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

[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.

how can you argue that they are not possible victims?.....if they are on the street and a car is on the street that in itself makes it possible......

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.

.

hey genius i didnt say that...do you always answer your own questions and pretend someone else did?...i responded to the bold question the other was too ridiculous and didnt deserve an answer.....

 

[peplaw06]

how can you argue that they are not possible victims?.....if they are on the street and a car is on the street that in itself makes it possible......

Possible victims... aka, victims of "attempted murder." That's what we're talking about here. Wasn't aware I would have to spell it out for you. My apologies.

hey genius i didnt say that...do you always answer your own questions and pretend someone else did?...i responded to the bold question the other was too ridiculous and didnt deserve an answer.....

Exactly. it's a ridiculous question, because you have a ridiculous premise. You're asking why every drunk driver shouldn't be charged with attempted murder...

Next time you see someone pulled over performing Field Sobriety Tests, I want you to pull over, go up to the cop and demand the guy be arrested for attempting to murder you. See how that flies. I mean you were on the streets and he drove drunk. He obviously intended to kill you.

 

[5Stars]

Possible victims... aka, victims of "attempted murder." That's what we're talking about here. Wasn't aware I would have to spell it out for you. My apologies.


Exactly. it's a ridiculous question, because you have a ridiculous premise. You're asking why every drunk driver shouldn't be charged with attempted murder...

Next time you see someone pulled over performing Field Sobriety Tests, I want you to pull over, go up to the cop and demand the guy be arrested for attempting to murder you. See how that flies. I mean you were on the streets and he drove drunk. He obviously intended to kill you.

Give it up...the guy does not know what he's talking about!

His premise is so stupid.

There were times that I ran out of beer and went 2 blocks to the 7-11 to get some more (yes I was wrong), but I did not go to get beer to INTEND to kill someone...and luclkily I didn't.

But then again, over half of the trip was through a neighborhood where the speed limit is 25.

Intent is meant, as I see it, that I get drunk, get mad, and go out driving to intentionally kill someone...not to just pick up another 6 pack.

 

[dadymat]

Exactly. it's a ridiculous question, because you have a ridiculous premise. You're asking why every drunk driver shouldn't be charged with attempted murder...

.

His premise is so stupid.

where do you guys get your info...? that isnt my premise ....i never said anyone getting caught drunk driving should be arrested for attemped murder.....man you guys are dense.......

i said IF he was drunk and driving recklessly and KILLED someone (not attempted) that he should get death or life.....

and from that through your ridiculous scenarios and examples trying to prove your point you distorted what ive been saying.......


my points are and have been consistently through out this thread..

1) drunk drivers who kill should be dealt with harshly (life or death IMO)

2) killing someone while drunk and driving while may not have been intended ....is not an accident.....

3) the man who died is the victim...not the drunk driver....

so pull your heads out and at least argue with me over what i said

 

[peplaw06]

where do you guys get your info...? that isnt my premise ....i never said anyone getting caught drunk driving should be arrested for attemped murder.....man you guys are dense.......

Let's see. First I said this...

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?

Then you responded, BOLDING the "every drunk driver could be charged with attempted murder," comment with this.....

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....

So yes, it is your premise. You said "why not?" to every drunk driver being charged with attempted murder.

Which is when I said this...

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.

i said IF he was drunk and driving recklessly and KILLED someone (not attempted) that he should get death or life.....

yeah you said that too. and that's ridiculous too.

and from that through your ridiculous scenarios and examples trying to prove your point you distorted what ive been saying.......

Distorted?? It's right here for you to see.

my points are and have been consistently through out this thread..

1) drunk drivers who kill should be dealt with harshly (life or death IMO)

Does it have to be extreme to be harsh?

2) killing someone while drunk and driving while may not have been intended ....is not an accident.....

If it's not intentional and it's not an accident, then what is it?

3) the man who died is the victim...not the drunk driver....

Has anyone even attempted to argue otherwise? This is a given.

so pull your heads out and at least argue with me over what i said

Looks like that's what I've been doing.

 

[dadymat]

So yes, it is your premise. You said "why not?" to every drunk driver being charged with attempted murder.
.

lol...me sayin why not? does not make it my "premise"....my premise was exactly what i said it was.....

1) drunk drivers who kill should be dealt with harshly (life or death IMO)


i was responding to your nonsense with a question....not stating that that was my belief

 

[peplaw06]

lol...me sayin why not? does not make it my "premise"....my premise was exactly what i said it was.....

1) drunk drivers who kill should be dealt with harshly (life or death IMO)

i was responding to your nonsense with a question....not stating that that was my belief

OK... I see you want to play 3rd grade word games.

I answered your question by asking who would be the victim? Let's make this simple, since you clearly can't keep up. What's your answer?

See you have to have an intended victim to have an attempted murder... so who is it?

And your opinion that drunk drivers who kill should get life in prison or death -- I'm assuming on even a first offense -- is not the reality in ANY jurisdiction. Therefore, it is ridiculous. I don't even think MADD would agree with you.

 

[jobberone]

lol...me sayin why not? does not make it my "premise"....my premise was exactly what i said it was.....

1) drunk drivers who kill should be dealt with harshly (life or death IMO)


i was responding to your nonsense with a question....not stating that that was my belief

So legally if he was at/over .08 which is basically nothing he would be considered 'drunk' and you would treat him harshly?

There's a difference to me if someone who's never had trouble esp a DUI and was .08 and hit someone and a person .24 with multiple DUIs. Which would you treat 'harshly'.

The older I've gotten the more forgiving I've become thank God.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

So legally if he was at/over .08 which is basically nothing he would be considered 'drunk' and you would treat him harshly?

There's a difference to me if someone who's never had trouble esp a DUI and was .08 and hit someone and a person .24 with multiple DUIs. Which would you treat 'harshly'.

The older I've gotten the more forgiving I've become thank God.

You will excuse the victim's family for maybe being less forgiving of this drunk driver and others who think that drinking and then getting into a car drunk is unforgivable.
And those who cause deaths because of their recklessness should not easily be forgiven. As suffer the victims and the familes so should the perps pay their debt.

 

[peplaw06]

You will excuse the victim's family for maybe being less forgiving of this drunk driver and others who think that drinking and then getting into a car drunk is unforgivable.

That's fine... the family can be less forgiving. But that doesn't mean we throw out years and years of work done in the judicial system because a family has to deal with grief.

And those who cause deaths because of their recklessness should not easily be forgiven. As suffer the victims and the familes so should the perps pay their debt.

One of these days it's going to sink in that no one's in here saying Stallworth shouldn't pay his debt, or that he should be easily forgiven. But calling for his life in a situation like this is just crazy talk.

 

[ethiostar]

That's fine... the family can be less forgiving. But that doesn't mean we throw out years and years of work done in the judicial system because a family has to deal with grief.

One of these days it's going to sink in that no one's in here saying Stallworth shouldn't pay his debt, or that he should be easily forgiven. But calling for his life in a situation like this is just crazy talk.

I don't know how many times it has to be said.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

That's fine... the family can be less forgiving. But that doesn't mean we throw out years and years of work done in the judicial system because a family has to deal with grief.

No, by all means let's git rid of impact hearings and not consider a family's grief. Gee, we would never want a jury or judge considering a family's grief, would we? Thank heavens justice is blind.

One of these days it's going to sink in that no one's in here saying Stallworth shouldn't pay his debt, or that he should be easily forgiven. But calling for his life in a situation like this is just crazy talk.

Did I call for life? Huh?

Huh?

Don't put words in mah mouth, sonny. Cause I never did.

And here's one more for you to chew on: for someone who is saying you are not agin Stallworth paying his debt, you sure have jawed a lot agin that very thing. You would think you are his defense attorney.
That's all I got to say.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

That's fine... the family can be less forgiving. But that doesn't mean we throw out years and years of work done in the judicial system because a family has to deal with grief.

One of these days it's going to sink in that no one's in here saying Stallworth shouldn't pay his debt, or that he should be easily forgiven. But calling for his life in a situation like this is just crazy talk.

And another thing.

The facts are these:

1. Stallworth's car (undeniably) struck a pedestrian.
2. Stallworth is reported to have been legally drunk.
3. A man was killed because of the first two actions listed.
4. Stallworth's "grief" is nothing compared to the victim's family.
5. And for you or anyone to bring up jaywalking is just plain rotten. It stinks so much because of a seeming drive to parse words and squeeze legal definitions to mitigate the wrongness and recklessness of DUI.

To go to those two refuges -- jaywalking or stallworth's lack of intent -- is shameful.
Have you no shame?

 

[peplaw06]

No, by all means let's git rid of impact hearings and not consider a family's grief. Gee, we would never want a jury or judge considering a family's grief, would we? Thank heavens justice is blind.

I never said that. The family gets to testify at the sentencing hearing usually. But just because this particular family is grieving does NOT mean that the punishment range should go from 2-20 years or whatever it is to life in prison or even 21 years. If this crime is committed, then there is going to likely be someone grieving. The punishment ranges are made with that in mind as well.

Did I call for life? Huh?

Huh?

Don't put words in mah mouth, sonny. Cause I never did.

Don't call me sonny. And what are you calling for exactly? Or are you just in here being a blowhard for the sake of it?

And here's one more for you to chew on: for someone who is saying you are not agin Stallworth paying his debt, you sure have jawed a lot agin that very thing. You would think you are his defense attorney.
That's all I got to say.

Of course.... if I'm sitting in here arguing against people calling him a murderer, saying he intentionally killed someone (which you DID say), and calling for him to spend life in prison or be put to death, when the law doesn't consider him a murderer, and doesn't call for a life sentence or the death penalty... then I MUST be his defense attorney. Grow up.

And another thing.

The facts are these:

1. Stallworth's car (undeniably) struck a pedestrian.
2. Stallworth is reported to have been legally drunk.
3. A man was killed because of the first two actions listed.
4. Stallworth's "grief" is nothing compared to the victim's family.
5. And for you or anyone to bring up jaywalking is just plain rotten. It stinks so much because of a seeming drive to parse words and squeeze legal definitions to mitigate the wrongness and recklessness of DUI.

To go to those two refuges -- jaywalking or stallworth's lack of intent -- is shameful.
Have you no shame?

I never mentioned jaywalking. And Stallworth had no intent to kill when he got behind the wheel. Sorry to disappoint you. To try to claim that he did is asinine.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I never said that. The family gets to testify at the sentencing hearing usually. But just because this particular family is grieving does NOT mean that the punishment range should go from 2-20 years or whatever it is to life in prison or even 21 years.

Again, putting words in others' mouths. Did I even mention a sentence? Did I mention 2-20? Did I mention life in prison? Did I mention even 21 years?
This is pretty lame for you to continually attribute things to me that I never said.
Have you no shame?
Has your counterpoint skill diminshed so much that you rely on falsehoods?
Again, did I say any of those things? Think hard and think carefully . . . .
Shame.

Of course.... if I'm sitting in here arguing against people calling him a murderer, saying he intentionally killed someone (which you DID say), and calling for him to spend life in prison or be put to death, when the law doesn't consider him a murderer, and doesn't call for a life sentence or the death penalty... then I MUST be his defense attorney. Grow up.

Again, barrister, Mr. Wrong Attribution, did I say someone should spend his life in prison?
Huh?
Did I mention putting ANYONE TO DEATH?
Huh? Huh?
I don't think so, Sonny, because I did not.
And did I call for a life sentence?
Answer this please. And your answer should be, if you have dredged up any shame -- NO! Got it?[/quote]

And Stallworth had no intent to kill when he got behind the wheel. Sorry to disappoint you.

Well, thank you, not defending Stallworth! I trust he filled you in on how grief stricken he was and I marvel at how quickly you find in your infinite wisdom that he did not.[/quote]

To try to claim that he did is asinine.

Actually, to try to claim that he did not is asinine. I guess next you'll claim that drinking is not reckless and being reckless does not signal intent to cause some hard. But that would be your next logical extension.
Grow up and get a conscience, barrister.

 

[dadymat]

well i can tell this thread will never die..............so ill just say

i never said that it was possible for him to get life or death, i know the law wont go to that extent.....that was all my opinion that i think that is what should happen ...i know it never would...i just wished they would.....so you can keep your lessons on law.........
and ill leave it at that

 

[peplaw06]

Again, putting words in others' mouths. Did I even mention a sentence? Did I mention 2-20? Did I mention life in prison? Did I mention even 21 years?
This is pretty lame for you to continually attribute things to me that I never said.
Have you no shame?
Has your counterpoint skill diminshed so much that you rely on falsehoods?
Again, did I say any of those things? Think hard and think carefully . . . .
Shame.

I told you what the sentencing range was for intoxicated manslaughter... That's not the range of capital murder. A capital murder charge would carry a larger sentence than intox manslaughter. Therefore, if you're calling him a murderer, which you ARE doing by saying he had intent to kill, then you are calling for a heavier punishment than intox manslaughter. THAT's my point.

Do I have to hold your hand at every juncture of this debate? This stuff isn't that tough to pick up on. I mean you want to pretend like you can carry on an adult conversation, so get with it bub.

Again, barrister, Mr. Wrong Attribution, did I say someone should spend his life in prison?
Huh?
Did I mention putting ANYONE TO DEATH?
Huh? Huh?
I don't think so, Sonny, because I did not.
And did I call for a life sentence?
Answer this please. And your answer should be, if you have dredged up any shame -- NO! Got it?

I never said YOU did. I said people. You're chiming in on this debate, calling Stallworth a murderer, saying he had intent... those kinds of allegations necessarily carry those types of punishments.

Are you the leader of the "fighting idiots?"

Well, thank you, not defending Stallworth! I trust he filled you in on how grief stricken he was and I marvel at how quickly you find in your infinite wisdom that he did not.

*yawn*

Actually, to try to claim that he did not is asinine. I guess next you'll claim that drinking is not reckless and being reckless does not signal intent to cause some hard. But that would be your next logical extension.
Grow up and get a conscience, barrister.

I didn't say he wasn't reckless. I said he had no intent to kill. There's a difference there bub. I'll let you figure it out, since you won't listen to me.

 

[peplaw06]

well i can tell this thread will never die..............so ill just say

i never said that it was possible for him to get life or death, i know the law wont go to that extent.....that was all my opinion that i think that is what should happen ...i know it never would...i just wished they would.....so you can keep your lessons on law.........
and ill leave it at that

Well you should consider yourself lucky... You'll never have to do jury duty in a criminal case with those kinds of opinions.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I told you what the sentencing range was for intoxicated manslaughter... That's not the range of capital murder. A capital murder charge would carry a larger sentence than intox manslaughter. Therefore, if you're calling him a murderer, which you ARE doing by saying he had intent to kill, then you are calling for a heavier punishment than intox manslaughter. THAT's my point.

Do I have to hold your hand at every juncture of this debate? This stuff isn't that tough to pick up on. I mean you want to pretend like you can carry on an adult conversation, so get with it bub.

I never said YOU did. I said people. You're chiming in on this debate, calling Stallworth a murderer, saying he had intent... those kinds of allegations necessarily carry those types of punishments.

Are you the leader of the "fighting idiots?"

*yawn*

I didn't say he wasn't reckless. I said he had no intent to kill. There's a difference there bub. I'll let you figure it out, since you won't listen to me.

You find yourself backpedaling, shifting calls for retribution and denying and then putting more words in my mouth.

And when exactly did I refer to capital murder?

Again, lies and distortions from your celebrity-enabling mind.

Sonny, if that is the best you kin do, then your argument is dried up vanquished the the dustbin full of of apologists who offer refuge to those who choose to be reckless and then kill and maim.
If that is what makes you feel more manly, then go for it.

Me I will feel lots more for the victim and the victim's family and I will not make apologies or excuses for those to operate a mass of metal that weighs thousands of pounds while being impaired.

To you that is an accident.
To me it is recklessness and inviting homicide to choose to drive with the result being a dead man.

Defend that!
Shame on you and you know it!

 

[Dawgs0916]

You find yourself backpedaling, shifting calls for retribution and denying and then putting more words in my mouth.

And when exactly did I refer to capital murder?

Again, lies and distortions from your celebrity-enabling mind.

Sonny, if that is the best you kin do, then your argument is dried up vanquished the the dustbin full of of apologists who offer refuge to those who choose to be reckless and then kill and maim.
If that is what makes you feel more manly, then go for it.

Me I will feel lots more for the victim and the victim's family and I will not make apologies or excuses for those to operate a mass of metal that weighs thousands of pounds while being impaired.

To you that is an accident.
To me it is recklessness and inviting homicide to choose to drive with the result being a dead man.

Defend that!
Shame on you and you know it!

I really kind of agree with points both of you are making in this argument...so it has nothing to do with that.

But is it really making you feel better, or more powerful calling the dude Sonny in every post? Because to me its just making your posts look kind of dumb...

ducking back out of the cage match..