Stallworth suspended indefinitely

[80stheman]

I won't hide the fact that I despise Roger Goodell and what he wants to do to the NFL. But this is a smart move on his part. Stallworth should have recieved a much harsher sentence than 30 days in jail. The fact that he is a pro athlete means nothing when someone was killed, regardless of the circumstances.

At the same time, look back at the league before Goodell. Ray Lewis was on trial for murder, not manslaughter, and he was playing the very next season. Stallworth's suspension is sending a clear message to players and the young people who idolize them. If you make serious mistakes, you will face consequences. It is a simple fact of life which so many famous faces learn the hard and ugly way.

I'm confused: Why do you despise Goodell when it appears you agree with what he's doing?

[LarryDean]

Intent matters.

Stallworth in no way intended to ever hurt anyone.

Vick not only intended to do it, but did it multiple times and over a very long period of time.

Intent and motive matter.

I just about fell out of my chair when I seen this ....

I guess its a good thing that Stallworth didnt mean to take a persons life and that it was an accident ....

I would post more about this but I'm on my way to Petland to buy a new dog .....

[Tarquin]

I just about fell out of my chair when I seen this ....

I guess its a good thing that Stallworth didnt mean to take a persons life and that it was an accident ....

I never said it made it okay.

I said, "The motive matters."

Accident versus intent.

[80stheman]

I never said it made it okay.

I said, "The motive matters."

Accident versus intent.

I was making the exact same argument in a thread about Vick and Larry Little, but the people arguing against me refused to acknowledge my point about intent. Not that I expected them to agree, just to acknowledge my point. You can say it 'til you're blue in the face, they won't hear what you're saying.

[GridironChamp]

Accidently killing a person > Purposely killing an animal

That is a very easy choice.

[Starbroncs]

i hear ya, i think vick got what he deserved and stallworth didn't

there are alot of people though who would rather save an animal than a homeless person , or a person in general, pretty disgusting

there are a lot of people who enjoy shooting at small animals or swerve their cars to try and hit squirrels in the road. A lot of people that ignore suffering animals, pretty disgusting.

[Tarquin]

Accidently killing a person > Purposely killing an animal

That is a very easy choice.

Maybe. Maybe not. To some people the motive would be the bigger issue regardless of the situation.

It depends on each person's own ontology. In my case I agree that taking a human life is far worse, but how does one go about punishing someone who never actually meant to cause harm in the first place?

How do we rehab someone from hurting people whose intent wasn't to hurt someone to begin with?

Michael Vick intended to break the law and cause harm, so prison made sense for him. He needed to learn that he can't willingly harm other people.

How do we teach that to Stallworth? He already knows that. He didn't mean for this to happen in the first place, so how do we teach him to value human life? He already values human life. He just made a bad decision. He had no idea he was going to harm someone that night. If he had there is little doubt that he'd have chosen differently.

Michael Vick knew damned well that he was hurting someone, and was doing it repeatedly with pre-meditation.

In terms of tragedy, yes, the loss of a human life is greater. But we can't bring that life back so what we're left with is what we can do to best prevent it from happening again. In Stallworth's case, he never meant to do it the first time and is incredibly unlikely to ever do it again. In Michael Vick's situation, that's not the case.

So they're really two very distinct situations for these reasons and many others.

Stallworth was at fault in the accident. The man he killed was also at fault. He was in a busy street where he wasn't supposed to be despite there being a pedestrian area nearby that was supposed to be used.

Stallworth's case is a series of unfortunate events. Michael Vick's case is a series of knowingly, willingly, and with intent for his own personal pleasure causing violations of the law and harm to animals as well as people and society over a long course of time.

It doesn't matter though. Both appear to have been met with the strongest possible penalty from the NFL, and in my opinion both deserve it.

Neither of them will ever play football again in the NFL, and neither of them deserve to.

Which one's worse doesn't really matter. They both deserve the maximum punishment the NFL will allow, and they both got that.

That, to me, is refreshing.

[GridironChamp]

Maybe. Maybe not. To some people the motive would be the bigger issue regardless of the situation.

It depends on each person's own ontology. In my case I agree that taking a human life is far worse, but how does one go about punishing someone who never actually meant to cause harm in the first place?

How do we rehab someone from hurting people whose intent wasn't to hurt someone to begin with?

Michael Vick intended to break the law and cause harm, so prison made sense for him. He needed to learn that he can't willingly harm other people.

How do we teach that to Stallworth? He already knows that. He didn't mean for this to happen in the first place, so how do we teach him to value human life? He already values human life. He just made a bad decision. He had no idea he was going to harm someone that night. If he had there is little doubt that he'd have chosen differently.

Stallworth chose to drive home drunk. There are consequences to driving drunk
and he knows them, yet he still did. Either A) He hurts himsel B) He just breaks
a law and goes to jail C) He hurts someone else or D) He gets off scotch free.
He took his 25% chance of getting off scotch free.

Your right, I'm sure if he knew he was going to kill someone he wouldn't have
done it... If he had gotten home with no problems, he probably would do it
again. Vick wouldn't kill dogs again, because he knows how easily you can get
caught.

Doing harm to someone comes with the choice of driving drunk.

Michael Vick knew damned well that he was hurting someone, and was doing it repeatedly with pre-meditation.

In terms of tragedy, yes, the loss of a human life is greater. But we can't bring that life back so what we're left with is what we can do to best prevent it from happening again. In Stallworth's case, he never meant to do it the first time and is incredibly unlikely to ever do it again. In Michael Vick's situation, that's not the case.

So they're really two very distinct situations for these reasons and many others.

Stallworth was at fault in the accident. The man he killed was also at fault. He was in a busy street where he wasn't supposed to be despite there being a pedestrian area nearby that was supposed to be used.

Stallworth's case is a series of unfortunate events. Michael Vick's case is a series of knowingly, willingly, and with intent for his own personal pleasure causing violations of the law and harm to animals as well as people and society over a long course of time.

Again, Stallworth chose to drive home in a dangerous state that was indeed
putting lives in danger. Vick, while knowingly killing dogs, never put human
lives in danger.

Just the idea in general of killing dogs on purpose or even putting human lives
in danger is not even close, IMO.

It doesn't matter though. Both appear to have been met with the strongest possible penalty from the NFL, and in my opinion both deserve it.

Neither of them will ever play football again in the NFL, and neither of them deserve to.

Which one's worse doesn't really matter. They both deserve the maximum punishment the NFL will allow, and they both got that.

That, to me, is refreshing.

Vick will play in the NFL again. He won't be suspended and towards the end of
TC teams will be calling him up.

[Charlie Brown]

Stallworth chose to drive home drunk. There are consequences to driving drunk
and he knows them, yet he still did.

True

But so did Vick.

Vick knew that Dog Fighting is illegal. It is a federal crime. He knowingly financed and took part in Dog Fighting. Both Vick and Stallworth are felons. Stallworth drove drunk and killed a man - obviously illegal. Vick financed a dog fighting ring and took part in it - illegal.

Both are convicted felons (so what that both did a "plea deal" where they get lesser time) in the end they are both convicted criminals. Convicted criminals should not have the privelege of playing in the National Football League.

And knowing all of you, you will likely try to call me a hypocrite by saying "What about Jamal Lewis". I have a link for you in regards to Jamal Lewis.

Lorcrust (member here) on Jamal Lewis signing with the Browns. (He knew/knows me quite well):

LINK

"Charlie won't be happy."

Me on the Jamal Lewis signing:

LINK

"Well, if the Browns have indeed signed him.

Then, I think the Browns should hire someone with cocaine to plant on the field. Might enhance his performing while he's off injecting himself with that trash."

"Well, who is the biggest criminal available in the draft? That's probably who Savage will draft. Got a coke addict now. What goes with a coke addict?"

Jamal Lewis is a convicted criminal as well. He should not have the privilege of playing in the NFL either.

[McKeough]

I think Tarquin said it best.

Yes, the way our justice system is set up, intent and motive do matter.

Jail sentences are supposed to 'rehab' the individual and make them fit for society. What would Stallworth learn in prison? He realizes what he did, he realizes how stupid it was, and he is genuinely remorseful. He cooperated with authorities, remained at the scene, and act appropriately. A lot of people would have fled, I'm sure.

At the same time, if Stallworth is driving home sober, that man is likely still dead.

Stallworth SHOULD be punished for the DUI - because he knowingly drove him drunk. However, he shouldn't bear near the full amount of responsibility for the mans death. If he was sober, he would not be at fault at all.

The car behind Stallworth may have very well hit him.

The idiot ran across a busy street illegally. Here are posts about the same stretch of road from fellow posters on this board from another discussion:

Since I have resided near the scene of the crime in Florida, I do know this. It is much easier to hit pedestrians in that area b/c the medians are typically heavily landscaped. I once hit a bicyclist in that area at 8AM on a Sunday morning. I was completely sober, on my way to the gym, and she popped out of nowhere riding on the wrong side of the street.

There is a very high rate of accidents in South Florida involving pedestrians/bicycles/motor vehicles.

The first bolded part, what did Stallworth being drunk have to do with someone jumping out in front of his car? Even traffic cams shown, and other driver witnesses say the pedestrian came out of nowhere.

Second bolded part, we've been trying to explain to you why, but you just don't get it.

Vick MEANT to kill those dogs. He WANTED to kill those dogs. Not sub-consciously, not on accident.

Stallworth drove illegally intoxicated which claims lives. That is true. If using the logic of "Well, actually, since he drank, and then decided to drive you could call his actions premeditated too!"

That's crazy talk. He didn't pop his keys in, hit the gas and aim for the first pedestrian. The fact that the accident wouldn't have happened any differently had Stallworth been sober, compounded with the fact that Stallworth had no preconceived thoughts of violence towards the victim is why, if either of them are actually reinstated, Stallworth would be reinstated before Vick

I've read that article before, too. Apparently, according to witnesses and traffic cans, it wasn't a 'delayed reaction' from being impaired that caused Stallworth to hit the man -- he literally bolted in front of his car.

[GridironChamp]

True

But so did Vick.

Vick knew that Dog Fighting is illegal. It is a federal crime. He knowingly financed and took part in Dog Fighting. Both Vick and Stallworth are felons. Stallworth drove drunk and killed a man - obviously illegal. Vick financed a dog fighting ring and took part in it - illegal.

Both are convicted felons (so what that both did a "plea deal" where they get lesser time) in the end they are both convicted criminals. Convicted criminals should not have the privelege of playing in the National Football League.

And knowing all of you, you will likely try to call me a hypocrite by saying "What about Jamal Lewis". I have a link for you in regards to Jamal Lewis.

Lorcrust (member here) on Jamal Lewis signing with the Browns. (He knew/knows me quite well):

LINK

"Charlie won't be happy."

Me on the Jamal Lewis signing:

LINK

"Well, if the Browns have indeed signed him.

Then, I think the Browns should hire someone with cocaine to plant on the field. Might enhance his performing while he's off injecting himself with that trash."

"Well, who is the biggest criminal available in the draft? That's probably who Savage will draft. Got a coke addict now. What goes with a coke addict?"

Jamal Lewis is a convicted criminal as well. He should not have the privilege of playing in the NFL either.

I know how you feel about all of these guys getting back in the NFL and what
not. You're and extremist to one side while I'm much much closer to the other
side.

As long as a player can prove to me he is sorry for doing it and is punished,
he deserves to be able to attempt to get a job anywhere he wants... It is still
up to someone to "hire" him. Athletes are normal people the media has made
out to be much more and they get ruined because of it.

[Sunbiz1]

http://gridironfans.com/forums/latest-nfl-headlines/100272-jim-brown-says-marijuana-donte-stallworths-problem.html

Why is Jim Brown leaking information when he's not even sure if it's factual? Marijuana can be detected up to a month after smoking it.

[Charlie Brown]

http://gridironfans.com/forums/lates...s-problem.html

Why is Jim Brown leaking information when he's not even sure if it's factual? Marijuana can be detected up to a month after smoking it.

He is in a position of knowing. So, if he says so, then it likely is factual.

He is in a position of power with the team.