Free Stallworth for the Team that can Stomach Him

by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2010 9:18 PM PST Comment 38 comments

I would think the man that forgave Jerammy Stevens every sin would not cut Donte Stallworth for punitive reasons, but it's certainly possible. There's little other reason to cut a talented player in an uncapped season short on free agents. If nothing else, Stallworth could fetch a late round pick in trade. He only cost $1.4 million against the cap in 2009. A pittance. He isn't far removed from a run of productive if unsteady seasons with the Patriots, Eagles and Saints. Stallworth doesn't have to be good to be valuable for a team like the Cowboys that could use him in four receiver sets opposite Miles Austin. Maybe he'll end up a Cowboy, but a smart team would put themselves somewhere in the middle. Nab a pick for housing Stallworth for a couple months.

I'd rather not revisit the morality of Stallworth's crime, but it's necessary. He killed a man. He killed a man drinking and driving. His blood alcohol at the time was 0.12, lower than either Lofa Tatupu or Owen Schmitt at the time of their respective arrests. Probably lower than some left their Super Bowl parties. But he killed a man and that's the fact that survives the wash. He was convicted of manslaughter and served 24 days in jail. People hate when a star athlete gets of easy. I personally hate that all DUI convictions don't come with jail time and that manslaughter is considered an additional offense on an inherently dangerous act. It's like shooting at someone but missing and being charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm.

So there it is, all laid out, the ugly, moralistic truth. Stomach the man and his past and Stallworth is a talented wide receiver that could fill out a corps or probably be traded for a draft pick. Of course, as this stuff goes, I wouldn't be surprised if he was blackballed right out of the league. He did kill a man.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If I were a betting man, I'd say he catches on with a team in 2010.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Feb 8, 2010 9:54 PM PST reply actions

I'm not saying I agree with it

But I think the public backlash was worse for Vick than it will be for Stallworth. It seems to be viewed as more cold-blooded. Hard to predict though, the American public is unpredictable.

by Big E-Z on Feb 8, 2010 10:51 PM PST via mobile reply actions

For what it's worth, Stallworth's crime was much less premeditated.

I saw an interview with him that shed a lot of light on the circumstances surrounding the guys death. Essentially Stallworth was driving too fast on a road that is easy to speed on, and he hit a guy that ran in front of him trying to catch a bus. Wrong place wrong time. Stupid decision to drink heavily and drive, but I can understand how it happened. I have a much harder time understanding Vick’s thinking/actions.

by Menthu Ra on Feb 9, 2010 12:10 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed.

This might sound cold to some, but it really sounded like it was realistically as much the guy’s fault as it was Stallworth’s, and that’s part of the reason for the “light” sentence and the fact that there was no civil trial but a settling out of court— the family didn’t think if they went to court that it would pay off any better. Stallworth of course was okay with the settling as opposed to taking a higher risk and certainly higher profile court trial.

Also, if we want to talk about people that shouldn’t have gotten another chance, let’s talk not about Vick or Stallworth, but Leonard Little, who basically got off scott free when he killed a woman while hammered and speeding very excessively, then some time later got pulled over for the same but got off of the alcohol part and just got reckless driving due to a technicality, yet he’s still pass rushing and only missed around 6 games, despite repeatedly driving while shit-faced and getting caught speeding excessively.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 9, 2010 12:30 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed.

You hear about people getting killed all the time trying to cross I-5 late at night (for what reason, I have no clue). If the driver who hit them happened to be drunk, he’d obviously get a sentence, but if he weren’t he wouldn’t get a sentence. I don’t think anyone knows exactly what happened in the Stallworth case, but it’s entirely possible that he was driving in a responsible manner and that some idiot just ran out and tried to cross the road at the wrong time, hence the light sentence.
It seems Stallworth’s crime is getting a lot of press when Leonard Little’s crime is worse.

by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2010 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

Apparently shooting yourself in the leg

Is a far worse crime than killing a man under the influence.

He has paid his time though and that one big screwup cost him a year off his contract. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? He’s got 5 more years on his contract so if he seems to have learned his lesson he could be a great contributor for a rebuilding Browns team. One less spot to fill. I’d think it’d be worth the gamble.

Plenty of players with way more questionable history have found jobs in the NFL. He’s got the talent to make it a good risk to take.

by MT Olson on Feb 8, 2010 11:51 PM PST reply actions

Isn't it ridiculous that Plax got 2 years?

I mean seriously— he might be a douche, but Jamal Lewis, Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrison and Leonard Little between them have probably spent less time in jail while either being involved in or committing far more seriously offenses.

I hope the district attorney that decided to make a high profile example ends up getting his license revoked some time down the line for a mistake, preferably in another state. (Plax had a license to carry a firearm near NY city but not in the city. Can’t remember if it was the state but not city of NY, or if it was NJ… regardless, it just seems comically excessive and the burden of cost to put him in prison instead of making him pay a massive fine? Ridiculous.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 9, 2010 12:34 AM PST up reply actions

Burres had an expired CCW...

From Florida, if I recall correctly, and no license at all in New York. And while he was incredibly unlucky (as well as unthinking) in the self-shooting incident, he was at the same time incredibly lucky that the gunshot didn’t injure or kill another person.

by Buster! on Feb 9, 2010 1:06 AM PST up reply actions

Yes.

It had little to do with the DA or anything. Gun laws are extremely strict in NY. Getting busted having a gun, with an expired license from another state, I think it was pretty close to an automatic 2 year sentence. I remember the instant it went down, ESPN had their lawyer on who was basically saying Burress was screwed and was going to end up with 2 years in prison pretty much no matter what.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 9, 2010 1:25 AM PST up reply actions

The compelling point about the Plax case

as it concerns the “celebrity” portion of the case, if he’d just been some schmuck no one would have ever known about the incident at all.

It’s not to dismiss or excuse him, but a professional athlete has to report injury—to the league. That’s what got the police involved. Neither the club owner or anyone else involved went to the police. It was the Giants/NFL.

Then, once the governor got involved there really was no room for a plea deal. It’s one reason I HATE mandatory sentencing. At the end of the day, is society better off with that guy in jail sucking up tax dollars rather than generating them?

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 9, 2010 4:19 AM PST up reply actions

I thought it was NJ not Florida. My bad on that part.

Regardless, I think it’s an excessively harsh sentence essentially for being stupid, and like you dcrockett17, I agree the tax implications are frustrating given the crime…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 9, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions

My understanding is that Plax's sentence wasn't harsh, it was pretty standard for that crime.

There was a really good post about it on Smart Football that I can’t find anymore, but I did find this one.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 9, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe it wasn't too harsh by New York standards, but it was pretty damn harsh.

Let’s review— Leonard Little recieved 90 DAYS IN JAIL, 4 YEARS PROBATION AND 1000 HRS. OF COMMUNITY SERVICE. FOR KILLING A PERSON! Michael Vick spent 19 months in prison for violating almost every animal law know to man, and running a gambling ring. 23 months.

Plax shot himself with a legally owned but illegally carried gun. 2 years.

Hmmm.

Something is off balance there.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 9, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

You're arguing from the exception to the rule.

What happened to Little or Vick should have no impact on how New York enforces gun laws.

by John Morgan on Feb 9, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions

Exactly. Plax, Vick and Little were all convicted of different crimes.

Two years is the minimum sentence for Plax’s charges.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 9, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

And I still believe the law is draconian, regardless of it being the exception or the rule.

A first time offense that does not directly or even indirectly negatively affect anyone else outside of the person that committed the “crime” should not leave a person incarcerated for two years, regardless of where it occurs.

It’s excessive, draconian, unjust and illogical considering the fact that the state essentially pays anywhere from 20k to 60k+ (I looked around and didn’t find a clear cut number anywhere) per year to imprison Plax instead of penalizing him monetarily. Again, we’re talking about a crime that did not hurt other people here. Well, anyone other than the citizens of the state who are now paying for his crime so that he can “pay for his crime.”

It’s backasswards. It was a victimless crime, but NY wants to be tough on criminals, so they’ve made an extremely strict interpretation of what the punishment should be. 1 in 9 black men between the ages of 20 and 34, per 2008 numbers. This is a sin. We lock up and throw away the key far far quicker than we do anything to solve any of these problems.

Look, I know this is a football site, not a political one, and I know we’re not supposed to talk on politics, but sometimes politics come into play. I’m not saying I’m this party or that party (really I’m not), but I am saying there is something wrong with the system when a person is punished for two years, causing burden on the taxpayers, for a victimless crime.

Nate Dogg, I get it. The minimum sentence is 2 years. That doesn’t make the it judicious. Not the policy, nor the policy makers, nor the political agenda behind the policy. Being a law does not automatically make something just.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 9, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions

You're right, this isn't the place.

And this shtick is wearing thin. Not everything you half understand but disagree with requires a rant.

by John Morgan on Feb 9, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions

I'm sorry you feel this way, but

2 years sounds perfectly reasonable to me. He was was in possession of a concealed handgun that he had no license to carry in New York. You cannot deny that, you also cannot deny the fact that he recklessly discharged said weapon in city limits. Which I am sure is in violation of city/state laws. I an not anti-gun. I am sensible enough to appreciate Lawful gun ownership. The whole argument of Gun Laws hurting lawful gun owners only applies if you are a lawful gun owner.

He shouldn’t have been carrying concealed, he shouldn’t have been drinking while carrying, he shouldn’t have been in a bar/club carrying. All of those in Washington are separate gun laws that will get you in jail. He broke the law and faces the sentencing imposed by his prosecutors which are the State of NY and the law in which they are bound to enforce.

The lesson is simple be a Legal gun owner or face the consequences. Americans have the right to speak out against the law not the right to break the law.

2 years only seems like a long time to you because he is a star football player. If he was not a star like someone mentioned above you would have not a care int he world. If you had heard of it you would not have given it a second thought.

by TheHeretic on Feb 9, 2010 8:46 PM PST up reply actions

As John said, this isn't the place.

I was wrong to start that conversation. If you wish to discuss with me offline, look at my profile and send an email. As far as I’m concerned the conversation here is over.. let’s get back to football! :)

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 10, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions

Also, the rumor was

the D.A. at first offered him merely one year and he balked at even that. With the mandatory minimum of two years (I first heard three-point-five?) and a clear statement from no less than the Mayor himself that he should get time, Plaxico failed to read the 60-point font writing on the wall and gambled. It was a bad gamble, one I’m sure his lawyers counseled against, but our system allows you the freedom to make that gamble even when it’s stupid. The system has plenty of faults but the Plaxico nightclub shooting case better illustrates his faults, it seems to me.

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 9, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions

I think I'd be a little surprised if he got blackballed.

Given the fact that Leonard Little had a long productive career after killing a woman while driving drunk makes me think Stallworth will get signed.

by Mind of no mind on Feb 9, 2010 1:37 AM PST reply actions

Uhh...

Stallworth made a very bad decision to drive drunk and then got very unlucky when somebody else did something stupid that would have likely got them killed had Stallworth been 100% sober.

Yes, driving while drunk is stupid as hell. But framing this the way John does is a bit unfair.

To me, the difference between Plax and Stallworth is that somebody employed common sense in one case, and not in the other. (or wasn’t allowed to apply common sense because of a silly law).

by Dids on Feb 9, 2010 7:52 AM PST reply actions