Raiders WR Henry Ruggs charged with DUI resulting in death after drunken crash kills someone

[Zeus 5950]

On 7/12/2022 at 2:06 PM, ApocalypseTexas said:

No lawyer but I bet they obtained a warrant for a blood sample.  Common practice in all fatality accidents.  

 

On 7/12/2022 at 1:55 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

buzzed driving is drunk driving 

We've had like 6 kids killed by drunk drivers in the past year in Galveston, here's the latest genius they busted. Doesn't even need a blood sample just look at his mugshot. 

https://bustednewspaper.com/texas/mendieta-matthew-lee/20230506-031300/

I'm not big on incarceration actually helping people improve their lives but I wouldn't know what's better to do with these. Drop em off in the desert.

[Texzilla58 4717]

I could give a shit about incarceration improving these douchebags life. Killed someone with his stupidity. Needs to be in prison for life. Too bad the cop on scene didn’t just shoot him in the head.

DUI laws need to change. It’s an industry for attorneys. The law needs to change to zero tolerance instead of arguments clouding test results on the legal limit. If the legal limit is 0.0 then we can just go to punishment phase. Don’t drink and drive. Take a Uber, hitch a ride, walk, whatever.

[tbone_ 14025]

I could give a shit about incarceration improving these douchebags life. Killed someone with his stupidity. Needs to be in prison for life. Too bad the cop on scene didn’t just shoot him in the head.

DUI laws need to change. It’s an industry for attorneys. The law needs to change to zero tolerance instead of arguments clouding test results on the legal limit. If the legal limit is 0.0 then we can just go to punishment phase. Don’t drink and drive. Take a Uber, hitch a ride, walk, whatever.

Add thievery and violent felony to this and I’m right there with you.

[Carl Spackler 3461]

This fucking pisses me off on multiple levels.  So some fucking moron in the LVPD didn't dot the i's and cross the t's on the blood draw, which potentially weakens the legal case, which leads the DA to chicken out and agree to 3-10 such that stupid motherfucker Ruggs will be eligible for parole in 3.  Or maybe the DA's office is blowing smoke to cover its own ass in some fashion.  Either way, it's galling.  And don't even get me started on the level of stupidity it takes to get behind the wheel while drunk and roll on city streets doing 156 mph.

The lady and her dog BURNED ALIVE.  And this motherfucker gets 3-10.  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38162272/ex-raiders-wr-henry-ruggs-iii-sentenced-3-10-years-fatal-dui

 

[Ignatius 4002]

Like I posted upstream somewhere in this thread, why the fuck does it matter whether he was drunk or sober? Motherfucker driving 156 anywhere, let alone a residential area, who kills someone ought to be life without parole…

[conVINCEd 21468]

On 5/8/2023 at 12:46 PM, Texzilla58 said:

I could give a shit about incarceration improving these douchebags life. Killed someone with his stupidity. Needs to be in prison for life. Too bad the cop on scene didn’t just shoot him in the head.

DUI laws need to change. It’s an industry for attorneys. The law needs to change to zero tolerance instead of arguments clouding test results on the legal limit. If the legal limit is 0.0 then we can just go to punishment phase. Don’t drink and drive. Take a Uber, hitch a ride, walk, whatever.

I should be able to have a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at Hooters, and not be thrown in prison.  Go fuck your self righteous self.  I fully support enhanced punishments and mandatory jail time for people who are clearly hammered.  From the mugshot thread, it would appear that Austin makes a distinction for people who are north of .15.  That makes sense.  Someone who blows a .04 ain’t a danger to society.  The guy who kills a family because he passed out behind the wheel and hit them head on can get the max if they survive the crash.

[royiv 9163]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

I should be able to have a glass of wine at dinner, or a beer at Hooters, and not be thrown in prison.  Go fuck your self righteous self.  I fully support enhanced punishments and mandatory jail time for people who are clearly hammered.  From the mugshot thread, it would appear that Austin makes a distinction for people who are north of .15.  That makes sense.  Someone who blows a .04 ain’t a danger to society.  The guy who kills a family because he passed out behind the wheel and hit them head on can get the max if they survive the crash.

What should the punishment be for someone that's either dead sober or had a beer at Hooter's that kills an innocent person and their dog due to them driving their high powered sports car at >150 mph on a city street?  Seems like someone that blows a .04 could be a danger to society.

[markstanco 12509]

No more than glancing down at your radio changing the station at .04

[conVINCEd 21468]

5 minutes ago, royiv said:

What should the punishment be for someone that's either dead sober or had a beer at Hooter's that kills an innocent person and their dog due to them driving their high powered sports car at >150 mph on a city street?  Seems like someone that blows a .04 could be a danger to society.

The 150 mph thing is a category unto itself.  I’m fine with throwing him to the wolves, but anything north of 0.0 as a crime is ridiculous.  

[royiv 9163]

5 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

The 150 mph thing is a category unto itself.  I’m fine with throwing him to the wolves, but anything north of 0.0 as a crime is ridiculous.  

Okay, but you said “someone who blows a .04 ain’t a danger to society.” That’s a statement in the absolute when you’re not acknowledging that someone could be a danger to society at .04. It just seems to be a little hypocritical to call out the guy who said anything over .00 should automatically be a crime, which I do agree with you on, and state in the absolute that there’s no way someone who blows a .04 is a danger to society.

Back to the case at hand, it completely blows my mind that a guy who took a life and very negatively impacted the lives of many that were close to the victim can walk out of prison in 3 years. I would be livid if I were the family.

[conVINCEd 21468]

2 minutes ago, royiv said:

Okay, but you said “someone who blows a .04 ain’t a danger to society.” That’s a statement in the absolute when you’re not acknowledging that someone could be a danger to society at .04. It just seems to be a little hypocritical to call out the guy who said anything over .00 should automatically be a crime, which I do agree with you on, and state in the absolute that there’s no way someone who blows a .04 is a danger to society.

Back to the case at hand, it completely blows my mind that a guy who took a life and very negatively impacted the lives of many that were close to the victim can walk out of prison in 3 years. I would be livid if I were the family.

If he was driving the speed limit at .04 he would have been just fine.  Wasn’t he north of .2?  He was beyond fucked up and decided to play NASCAR in a semi-residential neighborhood.  I’m fine with frying his ass.  I’m against anything north of 0.0 being a crime, and I’m against the creep MADD continues to make to lower the limit.  I spent a night in jail when I blew a .04 .  You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride, and the charges were eventually dropped after I spent a few months salary on legal fees.

[0xdeadbeef 1626]

43 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

If he was driving the speed limit at .04 he would have been just fine.  Wasn’t he north of .2?  He was beyond fucked up and decided to play NASCAR in a semi-residential neighborhood.  I’m fine with frying his ass.  I’m against anything north of 0.0 being a crime, and I’m against the creep MADD continues to make to lower the limit.  I spent a night in jail when I blew a .04 .  You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride, and the charges were eventually dropped after I spent a few months salary on legal fees.

MADD was a good idea run amok.

Plain and simple, when you lower the drinking limit below a reasonable level and then encourage PDs to over arrest for DUI, you destroy lives.   

Here's a nice money quote:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2011/06/14/prosecutor-says-evidence-lacking-in/6703752007/

Quote

Last month, the American-Statesman, in collaboration with KVUE News, reported that Travis County has dismissed a higher percentage of drunken driving cases than other major Texas counties, in part because prosecutors said police filed weak cases. At the time, Acevedo said, "I venture to guess the majority of our arrests are very good arrests."

 

Of course Art Asshole went to Houston and did the the same shit:
https://apnews.com/article/e5a5ea2314f54cb0bd08ad3b6344e585 (Houston police report sharp jump in drunken-driving arrests) 

Sucks for all thousands of people that got bogus arrests for DUI

 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by 0xdeadbeef

[0xdeadbeef 1626]

On 5/8/2023 at 12:46 PM, Texzilla58 said:

DUI laws need to change. It’s an industry for attorneys. The law needs to change to zero tolerance instead of arguments clouding test results on the legal limit. If the legal limit is 0.0 then we can just go to punishment phase. Don’t drink and drive. Take a Uber, hitch a ride, walk, whatever.

As for "clouding test results", you're probably under the mistaken belief that roadside breathalyzer's are accurate.  Or that Cops giving roadside test are honest. They aren't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html

Quote

The machines are sensitive scientific instruments, and in many cases they haven’t been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high. Maintaining machines is up to police departments that sometimes have shoddy standards and lack expertise.

Technical experts have found serious programming mistakes in the machines’ software. States have picked devices that their own experts didn’t trust and have disabled safeguards meant to ensure the tests’ accuracy.

 

The Times interviewed more than 100 lawyers, scientists, executives and police officers and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of court records, corporate filings, confidential emails and contracts. Together, they reveal the depth of a nationwide problem that has attracted only sporadic attention.

If you get pulled over, by all means, blow into one of them. There's probably a 50/50 chance it'll be correct.

Having a legal limit of 0.0 is as bad of an idea as the Eighteenth Amendment.

Edited August 10, 2023 by 0xdeadbeef

[Incredulity 11555]

5 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

Having a legal limit of 0.0 is as bad of an idea as the Eighteenth Amendment

Women’s Suffrage isn’t that bad an idea!

[Carl Spackler 3461]

12 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Wasn’t he north of .2?

His blood draw was .161 two hours after the incident.

[ztejas 43266]

13 hours ago, royiv said:

What should the punishment be for someone that's either dead sober or had a beer at Hooter's that kills an innocent person and their dog due to them driving their high powered sports car at >150 mph on a city street?  Seems like someone that blows a .04 could be a danger to society.

I'm not sure what the point of this argument is. Driving 150 is extremely illegal regardless of what your BAC is. And part of the reason he was doing 150 is because he was hammered. 

[Texzilla58 4717]

That’s a strong assumption. He might have gone 175 if sober. The dui shouldn’t have mattered in this. Should be put away for murder.

Most of Europe is 0.05. Scandinavia 0.02. Brazil is 0. Japan India and Korea 0.03. Guinea-Bissau is 0.15! Saudi Arabia and Iran have no dui laws as booze is illegal.

[royiv 9163]

7 hours ago, ztejas said:

Driving 150 is extremely illegal regardless of what your BAC is. 

Extremely illegal? Going 150 and taking the lives of a human and a dog only netted a 3 year sentence here. Not really extreme in my book.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

Well, in the grand scheme of things, neither homicide by DUI nor by reckless driving is an intentional crime.  Reckless, yes, very reckless.

But when you consider "penalty brackets" for the severity of crimes, a reckless crime is always going to be lower on the totem pole than an intentional crime, as it should be.

It's not murder.  Murder is intentional, premeditated, even.  

Three years in prison and a felony record is a life-changer for all but the most hardened, recidivist criminals.  Don't think so?  Try it, white boy.

Raising the penalties for DUI or lowering the threshholds is not going to meaningfully cut down on DUIs.  Criminal penalties have little deterrent effect, especially when the crime itself involves impaired reasoning.

The great benefit of MADD, if any, was attaching social stigma to DWI and making the concept of a designated driver a household one.  It didn't cut down on DUI, but it sure increased arrests, many of which are bullshit, as has been pointed out, because cops gonna cop.

[Deej 76568]

"Your honor, my client isn't the culprit here. It's the manufacturer of the deceased woman's car for not making sure it wouldn't burst into flames after being rear ended by a vehicle traveling over 150 mph."

[conVINCEd 21468]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in the grand scheme of things, neither homicide by DUI nor by reckless driving is an intentional crime.  Reckless, yes, very reckless.

But when you consider "penalty brackets" for the severity of crimes, a reckless crime is always going to be lower on the totem pole than an intentional crime, as it should be.

It's not murder.  Murder is intentional, premeditated, even.  

Three years in prison and a felony record is a life-changer for all but the most hardened, recidivist criminals.  Don't think so?  Try it, white boy.

Raising the penalties for DUI or lowering the threshholds is not going to meaningfully cut down on DUIs.  Criminal penalties have little deterrent effect, especially when the crime itself involves impaired reasoning.

The great benefit of MADD, if any, was attaching social stigma to DWI and making the concept of a designated driver a household one.  It didn't cut down on DUI, but it sure increased arrests, many of which are bullshit, as has been pointed out, because cops gonna cop.

Uber has been a game changer  here.  If the wife and I are going to get a little rowdy we Uber.  Calling a cab at 2 a.m. was iffy at best back in the pre-Uber days.  Maybe they show, maybe they don’t, but if it’s been 45 minutes I’m probably saying fuck it and driving home.

[Texzilla58 4717]

Well, in the grand scheme of things, neither homicide by DUI nor by reckless driving is an intentional crime.  Reckless, yes, very reckless.
But when you consider "penalty brackets" for the severity of crimes, a reckless crime is always going to be lower on the totem pole than an intentional crime, as it should be.
It's not murder.  Murder is intentional, premeditated, even.  
Three years in prison and a felony record is a life-changer for all but the most hardened, recidivist criminals.  Don't think so?  Try it, white boy.
Raising the penalties for DUI or lowering the threshholds is not going to meaningfully cut down on DUIs.  Criminal penalties have little deterrent effect, especially when the crime itself involves impaired reasoning.
The great benefit of MADD, if any, was attaching social stigma to DWI and making the concept of a designated driver a household one.  It didn't cut down on DUI, but it sure increased arrests, many of which are bullshit, as has been pointed out, because cops gonna cop.

I really don’t care about whether three years for this douchebag serves as a deterrent or any of that. Justice should include a requisite measure of simple pure punishment as retribution. Some would say chaining him up and setting afire might be justice. I’d like him in jail long enough to insure he never plays pro ball again, and I hope the famiky gets awarded every dime this shithead still has.

[Wilcox Cummingtonite 2870]

He’ll be back in the league by 2025 after he gets out early for good behavior.

[conVINCEd 21468]

10 minutes ago, Wilcox Cummingtonite said:

He’ll be back in the league by 2025 after he gets out early for good behavior.

Gonna be hard to maintain his speed, which is why he got drafted that highly,  on a prison diet.  He’s done.

[Murfdogg21 4412]

[scottsins 1953]

That’s a strong assumption. He might have gone 175 if sober. The dui shouldn’t have mattered in this. Should be put away for murder.

Most of Europe is 0.05. Scandinavia 0.02. Brazil is 0. Japan India and Korea 0.03. Guinea-Bissau is 0.15! Saudi Arabia and Iran have no dui laws as booze is illegal.

So I presume that you would like to do away with manslaughter statutes full stop then? And also “regular murder”?

Your stance would necessarily rewrite all penal codes to be as follows.

All homicides committed with anything above mere negligence will be life without parole in all cases.

This would be the same punishment currently reserved for capital murder in most places. I mean, it wouldn’t make any sense to raise manslaughter to life w/o parole without also raising the punishment for standard 1st degree (in Texas) murders, right?

[Texzilla58 4717]

You really didn’t get hyperbole do you?

I’m not looking to change the entire justice system. Just got him.

He made a decision to drive 150+ on a city street in a two ton weapon. Killed folks. That’s like an armed robber accidentally shooting someone. Should get more than 3 years.

[wood 11161]

I'm all for strong but reasonable DUI laws. Not gonna get into the debate over what the legal limit should be, because frankly I don't know enough about the particulars to do so. But even with zero alcohol in his system, this POS's actions behind the wheel should put him away for a long, long time.

I guess I'm just a caveman. My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts. I don't understand how we ended up with laws that can hammer the guy for drinking and driving, but can't hammer him just as hard for driving like a maniac and killing someone because of it. The whole point of having harsh penalties for DUI is supposed to come from wanting to deter crazy, dangerous driving such as this, so it's just bizarre that he can't he be severely punished just based on the criminality of his driving, even when the blood test documentation went wrong.

Edited August 11, 2023 by wood

[Foosters 17734]

14 minutes ago, wood said:

 

I guess I'm just a caveman. My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts. I don't understand how we ended up with laws that can hammer the guy for drinking and driving, but can't hammer him just as hard for driving like a maniac and killing someone because of it. The whole point of having harsh penalties for DUI is supposed to come from wanting to deter crazy, dangerous driving such as this, so it's just bizarre that he can't he be severely punished just based on the criminality of his driving, even when the blood test documentation went wrong.

100% agree. 10 mph over the speed limit? 3 months in jail. 25mph over? 5 years in prison. 50mph over? 25-life.

Just because those speeders didn't cause any harm, doesn't mean we shouldn't dissuade the conduct.

[4th and 5 4914]

3 hours ago, wood said:

I'm all for strong but reasonable DUI laws. Not gonna get into the debate over what the legal limit should be, because frankly I don't know enough about the particulars to do so. But even with zero alcohol in his system, this POS's actions behind the wheel should put him away for a long, long time.

I guess I'm just a caveman. My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts. I don't understand how we ended up with laws that can hammer the guy for drinking and driving, but can't hammer him just as hard for driving like a maniac and killing someone because of it. The whole point of having harsh penalties for DUI is supposed to come from wanting to deter crazy, dangerous driving such as this, so it's just bizarre that he can't he be severely punished just based on the criminality of his driving, even when the blood test documentation went wrong.

The situation is not as you perceive it. 

I posted about this upthread.

The state doesn’t need proof of intoxication. 

For example, in Texas intoxication manslaughter is a second-degree felony. What is also a second-degree felony is aggravated assault. Same punishment range.

Aggravated assault requires intentionally knowingly or RECKLESSLY causing serious bodily injury, or causing bodily injury via the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. The Ruggs case would be very easy to prove agg assault, either SBI or a DW. 
 

So, in Texas, with a situation like this, a prosecutor with half a brain, would allege for each victim one count of intoxication manslaughter and one count of aggravated assault to hedge their bets. The only real difference is that in intoxication manslaughter cases is the judge can stack the sentences per victim per Ch 3 TPC. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

23 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

The situation is not as you perceive it. 

I posted about this upthread.

The state doesn’t need proof of intoxication. 

For example, in Texas intoxication manslaughter is a second-degree felony. What is also a second-degree felony is aggravated assault. Same punishment range.

Aggravated assault requires intentionally knowingly or RECKLESSLY causing serious bodily injury, or causing bodily injury via the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. The Ruggs case would be very easy to prove agg assault, either SBI or a DW. 
 

So, in Texas, with a situation like this, a prosecutor with half a brain, would allege for each victim one count of intoxication manslaughter and one count of aggravated assault to hedge their bets. The only real difference is that in intoxication manslaughter cases is the judge can stack the sentences per victim per Ch 3 TPC. 

Yeah an example of a proliferation of criminal statutes for no real reason other than pandering by the politicians that introduce and pass them.

I'd like to do a little criminal thought experiment here.

People die horrible fiery deaths in car crashes and other accidents with regrettable frequency.  Most of the time, those are the result of some non-criminal negligence and any blame is assessed by monetary liability in the civil system, i.e. a negligence lawsuit.

So that result does not make the Ruggs or any other intoxication/reckless driving manslaughter case with a similar result somehow special and deserving of harsher treatment through criminal prosecution and punishment.

What does make the Ruggs case different from the usual accident is that Ruggs was engaged in two forms of reckless behavior, DUI and reckless driving.

It is fine to make those reckless behaviors criminal, but not because of this particular horrible result.  It's because a range of bad results are possible, from nothing at all, to property damage and/or bodily injury, to horrible death, and including or self-inflicted property damage or bodily injury.

But note that those are only possible results of this reckless conduct.  They are neither intended nor inevitable.  A pretty fair number of DUIs and reckless driving incidents involve no or minor property damage or bodily injury.  It's just the increased likelihood of those results that makes the reckless conduct criminal.

Contrast these possible results with the inevitable results of intentional crimes like murder, rape, and assault (ignoring for the moment that some assault statutes criminalize reckless bodily injuries).  Not only are the bad results of those crimes either inevitable or highly more likely than the possible results of DUI/reckless driving, they are INTENDED by the defendant.

So, yeah, given the differences in the activities, the possible or inevitable results, and the state of mind of the defendant, there is a lot less culpability with these crimes than with the intentional homicides, sexual, and ordinary assaults, and it is perfectly appropriate that the sentences be significantly lower.

Working backward from the outcome of a crime is a terrible way to analyze culpability.  It's too fraught with hindsight bias and is a terrible way to conceive of and write a criminal statute of more general application.

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Texzilla58 4717]

I don’t see how driving 156 mph and wrecking is misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Should have been a felony. Should have been a longer sentence for burning a woman innocent alive with his stupidity. His blood was 0.161 two hours after the wreck. Could have got an Uber.

I only hope he gets some bad fentanyl in the pen and ODs there.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

I don’t see how driving 156 mph and wrecking is misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Should have been a felony. Should have been a longer sentence for burning a woman innocent alive with his stupidity. His blood was 0.161 two hours after the wreck. Could have got an Uber.

I only hope he gets some bad fentanyl in the pen and ODs there.

Where was anyone talking about misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter?  Depends on the jurisdiction, but manslaughter is almost always a felony.  Ruggs got three years, misdemeanors generally stop at one year, max.

The typical reaction to any crime where SOMEONE DIES around here is LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE!!!! DEATH PENALTY!!!!  Rip off their head and shit down their neck!

Unfortunately, that's kind of the reaction pretty much everywhere and is the kind of thinking that just leads to ever-increasing sentences, no decrease in crime, the largest incarceration rate in the world, and a shitload of social problems.

It's a lost cause, but I like trying to make people rethink criminal justice and sentencings.

Edited August 13, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Texzilla58 4717]

On May 10, 2023, as part of a plea agreement, Ruggs pleaded guilty to one count of DUI resulting in death and one count of MISDEMEANOR vehicular manslaughter. He was sentenced on August 9, 2023 to spend between three and ten years in a Nevada state prison.

You seem to be more impressed by the plea the defense attorney was able to craft with a pussified prosecutor than the fact his decision to drive crazy resulted in burning this poor woman alive with the weapon he was driving.

I have the same vitriol for Andy Reid’s son who got drunk and turned a little girl into a vegetable. I thought a prefrontal lobotomy for him would have been a better sentence. But then again no one talks about Andy Reid’s shitty track record as a father.

[Texzilla58 4717]

If the prosecutor had actually pursued the earlier case further maybe Britt Reid would have been sent to rehab then. Instead they deferred to the power of the Chiefs. Maybe that little girls wouldn’t be a fucking vegetable.

https://www.kctv5.com/2023/04/06/britt-reid-case-file-details-crash-become-public/?outputType=amp

[Pam Cummings 9582]

On 8/12/2023 at 7:27 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Where was anyone talking about misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter?  Depends on the jurisdiction, but manslaughter is almost always a felony.  Ruggs got three years, misdemeanors generally stop at one year, max.

The typical reaction to any crime where SOMEONE DIES around here is LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE!!!! DEATH PENALTY!!!!  Rip off their head and shit down their neck!

Unfortunately, that's kind of the reaction pretty much everywhere and is the kind of thinking that just leads to ever-increasing sentences, no decrease in crime, the largest incarceration rate in the world, and a shitload of social problems.

It's a lost cause, but I like trying to make people rethink criminal justice and sentencings.

Most of the time the people that want someone locked up forever or killed for something like this dont value human life as much as they say they do. It's just a thirst for vengeance.

[Texzilla58 4717]

Vengeance. Justice. Same fucking deal. I value an innocent woman’s life that lost it by being burned to death by being hit by 4000 pounds of car hitting her at 156 miles per hour driven by an entitled drunk moron. I don’t value his life in the least.

I’ll take the opposite tack that the bleeding hearts for the poor situation for Henry Ruggs caused by his “mistake” devalues the innocent life CES lost to their stupidity.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:43 AM, Texzilla58 said:

On May 10, 2023, as part of a plea agreement, Ruggs pleaded guilty to one count of DUI resulting in death and one count of MISDEMEANOR vehicular manslaughter. He was sentenced on August 9, 2023 to spend between three and ten years in a Nevada state prison.

You seem to be more impressed by the plea the defense attorney was able to craft with a pussified prosecutor than the fact his decision to drive crazy resulted in burning this poor woman alive with the weapon he was driving.

I have the same vitriol for Andy Reid’s son who got drunk and turned a little girl into a vegetable. I thought a prefrontal lobotomy for him would have been a better sentence. But then again no one talks about Andy Reid’s shitty track record as a father.

Ruggs, 24, pleaded guilty in May to one count of driving under the influence resulting in death, a felony, and one count of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in the 2021 crash, which killed a 23-year-old woman and her dog.

You don't get three-plus years in prison for a misdemeanor anywhere in America.

And I am pointing out why it is irrational to work backward from the results of the crime.  

[TwiceHorn 31283]

19 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Vengeance. Justice. Same fucking deal. 

And that's why we incarcerate more people than any country in the world.  Because seemingly the only goal of our justice system is to inflict vengeance.  Everything else goes by the wayside.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Most of the time the people that want someone locked up forever or killed for something like this dont value human life as much as they say they do. It's just a thirst for vengeance.

Yeah, it's awkward having to defend a person that caused a death, but, as in my hypothetical, above, people die horrible deaths all the time as a result of non-criminal negligence, or just flat out unavoidable accidents.

It's not the right place to start the culpability and punishment inquiry.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:54 AM, Texzilla58 said:

If the prosecutor had actually pursued the earlier case further maybe Britt Reid would have been sent to rehab then. Instead they deferred to the power of the Chiefs. Maybe that little girls wouldn’t be a fucking vegetable.

https://www.kctv5.com/2023/04/06/britt-reid-case-file-details-crash-become-public/?outputType=amp

Maybe the problem is the excessive focus on punishment and the lack of focus on dealing with the underlying problem, which is Reid's apparent alcoholism/addiction.

[Pam Cummings 9582]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, it's awkward having to defend a person that caused a death, but, as in my hypothetical, above, people die horrible deaths all the time as a result of non-criminal negligence, or just flat out unavoidable accidents.

It's not the right place to start the culpability and punishment inquiry.

I have a hard time dealing with it too. Just part of being human, balancing the fact that this guy did what can only be described as something a POS would do-- drunk driving while doing 150 in a residential area. Most drunk drivers are just trying to sneak home safely. This is something really bad and i have a hard time dealing with him as a human. I have no sympathy and think he got what he deserved. Hope he can make that poor woman's life not a complete waste and use this situation to educate people and just be better.

 

Also, on the subject of DUI, so many fucking people do it. It's more normal in our society than i think most realize. But what do we expect. We have lots of bars and for the most part no access to reliable public transportation during hours where people like to drink. Uber had made things a lot easier but there are still people that just dont care to use it and take their chances driving. We need to think of ideas as a society to make getting behind the wheel sauced less if a possibility for everyone.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[Texzilla58 4717]

The rub with Ruggs and his dunbassery decision making:

1. He’s got a shit ton of money and in Vegas. Take a Lyft. A cab. A stretch. A town car. Get a Raiders valet to go pick up you Vette tomorrow.

2. The NFLPA provides all players a town car service, anonymous to insure players use it.

3. All teams provide their players a town car service, again anonymous.

4. Call Raiders security. They’ll come get you and keep it a secret thru money and NDAs.

These were all in place when Josh Brent had his deadly wreck. Probably been improved since then with an NFLPA drunk rescue app or something.

[Foosters 17734]

Quote

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota Vikings first-round draft pick Jordan Addison told the state trooper who clocked him going 140 mph in a 55 mph zone last week that he was speeding because of an emergency involving his dog.

The Associated Press on Monday obtained an updated copy of the citation issued to Addison and filed with the St. Paul city attorney.

The Minnesota State Patrol said Addison was pulled over without resistance in a Lamborghini Urus at 3:07 a.m. Thursday by a trooper who was also traveling eastbound on Interstate 94 in St. Paul about a mile outside of downtown.

How many years should Addison do in prison? 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

At a minimum his car should be forfeited under asset forfeiture.  As long as that bullshit policy is here let’s use it for something appropriate

[Pam Cummings 9582]

Why is it even legal to drive a car that is capable of doing 180 mph on an open road?

[markstanco 12509]

Huh?

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Why is it even legal to drive a car that is capable of doing 180 mph on an open road?

Are you asking why it is legal to own a vehicle capable of reaching speeds of 180 miles per hour?

[Beau Vine 54003]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Why is it even legal to drive a car that is capable of doing 180 mph on an open road?

Mah freedumbs!

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Mah freedumbs!

Are there countries that limit the street legality of a car to a certain limit?