Warrior General Games

Originally posted by djgomez33
I'm amazed what people will do for money.

"Hey, I know you killed my (insert family member here) but give me (insert monetary value here) and we'll call it even."

Dead family member with money> Dead family member without money. who care what happens to the idiot. It has no bearing on you.

Originally posted by djgomez33
I'm amazed what people will do for money.

"Hey, I know you killed my (insert family member here) but give me (insert monetary value here) and we'll call it even."

I'd be pissed at my family if they DIDN'T take the $100mil.

Originally posted by pink_panther
Originally posted by Cactus71

vick lost all his money but still got 2 years I don't see why people are using that as and excuse for donte getting 30 days because he payed someone off, vick did the same

Stallworth is giving the family over $100 million?

I don't think it was quite 100 mil. Where the hell would Stallworth get that kind of money. He was partying that night celebrating his 4.5 mil signing bonus. I would believe it was closer to 1 or 2 mil.

Originally posted by Eli Blanton
Originally posted by Michael Vick

Good thing he didn't hit a dog.

I LOL'd.

Sec. 49.08. INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and
(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.
(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.



There is your sticky point that the DA's office was concerned with. That would be relatively easy for a skilled attorney to find at least 1 or 2 people on a jury to buy into the fact that since the guy was running into the street and not in a cross walk that Stallworth's intoxication was not the sole reason for the death of the pedestrian. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not a very difficult argument to make and I've seen much weaker arguments stick with a jury.

Granted, that' the Texas code, but I'm sure it's pretty similar nationwide.

Originally posted by lawdawg95
Sec. 49.08. INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and
(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.
(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.



There is your sticky point that the DA's office was concerned with. That would be relatively easy for a skilled attorney to find at least 1 or 2 people on a jury to buy into the fact that since the guy was running into the street and not in a cross walk that Stallworth's intoxication was not the sole reason for the death of the pedestrian. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not a very difficult argument to make and I've seen much weaker arguments stick with a jury.

Granted, that' the Texas code, but I'm sure it's pretty similar nationwide.



I don't want to do the research but I'm sure 'Intoxication Manslaughter' doesn't carry a 30 day jail sentence, 2 year house arrest, and 8 year probation on average.

Of course it doesn't. But when you take A) that the family specifically asked the DA's office to finish this as fast as they could to have it over and done with and B) at least a 50/50 chance that he would walk completely in a trial (probably more than a 50% chance of being found not guilty) I'm not surprised at what they came up with.

Trust me, nothing in the legal system remotely comes as a surprise to me anymore, nothing.

Originally posted by kr0n
It isn't even about Stallworth being guilty or not. It's the joke of a justice system. A normal person would have been charged with something like Reckless Homicide while he gets a simple DUI Manslaughter just for having money and being in the NFL.

What he was convicted of carries a 4 year minimum sentence in Florida. Strange, eh?

Originally posted by lawdawg95
Sec. 49.08. INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and
(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.
(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.



There is your sticky point that the DA's office was concerned with. That would be relatively easy for a skilled attorney to find at least 1 or 2 people on a jury to buy into the fact that since the guy was running into the street and not in a cross walk that Stallworth's intoxication was not the sole reason for the death of the pedestrian. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's not a very difficult argument to make and I've seen much weaker arguments stick with a jury.

Granted, that' the Texas code, but I'm sure it's pretty similar nationwide.



Here's the thing:

If you're out drunk driving, and someone rear ends you while at a stop light - and the officer shows up and catches you being drunk, you are at fault for the accident as you should have never been driving in the first place, thus the accident would have never occurred.

Originally posted by Clinton Esquire


Here's the thing:

If you're out drunk driving, and someone rear ends you while at a stop light - and the officer shows up and catches you being drunk, you are at fault for the accident as you should have never been driving in the first place, thus the accident would have never occurred.

Wrong. Your intoxication would be listed as a 'factor' in the accident and you would be arrested for DWI. However the driver who rear ended you would be factored as 'at fault' for rear ending you. That is the classic example used in training for "did the driver's intoxication lead to the accident". For example, if that driver who rear ends you dies in the accident you are not going to be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter.


I was in our department's DWI Enforcement Unit last year and had approximately 88 arrests for DWI. It's ridiculous how lightly the general population takes the offense of DWI

Originally posted by Clinton Esquire
Originally posted by kr0n

It isn't even about Stallworth being guilty or not. It's the joke of a justice system. A normal person would have been charged with something like Reckless Homicide while he gets a simple DUI Manslaughter just for having money and being in the NFL.

What he was convicted of carries a 4 year minimum sentence in Florida. Strange, eh?

I wonder if Plaxico is going to get the Minimum 1 1/2 years for having a loaded gun in NYC?

Originally posted by lawdawg95
Originally posted by Clinton Esquire



Here's the thing:

If you're out drunk driving, and someone rear ends you while at a stop light - and the officer shows up and catches you being drunk, you are at fault for the accident as you should have never been driving in the first place, thus the accident would have never occurred.

Wrong. Your intoxication would be listed as a 'factor' in the accident and you would be arrested for DWI. However the driver who rear ended you would be factored as 'at fault' for rear ending you. That is the classic example used in training for "did the driver's intoxication lead to the accident". For example, if that driver who rear ends you dies in the accident you are not going to be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter.


I was in our department's DWI Enforcement Unit last year and had approximately 88 arrests for DWI. It's ridiculous how lightly the general population takes the offense of DWI


I guess we get to find out what happens when one drunk hits and kills another drunk in this case

http://sportsbybrooks.com/report-leyritz-crash-victim-was-dui-herself-15768

In that case it shouldn't matter what the victim's BAC was as her intoxication didn't lead to the crash.

Originally posted by lawdawg95
In that case it shouldn't matter what the victim's BAC was as her intoxication didn't lead to the crash.

Lawdawg is one serious MFer today.