Browns WR Stallworth hits, kills Fla. pedestrian

[salsadancer7]

I'm glad you've come around finally, a long way from

Oh no....I still believe he has no fault just because he was 30 feet away from the crosswalk. Because from what I have read/heard/seen...Stallworth was gonna nail this man whether he was in a crosswalk or not. NOT saying he intentionally ran him over....just saying he was in NO CONDITION to make the decision to stop....regardless WHERE this guy was walking. Satllworth lucked out WAY BEYOND human belief.

...and I don't wanna that bull**** about "they took his DL, he is on probation..." yada, yada, yada....because he you ask HIM, he would take what he got over a 15 year jail sentence of hard time, any day of the week.

...and so would ANY of us....

 

[meStevo]

That's kind of the point in 'making a deal' - all the parties come together given the facts of the case and compromise on a sentence given the circumstances. You are just insistent on dismissing some of those circumstances so there's little point arguing further since you are being irrational about it. The only reason I restated his sentence is because some think that it's no big deal... and what he got would be pretty devastating to all of us posting here. Imposing a harsher sentence would probably be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Your wording is good though... "I believe" because clearly it's a fact of the case that you're completely wrong, but we are all free to believe whatever.

 

[salsadancer7]

That's kind of the point in 'making a deal' - all the parties come together given the facts of the case and compromise on a sentence given the circumstances. You are just insistent on dismissing some of those circumstances so there's little point arguing further since you are being irrational about it. The only reason I restated his sentence is because some think that it's no big deal... and what he got would be pretty devastating to all of us posting here. Imposing a harsher sentence would probably be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Your wording is good though... "I believe" because clearly it's a fact of the case that you're completely wrong, but we are all free to believe whatever.

But you are under the assumption YOU KNOW the "facts of the case"...and neither YOU nor I DO know the facts. They may NEVER come out. I don't think I ma be irrational at all. YOU are thinking as a lawyer, I and am thinking as a human being. There is a HUGE difference between the two....

...by the way, yeah it WOULD be "devastating" if ANYONE of us got what he eventually got....but YOU tell me what would have been worse...? Yep, I thought so.

 

[meStevo]

Please then, tell me which of the facts I've presented are wrong or even debatable? I am just unwilling to dismiss what we DO KNOW, and present made up things to make my case like you want to do (ie "Stallworth was gonna nail this man").

 

[salsadancer7]

Please then, tell me which of the facts I've presented are wrong or even debatable? I am just unwilling to dismiss what we DO KNOW, and present made up things to make my case like you want to do (ie "Stallworth was gonna nail this man").

do you honestly think IF he was in the crosswalk, he actually had a chance to live? Really? Seriously? He was gonna get hit by him either way because he was NOT in the state/frame of mind to make the decision to stop/swerve or slow down. The toxicology report CLEARLY PROVES THAT....especially if he was JUST GOING SPEED LIMIT in that area...which is 50 mph. I know that area of Miami Beach well...DO YOU?!

 

[meStevo]

Again, we have no idea. You tell me I don't know what I am talking about when all I am talking about are the proven released facts of the case, and then you go on imagining things that did not happen to make your argument (ie he would have plowed through him if he was in the crosswalk).

I have no idea what would have happened if he had crossed the street legally because it did not happen.

How you justify going from telling me that I don't know the facts of the case to making up scenarios to justify some obsession with pinning it on him 100% when what we DO KNOW is that the pedestrian shared blame I don't think I'll ever understand. This whole thread could be put together without any of my comments, you've gone so back and forth trying to convince me (and maybe yourself?) that the law doesn't matter.

People drive home drunk every day, it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make them also a lock to hit someone.

I still believe he has no fault just because he was 30 feet away from the crosswalk.

neither YOU nor I DO know the facts. They may NEVER come out.

(what facts are we missing at this point btw that would change what we know? you're good at making stuff up, give it a shot)

He was gonna get hit by him either way because he was NOT in the state/frame of mind

If you say so, it doesn't make you right though, and I'd love to hear from anyone you've convinced. I see you didn't bother trying to find anything that I've said that we 'dont know' since I don't know the 'facts of the case' I thought this would have been easy for you.

especially if he was JUST GOING SPEED LIMIT in that area...which is 50 mph. I know that area of Miami Beach well...DO YOU?!

He was going 'an estimated 50mph'. It is a 40mph zone. Maybe you should get to know the area better, or work on making your argument around the facts instead of this irrational 'pedestrians can do no wrong' stance you've taken up.

 

[salsadancer7]

Again, we have no idea. You tell me I don't know what I am talking about when all I am talking about are the proven released facts of the case, and then you go on imagining things that did not happen to make your argument (ie he would have plowed through him if he was in the crosswalk).

I have no idea what would have happened if he had crossed the street legally because it did not happen.

How you justify going from telling me that I don't know the facts of the case to making up scenarios to justify some obsession with pinning it on him 100% when what we DO KNOW is that the pedestrian shared blame I don't think I'll ever understand. This whole thread could be put together without any of my comments, you've gone so back and forth trying to convince me (and maybe yourself?) that the law doesn't matter.

People drive home drunk every day, it doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make them also a lock to hit someone.





(what facts are we missing at this point btw that would change what we know? you're good at making stuff up, give it a shot)



If you say so, it doesn't make you right though, and I'd love to hear from anyone you've convinced. I see you didn't bother trying to find anything that I've said that we 'dont know' since I don't know the 'facts of the case' I thought this would have been easy for you.

He was going 'an estimated 50mph'. It is a 40mph zone. Maybe you should get to know the area better, or work on making your argument around the facts instead of this irrational 'pedestrians can do no wrong' stance you've taken up.

A few points...the MacArthur Causeway is 50 mph. I drive it DAILY! The ONLY time it is below 50 mph is when you get to South Beach at Alton Road OR when you connect to the 836 Dolphin expressway where it GOES UP to 55 mph....

Do you think, in his capacity....LEGALLY drunk and WELL OVER the legal drinking limit....ALL FACTS....not made up facts...whether the pedestrain was on the crosswalk or not...some 30 feet away....it was gonna make a different on whether he was gonna be in the right frame of mind to make a decision to stop or swerve...do you? Answer that question....

The facts that are missing are in the video, which we will never see because the judge to HIS CREDIT, decided to bar it from coming out. There we would have more than likely seen a man crossing some 30 feet from a crosswalk....getting nailed. Again.....whether he was at the crosswalk or not...it would have not made a difference because he was gonna hit him ANYWAY because he was drunk....period. He didn't intend to hit him on purpose...he just did not have the mental capacity at the time....drunk, up all night, tired....to make a decision TO STOP.

 

[meStevo]

There are only a couple of facts that matter...

- A pedestrian crossed the street illegally, causing an accident that cost him his life.
- The driver of a vehicle that was involved in the accident was intoxicated so then charges are pressed appropriately.

What can possibly be on this video tape that can change any of the above?

As for the Causeway you know like the back of your hand, it's this one right?

[ame=http://maps.google.com/maps?q=stallworth+accident+map&ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=25.772022,-80.150055&spn=0,359.997936&t=h&z=20&iwloc=D&layer=c&cbll=25.772031,-80.150162&panoid=bX2nn0tGBGMaRmIJElXihw&cbp=12,312.32,,2,-2.73]stallworth accident map - Google Maps[/ame]

Old pic or what, or do you go 50 down it like Stalworth?

The rest of your argument I have never bought into and never will. People almost lose their lives by a matter of inches every day, and to say giving this guy 30 more feet would have still guaranteed his death is something I wont do. It's like saying Stallworth should have drank more, so that he was swerving or something, and then he'd have missed the guy. It's just made up stuff to make your argument stronger. The above facts are proven and confirmed, given those and anything else that is part of the video and the on-scene investigation the prosecution and the defense were able to come to this sentence.

Thankfully we don't convict people in this country on what-ifs, which is why Donte got an appropriate charge and sentence.

Do you think, in his capacity....LEGALLY drunk and WELL OVER the legal drinking limit....ALL FACTS....not made up facts...whether the pedestrain was on the crosswalk or not...some 30 feet away....it was gonna make a different on whether he was gonna be in the right frame of mind to make a decision to stop or swerve...do you? Answer that question....

I just don't understand why you keep going down this road (outside of a crosswalk too probably), why does this matter? Why do you ignore what happened to cause the accident in your carefully crafted piece of fiction to try and get people to agree with you? The pedestrian crossed illegally and caused an accident. If the same thing happened and he was in a crosswalk of course things would be different, BUT HE DIDNT! So I am not sure why you keep trying to hammer that home, what's the point? 'Answer that question....'

 

[salsadancer7]

There are only a couple of facts that matter...

- A pedestrian crossed the street illegally, causing an accident that cost him his life.
- The driver of a vehicle that was involved in the accident was intoxicated so then charges are pressed appropriately.

What can possibly be on this video tape that can change any of the above?

As for the Causeway you know like the back of your hand, it's this one right?

Old pic or what, or do you go 50 down it like Stalworth?

The ONLY time it is below 50 mph is when you get to South Beach at Alton Road

Trying a little reading comprehension and re-ready my statement above AGAIN. Their is only ONE contruction site on the causeway....at that is at the tail around....ya ready....?? Just BEFORE YOU GET TO ALTON ROAD.....!!

The pedestrian crossed illegally and caused an accident. If the same thing happened and he was in a crosswalk of course things would be different, BUT HE DIDNT! So I am not sure why you keep trying to hammer that home, what's the point? 'Answer that question....'

The PEDESTRIAN caused that accident...??!! LMAO!! ARE you on crack?! So in OTHER words...according to YOUR logic....IF he legally crosses AT the crosswalk....this accident NEVER HAPPENS...??!! Wow!

....I suppose Stallworth being drunk and possibly high, which they did find traces in his system....had NOTHING TO DO with him hitting this poor man....just his careless choice of of where he crossed ??!! Wow....! That is all I can say....

 

[meStevo]

You do realize that if the pedestrian had to walk TO the crosswalk 30 feet away, he wouldn't have been in the street when Stallworth drove by, right? Is there a light at this crosswalk? You're assuming he'd have run it too right?

Under the circumstances, yes, the pedestrian caused the accident, why is that so hard for you to understand? I know it makes your entire argument look stupid (since you say he has no fault at all, which is laughable), but that's the very obvious facts here. If Stalworth was clean when this happened and everything still transpired as it did, he would have likely faced NO charges at all. If the pedestrian used the crosswalk, he'd have been on the sidewalk walking to it when Stallworth passed.

 

[salsadancer7]

You do realize that if the pedestrian had to walk TO the crosswalk 30 feet away, he wouldn't have been in the street when Stallworth drove by, right? Is there a light at this crosswalk? You're assuming he'd have run it too right?

Under the circumstances, yes, the pedestrian caused the accident, why is that so hard for you to understand? I know it makes your entire argument look stupid (since you say he has no fault at all, which is laughable), but that's the very obvious facts here. If Stalworth was clean when this happened and everything still transpired as it did, he would have likely faced NO charges at all. If the pedestrian used the crosswalk, he'd have been on the sidewalk walking to it when Stallworth passed.

LMAO!! IF Stallworth would have been clean....he would have had the mental capacity to have made a decision to either stop or swerve. But you continue to make the case that he was of sound mind and this guy had not fault because it was the jaywalker who caused the accident. But then again, you have NO CLUE where this crosswalk is or how it is set up. Let me explain to where this crosswalk is and how it is setup. The construction site where this guy works...there are no cars parked where the crosswalk is. There are these concrete medians about 3 feet high....SO, unless he was hiding UNDER the median level and just hoped out onto the causeway...you can see someone ABOVE 4 feet tall EASILY from 100-150 feet away.....plenty of time to either swerve and even stop....even at 50 mph....but...he was drunk....and was not on in the frame of mind to make that decision....which you seemingly keep forgetting.

...but hey, you keep living in YOUR dream world where the victim was at fault....your are entitled to it.

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Didn't somebody asy he "flashed his hi-beams" at the guy? Still ran him over. My reaction would have been to slam on the brakes, but that's just me. Get drunk, kill a man, get 30 days. I have a couple of people I want to settle a score with, maybe I can talk them into a vacation in Miami.

 

[salsadancer7]

Didn't somebody asy he "flashed his hi-beams" at the guy? Still ran him over. My reaction would have been to slam on the brakes, but that's just me. Get drunk, kill a man, get 30 days. I have a couple of people I want to settle a score with, maybe I can talk them into a vacation in Miami.

LMAO!! Could not have said it better myself. The gentleman I am having the discuss with tends to think that IF the pedestrian had crossed at the crosswalk...this would HAVE NOT had happen....

Originally Posted by meStevo

The pedestrian crossed illegally and caused an accident. If the same thing happened and he was in a crosswalk of course things would be different, BUT HE DIDNT!

 

[meStevo]

But you continue to make the case that he was of sound mind and this guy had not fault because it was the jaywalker who caused the accident.

Because IT DOES NOT MATTER!!

If you go and stand in the street and someone hits you, it's your fault! If you're running across the street to catch a bus like this guy was, and you aren'tin a crosswalk, it's your fault!

If they're on PCP going backwards in a stolen tank, they only share blame, you're still in the middle of the street! THIS is why he faced the charges he did, instead of something much more serious (and still got a pretty stiff punishment IMO)

The fact that he had whatever in his system is the only reason he faced ANY charges.

If's, and but's do not prove your hypothetical points, prove it to me, use facts. You can't, because you insist that if he warped over to the crosswalk and was crossing he'd still be dead.

Personally im impressed he was able to flash his lights doing 50 around this bend - [ame=http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=stallworth+accident&sll=25.774252,-80.149512&sspn=0.012251,0.016973&ie=UTF8&radius=0.53&filter=0&rq=1&ll=25.772301,-80.151165&spn=0.012251,0.016973&t=h&z=16]stallworth accident - Google Maps[/ame]

 

[Paul Wozniak]

Because IT DOES NOT MATTER!!

If you go and stand in the street and someone hits you, it's your fault! If you're running across the street to catch a bus like this guy was, and you aren'tin a crosswalk, it's your fault!

If they're on PCP going backwards in a stolen tank, they only share blame, you're still in the middle of the street! THIS is why he faced the charges he did, instead of something much more serious (and still got a pretty stiff punishment IMO)

The fact that he had whatever in his system is the only reason he faced ANY charges.

If's, and but's do not prove your hypothetical points, prove it to me, use facts. You can't, because you insist that if he warped over to the crosswalk and was crossing he'd still be dead.

Personally im impressed he was able to flash his lights doing 50 around this bend - stallworth accident - Google Maps

That's the part I can't seem to wrap my brain around. Would have been easier to hit the brakes you would think.

 

[meStevo]

How do we know he didnt? That stuff is all secondary anyways, what we know is a guy was in the street (illegally, causing the accident), someone hit him, that someone was intoxicated (also, illegal).

I could be convinced that Stallworth didn't even flash his lights and lied, as a scared drunk guy, before I'll ever believe a pedestrian who crossed the street unlawfully was somehow not to blame for the accident. The video must show some pretty clear cut stuff in Stallworth's favor.

 

[meStevo]

Full text from the state attorney btw http://www.miamisao.com/press/InformationRegardingDonteStallworth.pdf

“Every case that we prosecute, especially those that involve the death of a human being, is closely scrutinized to ensure that a fair and just resolution is reached for all parties,” said prosecutor Katherine Fernandez Rundle. “We have specifically looked at the unique facts involved with this charge, Mr. Stallworth’s excellent pre-incident history of community service, abundant references that attest to his good character, his lack of any traffic violations or criminal convictions, his full and complete post-incident cooperation with law enforcement, and his willingness to accept complete responsibility for his actions.

“For all of these reasons, a just resolution of this case has been reached,” Ms. Rundle added. “The terms of the plea have been agreed upon between the State Attorney’s office and the police, and has been extended with the full endorsement and consent of the Reyes family, who believe that this plea and its timing are in the best interest of their 15-year-old daughter, the sole remaining child of Mario Reyes. Although no sentence can ever restore Mr. Reyes to his family, the provisions of this plea will provide closure to them and appropriate punishment for Mr. Stallworth’s conduct and the effects of his actions that night.”

The news release went on to say: “Stallworth will be sentenced to 30 days in the Dade County Jail to be followed by:

2 years of community control (house arrest)
8 years of reporting probation with the following special conditions:

1. drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment if recommended
2. random drug testing
3. lifetime driver’s license suspension and no driving (editor’s note: after five years, Stallworth could be approved for driving for reasons like employment.)
4. $2,500 donation to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
5. $2,500 donation to “Parents of Murdered Children”
6. 1,000 hours of community service and all community service projects will
be performed with the input and consent of the State Attorney’s Office.
These may include Public Service Announcements and speaking
engagements with children about the danger and risks associated with
drugs, alcohol, and driving, and how this case has affected him.
7. Cost Recovery to the Miami Beach Police Department in the amount of
$1,842.88
8. Cost Recovery to Miami-Dade Police Department in the amount of $813.14
9. Court Costs of $583.00?​

 

[salsadancer7]

Full text from the state attorney btw http://www.miamisao.com/press/InformationRegardingDonteStallworth.pdf

He got off easy for killing a human being.

“We have specifically looked at the unique facts involved with this charge, Mr. Stallworth’s excellent pre-incident history of community service, abundant references that attest to his good character, his lack of any traffic violations or criminal convictions, his full and complete post-incident cooperation with law enforcement, and his willingness to accept complete responsibility for his actions.

“For all of these reasons, a just resolution of this case has been reached,” Ms. Rundle added. “The terms of the plea have been agreed upon between the State Attorney’s office and the police, and has been extended with the full endorsement and consent of the Reyes family, who believe that this plea and its timing are in the best interest of their 15-year-old daughter, the sole remaining child of Mario Reyes. Although no sentence can ever restore Mr. Reyes to his family, the provisions of this plea will provide closure

Notice how NO WHERE in the full statement says anything about the victim being partically at fault for "jaywalking" which led to the final decision. To Mr. Stallworth's credit AND MONEY(either HIS or his insurance company), he got off pretty good for killing someone while being intoxicated behind the wheel. Hell, he got off SO EASY, that BOTH the local chapters of MADD AND "Parents of Murdered Children" did NOT accept the donation, as report by local TV stations, in protest to how easy he got off.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving put this statement on its Web site:

MADD is profoundly disappointed in the 30 day jail sentence for Donte Stallworth who killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. We have heard there may be a contribution to MADD in the settlement and if that is true, we will not accept any monies. This case is a clear test of the NFL’s continued tolerance of drunk driving among its players. We are closely watching what the NFL does.

So you can argue ALL you want about how "the pedestrial caused the accident"...he still got a sweatheart deal and there isn't a single person that will agree with you that he was at fault.

....I am done with discussing this when you are the only person, quite possibly in the US other than Stallworths family, that thinks THE VICTIM caused this accident.

 

[Ramy]

You guys really need to drop this.

 

[salsadancer7]

You guys really need to drop this.

close it Ramy...I have said my peace!:rant: