Why does it seem that I'm the only one that finds this sickening?

[CCDaDon]

Dante Stallworth NFL Wide Reciever got 30 days in jail for killing a human being while driving drunk in Miami. Michael Vick gets 2 years for killing dogs.

Do we as Humans value pet life more than Human life? Is that how low of a race we are now?

[zack10house]

Seriously? That's ****ed up.

Don't get me wrong, Vick deserved what he got, but Stallworth should have gotten so much more

[ArchangelZero]

Does it matter anymore?

[bermuddy]

this is why (from the espn article)
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth's lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal. Rundle also said the Reyes family -- particularly the victim's 15-year-old daughter -- wanted the case resolved to avoid any more pain.

the dude was also jaywalking, for whatever its worth.

[PeaceSells]

Well I value an animal's life more than a human in movies. When animals die in movies I cry, but when a human does I laugh. Am i sick?

But on topic I do think it's ridiculous he only gets 30 days for vehicular manslaughter and plus he was driving drunk

[Hanrahan89]

Dante Stallworth NFL Wide Reciever got 30 days in jail for killing a human being while driving drunk in Miami. Michael Vick gets 2 years for killing dogs.

Do we as Humans value pet life more than Human life? Is that how low of a race we are now?

I agree with this 100% also this has been discussed on the forums in the offical NFL discussion thread. So your not the only one who thinks this is ridiculous.

[GCX100]

Stallworth should've gotten more time in jail for killing one of his own kind. Its against god's rules to kill one another so this would be more severe. Dogs aren't our kind so this gets confusing. Did Vick do something more severe than what Stallworth did?

[Cubecubed]

When animals start to ruin the world they live in i will agree with you.

[PeaceSells]

Stallworth should've gotten more time in jail for killing one of his own kind. Its against god's rules to kill one another so this would be more severe. Dogs aren't our kind so this gets confusing. Did Vick do something more severe than what Stallworth did?

Well you cant really punish someone based on religion, that goes against what the whole United States stands for. But it is still stupid

[bermuddy]

the main reason for lighter sentencing is stallwroth's clean record and guilty plea. vick dragged out the case until the bitter end AND he had a record

[Der_Lex]

I really, really hope you're not arguing that 2 years for Vick is excessive.

Is 30 days too short of a prison term for Stallworth? Yes. But so is the 2 years for what Vick did. If anything, animal life is undervalued in today's society, not overvalued.

[CCDaDon]

the main reason for lighter sentencing is stallwroth's clean record and guilty plea. vick dragged out the case until the bitter end AND he had a record

The case started out with Stallworth pleading not guilty. It doesn't matter how long you drag out a case its the fact that he did. They both did so that is not a valid point. Also past record, ok that makes sense but not only 30 days sense.

[bermuddy]

30 days seems too little. i agree, but stallworth plea bargained. vick didnt.

[BevoTheWarrior]

the dude was also jaywalking, for whatever its worth.

Which is now punishable by death in Miami. I think I'll stay in Texas.

[Der_Lex]

Stallworth should've gotten more time in jail for killing one of his own kind. Its against god's rules to kill one another so this would be more severe. Dogs aren't our kind so this gets confusing. Did Vick do something more severe than what Stallworth did?

If you're going to bring up 'god's rules', you might want to look up man's role as custodian of creation in your bible at some point in time. I'm pretty sure that includes more than just humans.

[bermuddy]

Which is now punishable by death in Miami. I think I'll stay in Texas.

jaywalking is srs bsnss

[CCDaDon]

I really, really hope you're not arguing that 2 years for Vick is excessive.

Is 30 days too short of a prison term for Stallworth? Yes. But so is the 2 years for what Vick did. If anything, animal life is undervalued in today's society, not overvalued.

Comparing how we punish for human life compared to pet life I think 2 years was too much. I can run down to the park and kill someone and get half a year. BUT I think that's more that we underpunish for murder.

[Der_Lex]

Comparing how we punish for human life compared to pet life I think 2 years was too much. I can run down to the park and kill someone and get half a year. BUT I think that's more that we underpunish for murder.

In that case, argue that the murder of the man was underpunished. The fact that the murder of the dogs was actually punished in a somewhat reasonable proportion (although I personally think the punishments for animal cruelty could be a lot harsher) does not help your case at all, and arguing against it only makes it seem like you undervalue any life that doesn't happen to be human.

[RockBandRocker]

You realize Vick was using animal cruelty for enterprise, right?

[Khaotic]

To be honest, for me, I would get more sad if I see a random dead dog than i would if i am to see a random dead person. I think it is because of the fact that the animal cannot defend itself like humans.

By the way, i think both guys deserve much more time in prison.

[Transbrak]

Stallworth should've gotten more time in jail for killing one of his own kind. Its against god's rules to kill one another so this would be more severe. Dogs aren't our kind so this gets confusing. Did Vick do something more severe than what Stallworth did?

:rolleyes: You do realize that religion and the law are separate and just because you believe in something does not mean it's real or that other people believe in it.

That said I think both of them have gotten off light. And someone who chooses to drink and drive should be charged with murder when they commit such an act.

[Alright_Computer]

:rolleyes: You do realize that religion and the law are separate and just because you believe in something does not mean it's real or that other people believe in it.

You beat me to saying that! :(

That being said, both these people got off lucky and they should consider themselves lucky that they got off as light as they did.

[Hanrahan89]

I really, really hope you're not arguing that 2 years for Vick is excessive.

Is 30 days too short of a prison term for Stallworth? Yes. But so is the 2 years for what Vick did. If anything, animal life is undervalued in today's society, not overvalued.

I believe Vick was fairly punished by getting 2 years but it is a joke that Stallworth walks away with only a minor punishment. Even though Stallworth had no prior arrests it's still his fault for drunk driving and it's his fault that person died. I believe what Vick did was wrong but I don't think that taking an animal's life should have a greater punishment than taking a human's life.

[Der_Lex]

I believe Vick was fairly punished by getting 2 years but it is a joke that Stallworth walks away with only a minor punishment. Even though Stallworth had no prior arrests it's still his fault for drunk driving and it's his fault that person died. I believe what Vick did was wrong but I don't think that taking an animal's life should have a greater punishment than taking a human's life.

Again: I don't disagree with you that 30 days for criminal negligence resulting in a death is laughable, but somehow the OP turned the "a man was underpunished for killing another man" statement that he should have made into an "a man's life is worth less than an animal's" by bringing up the completely unrelated Vick case (well, all right, they were both celebrities in the US, but is that really reason enough to compare the two cases?). If you want Stallworth to receive a higher punishment for what he did, you should be making that case without trying to pull down the value of animal life, which is basically what you're doing with the false comparison.
As someone who's spent time helping out in animal shelters and who has taken in several victims of the cruelty some worthless human beings inflict on animals, the latter really ticks me off. We can't call ourselves a truly civilized society until we take responsibility and take care of those weaker than ourselves, and that includes the animals that we decide to keep as pets. Arguing that a man's life should be worth more than an animal's only distracts from the real issue at hand. The offenders in both cases got off too lightly. Neither case invalidates the other.

[timmay9]

This is going downhill real fast.

[JuJuBee]

Again: I don't disagree with you that 30 days for criminal negligence resulting in a death is laughable, but somehow the OP turned the "a man was underpunished for killing another man" statement that he should have made into an "a man's life is worth less than an animal's" by bringing up the completely unrelated Vick case (well, all right, they were both celebrities in the US, but is that really reason enough to compare the two cases?). If you want Stallworth to receive a higher punishment for what he did, you should be making that case without trying to pull down the value of animal life, which is basically what you're doing with the false comparison.
As someone who's spent time helping out in animal shelters and who has taken in several victims of the cruelty some worthless human beings inflict on animals, the latter really ticks me off. We can't call ourselves a truly civilized society until we take responsibility and take care of those weaker than ourselves, and that includes the animals that we decide to keep as pets. Arguing that a man's life should be worth more than an animal's only distracts from the real issue at hand. The offenders in both cases got off too lightly. Neither case invalidates the other.

I completely agree with you there.

Also, you have to look at the intent of the crime. Michael Vick knowingly and purposely tortured and killed the dogs while Donte Stallworth accidentally killed a man. While I agree that killing a man while drunk driving deserves a longer sentence than 30 days, it was not his intent to kill.

[Rock_Band_Over]

The reality is that the 'value' of the lives is one of the last things that get taken into account, if at all.

Intentional cruelty for financial gain and falling under RICO (everyone who's seen The Dark Knight knows how serious that is!) is on a totally different level in the eyes of the law than vehicular manslaughter in the US. And obviously, there's no such thing as vehicular 'animalslaughter', so it's not simply a matter of putting dogs above people.

FWIW, tax evasion carries longer average sentences than even murder in this country as well.

[Buffdog18]

Both deserved much much longer, both should be poor right now.

[Alright_Computer]

This is going downhill real fast.

It was already at the bottom of the hill to begin with. If anything it's being raised up with intelligent discussion.

[Julio_Strikes_Back]

I completely agree with you there.

Also, you have to look at the intent of the crime. Michael Vick knowingly and purposely tortured and killed the dogs while Donte Stallworth accidentally killed a man. While I agree that killing a man while drunk driving deserves a longer sentence than 30 days, it was not his intent to kill.

Yep. Drunk or not, the victim's death was an accident. 30 is definitely laughable but it should not be 2 years.

[pacifistWITHgun]

I'm pretty sure Danny Heatley did the exact same thing and got absolutely nothing so yeah...

[davidstead]

Dante has an awesome name? I wish i was called Danté lol

[Mex]

I'm pretty sure Danny Heatley did the exact same thing and got absolutely nothing so yeah...

That was a little different if I recall. He didn't hit a pedestrian.

He was driving in his car with his friend and teammate, going way too fast and lost control of the car. Sadly his friend didn't survive.

I think he was an idiot for driving like that, but even the family of the deceased felt he didn't need to do jail time because he'd have to live with the fact that he was responsible for his friends death for the rest of his life.

[ROCKBANDFANATIC7526]

Vince Neil killed the drummer for Hanoi Rocks and he only got 30 days.

[Zidane]

Turns out the guy who Dante Stallworth killed was a baby rapist. Now who's the sicko. Perv.

[Runesmith]

Both of them deserve a much larger amount of time in jail than they received.

I think Vick's crime is significantly worse, though. He exploited life - human or animal, the type of life in this case is irrelevant - for the sole purpose of financial gain, which is far worse than accidental manslaughter.

[jeccaneko]

this is why (from the espn article)
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle cited Stallworth's lack of previous criminal record, cooperation with police and willingness to accept responsibility as factors in the plea deal. Rundle also said the Reyes family -- particularly the victim's 15-year-old daughter -- wanted the case resolved to avoid any more pain.

the dude was also jaywalking, for whatever its worth.

Ehh... I think it's fair he doesn't get a ton of jail time with all of that, but still. He did kill a person, even if it's not entirely his fault.

[CCDaDon]

Again: I don't disagree with you that 30 days for criminal negligence resulting in a death is laughable, but somehow the OP turned the "a man was underpunished for killing another man" statement that he should have made into an "a man's life is worth less than an animal's" by bringing up the completely unrelated Vick case (well, all right, they were both celebrities in the US, but is that really reason enough to compare the two cases?). If you want Stallworth to receive a higher punishment for what he did, you should be making that case without trying to pull down the value of animal life, which is basically what you're doing with the false comparison.Point missed. I wasn't trying to bring down how we value animals I was trying to point out that we care for animals more than we care for ourselves and the we should change that.

[mimic]

In that case, argue that the murder of the man was underpunished. The fact that the murder of the dogs was actually punished in a somewhat reasonable proportion (although I personally think the punishments for animal cruelty could be a lot harsher) does not help your case at all, and arguing against it only makes it seem like you undervalue any life that doesn't happen to be human.

DING DING DING DING

This little **** sticks up for dog killers. He says it's "normal" where he comes from. I bet he ****ing kills them himself.

[CCDaDon]

DING DING DING DING

This little **** sticks up for dog killers. He says it's "normal" where he comes from. I bet he ****ing kills them himself.

o_O HELL NO.

It happens very often in my area and I don't condone it. I don't think it should be tolerated. I just know how a person can grow up thinking there's nothing wrong with it no matter how obvious it should be. Way back when in that thread I was trying to point out that when you grow up in certain environments you're tought things that are wrong to think it's right. People don't even try and understand that part when they talk about the situation.

I love pets and I love the cat that I own. I would hate for anything to happen to him, but do I love it more than an actual person? No. With that said do I think it is ok for someone to do something wrong to an animal? Hell no. I just think someone should get more time for killing, accidentally or otherwise, a human than someone does for killing a pet.

[mimic]

o_O HELL NO.

It happens very often in my area and I don't condone it. I don't think it should be tolerated. I just know how a person can grow up thinking there's nothing wrong with it no matter how obvious it should be. Way back when in that thread I was trying to point out that when you grow up in certain environments you're tought things that are wrong to think it's right. People don't even try and understand that part when they talk about the situation.

You said in the old thread that two years was too much. That he should be allowed back in the NFL. You could have made this thread and said it's sickening that someone would get 30 days for killing someone WITHOUT mentioning vick. You chose to cause you still feel he was over punished. To me that makes you a dog torture sympathizer.

[CCDaDon]

Again I'm not trying to say "Oh he gets 30 days? the dog killer should get 20" I'm saying "The dog killer gets 2 years 10 years parole? The guy who killed someone should get 2 and a half years with 15 parole"

[Mega-Tallica]

Having loads of money can get you out of anything. He just paid off some people and they told him he'll only have a 30 day jail sentence. If it was just a regular person, they would have had a life sentence. It's crazy, but it's true.

[Alright_Computer]

These are completely different situations. Vick knew very well what he was doing and did it intentionally, Stallworth had no idea what he was doing and did it completely accidentally. I'm not sure why you're comparing the two besides that they're both football players who got a prison sentence.

[Gatorguy91]

1. Vick killed multiple dogs, Stallworth killed one human.
2. Vick killed dogs on purpose in an illegal gambling ring
3. Stallworth was not only intoxicated but did it unwillingly.

[CCDaDon]

You said in the old thread that two years was too much. That he should be allowed back in the NFL. You could have made this thread and said it's sickening that someone would get 30 days for killing someone WITHOUT mentioning vick. You chose to cause you still feel he was over punished. To me that makes you a dog torture sympathizer.

Opinions change. Since then I've thought about the situation and changed my mind.

In comparison to how we treat human killings 2 years IS too much. That is in comparison. Meaning my point is to raise the strictness of human killings.

I DO think he should be allowed in the NFL. I think what he has gone through is enough if he is sorry and has learned how to handle his personal life.

The reason I mentioned Vick is because 1) he's a celebrity that everyone knows the story to 2) in my mind It was a fair comparison IMO because the one who should be greatly punished was not and the one who should be slightly less greatly punished waspunishedexpectedly.

[typhoons]

Vick fully meant to harm those dogs whereas Stallworth did not go out seeking to kill someone. I am not sticking up for either of these guys, but there is a clear difference. Vick was in business to harm animals...Stallworth was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Furthermore, Stallworth was under the influence of alcohol. Theoretically, he was not in full control of himself at the time of the accident. To me, this is the same thing as someone who is insane or pleads ""insanity" and gets a lesser punishment because they were not in full control of their own thoughts and therefore their own actions. I also would not be surprised if there was some under the table "hush" money involved in the agreement.

[RicoTheAwesomeCat]

I actually consider animal life to be a bit more important than human. Both people deserved much more than what they got though.

[CCDaDon]

I personally think accidentally killing someone is worse than killing someone with purpose. I see it as someone dying for absolute no reason. I'd rather die for a stupid reason than die for none at all.

[sa_nick]

The fact that he was drunk is what makes this bad. If he was sober, then I'd be down with a month jail.

There's a huge difference between murder and manslaughter. The outcome is the same but the punishment on the person who does it should be radically different, especially since they need to live with their accident that killed someone.

How can any "correctional facility" possibly help you to never accidentally kill someone ever again?

If the dude who killed the dogs did it of their own will then it makes total sense in my mind that they get more jail time because really they're more screwed up in the head.


I personally think accidentally killing someone is worse than killing someone with purpose. I see it as someone dying for absolute no reason. I'd rather die for a stupid reason than die for none at all.

I'd say 99.9% of murders have no purpose anyway. And even if u do think manslaughter is a worse way to die, it doesn't mean that the person who commits it deserves more time in jail.

[Der_Lex]

o_O HELL NO.

It happens very often in my area and I don't condone it. I don't think it should be tolerated. I just know how a person can grow up thinking there's nothing wrong with it no matter how obvious it should be. Way back when in that thread I was trying to point out that when you grow up in certain environments you're tought things that are wrong to think it's right. People don't even try and understand that part when they talk about the situation.

I love pets and I love the cat that I own. I would hate for anything to happen to him, but do I love it more than an actual person? No. With that said do I think it is ok for someone to do something wrong to an animal? Hell no. I just think someone should get more time for killing, accidentally or otherwise, a human than someone does for killing a pet.


I personally think accidentally killing someone is worse than killing someone with purpose. I see it as someone dying for absolute no reason. I'd rather die for a stupid reason than die for none at all.


If a person intentionally tortures another living being, be it human or animal, I honestly don't give a rat's ass about how they were brought up. If you don't realize deep in your gut that what you're doing is wrong, you're a worthless human being and, quite frankly, a waste of space. The fact that you were brought up that way is not an excuse, it only means that more people should be held accountable. The fact that that kind of stupidity is allowed to be perpetuated in a first world country is, frankly, unacceptable. People like Vicks have no right to play the victim, they're human garbage no matter which way you try to spin it.

Then you argue that we should value human life over animal life? Why? Can you think of one morally sound reason that does not involve a holy text? Because if it's a matter of humans being more intelligent, we should start debating whether or not children and the mentally handicapped are worth less than a normal adult human. And if it's a matter of 'because we're the same species', there's nothing moral about it, it's a matter of self-preservation, which is a completely selfish motive.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand that there's a natural order to things. Predators are part of nature, so I have nothing against animals being used for food, as long as they are treated in a somewhat decent manner during their lifetime. But intentionally harming any living being just for the fun or profit of it is crossing a line for me, and I really don't care whether that being is a human or an animal. A truly moral society protects those weaker than themselves instead of exploiting them, and that includes the animals that we decided to keep as pets.

As for accidental killing being worse than intentional killing... really? You really feel that someone who has intentionally chosen to end another being's life should receive a MILDER punishment than someone who, say, accidentally drops a flowerpot off a balcony that ends up killing a passerby? (you see that I've avoided drunk driving here, because I consider that closer to an intentional than an accidental death... criminal negligence instead of carelessness) If you do, I can only say that I consider that very misguided, and something that would send a very wrong message to society in general. The human life that you claim to value so highly would be valued quite a bit less that way.

I like generally like you, but these two posts make me very happy that you have no say in how the justice system operates.

[Meatwad555]

If a person intentionally tortures another living being, be it human or animal, I honestly don't give a rat's ass about how they were brought up. If you don't realize deep in your gut that what you're doing is wrong, you're a worthless human being and, quite frankly, a waste of space. The fact that you were brought up that way is not an excuse, it only means that more people should be held accountable. The fact that that kind of stupidity is allowed to be perpetuated in a first world country is, frankly, unacceptable. People like Vicks have no right to play the victim, they're human garbage no matter which way you try to spin it.

Then you argue that we should value human life over animal life? Why? Can you think of one morally sound reason that does not involve a holy text? Because if it's a matter of humans being more intelligent, we should start debating whether or not children and the mentally handicapped are worth less than a normal adult human. And if it's a matter of 'because we're the same species', there's nothing moral about it, it's a matter of self-preservation, which is a completely selfish motive.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand that there's a natural order to things. Predators are part of nature, so I have nothing against animals being used for food, as long as they are treated in a somewhat decent manner during their lifetime. But intentionally harming any living being just for the fun or profit of it is crossing a line for me, and I really don't care whether that being is a human or an animal. A truly moral society protects those weaker than themselves instead of exploiting them, and that includes the animals that we decided to keep as pets.

As for accidental killing being worse than intentional killing... really? You really feel that someone who has intentionally chosen to end another being's life should receive a MILDER punishment than someone who, say, accidentally drops a flowerpot off a balcony that ends up killing a passerby? (you see that I've avoided drunk driving here, because I consider that closer to an intentional than an accidental death... criminal negligence instead of carelessness) If you do, I can only say that I consider that very misguided, and something that would send a very wrong message to society in general. The human life that you claim to value so highly would be valued quite a bit less that way.

I like generally like you, but these two posts make me very happy that you have no say in how the justice system operates.

What about plants?

[Der_Lex]

What about plants?

I'd have thought the 'natural order of things' part of my post covered that. Herbivores (or omnivores) are completely natural, and to a certain extent so is the use of natural resources. Moderation in anything, though. The rate at which we're chopping down wood isn't exactly healthy for the ecosystem.

[bermuddy]

Ehh... I think it's fair he doesn't get a ton of jail time with all of that, but still. He did kill a person, even if it's not entirely his fault.

i agree, but while on the low end in terms of punishment, it's an acceptable one. the ESPN legal analyst was on the radio talkin about it on my drive hom last night. stallworth accepted responsibility immediately, called the police, told them he did it, and turned himself in. all that factors into it. the judge also took into account that he had already settled the civil suit with the victim's family. the famnily got money from his car insurance policy, his personal insurance policy (most athletes have one), and then also paid out of pocket.

i'm not trying to justify his actions. i'm trying to help everyone else understand the sentencing.

[Apples]

The victim's family also got paid off, probably to tune of millions of dollars.

Dogs can't accept bribes.

[quinaking]

That guy wasn't adorable.

[mrfattbill]

These were both local and sickening. Had EITHER child been found in the car alive the mother's would have faced some type of punishment :mad: I can't imagine how these "mothers" could leave their children in these vehicles and not ONE time during the day think "Hey, I wonder how my child is doing at daycare." In fact one of them tried to blame the daycare for not calling her when she failed to drop her daughter off that morning....are you f'in kidding me?????

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13960368/detail.html

http://www.wlwt.com/news/17443407/detail.html

I don't think a day goes by that I don't wonder what my 2 cats are getting into and their cats not human babies.

Bill

[CCDaDon]

LOL I too am happy that I have no say in how things work.

But do I really have to explain why I think we should care more for ourselves than animal life? (I thought)It should be a thing that is universally understood as to why but I guess not.

The accidental thing is vague. I meant accident related to drunkness and under the influence of drugs like PCP, Cocain, etc. You example was what I'd explain as a freak accident and really shouldn't be punishable.

Anyway... Yeah this thread kinda got out of hand... You can lock if you feel need to.

[bermuddy]

Anyway... Yeah this thread kinda got out of hand... You can lock if you feel need to.

lol thanks for giving them permission ;)

[CCDaDon]

lol thanks for giving them permission ;)

*sigh*

[bermuddy]

*sigh*

awww cmon man! just bustin' your chops!

[CCDaDon]

awww cmon man! just bustin' your chops!

I know... just in the middle of a couple of bad days... I'm in the middle of a bad cold AND... AHHH SOMEONE KILL ME!!!(Sore throat and nasal congestion is NOT fun)

[bermuddy]

I know... just in the middle of a couple of bad days... I'm in the middle of a bad cold AND... AHHH SOMEONE KILL ME!!!(Sore throat and nasal congestion is NOT fun)

*e-hug* this makes everyone feel better

[DethTung]

The human race is condemned to survive, no matter how low we sink.

[gmarsh]

give them life in prison, yeah throw brett favre in their to, because I'm sick of hearing about them on the news.

[adamlathrom]

I did 30 days in jail for going 5 miles over the speed limit while having a beer after getting off work. I wish he was driving through a dry county like I was. They would have gave him life.

[OakTea]

Stallworth should've gotten more time in jail for killing one of his own kind. Its against god's rules to kill one another so this would be more severe. Dogs aren't our kind so this gets confusing. Did Vick do something more severe than what Stallworth did?

Because god's rules = law, right? (no)

More on topic... While getting a small punishment for accidentally killing a jaywalker while driving properly makes sense...if he was driving drunk, it should be considered manslaughter, and should be punished more harshly.

But accidentally killing a human isn't as bad as purposely killing a dog.


I personally think accidentally killing someone is worse than killing someone with purpose. I see it as someone dying for absolute no reason. I'd rather die for a stupid reason than die for none at all.

So someone who accidentally kills someone should be punished more harshly? :p We'll see how you like it when you get life in prison because you accidentally killed someone when they ran across the road in front of your car. :p

Someone who accidentally kills has to live with the guilt of taking an innocent life they never mean to take (and probably wasn't their own fault), and they have to face being locked up in prison, a place in which they probably couldn't survive. Is that really fair?

[JuJuBee]

I did 30 days in jail for going 5 miles over the speed limit while having a beer after getting off work. I wish he was driving through a dry county like I was. They would have gave him life.

Really? Was that was your first offense?

[King_Nuthin]

Both got less than they deserved.

But... Vick was punished for conspiracy, gambling and other deliberate crimes. Stallworth had an accident. One that is completely unacceptable and the sentence is a disgrace. But just because he got off easy doesn't mean Vick got over punished or even that these cases are remotely comparable.