Stallworth gets 30 days for killing a guy

Discussion in 'National Football League' started by Gator, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. JetsGod

    JetsGod Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    1
    OH SNAP!!!
     
  2. winstonbiggs

    winstonbiggs 2008/2009 TGG Bill Parcells "Most Respected" Award

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,786
    Likes Received:
    2
    Michael Vick was involved in a criminal conspiracy by his own premeditated actions. He lied about it, tried to cover it up and never owned up to his own misrable self.

    If Mike Vick had hit a dog that ran out in front of him I don't think he would be in jail.

    This analogy just doesn't make it for me.
     
  3. statjeff22

    statjeff22 2008 Green Guy "Most Knowledgeable" Award Winner

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    27,096
    Likes Received:
    7,045
    It's remarkable to me that some people tend to overlook this. Vick is not in jail because he killed a dog, it's because he engaged in a six-year long interstate criminal conspiracy, including providing most of the financing for it.

    He's actually lucky it wasn't much longer, since he got the state prison sentence of 3 years suspended when he pleaded guilty (the 23 months is only the federal sentence). If he gets in trouble again he'll be heading to the state pen.
     
  4. JetBlue

    JetBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    5,916
    if someone is jaywalking and gets hit, they are at fault for the accident, plain and simple. you can't step in front of a car that has the right of way and cause an accident and be absolved of your actions just because you got hit.

    had Stallworth not been drunk, he wouldn't have been charged with anything. that's not to say he shouldn't be punished, but unless this case you are attempting to show correlation with is identical in the facts of events, there is no comparison. the key is in what the victim was doing, and in Stallworth's case the victim not only contributed to his death, he caused it outright apparently with his own actions. if that's not the case with this example, there is no inconsistency. you can't ignore the differences of the case and just hinge your arguments on the similarities.

    sure, maybe had Stallworth not been drunk he could have had better reactions and avoided him, but that we'll never know.

    there's a basic flaw in logic to anyone who simply reduces the events to the fact that someone died therefore the other party is at fault. you have to ignore a lot of aspects of the events to come to that conclusion.
     
  5. Mambo9

    Mambo9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    8,906
    Likes Received:
    41
    he got 30 days + 2 years house arrest + 8 years probation.... and it was an accident, he didn't deliberatly kill the guy... I think that's fair...
     
  6. Miamipuck

    Miamipuck New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    11,429
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dont forget midgets and blow!
     

Share This Page