for funeral and medical expenses.

So here we have someone who had a higher blood alcohol level than Stallworth. He wasn't just speeding, he ran a red light. He then lied after the fact and said his brakes failed (which when investigated turned out to be not true).

Essentially his circumstances are considerably worse than Stallworths (who again, struck someone who was in the road but not at a crossing, took responsibility and tried to do the right thing) and he only get 4 years and $70,000.

So really, it would seem Stallworth didn't buy his way out of anything. He ended up getting a sentence that was reasonable given the general standards for this kind of thing.

[Sarkus]

30 days is not contrary to what "normal" people get in such cases.  For example, consider the recent case where a drunk driver hit a drunk guy walking along a road, then drove for a mile with the guys body wedged into the car through the windshield before stopping.  His penalty?  30 days in jail.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/monmouth_county_man_is_sentenc.html

The issue here isn't that Stallworth got off "light," it's that the system doesn't typically penalize first time drunk driving offenders all that much in terms of jail time.

[Mr. Fed]

Stallworth must also 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 for reasons such as employment.

Lyons noted that Stallworth stopped immediately after the accident, called 911 and submitted to roadside alcohol testing despite spending most of the night drinking at a Miami Beach hotel.

"He acted like a man," Lyons said. "He remained at the scene. He cooperated fully."

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.

What is the average sentence confinement in Florida for DUI Manslaughter?

What is the average sentence for first-time offenders?

Absent that information, it's difficult to say whether he is getting a break because he is rich or not.

One might feel that 30 days is too little for DUI manslaughter.  But that's a separate question, isn't it?

[Blackadar]

In 1998, Leonard Little, middle LB for the Rams, killed a woman while driving drunk.  He received a 90 day sentence, 4 years' probation and 1,000 hours of community service.  It's not all that unusual.

In this case, Stallworth's penalty seems light, but that's probably due to:

1.  The facts of the case, including contributing factors by the victim
2.  How FL punishes first-time DUI offenders
3.  That he could afford top-notch legal council to better aid in his defense

So saying "money can buy one out of anything" isn't correct - it's just a typical knee-jerk reaction by the OP.

[Mithridates]

it's just a typical knee-jerk reaction by the OP.

I was thinking the same thing.

[brettmcd]

Not sure how being outraged over the non existent sentence of a drunk driver who killed someone is a 'knee-jerk' reaction.   And Blackadar, even one of your points follows mine, that because he is rich he is able to get a sentence that you or I would never be able to get, because he can afford the best lawyers to get him off.     So yes my statement was correct.

I just think in general we dont treat the crime of drunk driving harsh enough, one should be charged with murder if they kill someone while drunk driving, these lesser charges for it are stupid in my opinion.  The driver made the choice to drink, and the choice to drive, and since those choices resulted in someones death, thats murder in my book.

[Crux]

I just think in general we dont treat the crime of drunk driving harsh enough

I think a lot of people agree with you. But your original post was mostly trumpeting the fact Stallworth somehow bought his way out of a serious sentence and that clearly isn't the case.

[Mr. Fed]

   And Blackadar, even one of your points follows mine, that because he is rich he is able to get a sentence that you or I would never be able to get, because he can afford the best lawyers to get him off. 

Speaking as an expensive lawyer, what I do is not magic, and is not extraordinary.  I'm not Clarence Darrow here.  I rarely get someone acquitted, or get them a lower sentence, through a flash of brilliance of which other lawyers are not capable.  I succeed, when I do, because (1) I am reasonably trained, (2) clients can pay me to spend the time to prepare the defense meticulously as if it is important (which it is), and (3) I am not simultaneously personally handling 30 other cases that week.  

Many, if not most, lawyers could achieve the same results given those preconditions.  Public sentiment aside, the could do so not through Svengali-like influence over judges and juries and prosecutors, but through workmanlike application of established law to the facts of each case.

So, perhaps, the question is not why is it fair that a rich guy gets me and gets a better result.  Perhaps the question is why, if we have an appetite to put people in jail, we don't provide them all with adequately trained lawyers with sufficient time and resources to do a workmanlike job.

     

I just think in general we dont treat the crime of drunk driving harsh enough, one should be charged with murder if they kill someone while drunk driving,

Agreed.

The driver made the choice to drink, and the choice to drive, and since those choices resulted in someones death, thats murder in my book.

Well, there's the rub.  Was he impaired?  Did the impairment cause the death?  Had the guy been sober, would he have not hit the dude crossing the street?  It could be that the prosecutor was not confident he could prove that.  Though elements vary, it is not as simple as drunk + accident + death = murder.  

[Teggy]

Speaking as an expensive lawyer, what I do is not magic, and is not extraordinary.  I'm not Clarence Darrow here.  I rarely get someone acquitted, or get them a lower sentence, through a flash of brilliance of which other lawyers are not capable.  I succeed, when I do, because (1) I am reasonably trained, (2) clients can pay me to spend the time to prepare the defense meticulously as if it is important (which it is), and (3) I am not simultaneously personally handling 30 other cases that week.   

Shhh. I want to continue to believe episodes of Law & Order are just like real life.

And on topic, Stallworth was suspended by the NFL today. Indefinite w/o pay.

[PeteRock]

Not sure how being outraged over the non existent sentence of a drunk driver who killed someone is a 'knee-jerk' reaction. 

It isn't.  The alleged "knee-jerk" reaction was your initial statement:

I would have to say I am outraged that just because he is famous and has the money to buy off the family of the person he killed he is getting off with basically no real punishment.

You suggested that because he is famous he received a lighter sentence, when in actuality his sentence seems fairly fitting for what is commonly assigned for similar conditions.  The "knee-jerk" comment was directed at your initial outrage toward Stallworth's wealth and popularity but you've since changed your tune to outrage over the sentence in general.

[brettmcd]

Not sure how being outraged over the non existent sentence of a drunk driver who killed someone is a 'knee-jerk' reaction. 

It isn't.  The alleged "knee-jerk" reaction was your initial statement:

I would have to say I am outraged that just because he is famous and has the money to buy off the family of the person he killed he is getting off with basically no real punishment.

You suggested that because he is famous he received a lighter sentence, when in actuality his sentence seems fairly fitting for what is commonly assigned for similar conditions.  The "knee-jerk" comment was directed at your initial outrage toward Stallworth's wealth and popularity but you've since changed your tune to outrage over the sentence in general.

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

[Crux]

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

Even though the facts don't bear this out? I suppose some things will never change. I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

[PeteRock]

Not sure how being outraged over the non existent sentence of a drunk driver who killed someone is a 'knee-jerk' reaction. 

It isn't.  The alleged "knee-jerk" reaction was your initial statement:

I would have to say I am outraged that just because he is famous and has the money to buy off the family of the person he killed he is getting off with basically no real punishment.

You suggested that because he is famous he received a lighter sentence, when in actuality his sentence seems fairly fitting for what is commonly assigned for similar conditions.  The "knee-jerk" comment was directed at your initial outrage toward Stallworth's wealth and popularity but you've since changed your tune to outrage over the sentence in general.

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

There were too many variables that influenced the final decision.  Stallworth's cooperation, issues surrounding the impact, etc.  And all influencing variables had nothing to do with notoriety or annual salary.  The situation isn't simply black and white, and Stallworth's sentence was not only based on the settlement with the family, but also on the prosecution's case.

[Sarkus]

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

So why not bother to provide any evidence that Stallworth got off easy here?  You seem to have the attitude that this is so self-evident you don't need to support your position.  Meanwhile, two seconds of googling and I found a case (linked in an earlier post by me) where a guy in New Jersey also just got a 30 day sentence for killing someone while driving drunk in what was arguably even worse behavior on the part of the guy that was driving the car.  And he wasn't rich or paid off the family.

[Blackadar]

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

Even though the facts don't bear this out? I suppose some things will never change. I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

[pr0ner]

And I still maintain if the family was calling for a harsher sentence things would be going differently, but they arent because of the settlement his money and fame allowed him to pay.   I am not changing my tune on that at all, I still stand by it 100%.

Even though the facts don't bear this out? I suppose some things will never change. I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Ahahaha.   

[CeeKay]

suspended indefinitely,  without pay. 

[Moliere]

I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

Please link the last time you admitted you were wrong. That's a pretty rare thing in a Forum. The last time I admitted being wrong is when I thought I had made a mistake.

[Crux]

I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

Please link the last time you admitted you were wrong. That's a pretty rare thing in a Forum. The last time I admitted being wrong is when I thought I had made a mistake.

I sure will the second you link to the last time I made wild assertions that everyone disagreed with and proved wrong.

[Mithridates]

suspended indefinitely,  without pay. 

Hey Douchebag, that was already pointed out about 8 posts above yours.  No wonder you have 54 billion posts, when you post repeat crap like that.     

[Windows95]

suspended indefinitely,  without pay. 

Hey Douchebag, that was already pointed out about 8 posts above yours.  No wonder you have 54 billion posts, when you post repeat crap like that.     

No point yelling at him, he's just a bot that reposts stuff from other sites.

[IkeVandergraaf]

suspended indefinitely,  without pay. 

Hey Douchebag, that was already pointed out about 8 posts above yours.  No wonder you have 54 billion posts, when you post repeat crap like that.     

I think it's funny you capitalized Douchebag. That's Mister Douchebag to you!

[Arclight]

To think that there isn't a double-standard in all things Fame\power\money is to belong to the Ostrich family.

Just saying...................

[Crux]

I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

Please link the last time you admitted you were wrong. That's a pretty rare thing in a Forum. The last time I admitted being wrong is when I thought I had made a mistake.

I sure will the second you link to the last time I made wild assertions that everyone disagreed with and proved wrong.

Still looking, Moliere?

[Moliere]

I almost thought for a second there you were going to admit you were wrong about something!

Please link the last time you admitted you were wrong. That's a pretty rare thing in a Forum. The last time I admitted being wrong is when I thought I had made a mistake.

I sure will the second you link to the last time I made wild assertions that everyone disagreed with and proved wrong.

Still looking, Moliere?

I'm still looking for you to show some class, especially as a GT Staff member, but I can see that's not going to happen.

[Crux]

I'm still looking for you to show some class, especially as a GT Staff member, but I can see that's not going to happen.

Honestly, please show me where I haven't shown class. Maybe you'll pretend to be all ignorant of brettmcd's history on these boards, but I would think some kind of proof that I'm being a hypocrite should be necessary if you are going to effectively call me one. You threw the accusation my way, and I just asked for that proof. If that makes me an ass of some kind, then the world is surely changing.

[Moliere]

Maybe you'll pretend to be all ignorant of brettmcd's history on these boards

Yes, I'm aware of how brettmcd is treated on this Forum.

I would think some kind of proof that I'm being a hypocrite should be necessary if you are going to effectively call me one.

I was asking if you can provide a ready example of how easily you admit to being wrong and even avoided a personal attack by saying it was a common thing especially in Forums for people to never back down. After your little snide remark I let the issue drop. Your lack of class comes from not only being a dick towards brettmcd, but also by calling me out again 3 days later when I tried to let it go. As a GT Staff member I hold you to higher standards even if you can't maintain that level of etiquette.

[Kurt Stevens]

Did his wealth allow him to afford a better lawyer who had adequate time to prepare a case? I'm sure it did.  Did the fact that he cooperated 100% with the authorities play a part? Most likely.   Did the fact that the victims own action played a part? Probably.  If the DA thought he had a case that was rock solid, I'm sure he wouldn't have cut a deal.  As others have said, whether we should sentence drunk driving more harshly is another matter.  I'm not sure this sentence was that far out of line from others of its type. I just think it is shocking to hear that you can kill someone while over the legal alcohol limit and get what appears to be such a small penalty.