[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Does anyone know the details re: the man running across the street "in a hurry to catch a bus" mid block, not in a crosswalk? Fact is, there is a reason for crosswalks, they demarcate a zone where pedestrians have the right-of-way (pending signals). Thus, the man jay walking may have been a major part of why he was killed.

You have to consider at least, that maybe Stallworth would've hit him anyway. I know there was something about him flashing his lights. Maybe he would've done the same if he were sober?

So if you look at it that way, Stallworth then could've had his lawyer argue that he was only guilty of a dui, not manslaughter. His lawyer could've argued that the man jay walked, was in a hurry & would've been hit by anybody, drunk or not.

The fact that Stallworth admitted fault & cooperated from the get go was likely a blessing for the victim's family IMO. They wouldn't want to go through a long trial. It sounds to me like Stallworth did the right thing.

Has anyone considered that maybe the victim's family acknowledged that he was at fault to some degree?

Comparing this to Vick is simply not apples to apples. Like it or not, intent has a lot to do w/punishment in our legal system. Stallworth killed someone in an accident. Yes it's his fault he was drinking & driving, but that was not the only circumstance that caused it to happen.

Thanks, you chose to expound upon that and it is exactly how I feel about the situation.