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

[ButtFumble 5158]

1 hour ago, boilerhorn said:

Well, fuck them.  I know they are responsible for defending their client, but the fire department is irrelevant if he just calls for a ride.  If that's the best defense they can muster, he's going to prison for a while.

The TMZ video brought tears to my eyes - again.  I just cannot see sitting there and whimpering after such a thing.  Get over there and try to help.

And the dog stories hit home.  We got this guy from Austin Pets Alive.  Was moved from a shelter Edinburg to a no-kill shelter.  He's a mutt (bull plus a bunch of random others), but we do not know what we'd do w/o him.

 

Yeah.  He does not realize that he's in the little dogs' bed...

dogs are weird about shit like that

a big ass dog will try and squeeze into a small bed and a little dog will stroll right into a big ass bed like it owns the thing

[markstanco 12509]

Well, fuck them.  I know they are responsible for defending their client, but the fire department is irrelevant if he just calls for a ride.  If that's the best defense they can muster, he's going to prison for a while.
The TMZ video brought tears to my eyes - again.  I just cannot see sitting there and whimpering after such a thing.  Get over there and try to help.
And the dog stories hit home.  We got this guy from Austin Pets Alive.  Was moved from a shelter Edinburg to a no-kill shelter.  He's a mutt (bull plus a bunch of random others), but we do not know what we'd do w/o him.


 
Yeah.  He does not realize that he's in the little dogs' bed...

we had to put our 30 pound rescue down last year. We also have a large 80 pound dog. The big dog would get in his bed. I was certain it was a “fuck you” to the small old man, just because.

[StruggleBus 3922]

On 11/6/2021 at 11:23 AM, 52-80 said:

I value: my dog > person (abstract/generic) > dog (abstract/generic)

 

 

My kids > my wife > my dogs > my friends > other peoples’ dogs > other people > sooners 

[Vic Mackey 46936]

[Deej 76568]

On 11/11/2021 at 8:44 PM, boilerhorn said:

Well, fuck them.  I know they are responsible for defending their client, but the fire department is irrelevant if he just calls for a ride.  If that's the best defense they can muster, he's going to prison for a while.

The TMZ video brought tears to my eyes - again.  I just cannot see sitting there and whimpering after such a thing.  Get over there and try to help.

And the dog stories hit home.  We got this guy from Austin Pets Alive.  Was moved from a shelter Edinburg to a no-kill shelter.  He's a mutt (bull plus a bunch of random others), but we do not know what we'd do w/o him.

 

Yeah.  He does not realize that he's in the little dogs' bed...

Lotta red heeler going on there.

[markstanco 12509]

You lawyer guys….why would he miss this test days after?

Also, and I mean also, fuck him for what he did. But on the flip side in 30 years you have to wonder what his thoughts are when he gets out of prison. Every single day in prison he will wake up thinking about what he did and what he lost. He killed somebody. But every day he will wonder what he could have done.

Hopefully his story will be told to rookies going forward.

[ztejas 43266]

21 minutes ago, markstanco said:

You lawyer guys….why would he miss this test days after?

You need a lawyer to answer that? He's either an idiot or an alcoholic or both. Leaning towards both. 

[Blotto 23434]

8 minutes ago, ztejas said:

You need a lawyer to answer that? He's either an idiot or an alcoholic or both. Leaning towards both. 

he gets texts like 4 times per day, and then has to blow into a remote breathalyzer. The system seems ripe for both abuse and cases of missed testing

Quote

A note posted later in the court record shows Ruggs missed a test at 4:41 p.m. Saturday and that he completed “a client initiated remote breath test” at 6:28 p.m.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Blotto

[Carl Spackler 3461]

The young lady who died (and her dog) should not be forgotten.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34226323/the-case-henry-ruggs-iii-distraught-family-desperate-answers

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Saw this bumped and assumed the cowboys traded a first round pick for him

[Deej 76568]

[TreatyOak 16150]

Can any of our astute lawyers here explain this to me? He refused a blood alcohol test at the crash and then had his blood tested two hours later. If he refused the test onsite, how was law enforcement able to administer one two hours later? Did they need an emergency court order to do so?

"On Tuesday, his lawyers are scheduled to argue in court that Las Vegas police had no legal reason to request a warrant for blood to be drawn from Ruggs the morning of the crash. Police did not conduct a field sobriety test at the site of the crash. A police report said that Ruggs refused. Ruggs' lawyers plan to argue that any blood alcohol test result should not be allowed as evidence because there was no probable cause to believe Ruggs was driving under the influence. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content, measured two hours after the crash, was 0.161 -- more than twice the legal limit in Nevada."

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Is driving way over the speed limit, crashing, then refusing to volunteer for a field sobriety test or breathalyzer not considered probable cause?

[Sbbruin 21737]

Damn, .161 two hours later is buzzzzzzzed.

[Beau Vine 54003]

30 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Saw this bumped and assumed the cowboys traded a first round pick for him

[TreatyOak 16150]

17 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is driving way over the speed limit, crashing, then refusing to volunteer for a field sobriety test or breathalyzer not considered probable cause?

Right? It's outrageous that his lawyers said police had no legal reason to request a blood draw, but I know that is what lawyers are trained to do.. 

[BurntOrange&White 39661]

57 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Damn, .161 two hours later is buzzzzzzzed.

buzzed driving is drunk driving 

[ApocalypseTexas 297]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Can any of our astute lawyers here explain this to me? He refused a blood alcohol test at the crash and then had his blood tested two hours later. If he refused the test onsite, how was law enforcement able to administer one two hours later? Did they need an emergency court order to do so?

"On Tuesday, his lawyers are scheduled to argue in court that Las Vegas police had no legal reason to request a warrant for blood to be drawn from Ruggs the morning of the crash. Police did not conduct a field sobriety test at the site of the crash. A police report said that Ruggs refused. Ruggs' lawyers plan to argue that any blood alcohol test result should not be allowed as evidence because there was no probable cause to believe Ruggs was driving under the influence. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content, measured two hours after the crash, was 0.161 -- more than twice the legal limit in Nevada."

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

[TreatyOak 16150]

1 minute ago, ApocalypseTexas said:

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

Thanks. I'm sure that is correct. 

[Fico 1743]

Common practice in damn near every "DUI" arrest/pullover/suspected. At least in Austin, Judges sit on call for this and they get that sample one way or another.

[Modessit 5596]

Can any of our astute lawyers here explain this to me? He refused a blood alcohol test at the crash and then had his blood tested two hours later. If he refused the test onsite, how was law enforcement able to administer one two hours later? Did they need an emergency court order to do so?
"On Tuesday, his lawyers are scheduled to argue in court that Las Vegas police had no legal reason to request a warrant for blood to be drawn from Ruggs the morning of the crash. Police did not conduct a field sobriety test at the site of the crash. A police report said that Ruggs refused. Ruggs' lawyers plan to argue that any blood alcohol test result should not be allowed as evidence because there was no probable cause to believe Ruggs was driving under the influence. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content, measured two hours after the crash, was 0.161 -- more than twice the legal limit in Nevada."

Personally, I'd think that driving that fast has a better excuse if he's drunk because the they could say he didn't have all his faculties and this it was "accidental".

If he's doing it not-drunk then it's just pure assholish selfish irresponsible behavior.

But I'm guessing there's some law that kicks in harsher penalties if done drunk and therefore they want that dismissed for legal reasons that relate to punishment.

[markstanco 12509]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Saw this bumped and assumed the cowboys traded a first round pick for him

[UTCzech III 2901]

2 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Right? It's outrageous that his lawyers said police had no legal reason to request a blood draw, but I know that is what lawyers are trained to do.. 

Fuck, this has my blood pressure up, brings back memories I had put down almost 20 years ago when my brother was killed by a drunk driver.  Took almost 2 years to even get close to going to trial due to all the goddam delay tactics, motions, challenging the APD blood labs, bullshit like that.  Cocksucking leeches.  Don't tell me it's the law, it's the law written by cocksucking leeches.

[TreatyOak 16150]

57 minutes ago, UTCzech III said:

Fuck, this has my blood pressure up, brings back memories I had put down almost 20 years ago when my brother was killed by a drunk driver.  Took almost 2 years to even get close to going to trial due to all the goddam delay tactics, motions, challenging the APD blood labs, bullshit like that.  Cocksucking leeches.  Don't tell me it's the law, it's the law written by cocksucking leeches.

Wow, I'm so sorry. That is truly horrible for you. FYI, I hope Ruggs goes away for a long time.  

[4th and 5 4914]

3 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Can any of our astute lawyers here explain this to me? He refused a blood alcohol test at the crash and then had his blood tested two hours later. If he refused the test onsite, how was law enforcement able to administer one two hours later? Did they need an emergency court order to do so?

"On Tuesday, his lawyers are scheduled to argue in court that Las Vegas police had no legal reason to request a warrant for blood to be drawn from Ruggs the morning of the crash. Police did not conduct a field sobriety test at the site of the crash. A police report said that Ruggs refused. Ruggs' lawyers plan to argue that any blood alcohol test result should not be allowed as evidence because there was no probable cause to believe Ruggs was driving under the influence. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content, measured two hours after the crash, was 0.161 -- more than twice the legal limit in Nevada."

 

The cops get a blood search warrant by swearing out a probable cause affidavit before a magistrate (judge) wherein they articulate that the person was operating a motor vehicle in a public place while being intoxicated (or whatever term Nevada uses in its Penal Code). Typically that is odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, at fault collision, slurred speech, watery bloodshot eyes, disoriented, confused, open container, stumbling, mumbling, fumbling, you get the idea...

 

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is driving way over the speed limit, crashing, then refusing to volunteer for a field sobriety test or breathalyzer not considered probable cause?

Gonna need some evidence of intoxication, hauling ass and wrecking is not enough. Has to be some proof that evidence of a crime (intoxicants in blood) will be found as a result of the search (a blood draw).

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

His BAC was Bacardi 151

[Texzilla58 4717]

Fuck, this has my blood pressure up, brings back memories I had put down almost 20 years ago when my brother was killed by a drunk driver.  Took almost 2 years to even get close to going to trial due to all the goddam delay tactics, motions, challenging the APD blood labs, bullshit like that.  Cocksucking leeches.  Don't tell me it's the law, it's the law written by cocksucking leeches.

So sorry for your loss. Killer drunk drivers are a scourge.

The laws need serious changing. First, do away with BAC levels and go to zero tolerance. You drink you walk or catch a cab or Uber or have a driver. Get caught and we do away with a lot of issues. Loss of license, breath interlocks, whatever.

[Carl Spackler 3461]

So . . . the judge ruled today that Ruggs' BAC can be introduced into evidence.  Barring some kind of reconsideration of that ruling, that's a huge win for the prosecution.  The BAC evidence combined with all the other evidence (esp. his rate of speed immediately prior to and at the time of collision) is going to be very persuasive, IMO.  

Don't be surprised if we start hearing rumors that Ruggs' legal team is seeking out a plea deal with the prosecutor.  He's not going to want to go to trial.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34232294/judge-rules-blood-alcohol-test-results-allowed-evidence-case-former-las-vegas-raiders-receiver-henry-ruggs-iii-charged-fiery-crash-killed-woman-dog

 

[4th and 5 4914]

I'll also add that in evaluating PC for a search warrant, the only thing that can be considered it what facts are in the PC affidavit.

The fact that the state had the evidence for PC, or could show that later in court, is irrelevant. The question is, does it appear in the PC affidavit? 

[Carl Spackler 3461]

1 hour ago, UTCzech III said:

Fuck, this has my blood pressure up, brings back memories I had put down almost 20 years ago when my brother was killed by a drunk driver.  Took almost 2 years to even get close to going to trial due to all the goddam delay tactics, motions, challenging the APD blood labs, bullshit like that.  Cocksucking leeches.  Don't tell me it's the law, it's the law written by cocksucking leeches.

Hey, Czech.  Very sorry about your brother -- I did not know.  I don't even want to imagine the pain you've gone through.  I feel bad that my necro-bump of this thread brought back bad feelings for you, and I hope that you were able to get some semblance of justice for your brother when the dust settled. 

[4th and 5 4914]

This seems like some bullshit to me....there is no obvious time constraints in getting a warrant, law enforcement has it down pat, or most agencies should have. Further, an exigent circumstance could excuse the failure to get a warrant, but it doesn not provide PC for a search with a warrant 

"There's obvious time constraints in applying for a search warrant for a blood draw," Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman said. "Under the totality of the circumstances, there is more than sufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant in this case.

This seems like more bullshit to me....refusing SFSTs, which is your right, or refusing to answer law enforcement questions, is also your consitutional right, and is no evidence of intoxication (actually pretty good evidence of having one's mental faculties). The invocation of one's constitutional rights can never be incriminating. This JP is an idiot. 

"Nobody has mentioned so far that Mr. Ruggs was seriously injured in this accident and transported to the hospital, so he would have been unable to submit to field sobriety tests. Coupled with his refusal to answer questions, this does not result in a reward. ... Motion to suppress is denied."

The issue is whether there is evidence of intoxication (as defined in NV law) in the PC affidavit for the search warrant. Sounds like there might not be. Or this reporter sucks at his job. The PC affidavit is public record, all you gotta do is request a copy.

Edited July 12, 2022 by 4th and 5

[ztejas 43266]

2 hours ago, Modessit said:

Personally, I'd think that driving that fast has a better excuse if he's drunk because the they could say he didn't have all his faculties and this it was "accidental".

Yeah that's... not how that works. Although it would be a funny defense. 

 

[Helobious 9481]

18 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

 

Don't be surprised if we start hearing rumors that Ruggs' legal team is seeking out a plea deal with the prosecutor.  He's not going to want to go to trial.

 

Is that not true all the time? I don’t think even 10% of criminal cases go to trial. Probably closer to 5% really. Everything else is either pleaded out or dropped.

[UTCzech III 2901]

13 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Hey, Czech.  Very sorry about your brother -- I did not know.  I don't even want to imagine the pain you've gone through.  I feel bad that my necro-bump of this thread brought back bad feelings for you, and I hope that you were able to get some semblance of justice for your brother when the dust settled. 

'Preciate it.  It's been 19 years, I'm over it, as much as I can be, still think about him every day.  What just makes my blood boil is shit like this, you know you're guilty, just fucking take your punishment and quit dragging the other family through all this bullshit just because you want to stave off going to prison.  Be a man and face your consequences.  Don't use fucking law loopholes to squirm out of it.

I remember when my brother's killer was sentenced, we agreed to a plea deal, 13 years with a mandatory 8.5 years before possible parole.  It was in the Statesman and on TV.  Some cocksucking lawyer linked the Statesman article to his blog and said, "See?  This is what happens when you have a bad DWI attorney.  My clients would never had gotten this sentence".  Needless to say me and a bunch of my brother's friends roasted his ass into oblivion.

Sorry to derail this bitch.  I'm fine, really.  Will go have a drink in a little bit and raise one to my brother.

[TreatyOak 16150]

"A lawyer for Ruggs, David Chesnoff, had argued there was no probable cause for the tests, which were taken about two hours after the pre-dawn crash. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content was 0.16 -- more than twice Nevada's legal limit. But Chesnoff said that officers on the scene knew they didn't have enough evidence for probable cause, that involvement in the fiery crash wasn't enough.

Chesnoff claimed that it didn't matter to the sergeant on the scene.

"And that's what's wrong," Chesnoff argued. "It does matter, and it has to matter because, if it doesn't matter, then we are in lawless society."

 

No, Chesnoff, that's not why we are in a lawless society. We are in a lawless society because of people like Ruggs who get roaring drunk, drive 150 miles an hour, kill someone and then people like you try to get them exonerated.  

[Ignatius 4002]

Not a lawyer, but why should it matter whether he’d had any alcohol or not? Motherfucker was doing 156 on public streets, if you kill someone in that situation your sobriety shouldn’t be an issue, it should be life with no parole…

[Blotto 23434]

I must have missed it when this happened originally, but I just noticed in the ESPN article that the impact propelled the victim's RAV4 571 feet? That blows my mind that her car was pushed almost 2 football fields in length. I know 156 mph is a ludicrously fast, but I'm still surprised at that number.

[Vic Mackey 46936]

51 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

So sorry for your loss. Killer drunk drivers are a scourge.

The laws need serious changing. First, do away with BAC levels and go to zero tolerance. You drink you walk or catch a cab or Uber or have a driver. Get caught and we do away with a lot of issues. Loss of license, breath interlocks, whatever.

The laws will never change. They are not in place to protect anyone. They are in place to pad as many pockets as they can with each DWI arrest. So many departments and entities have their hands in that cookie jar. It's also lenient to allow repeat offenders. They know if you get arrested for one, you have a good chance of getting more. Hell, there are people who get 3 and 4 and barely see any jail time. That is if it's just normal circumstances i.e. they did not injure or kill anyone and it was just normal arrests with no incident attached. Each subsequent arrest means more fines, community service, classes to take, etc. They want that money. 

[Helobious 9481]

4 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

Not a lawyer, but why should it matter whether he’d had any alcohol or not? Motherfucker was doing 156 on public streets, if you kill someone in that situation your sobriety shouldn’t be an issue, it should be life with no parole…

That’s pretty extreme, most explicitly intentional murders aren’t punished that severely, even in Texas.  There’s been people that have killed someone and cut the body into pieces and only got 30 or 40 years (Jennifer Cave case iirc). That guy that killed 3 people with an axe in laredo back in the day got 45 years. 

[Ignatius 4002]

16 minutes ago, Helobious said:

That’s pretty extreme, most explicitly intentional murders aren’t punished that severely, even in Texas.  There’s been people that have killed someone and cut the body into pieces and only got 30 or 40 years (Jennifer Cave case iirc). That guy that killed 3 people with an axe in laredo back in the day got 45 years. 

Lol, miss the point much?

[Carl Spackler 3461]

45 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Is that not true all the time? I don’t think even 10% of criminal cases go to trial. Probably closer to 5% really. Everything else is either pleaded out or dropped.

You are correct -- the vast majority of filed criminal cases resolve short of trial.  My only point was that if Ruggs' attorney wasn't previously receptive to discussions about a plea deal (and I emphasize that I don't have any info one way or the other), my guess is that he will be now that this ruling has been issued.      

 

[4th and 5 4914]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

"A lawyer for Ruggs, David Chesnoff, had argued there was no probable cause for the tests, which were taken about two hours after the pre-dawn crash. Authorities say Ruggs' blood alcohol content was 0.16 -- more than twice Nevada's legal limit. But Chesnoff said that officers on the scene knew they didn't have enough evidence for probable cause, that involvement in the fiery crash wasn't enough.

Chesnoff claimed that it didn't matter to the sergeant on the scene.

"And that's what's wrong," Chesnoff argued. "It does matter, and it has to matter because, if it doesn't matter, then we are in lawless society."

 

No, Chesnoff, that's not why we are in a lawless society. We are in a lawless society because of people like Ruggs who get roaring drunk, drive 150 miles an hour, kill someone and then people like you try to get them exonerated.  

I’m sure if it was you or your family member, and the state violated your constitutional rights in acquiring evidence, you’d be so principled as to waive your rights.

We are a lawless society because we have lost respect for the law. And each other.

[TreatyOak 16150]

2 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

I’m sure if it was you or your family member, and the state violated your constitutional rights in acquiring evidence, you’d be so principled as to waive your rights.

We are a lawless society because we have lost respect for the law. And each other.

Yes, we have lost respect for laws and our constitution. I agree with you. But the scenario you speak of is make-believe.

The situation we are discussing is an actual horrendous crime and given the non-disputed facts, his defense lawyer's claims are laughable. 

[4th and 5 4914]

Unless you have read the PC affidavit for the search warrant, you claiming to have an informed opinion of the merits of his defense lawyer’s claim is, well….laughable, as you say.

[Pimphand 5597]

If this fuckstick gets anything less than the maximum allowable sentence then it will be an abysmal failure by the justice system. 

[4th&Five 41461]

10 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

The laws will never change. They are not in place to protect anyone. They are in place to pad as many pockets as they can with each DWI arrest. So many departments and entities have their hands in that cookie jar. It's also lenient to allow repeat offenders. They know if you get arrested for one, you have a good chance of getting more. Hell, there are people who get 3 and 4 and barely see any jail time. That is if it's just normal circumstances i.e. they did not injure or kill anyone and it was just normal arrests with no incident attached. Each subsequent arrest means more fines, community service, classes to take, etc. They want that money. 

Yeah, I know someone that got 4 in an 8 year span and never did any jail time. Luckily he never hurt anyone and will be 14 years sober in September. 

[Pimphand 5597]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Yeah, I know someone that got 4 in an 8 year span and never did any jail time. Luckily he never hurt anyone and will be 14 years sober in September. 

The criminal-justice complex.  Not quite as financially successful as it's military-industrial complex but rest assured they both are here for theft of funds from the peons not for protection.

[lilMAC25 3778]

18 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is driving way over the speed limit, crashing, then refusing to volunteer for a field sobriety test or breathalyzer not considered probable cause?

No. I don’t drink and I would refuse one (especially the field sobriety test) as well.

[lilMAC25 3778]

14 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

This seems like some bullshit to me....there is no obvious time constraints in getting a warrant, law enforcement has it down pat, or most agencies should have. Further, an exigent circumstance could excuse the failure to get a warrant, but it doesn not provide PC for a search with a warrant 

"There's obvious time constraints in applying for a search warrant for a blood draw," Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman said. "Under the totality of the circumstances, there is more than sufficient evidence for a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant in this case.

This seems like more bullshit to me....refusing SFSTs, which is your right, or refusing to answer law enforcement questions, is also your consitutional right, and is no evidence of intoxication (actually pretty good evidence of having one's mental faculties). The invocation of one's constitutional rights can never be incriminating. This JP is an idiot. 

"Nobody has mentioned so far that Mr. Ruggs was seriously injured in this accident and transported to the hospital, so he would have been unable to submit to field sobriety tests. Coupled with his refusal to answer questions, this does not result in a reward. ... Motion to suppress is denied."

The issue is whether there is evidence of intoxication (as defined in NV law) in the PC affidavit for the search warrant. Sounds like there might not be. Or this reporter sucks at his job. The PC affidavit is public record, all you gotta do is request a copy.

It’s hard to follow who said what, but are you saying there is no time constraint to acquire DUI evidence? 

[Texzilla58 4717]

Unless you have read the PC affidavit for the search warrant, you claiming to have an informed opinion of the merits of his defense lawyer’s claim is, well….laughable, as you say.

Driving is a privilege not a right. Your DL should basically say the State grants you this privilege, and for that if you have an accident the State has the right to a breath or blood test immediately without warrant or silly delays from your lawyer. Shouldnt need probable cause although going 156 mph on a city street at that hour and wrecking into another car and killing the occupants should be immediate pc for your fucking blood.