Update: Stallworth Grief Stricken Over Accident... (Reportedly Over the legal limit)

[GimmeTheBall!]

You referred to him having intent to kill. Sounds like murder to me... Then you said here that if he got behind the wheel over the limit, then that's premeditation. Capital Murder, Jethro.

Wanna continue to pretend I'm lying and distorting the topic, or do you want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about?

That's quite an imagination you got there. Impressive for a 4 year old.

I'm not making apologies or excuses. Stallworth will do his time. But he's going to do the time of someone who drove recklessly and killed someone. Not someone who is guilty of premeditated murder, AKA Capital Murder.

No need to get mad. It's not your fault you're ignorant on the subject. But you should just go ahead and admit it now, rather than continue with your awful schtick. Schtick doesn't fly in serious conversations, sonny.

The fact that you feel compelled to answer every point and make every point a pointless one does not mean you have the answers.

Far from it.

Sonny, you from the very start were acting as defense attorney for this athlete.

Sorry, Sonny, but the facts remain:

1. Drunk driving.
2 A person was killed.
3. When a person drinks that is not against the law. When a person drinks then choose to drive, that is intent to no particular person but that is intent to put the public at risk.
4. A breathalyzer was used and reportedly, it was waaay beyond the limit.

Put all that into your narrow legal perspectives and see what kind of jury would buy your weak defense, whatever that is.
I guess the defense is:

Oh, this pure innocent athlete was celebrating and he drank too much.
And he happened to have been accosted by a JAYWALKER!!! Gasp!

Oh, wait, ask some mercy from the jury and the judge and MADD.

Just you hope he gets a jury of idiots like O.J.'s first triial.
OK, your client will get off with a slap to the wrist. Are you happy?

Hey, its admirable to defend a homicidal motorist.
But it would be nice in your perfect little world sonny, where the perp becomes the victim of society and the victim becomes the offender, that you prevail.

If it makes you happy. Hooray.
Live with your conscience.
You side with the perp.
And, again, I will side with the victim.

Someone has to.

And Capital Murder?
Again, lies and distoritions, terminology that some don't use.
Next thing you know you will dredge up the victim's poor credit history. I know yer kind, Sonny.

And it don't fly well, Sonny!

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

What happens if a sober driver kills a drunk pedestrian who was walking legally through a crosswalk or on the sidewalk, but the drunk guy was nailing the sobers guys wife/girlfriend?



Or what happens if a sober driver kills another sober pedestrian while both of them were going to a AA meeting to meet a girl that they both like?

And what about the girl? What happens to her? What if she was on drugs and put some pills in both of the guys kool-aid?

Who is at fault, the drunk, the sober guy, or the drugged up girl?


Who should we feel sorry for?

Those are VERY interesting scenarios.

I bet SONNY will buy it!!!!

 

[peplaw06]

But police make arrests based on tips all the time. If I hear a neighbor in the next apartment beating his wife, report it to the police, and the responding officers arrest the guy, how is that any different that the drunk driving tip/arrest? After all, the officers didn't see the guy beating his wife, but probably used his wife's battered face as probable cause. Similarly, the traffic cops didn't see the motorist swerve, but probably smelled the alcohol on his breath when they pulled him over.

There's a little bit of a difference between the two scenarios.

First, if a neighbor calls the cops and says the couple is fighting, and the cop goes over there, he doesn't have to make a traffic stop. He could hear yelling, he could see a battered face as you said... that's probable cause. If he doesn't hear anything, he can go knock on the door, and see if they talk to him. If he then develops probable cause, by seeing something or them telling the cop something, then he can make an arrest.

As for the traffic stop, the cop can't pull someone over without reasonable suspicion. If he gets a tip, then finds the car and doesn't see a traffic violation or something, then he can't make the stop period. He has to have something to corroborate the tip, just like he would in the above scenario. He couldn't just go into the house and arrest someone. The cop can't stop a driver, and then go up to him and smell alcohol and develop probable cause. He's skipping a step that is necessary just to make the stop.

Hope that helps.

 

[ethiostar]

But police make arrests based on tips all the time. If I hear a neighbor in the next apartment beating his wife, report it to the police, and the responding officers arrest the guy, how is that any different that the drunk driving tip/arrest? After all, the officers didn't see the guy beating his wife, but probably used his wife's battered face as probable cause. Similarly, the traffic cops didn't see the motorist swerve, but probably smelled the alcohol on his breath when they pulled him over.

I don't know whatever came of it but one evening while driving on a highway with my wife, we noticed a a pick-up truck in front of us swerving all over the road so we called 911 on our cell. The operator asked us several question, including obviously which hwy we were on and what direction we were traveling and the mile marker (nearest exit) and also what color, make, model the truck was. She also asked for our information. The driver exited when we were still on the phone and we told them where he exited and which direction he turned.

Obviously, we don't know what happened after that but my guess is they sent the information to the state patrol and the nearest cop might have found him based on the information we gave and followed him to see if he was swerving. At that point, he would have had reasonable doubt to stop him and do a field sobriety test.

 

[peplaw06]

The fact that you feel compelled to answer every point and make every point a pointless one does not mean you have the answers.

Far from it.

Oh goodie, you're back... BTW the first sentence here makes no sense.

Sonny, you from the very start were acting as defense attorney for this athlete.

Yep, I'm auditioning for Donte... I'm hoping on the off chance he's reading the Zone, so he can pay me millions of dollars. I'll be sure to not have him charged with Murder... you know so he's not executed.

Sorry, Sonny, but the facts remain:

1. Drunk driving.
2 A person was killed.

You've got two facts. Yay

3. When a person drinks that is not against the law. When a person drinks then choose to drive, that is intent to no particular person but that is intent to put the public at risk.

This is not a fact. And it's not intent, it's recklessness. I sound like a broken record, but only because it's clear you don't know the difference between the two and you won't go look it up.

4. A breathalyzer was used and reportedly, it was waaay beyond the limit.

Your fact is wrong here. They took a blood sample, not a breathalyzer. That's why there was a delay in the results.

Put all that into your narrow legal perspectives and see what kind of jury would buy your weak defense, whatever that is.

I haven't developed a defense yet. All I've said is he didn't have intent to kill and shouldn't be charged with Murder. And that there was no premeditation. These principles appear to be eminently clear to everyone in here but you, sonny.

I guess the defense is:

Oh, this pure innocent athlete was celebrating and he drank too much.
And he happened to have been accosted by a JAYWALKER!!! Gasp!

I've never said he was innocent, and I've never even mentioned Jaywalking, except to rebuff your accusations. Actually, if you'll look back here... you'll find that I said this...

In Texas Intox Manslaughter is a strict liability offense.... meaning, you're over the legal limit and kill someone, you're guilty, no matter if they're partly to blame.

Doesn't sound much like a defense to me. I just told you that it doesn't matter if the guy was jaywalking, because the offense is one of strict liability.

Oh, wait, ask some mercy from the jury and the judge and MADD.

MADD isn't giving anyone accused of Intox Manslaughter any mercy. And if you mean I'm asking the judge and jury not to find him guilty of premeditated murder, then yes I guess that's asking for mercy. That or asking them to use a little common sense, same thing.

Just you hope he gets a jury of idiots like O.J.'s first triial.
OK, your client will get off with a slap to the wrist. Are you happy?

If asking for him not to be put in prison for life or executed means I'm asking for a slap on the wrist, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. That or I may just be realistic.

Hey, its admirable to defend a homicidal motorist.
But it would be nice in your perfect little world sonny, where the perp becomes the victim of society and the victim becomes the offender, that you prevail.

I've never said Stallworth was a victim. I've said if he was driving drunk and killed someone, then he's guilty.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

This is not a fact. And it's not intent, it's recklessness.

no kidding, alot of people who drive drunk don't even know that they're too sloshed to drive

it impairs judgement

 

[tomson75]

This thread has become quite entertaining.

 

[5Stars]

I don't know whatever came of it but one evening while driving on a highway with my wife, we noticed a a pick-up truck in front of us swerving all over the road so we called 911 on our cell. The operator asked us several question, including obviously which hwy we were on and what direction we were traveling and the mile marker (nearest exit) and also what color, make, model the truck was. She also asked for our information. The driver exited when we were still on the phone and we told them where he exited and which direction he turned.

Obviously, we don't know what happened after that but my guess is they sent the information to the state patrol and the nearest cop might have found him based on the information we gave and followed him to see if he was swerving. At that point, he would have had reasonable doubt to stop him and do a field sobriety test.

And you probably saved his or other's life! Good for you...

 

[ethiostar]

I know this might not help at all but ..............


Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill—a state of mind called malice—or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing, but with a willful disregard for life.

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the person is mitigated by the circumstances and/or state of mind. The common example is killing which occurred in passion, or heat of the moment killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding his or her spouse in the arms of another lover.

Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness

Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. For example, a person acts recklessly when he throws a small brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. No intent to kill may be found in the situation, and a resulting death would not be considered murder. However, the conduct is reckless, or criminally negligent, holding the principal guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The person is aware of the risk of injury to others, but willfully disregards it.

Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter

Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter, which holds persons liable for any death which occurs because of criminal negligence, or a violation of traffic safety laws. A common use of the vehicular manslaughter laws involves prosecution for a death caused by driving under the influence (determined by excessive blood alcohol content levels set by individual states), although an independent infraction (such as driving with a suspended driver's license), or negligence, is usually also required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Definition of Intoxication Manslaughter - Texas Penal Code Section 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) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Second Degree Felony Range of Punishment - Texas Penal Code

SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

http://blog.austindefense.com/2005/...-felony-range-of-punishment-texas-penal-code/

 

[ethiostar]

And you probably saved his or other's life! Good for you...

Thanks. I hope that either the person made it home safely or the cop got to him/her before they hurt themselves or others.

 

[peplaw06]

Thanks ethio. That would probably help if GTB would read it... I doubt he will though.

 

[ethiostar]

Thanks ethio. That would probably help if GTB would read it... I doubt he will though.

Like i said, i doubt if it would make any difference.