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

[khiladi]

Another stupid athlete...

 

[peplaw06]

Excuse me, barrister, but maybe in some states making the conscious decision to drink and then drive after being over the LIMIT, well, that would seem like intent, even though he did not know the person.

i.e. and ipso facto endurian, as precedenced in Dillon vs. Adams for mandamus 2004 13th Circuit court, DRINKING BEFORE DRIVING COULD BE INTENT!!

I know all these things because I once new a bailiff.

I believe that Hamilton Burger would back me up on my writ and possibly Judge Wapner.

How do you want me to respond to this? Do you want to have a serious conversation or do you want to just act like a 4 year old?

 

[peplaw06]

scenario#4- you give 3 more scenarios and none clears this drunk guy from driving recklessly and being at fault for killing another man

what does a guy have to do around here before some will just admit that some people are guilty and should be punished?

I don't think anyone's trying to clear him for driving recklessly and killing someone. And I don't think anyone's saying he shouldn't be punished.

But the law isn't black and white. It isn't, "Oh you killed someone, you're gonna die." Samir, this isn't Riyadh.

The difference is intent. You stated it yourself, Stallworth was driving recklessly. That's legal terminology. It essentially means "not intentional." Below "reckless" is "negligent."

If you don't understand how Stallworth's actions are not on the level of intentional premeditated Capital Murder, then you're going to be sorely disappointed when he's not sentenced to death.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I feel they should be compensated, but they'll probably ask for an astronomical amount of money, it's getting ridiculous how much families are asking in restitution

it's like they're taking advantage of a loved one dying, that's just my feelings on the matter

Yeah, Mr. Compassion, lets ALSO speculate on the family's greed.

Why don't you just say it: The victim and his family does not matter. All that matters is the entertainment value this drunken driver will give you on Sundays.

Your compassion is a thing to behold. If you Saca your mano from your . . . . you might one day learn to focus on the fault of the attacker and not the victim.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I think I'm ready for the bar

I think you are sloshed already, mr. compassion.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

seriously? I bet you play by all the rules. we better not see you speeding...

scenerio #1- you're driving with a BAC of .081. a guy(jaywalking) runs out in front of you. you hit him and he dies. who's fault is it?

scenerio #2- you're driving and talking on your cell phone. a guy(jaywalking) runs out in front of you. you hit him and he dies. who's fault is it?

scenerio #3- you're driving sober and not talking on your cell phone. a guy(jaywalking) runs out in front of you. you hit him and he dies. who's fault is it?

Here, let me take you by the hand, sonny:
1. My fault because I am impaired. It could also be his fault, but gosh, he's dead and not PROSECUTABLE, YOU GENIUS.
2. My fault for being distracted. In most jurisdictions, talking on the phone while driving is not a misdemeanor nor a felony. Dumb, yes, but not illegal. Again, if he was jaywalking he is dead so he is not PROSECUTABLE, YOU GENIUS. Because he's DEAD.
3. A guy walks in front of my car and he's hit and he's dead. Gee, not my fault and gee so sorry I cannot make him pay for JAYWALKING CAUSE HE'S DEAD.

OK, sonny, stay away from any item containing lead. Don't run with scissors and don't hang in the wrong part of the city and most important, don't jaywalk because drunk drivers will want to lay the blame on you, genius.

 

[khiladi]

But the law isn't black and white. It isn't, "Oh you killed someone, you're gonna die." Samir, this isn't Riyadh.

That doesn't happen in Riyadh either, genius.... In Riyadh is about intent as well. There is a system of 'diya' or 'blood-money' in cases of 'death', similar to monetary damages awared in civil suit trials. It depends on whether the death is accidental or intentional, and further, the principle of justice is more sound in that it places the right of forgiveness of intentional murder on the blood relatives of the victim. They have the choice of the death penalty or the right of monetary damages.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

How do you want me to respond to this? Do you want to have a serious conversation or do you want to just act like a 4 year old?

Your help-the-athlete but blame the victim position has invalidated any hope you might have had for a serious discussion, bub.


Git it and git it straight: When a person decides to drink, then get drunk, then drive, then that is intent.

If you want to wallow in grief over this rich athlete's grief, that is your never mind.
Just dont come running to me when some rich athlete runs you over.

 

[peplaw06]

That doesn't happen in Riyadh either, genius.... In Riyadh is about intent as well. There is a system of 'diya' or 'blood-money' in cases of 'death', similar to monetary damages awared in civil suit trials. It depends on whether the death is accidental or intentional, and further, the principle of justice is more sound in that it places the right of forgiveness of intentional murder on the blood relatives of the victim. They have the choice of the death penalty or the right of monetary damages.

It was a joke... genius.

 

[peplaw06]

Your help-the-athlete but blame the victim position has invalidated any hope you might have had for a serious discussion, bub.

Where have I ever stated that position?? I see you read on a 4 year old's level as well.

Git it and git it straight: When a person decides to drink, then get drunk, then drive, then that is intent.

Intent to do what? Drink and drive? OK. Intent to kill? Not hardly. Otherwise, every drunk driver could be charged with attempted murder.... Do you want to argue that one chief?

If you want to wallow in grief over this rich athlete's grief, that is your never mind.
Just dont come running to me when some rich athlete runs you over.

If you want to have a serious conversation leave your hyperbole at the door. All I have done in this thread is try to explain how the law sees this matter and how it's not black and white.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

That doesn't happen in Riyadh either, genius.... In Riyadh is about intent as well. There is a system of 'diya' or 'blood-money' in cases of 'death', similar to monetary damages awared in civil suit trials. It depends on whether the death is accidental or intentional, and further, the principle of justice is more sound in that it places the right of forgiveness of intentional murder on the blood relatives of the victim. They have the choice of the death penalty or the right of monetary damages.

and pls. remind the barrister Pepe that these are the United States, where we put more people to death (after judicial proceedings) every year than the rest of the free world and the middle east combined.
Pepe, before you point fingers, just remember that the U.N. has pushed long and hard for the U.S. to give up its system of killing offenders.
We, aside from four or five other renegade countries in the world, are the only ones doing this in the 21st Century.

 

[dadymat]

Where have I ever stated that position?? I see you read on a 4 year old's level as well.


Intent to do what? Drink and drive? OK. Intent to kill? Not hardly. Otherwise, every drunk driver could be charged with attempted murder.... Do you want to argue that one chief?

If you want to have a serious conversation leave your hyperbole at the door. All I have done in this thread is try to explain how the law sees this matter and how it's not black and white.

why not? its no different than getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the streets....except there is more chance of the car hitting you than a bullet, and the car is more deadly....

 

[TheCount]

why not? its no different than getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the streets....except there is more chance of the car hitting you than a bullet, and the car is more deadly....

The car is more deadly? How many gunshot wounds have you survived?

 

[peplaw06]

why not? its no different than getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the streets....except there is more chance of the car hitting you than a bullet, and the car is more deadly....

WHY NOT?!?!?! Did you really just ask that question? Who's the victim? The public in general? When you drive home drunk, is everyone on the streets a possible victim? If you pass 50 people is that 50 counts of attempted murder? Geez.

 

[dadymat]

The car is more deadly? How many gunshot wounds have you survived?

...

...well...would you rather be shot in the waist or hit by a Ford F-250 in the waist?

a bullet has to hit key areas to actually kill you.......a car or truck doing about 55 mph is probably gonna kill you no matter where it hits you......

and for your other question...no ive never been shot....ive never been hit by a drunk either

 

[dadymat]

WHY NOT?!?!?! Did you really just ask that question? Who's the victim? The public in general? When you drive home drunk, is everyone on the streets a possible victim? If you pass 50 people is that 50 counts of attempted murder? Geez.

ummm...yes...do you actually read this stuff before you hit the submit button?

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

WHY NOT?!?!?! Did you really just ask that question? Who's the victim? The public in general? When you drive home drunk, is everyone on the streets a possible victim? If you pass 50 people is that 50 counts of attempted murder? Geez.

Now you have veered into might have/coulda territory.

We shall never know if the 50 people anybody passes would know or would complain to police or anything. You have really gone into ridiculous territory, but you should know it well by now.

 

[ShiningStar]

The car is more deadly? How many gunshot wounds have you survived?

Keith Davis, 3 how many times can you survive a dump trunk running over you?

 

[peplaw06]

ummm...yes...do you actually read this stuff before you hit the submit button?

So 50 counts of attempted murder because the cop saw 50 people on the street when he stopped you for DWI. Genius. The fact that you would respond in the affirmative just confirms that there's no talking sense to you.

Now you have veered into might have/coulda territory.

We shall never know if the 50 people anybody passes would know or would complain to police or anything. You have really gone into ridiculous territory, but you should know it well by now.

Of course it's ridiculous. I chose to make it ridiculous to prove a point. You can't possibly charge a drunk driver with attempted murder... the reason being? BECAUSE THERE'S NO INTENT!!!!

This got into the "ridiculous" territory because so many of you have no understanding of how the world or the law really works.

 

[ShiningStar]

So 50 counts of attempted murder because the cop saw 50 people on the street when he stopped you for DWI. Genius. The fact that you would respond in the affirmative just confirms that there's no talking sense to you.

Of course it's ridiculous. I chose to make it ridiculous to prove a point. You can't possibly charge a drunk driver with attempted murder... the reason being? BECAUSE THERE'S NO INTENT!!!!

This got into the "ridiculous" territory because so many of you have no understanding of how the world or the law really works.

Nothing against you Peplaw, and this might not apply. I'm not comfortable with the knowledge many lawyers know how the law really works. Besides who needs to really know when you got money.

Back to the subject on hand. You do make an excellent point, Carry on.