Dante Stallworth pleads guilty to DUI manslaughter


mighty hornet said:
wow!
blame the victim (guess it was his fault that he got hit and killed by a dude with an alcohol level of .126), but then again, you did say, his drinking didnt contribute. And then you say laws against driving drunk are primarily used to generate revenue.

again, wow!
:smh:
Click to expand...

MH, he's not blaming the victim becasue the dude was drunk. He's blaming the victim, cause he was jaywalking. It's not like Stallworth jumped the curb and hit the dude, the dude was in the middle of the road and not within the crosswalks.
 
Blacknbengal said:
MH, he's not blaming the victim becasue the dude was drunk. He's blaming the victim, cause he was jaywalking. It's not like Stallworth jumped the curb and hit the dude, the dude was in the middle of the road and not within the crosswalks.
Click to expand...

oh well, I guess jaywalking is a MUCH worse "crime" than driving drunk, with an alcohol level 3 times the limit.
 



mighty hornet said:
oh well, I guess jaywalking is a MUCH worse "crime" than driving drunk, with an alcohol level 3 times the limit.
Click to expand...

MH, stop playing "devil's advocate". It's not about which crime is weighter, so stop throwing tangibles in the equation. The man thought he could run across the road and make it and he didnt. Unfortunate, he got hit by a drunk driver. He could have well gotten hit by a sober driver and died. He thought he could cross where there were no pedestrian crossing or markings and didnt make it. End of story.
 
mighty hornet said:
wow!
blame the victim (guess it was his fault that he got hit and killed by a dude with an alcohol level of .126), but then again, you did say, his drinking didnt contribute. And then you say laws against driving drunk are primarily used to generate revenue.

again, wow!
:smh:
Click to expand...

In all actuality, the victim does have a part in this. That may sound kind of harsh, but think about it, aside from the emotion.
IF he had used the sidewalk, he would still be alive today. If Stallworth would've hit the victim while he was walking on the sidewalk, then that would be an entirely different story.

That's just like blaming a dog for biting a man because the man stuck his hand in the dog's cage. If that hand wouldn't have been there, there wouldn't have been a hand to bite.

Both have their part in the accident, but we can't exonerate the victim because he's deceased. Donte has to suffer psychologically and emotionally, while alive, for the rest of his life.

Bottomline is, folks shouldn't jaywalk or cross three lanes of traffic, on a dark street late at night, neither should they drink and drive.
 
Blacknbengal said:
He could have well gotten hit by a sober driver and died.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but the flip side of that same coin is that a sober driver may not have hit him. I guess you don't wanna accept the fact that driving drunk (3 times the limit) impairs your ability to drive. Or maybe, it just didnt impair Stallworth's. It's all the victim's fault, right?

At the end of the day, a man was killed by a car driven by a drunk driver.
 
mighty hornet said:
Maybe so, but the flip side of that same coin is that a sober driver may not have hit him. .
Click to expand...

I stopped right there, because of the speed that the car was going. I know the way I drive (being sober, cause I dont drive drunk) that I probably would have hit him too. I speed. Now, we do know that the car was going about 45-50 MPH at that time. That's a fact, so if you could not see the guy going at the speed, who's to say that "a sober driver may not have hit him"?
 
mighty hornet said:
Maybe so, but the flip side of that same coin is that a sober driver may not have hit him. I guess you don't wanna accept the fact that driving drunk (3 times the limit) impairs your ability to drive. Or maybe, it just didnt impair Stallworth's. It's all the victim's fault, right?

At the end of the day, a man was killed by a car driven by a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

Out of all the posts, not one claimed that it was totally the victim's fault. Don't know where you got that from.
 
JayRob said:
Bottomline is, folks shouldn't jaywalk or cross three lanes of traffic, on a dark street late at night, neither should they drink and drive.
Click to expand...
ummm sorry but you can't bottom line it like that because jaywalking and manslaughter aren't equal. At all. Nowehere near. So, please stop trying to make them be.
 
Blacknbengal said:
I stopped right there, because of the speed that the car was going. I know the way I drive (being sober, cause I dont drive drunk) that I probably would have hit him too. I speed. Now, we do know that the car was going about 45-50 MPH at that time. That's a fact, so if you could not see the guy going at the speed, who's to say that "a sober driver may not have hit him"?
Click to expand...
ummm, you do agree that the reactions of a drunk driver aint the same as the reactions of a sober driver, right?

and was Stallworth the only driver out there that night or were other drivers out there too?
 
mighty hornet said:
ummm sorry but you can't bottom line it like that because jaywalking and manslaughter aren't equal. At all. Nowehere near. So, please stop trying to make them be.
Click to expand...

Who said they were the same? Dude, you're reading stuff into posts that aren't there. Who said jaywalking and manslaughter are equal? Any sane person would know that they aren't.
 
Tony said:
you can get to .08 after only one 12 oz beer.
Click to expand...

This is why this Blood alcohol reading gig is a joke. It's been proven in court to be so time and time again. One person can drink six beers and not feel a thing, whereas another could drink two beers and get intoxicated.
It depends on the individuals genetic and biological makeup.

But this blood alcohol level ripoff lumps EVERYBODY under the same guidelines.
 
JayRob said:
This is why this Blood alcohol reading gig is a joke. It's been proven in court to be so time and time again. One person can drink six beers and not feel a thing, whereas another could drink two beers and get intoxicated.
It depends on the individuals genetic and biological makeup.

But this blood alcohol level ripoff lumps EVERYBODY under the same guidelines.
Click to expand...

yep

that over the limit crap is a trap.
They should just say what it means, zero tolerance
for any alcohol

you can be over the limit and still sober.
 
JayRob said:
This is why this Blood alcohol reading gig is a joke. It's been proven in court to be so time and time again. One person can drink six beers and not feel a thing, whereas another could drink two beers and get intoxicated.
It depends on the individuals genetic and biological makeup.
Click to expand...
And to remove all the subjectivity, based on "individuals genetic and biological makeup", the standard measure is the blood alcohol level. It has nothing to do with you drinking and "not feel a thing".
 



Some of you are trying to get technical about whether Stallworth was drunk or just drinking. The bottom line is his blood alcohol level was beyond the legal limit when he hit a man. Maybe his reaction time was slowed by the alcohol, causing him to react to slowly to the man in the crosswalk. None of us have any idea because we weren't there. What we do know is that situations like this is the reason we have laws against driving while drunk. His punishment should've been more severe.

Dr. Tony, now I'm no Doc, but I do know that blood alcohol level is determined by a number of factors and varies from person to person. So to say that one beer can cause you to be at the legal limit is very misleading. I'm willing to bet Stallworth had much more than a little bit to drink on that fateful day.
 
mighty hornet said:
Maybe so, but the flip side of that same coin is that a sober driver may not have hit him. I guess you don't wanna accept the fact that driving drunk (3 times the limit) impairs your ability to drive. Or maybe, it just didnt impair Stallworth's. It's all the victim's fault, right?

At the end of the day, a man was killed by a car driven by a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

For the first time I'm going to agree with Mighty Hornet, if Stallworth had put his foot on his brake pedal rather than flicking his lights he may have not hit the pedestrian.
 
Last edited:
JSU/99 said:
Some of you are trying to get technical about whether Stallworth was drunk or just drinking. The bottom line is his blood alcohol level was beyond the legal limit when he hit a man. Maybe his reaction time was slowed by the alcohol, causing him to react to slowly to the man in the crosswalk. None of us have any idea because we weren't there. What we do know is that situations like this is the reason we have laws against driving while drunk. His punishment should've been more severe.

Dr. Tony, now I'm no Doc, but I do know that blood alcohol level is determined by a number of factors and varies from person to person. So to say that one beer can cause you to be at the legal limit is very misleading. I'm willing to bet Stallworth had much more than a little bit to drink on that fateful day.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Jay walking and keeping you butt out of the middle of the street when the light says "DON'T WALK"
 
Being impaired cuts down on reaction time. Even blurs vision.

Since we weren't there (as some pointed out)....just like you can point out that ol'boy was jaywalking...not being impaired could've added a few extra feet of less-blurry eye-sight and could've spared the man his life.

But, the bottomline is.....

Dante's getting 30 da*n days for kill'n someone. That isht deserves YEARS in prison. And, I could care less if the family agreed to the 30 or not. He should do a couple just on general principle of driving drunk.
 
O'Bladerunner said:
Being impaired cuts down on reaction time. Even blurs vision.

Since we weren't there (as some pointed out)....just like you can point out that ol'boy was jaywalking...not being impaired could've added a few extra feet of less-blurry eye-sight and could've spared the man his life.

But, the bottomline is.....

Dante's getting 30 da*n days for kill'n someone. That isht deserves YEARS in prison. And, I could care less if the family agreed to the 30 or not. He should do a couple just on general principle of driving drunk.
Click to expand...


Blade the only reason he's getting that is because of all the big hoopla over DWI's nowadays. There's people getting hit on the streets everyday and being killed because of J-walking and the are totally exonerated, if you ask me his lawyer fvck him.
 
There is one thing about this whole case I do not understand. In Stallworth's initial statements to authorities, he said there was time enough for him to flash his lights and warn the victim. Okay, why didn't Stallworth stop his vehicle or move to a lane away from the guy if he was not sure the man was paying attention?

Sure, you can fairly say the guy should not have been jaywalking, but if a motorist has time enough to do what Stallworth said he did, he should probably not have hit him, right? Either Stallworth could avoid the accident or he could not avoid it. That needed to be cleared up.
 
Clear for what? The prosecution got what they wanted and lets be real, if they could have done more they would have. Why some are acting as if he's getting away with something because he's a star...I mean C'mon.
 
Last edited:
mighty hornet said:
wow!
blame the victim (guess it was his fault that he got hit and killed by a dude with an alcohol level of .126), but then again, you did say, his drinking didnt contribute. And then you say laws against driving drunk are primarily used to generate revenue.

again, wow!
:smh:
Click to expand...
mh, I'd blame the "victim" if this went to trial. My argument would be it wouldn't have mattered if Stallworth was drunk or not. Dude still woulda gotten hit. It matters that dude ran out onto a busy roadway. He's just as responsible for his own demise as Stallworth is. It's unfortunate that it occurred, no doubt. But that plea he got had everything to do with the family going along. When the family is saying give him the deal, the DA is most likely to go along with it. If they wanted Stallworth's head, he wouldn't have gotten that deal. It's even possible the DA may have thought he couldn't convict Stallworth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top