This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth - Page 14

Jack Manfred · 06-17-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm pissed that Stallworth got 30 days for killing someone when driving drunk, while Vick has to fight tooth and nail for his life and career to not be completely over. Wtf?

Stallworth: state court - one criminal act

Vick: federal court - continuing criminal act

Both were facing one felony count apiece. Stallworth was charged with DUI manslaughter. Vick had an indictment for "conspiracy to travel in interstate commercein aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture."

Could Stallworth have gotten a much longer sentence? Sure. I think the maximum term for DUI manslaughter in Florida is 15 years. Some news report stated that Vick faced up to 6 years in federal prison, but federal criminal sentencing is notoriously complex.

Stallworth didn't just get 30 days in jail. He agreed to 30 days jail, 2 years house arrest, 8 years of probation, a lifetime driver's privilege suspension and 1,000 hours of community service. I think Vick did less than a year before getting into a halfway house. Vick also had state charges that I believe ran concurrent to his federal time.

I agree that Stallworth's sentence seems light. But have I heard about cases where judges gave only local time (meaning jail, not prison) on DUI manslaughter cases? Sure. State judges have more discretion than federal judges on sentencing.

The settlement for the victims had a lot to do with Stallworth's deal. Not as much as people think, but that deal doesn't happen without the victim's family on board.

n.b. I think the tribal tattoo detracted from that model's bodaciousness, which was her best attribute.

Hank Chinaski · 06-17-2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltl/fb

I will not have a full set of teeth before next week. And possibly not then. So the thread title is inapropos.

do you need a forwarding address for the bacon?

bold_n_brazen · 06-17-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I would happily acquit anyone who staged a massive pit bull cage match in which only one pit bull in the world survived.

Rottweilers, Dobermans and Akitas too?

Hank Chinaski · 06-17-2009, 09:11 AM

http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp...e=5000#entries

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 06-17-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp...e=5000#entries

If you must give us bad photoshops, couldn't they be salacious?

Fugee · 06-17-2009, 09:38 AM

I thought this had to be photoshopped but the Cake Wrecks site says they verified it came from a professional bakery's portfolio site.

More creepy cakes

Hank Chinaski · 06-17-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you must give us bad photoshops, couldn't they be salacious?

you use "salacious" in real life, don't you?

Adder · 06-17-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Manfred

Stallworth: state court - one criminal act

Vick: federal court - continuing criminal act

Both were facing one felony count apiece. Stallworth was charged with DUI manslaughter. Vick had an indictment for "conspiracy to travel in interstate commercein aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture."

Could Stallworth have gotten a much longer sentence? Sure. I think the maximum term for DUI manslaughter in Florida is 15 years. Some news report stated that Vick faced up to 6 years in federal prison, but federal criminal sentencing is notoriously complex.

Stallworth didn't just get 30 days in jail. He agreed to 30 days jail, 2 years house arrest, 8 years of probation, a lifetime driver's privilege suspension and 1,000 hours of community service. I think Vick did less than a year before getting into a halfway house. Vick also had state charges that I believe ran concurrent to his federal time.

I agree that Stallworth's sentence seems light. But have I heard about cases where judges gave only local time (meaning jail, not prison) on DUI manslaughter cases? Sure. State judges have more discretion than federal judges on sentencing.

The settlement for the victims had a lot to do with Stallworth's deal. Not as much as people think, but that deal doesn't happen without the victim's family on board.

n.b. I think the tribal tattoo detracted from that model's bodaciousness, which was her best attribute.

In Stallworth's case, he also seems to have done everything right after the accident. He stopped, called the cops, paid restitution, cooperated with the prosecution and pleaded guilty. While the first two are requirements, the overall pattern is of the type that gets you significant credit with the prosecution and the judge. And while, the result of his conduct was certainly more much more grievous, but the conduct wasn't intentional.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 06-17-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you use "salacious" in real life, don't you?

Whenever possible.

Use your words, Hank; use your words.

ThurgreedMarshall · 06-17-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

There's plenty of precedent for NFL drunk drivers receiving little punishment after killing people. See Leonard Little:

"When tested, [Little's] blood alcohol level measured 0.19 percent, a level that exceeds the statutory level of intoxication of 0.08 in the state of Missouri. Little received 90 days in jail, four years probation and 1000 hours of community service."

Isn't (an unspoken) part of why Vick has been treated so harshly by the NFL b/c dogfighting also involves gambling? Isn't illegal gambling the NFL's biggest no-no?

I do think that the fact Vick served real prison time over some dogs, while Little and Stallworth (and many like them) get 90 days or whatever for recklessly killing a person is ridiculous. But that's not the NFL's responsibility.

No, that's not their fault. But I was speaking in general terms. Vick's life has been all but thrown in the garbage. Stallworth fucking killed a man and it's a blip.

(Although, when it comes to the NFL, I do think it's ridiculous that Vick has to get on his hands and knees to beg the commissioner to play football again, something none of these other jackasses were forced to do.)

TM

greatwhitenorthchick · 06-17-2009, 11:32 AM

ThurgreedMarshall · 06-17-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I know many people who have driven drunk. I'd wager it's close to 100% of us, Mormons excluded. So the only difference between Stallworth and 100% of non-Mormon board denizens is whether they actually killed someone rather than simply taking a reprehensible risk of killing someone. I don't know anyone who's ever made a stupid impulsive and impaired judgment to make an animal fight to the death for his own enjoyment. Well, not an animal that a DA and 12 jurors would think was too cute to die.

Based on the last sentence, I don't really know where you stand. Are you saying that since it was poor judgment, impaired decision making and ultimately just an accident that it's not as bad as torturing and killing dogs? Or are you saying juries wouldn't think that?

As for the stupid things people have done (and I don't think I've ever driven above the legal limit, but maybe that's just because I grew up in NYC), there are consequences. If you choose to get into your Bentley drunk and drive around, risking the lives of everyone you may encounter on your way home, you assume the risk of killing someone and you should be punished accordingly when you do. Actions have consequences. And if I chose to push a grand piano off the roof of an 80 story building after a few shots and a dare, that's surely a stupid, impulsive action, the result of impaired judgment. If the piano kills a family I should do hard fucking time.

So I guess I don't understand your post. If we do something awful and get away with it, it's not that bad because lots of people do it and get away with it? Should the law treat the guy who drives drunk and doesn't get into an accident the same as the guy who does and kills someone? Why should I look at it any differently than felony murder where the death is the result of some freak accident set in motion by the felony? Is it because of the alcohol? Or is it the fact that you have driven drunk and haven't commited a felony that you've gotten away with?

TM

ThurgreedMarshall · 06-17-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I do. And I like this new posting trend of yours as well. Can we keep it going?

TM

1436 · 06-17-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Based on the last sentence, I don't really know where you stand. Are you saying that since it was poor judgment, impaired decision making and ultimately just an accident that it's not as bad as torturing and killing dogs? Or are you saying juries wouldn't think that?

I think that juries see the DUI as a momentary lapse of judgment that the player regretted and owned up to while the dog fighting was well planned over a long period of time that the player thought was an acceptable way to treat animals.

Upon reflection the drinker knew he was wrong while the dog fighter, given some money and time, built a better dog fighting facility. Is that not a distinction juries should make in meting out punishment?

The jury can relate to catastrophic lapses in judgment while they can not relate to the planing and effort involved in setting up and maintaining a dog fighting facility. In other words, juries may be more concerned with the thought process that went into the crime than the consequences of the crime.

Adder · 06-17-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Based on the last sentence, I don't really know where you stand. Are you saying that since it was poor judgment, impaired decision making and ultimately just an accident that it's not as bad as torturing and killing dogs? Or are you saying juries wouldn't think that?

As for the stupid things people have done (and I don't think I've ever driven above the legal limit, but maybe that's just because I grew up in NYC), there are consequences. If you choose to get into your Bentley drunk and drive around, risking the lives of everyone you may encounter on your way home, you assume the risk of killing someone and you should be punished accordingly when you do. Actions have consequences. And if I chose to push a grand piano off the roof of an 80 story building after a few shots and a dare, that's surely a stupid, impulsive action, the result of impaired judgment. If the piano kills a family I should do hard fucking time.

So I guess I don't understand your post. If we do something awful and get away with it, it's not that bad because lots of people do it and get away with it? Should the law treat the guy who drives drunk and doesn't get into an accident the same as the guy who does and kills someone? Why should I look at it any differently than felony murder where the death is the result of some freak accident set in motion by the felony? Is it because of the alcohol? Or is it the fact that you have driven drunk and haven't commited a felony that you've gotten away with?

TM

It's intent vs. negligence/recklessness.