Page 1 of 1

How to Get Away with Murder in Two Easy Steps

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 9:13 am
by Liberty4Life
Step one: Become an athlete
Step two: Make millions of dollars

(Somewhere, Jayson Williams and Donte Stallworth nod approvingly. OJ, too.)

Re: How to Get Away with Murder in Two Easy Steps

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 1:39 pm
by ToTheLeft
Liberty4Life wrote:Step one: Become an athlete
Step two: Make millions of dollars

(Somewhere, Jayson Williams and Donte Stallworth nod approvingly. OJ, too.)
Driving Drunk and hitting a jaywalker and what OJ did are totally different things. If Donte was sober, he probably still would have killed the dude. Anyways, it wasn't murder because he didn't set out with any sort of intent to kill.

Wikipedia sums it up: Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.

Donte didn't get in the car and say "I wanna run a dude over tonight. Let's go." What he did was stupid, and irresponsible, but not murder. And it's not like he "got away with it". Dude will NEVER sit behind the wheel of a car for the rest of his life, and is on house arrest for two years. Drunk driving is stupid and it's terrible, but just because he was out driving drunk doesn't mean he's a murderer because someone else broke the law by jaywalking. I know jaywalking doesn't sound that serious but, had Stallworth been sober, and had he still hit the guy crossing the street, he would have got off clean.

Jayson Williams, who knows. I think he was guilty, but I am not a jury of his peers presented with evidence. As far as OJ, he got what he deserved in the end. So I don't get your point, exactly... but have fun up on that soap box.

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 3:02 pm
by Liberty4Life
Wikipedia also offers this definition for murder, according to Common Law:

1. the act (actus reus) of killing a person
2. the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton.

The definition of "wanton" includes six categories:

1. lewd or immoral
2. cruel for no reason
3. unprovoked or capriciously violent or malicious
4. abundant and luxuriant
5. undisciplined
6. sexually open/free

I would argue that Donte Stallworth and Jayson Williams violated category of #5 -- undisciplined (and also #2 -- cruel for no reason. Just get a cab!) When you are drunk and you do things like a) play with guns or b) get behind a car, you are putting someone's life at risk. What Donte Stallworth said was, 'I am drunk but I don't care what happens to me or anyone around me'. Long story short -- I would have sympathy on Stallworth if he were a) sober and b) driving the speed limit. But he wasn't. And someone is dead because of what he did.

I don't know why we as a society turn such a blind eye to drunk driving, especially celebrities (who are supposed to have a monopoly on 'caring'). I think it's high time we crack down on these murderers.

(But thanks for letting me get up on my soap box!)

Re: How to Get Away with Murder in Two Easy Steps

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 3:08 pm
by Rocketfan
ToTheLeft wrote:
Donte didn't get in the car and say "I wanna run a dude over tonight. Let's go." What he did was stupid, and irresponsible, but not murder. And it's not like he "got away with it". Dude will NEVER sit behind the wheel of a car for the rest of his life, .
Wrong check your facts - he can reapply for a license in 5 years. It may only be given for him to drive to and from work, but he most likely WILL drive again...

Re: How to Get Away with Murder in Two Easy Steps

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 3:15 pm
by ToTheLeft
Rocketfan wrote:
ToTheLeft wrote:
Donte didn't get in the car and say "I wanna run a dude over tonight. Let's go." What he did was stupid, and irresponsible, but not murder. And it's not like he "got away with it". Dude will NEVER sit behind the wheel of a car for the rest of his life, .
Wrong check your facts - he can reapply for a license in 5 years. It may only be given for him to drive to and from work, but he most likely WILL drive again...
Eh, didn't really look past the "license suspended for life" thing. Still, that isn't exactly getting off easy.

Posted: July 13th, 2009, 3:28 pm
by ToTheLeft
Liberty4Life wrote:Wikipedia also offers this definition for murder, according to Common Law:

1. the act (actus reus) of killing a person
2. the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton.

The definition of "wanton" includes six categories:

1. lewd or immoral
2. cruel for no reason
3. unprovoked or capriciously violent or malicious
4. abundant and luxuriant
5. undisciplined
6. sexually open/free

I would argue that Donte Stallworth and Jayson Williams violated category of #5 -- undisciplined (and also #2 -- cruel for no reason. Just get a cab!) When you are drunk and you do things like a) play with guns or b) get behind a car, you are putting someone's life at risk. What Donte Stallworth said was, 'I am drunk but I don't care what happens to me or anyone around me'. Long story short -- I would have sympathy on Stallworth if he were a) sober and b) driving the speed limit. But he wasn't. And someone is dead because of what he did.

I don't know why we as a society turn such a blind eye to drunk driving, especially celebrities (who are supposed to have a monopoly on 'caring'). I think it's high time we crack down on these murderers.

(But thanks for letting me get up on my soap box!)
I don't think what Donte did was murder. If he had crashed into a storefront and killed people innocently walking through the store, or onto a sidewalk and plowed over legally walking pedestrians, thats one thing. He hit a jaywalker, who probably wasn't in his right mind, either. I was in a situation a couple years ago where I nearly ran over a drunk guy who was crossing a street at night illegally. Would I have been a murderer? I wasn't drunk, but I would have killed someone... but I wouldn't be a murderer because he broke the law and put himself in a position where his death was on his own hands.

The way I look at it... imagine if you're going bungee jumping. Best case scenario is that you get everything hooked up the right way, you jump, come back up, and have fun. However, if the operator of the bungee jump is careless, or drunk, or whatever, and doesn't hook you up the right way, and you are injured or you die, then he, in effect, murdered you, thanks to #5 up there that you stated. However, regardless of the state of the man who helps you get ready, if you break the rules of the bungee jump, or modify the equipment, in a way that causes you to be put in peril, then it doesn't really matter what the guy running the bungee jump does. If you know the rules (assuming you are given a waiver explaining your rights), and you disobey them, and it leads to your injury or death, you really have no one else to blame. Part of the laws where it pertains to drunk driving is to determine wether or not the tragedy that occurs as a result of the drunk driving would have happened had there not been drunk driving. In this case, any reasonable person would agree that a possibly drunk/high/crazy man crossing a busy street in the early morning hours of darkness in a place/time where it was unsafe/disallowed to cross, who is struck by a vehicle and killed, is responsible for his own death. Donte was caught driving drunk as a result of this accident, and was held responsible for his DUI, but I really don't think you can show that by driving drunk, he put this man in any more peril or danger than he was already in.

Lets not forget that Donte was not the only person breaking the law here. He didn't kill an innocent, he killed someone who put themselves in a dangerous situation. That's why he was cooperative with authorities the whole way thru the process, and didn't hide behind anything. He was over the legal limit, but obviously coherent enough to know that he needed to call police and do what they told him to do. It's a tragedy that anyone should have to die like this, but to say that Donte was undisciplined is one sided, because the man illegally crossing the street was undisciplined, as well. Mutual lack of discipline makes it manslaughter at best, and not murder. If two people texting while driving get in a head on collision, they're both in the wrong and deserve what they get. The same should apply here. I am not condoning drinking and driving. I am glad he was brought to justice for his DUI. But I don't think he needs to be hanged for killing a jaywalker at 2 AM on a busy street. Drunk or not.

Posted: July 14th, 2009, 7:25 am
by Sly Fox
So in summary, the jaywalker had it coming so Donte hanging in his mansion inconvenienced for a couple of years is appropriate. Huh? Did I miss something or did Donte not pull a Leonard Little?

Posted: July 14th, 2009, 8:33 am
by ATrain
Sorry, but if anyone is driving drunk and kills someone, then that person should be locked up for life, if not facing the death penalty. If Donte had been sober, he could've had better reaction times and not hit the jaywalker.

Yeah, Donte will have to deal with the hardship of not having a license, but truthfully thats getting off easy in my opinion.

Posted: July 14th, 2009, 10:25 am
by Liberty4Life
Three things:

#1) It's not like the guy who was killed was running around in the middle of the street. He was "near" the crosswalk. I'm not saying the guy is without fault -- but if you had to put a figure on who is more to blame, I'd say 'Stallworth'.
#2) The accident wasn't at 2 a.m. It was at 7:15 a.m. I think there is a significant difference.
#3) Stallworth also had marijuana in his system.

When you are drunk / high, you are a ticking time bomb. When you get behind the wheel, you put everyone at risk.

Seriously, Michael Vick got 18 times more time behind bars than Stallworth.

Posted: July 15th, 2009, 8:18 am
by Liberty4Life
Here's an odd question:

Regarding the NFL, since Michael Vick has to appeal to be allowed to play again...

Is the NFL more angry at Vick for abusing dogs?
Or is the NFL more angry at Vick for the gambling aspect of that ring (keeping in mind that's why he was sent to jail, for the gambling part of it).
Sports really has no place or tolerance for gamblers.

Posted: July 15th, 2009, 8:26 am
by olldflame
What the NFL is most concerned about is their image, and the potential problems from protests by the PETA whackos. They need to come across as tough on Vick to minimize this.

Posted: July 15th, 2009, 9:53 am
by ATrain
olldflame wrote:What the NFL is most concerned about is their image, and the potential problems from protests by the PETA whackos. They need to come across as tough on Vick to minimize this.
Of course what does this say about our society, when there are more people who'll protest the NFL over Vick's treatment of dogs than who will over someone who kills someone else while driving drunk.