Vick got what he got for killing dogs. Stallworth is getting 30 days for killing a man! What the law is telling me is that its fine to kill someone, but leave his dog alone?
Vick didn't get what he got from killing dogs, he got it by breaking state and federal laws knowingly and repeatedly, and then lying about it. What Stallworth did is no less terrible but he's accepted responsibility and didn't go to trial.
Vick recieved his sentence for knowingly breaking federal laws, then lying to cover it up. Stallworth got a lesser sentence because A. He didn't intentionally do it (manslaughter over murder) B. He plea bargained it down. Sorry Speeds I didn't look at the responses.
I understand what you mean, and yes, a person is more important than dogs, but it's two different scenarios. Here is a blog post akin to your complaint: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...mike-vick-its-better-to-kill-people-than-dogs The difference is intent, guilt, and compliance.
Stallworth got less because he was able to pay his way out. Mike Florio brought it up. Stallworth is probably giving up 2M to 5M to continue his career. Plus he'll be under house arrest and I'm not sure the NFL will want a player under house arrest playing. They may suspend him indefinitely. They should. I do find it disgusting that Stallworth got less than Vick. Vick got what he deserved. Stallworth got off easy I suppose.
