alexgaddis Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does this affect his rankings for this year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does this affect his rankings for this year... He will be receiving in the prison league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why will Plax get out early? Vick didn't. Is there something I'm not aware of that will provide the opportunity for Plax to get good behavior and get let out early. I'll bet Vick was in his best behavior in jail as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Excessive? He could have just as easily put a bullet through somone's head as he did through his own leg. Â and if your aunt had nuts she coulda been your uncle. Â I think this is yet another example of prosecutors trying to "make an example" of a famous person. sometimes, famous people get away with, well, murder, and other really big stuff, because they can afford the d00shiest lawyers money can buy. but it seems like even more often, they get rooked on little things most prosecutors wouldn't even bother being hardass on if it wasn't going to get in the papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why will Plax get out early? Vick didn't. Is there something I'm not aware of that will provide the opportunity for Plax to get good behavior and get let out early. I'll bet Vick was in his best behavior in jail as well. Â Good question. Vick was in federal prison which makes a big difference. State prisons usually give time off for good behavior, but I wonder if that changes because he plea bargained down from a mandatory minimum sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I am pretty sure he never pointed it at anyone's head, much less someone's body. If we are to consider the world of accidents, we can make almost anything seem deadly. Does every undercover cop endanger people? I am not arguing that he did not so something illegal that deserves consequences or that he's not stupid in his actions. All I am saying is that sticking a Glock in your pants and accidentally shooting yourself in the leg when it starts to fall does not seem to be reason enough for the public to pay however much it costs to incarcerate him for two years. The bang for the buck is not there IMO. It is just punitive beyond reason to me. The public is no safer, it is just out a lot of money so politicians have something to crow about in their next election. If it is meaningful to NYC, then throw the book at him but it doesn't really serve much purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Apples & oranges. The DA in the Stallworth case was not confident he could prove that the man jaywalking on the highway would not have been killed had Stallworth been sober, so he offered the plea deal. Stallworth was smart and took it. Â See I guess we see things differently and I'm well aware of the apples and oranges that these two cases present and that's my point. One case ended with a man dead because of one stupid man's ignorance of driving while impaired. While in the other case we have a stupid man shooting himself in the leg. Certainly are apples and oranges. I can careless about the jaywalking man. Did it play a part in him getting hit? Probably but I'm sure the bigger issue was Stallworth driving while impaired. Â My issue is not with how Burress' case was handled and the punishment he got but moreso with comparing that with the severity of Stallworth's case, the outcome and his punishment. It'll never make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 and if your aunt had nuts she coulda been your uncle. Â I think this is yet another example of prosecutors trying to "make an example" of a famous person. sometimes, famous people get away with, well, murder, and other really big stuff, because they can afford the d00shiest lawyers money can buy. but it seems like even more often, they get rooked on little things most prosecutors wouldn't even bother being hardass on if it wasn't going to get in the papers. Â I guess I'm in the minority in thinking that someone who is paid millions of dollars and has a high profile has arguably even more responsbility than the rest of us to stay out of trouble. If you're a drunk, you can afford a limo, if you're concerned about safety, you can afford a bodyguard, if you just can't resist the temptation to break the law, you can afford a good shrink. And yes, DA's and politicians think that making an example of a famous person is effective in fighting crime. Bonus points, it helps make them seem "tough of crime". Whether that's valid or not is a different question, but that's the reality. Someone who is rich and famous should understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bree22 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Agreed! I can't believe or understand how this all gets worked out. Is what he did right? Absolutely not. But as DMD said his purpose wasn't to shoot someone from an opposing gang. He was stupid and shot himself. Now he'll be out of football for about 3 years as he'll be in jail for 20 months and probably get suspended for a year afterward. And Stallworth gets behind the wheel of a car while impaired, hits a jaywalking man, kills him and gets less than a month behind bars!! Â Serious?!? Â Well first off, laws are different in each state and city depending on the people and habits in those areas. 2nd, DMD didn't mention that he shoot himself in a club. what if he shoot someone else vs himself? 3rd the attempted cover up and attitude after it all came out. He was never willing to own up to responsibility. Â As for Stallworth. One month and THE LOSS OF HIS DRIVERS LICENSE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR LIFE! is questionable if you want to say. The one month could be light but the lifetime loss of driving privilege is extreme. So he negotiated this agreement and he stood up and took responsibility for his actions even though the person he hit and killed was just at fault for this accident. There was evidence going both ways stating sober or impaired that he would possibly have had the same out come. Â State all the facts. for the record I am a Giants Fan lived in NY for 35yrs and and went to school, worked and live in NYC for 6yrs. I am not mad at Burress for last season because we lost do to a lack of D-line Depth. But be a Man. You screwed up face the consequences. 2yrs extreme? probably yes but I think he gets the extra yr for being a jackass about the whole thing. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Could that possibly be it for his career then (what is he 32 or 33 years old now)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 See I guess we see things differently and I'm well aware of the apples and oranges that these two cases present and that's my point. One case ended with a man dead because of one stupid man's ignorance of driving while impaired. While in the other case we have a stupid man shooting himself in the leg. Certainly are apples and oranges. I can careless about the jaywalking man. Did it play a part in him getting hit? Probably but I'm sure the bigger issue was Stallworth driving while impaired. Â My issue is not with how Burress' case was handled and the punishment he got but moreso with comparing that with the severity of Stallworth's case, the outcome and his punishment. It'll never make sense to me. Â It comes down to knowing the law in the place you happen to be. I wouldn't steal an apple from a street vendor in Saudi Arabia, because they might chop off my hand. You can argue that the mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession in NYC is excessive, but it is the law, period. Don't bring a gun into the city. Â Regarding Stallworth, I am failing to understand how jaywalking on a highway is not a major contributing factor in his death. I see the argument that Stallworth was at fault too because he was impaired, but the DA has a big mountain to climb to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have stopped in time had he been sober. I don't know how you go about proving that. A good lawyer will point out that the guy would still be alive had he not been jaywalking, and a sober driver who ran him over in identical circumstances would not have been charged with any crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Could that possibly be it for his career then (what is he 32 or 33 years old now)? 32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I think this is yet another example of prosecutors trying to "make an example" of a famous person.How is the prosecutor making an example? He was originally indicted on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of reckless endangerment. Combined, they had a 3 1/2 year mandatory sentence. He pleaded to just a single count of criminal possession. If the prosecutor wanted to make an example, they would have thrown the book at him and kept with the original indictment as it would be very hard to argue that he was innocent. The prosecutor didn't set the minimum sentence. Letting him plead down to a charge being stupid or something else that doesn't carry a minimum or is just a slap on the wrist makes them look like they are letting him off easy since he is a celebrity...even know it was a slam dunk case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 +1. When I was growing up, it was not considered safe to ride the subway or be in a lot of areas of the city after dark. Now my wife and I visit all the time, ride the subway anywhere we want to go, hang out in various places in Manhattan at night, and feel pretty safe for the most part. If this law was partially responsible for the turnaround, I'm all for it.  I can't feel sorry for another spoiled athlete who moped around with his sense of entitlement, blowing off practices and meetings, and then was stupid enough to walk around with a gun in his pants and shoot himself. That is the height of stupidity. To whom much is given, much is expected. If he is being made an example so that others will think twice about carrying a gun in the city, I'm all for that too. Very well said.   Excessive? He could have just as easily put a bullet through somone's head as he did through his own leg. I'm all for gun ownership - I own them myself. That said, there is tremendous responsibility on the gun owner. Doing something as stupid as he did could have ended up a whole lot worse, and he got off lucky. He won't serve two years - I'm guessing he's out in 6 to 9 months. But let's not overlook the fact that his irresponsibility recklessly and knowingly endangered a lot of people. Another outstanding post, IMO.  and if your aunt had nuts she coulda been your uncle.  I think this is yet another example of prosecutors trying to "make an example" of a famous person. sometimes, famous people get away with, well, murder, and other really big stuff, because they can afford the d00shiest lawyers money can buy. but it seems like even more often, they get rooked on little things most prosecutors wouldn't even bother being hardass on if it wasn't going to get in the papers. The law is the law is the law is it not? And IIANM, the law in NY says illegal gun = mandatory jail time  Not sure why anyone is taking too much issue with this. Guy broke the law and now he's being punished according to the law. That's how its supposed to work, isnt it?  It comes down to knowing the law in the place you happen to be. I wouldn't steal an apple from a street vendor in Saudi Arabia, because they might chop off my hand. You can argue that the mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession in NYC is excessive, but it is the law, period. Don't bring a gun into the city. Agreed 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 He will be receiving in the prison league. Â Â does he get points per reception? Â does he go long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why will Plax get out early? Vick didn't. Is there something I'm not aware of that will provide the opportunity for Plax to get good behavior and get let out early. I'll bet Vick was in his best behavior in jail as well. Â According to Fox News: Â With time off for good behavior, the sentence could be reduced to 20 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 My issue is how Stallworth can drive a vehicle while impaired, kill a man and get less time than a man who stupidly carried a gun in a club and shot himself? Just baffles me and I know someone will come in here and say because it's the law...yadda-yadda-yadda. IMO, killing someone while driving impaired = more punishment than shooting yourself in the leg. Plain and simple. Â You likely feel this way because you don't have all the facts. Â The victim in this case did much more to cause his own death than Stallworth did. The DA knew it, and offered a plea. The victim's family knew it, and settled their civil case out of court. Â The Da had crime-scene investigators at their disposal. Don't yout think they did everything possible to make a case to bring against Stallworth? of course they did. The fact they would be prosecuting a high-profile celebrity was likely even more enticing. And with all that, their case against Stallworth was so weak the best they could settle upon was 28 days in jail on a manslaughter charge. Â Where Stallworth was only marginally responsible for his crime, Burress was 100% responsible, and broke the law with intent. I think you should indeed pay a steeper price when you are 100% responsible, and looked the law in the face and disregarded it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Ocho-Cinco chimes in: Guns not needed but protection at the club is a must, ocho cinco condoms sold at the door, they'll catch everything yo Johnson shoots!!!!August 20, 2009 10:30:16 AM from TwitterFon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 How does this affect his rankings for this year... I'm going to go ahead and drop him in the two redrafts where I snagged him in the last round as a lark ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.