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

[StruggleBus 3922]

I just don't understand people that driving drunk. How fucking stupid do you have to be? I've known a few people that continuously did it in the past, and I completely cut them out of my life. Fuck them. 

[4th and 5 5005]

3 hours ago, lilMAC25 said:

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

 

Due to the natural dissipation of alcohol and other intoxicants in a person's blood, time of search is an issue in DWI cases.

Law enforcement needs:

(1) consent, or

(2) a search warrant based on probable cause, stated in the PC affidavit, or

(3) proof of exigent circumstances that excuse the failure to get a warrant (a tough showing for the state).

 

22 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

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.

If you have an accident, the state can take your blood? Is that what you are saying?

You misunderstand the law, and/or appear to not believe in the constitution.

1. A wreck, no matter how egregious, is not PC for a blood search warrant.

2. There are no "silly delays from your lawyer" when it comes to blood testing in DWI cases. Lawyers are not involved, there is no right to immediate counsel on the side of the road. Lawyers get involved well after the incident, particularly when cops do not perform their duties correctly.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's really not that hard for law enforcement to follow the law.

[927 E. 41st 1124]

1 hour ago, Texzilla58 said:

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.

I think you would find that a bad idea. Certainly excessive speed/wreck/smell of alcohol, slurring speech etc. should and appears was used as probable cause. But giving your rights away is dangerous territory. Had a friend get pulled over in an entrapment situation. He was eventually able to prove he wasn't DWI, but the time and expense was eye watering (and the state doesn't care about expense while the DA just wants a high conviction rate. As long as this DA thought there was any chance of salvaging his "win" he was willing to ignore a lot of evidence that my friend was innocent). An extra level to my friends nightmare was that if he lost, he was basically unemployable in his chosen field. Those that will lose a security clearance or the like face extreme extra punishment. 

It's frustrating to watch the Ruggs situation as this guy has destroyed innocent life, ruined his life and caused horrible grief to many others. But it will play out, and he will not avoid punishment.

Edited July 13, 2022 by 927 E. 41st

[lilMAC25 3993]

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

 

Due to the natural dissipation of alcohol and other intoxicants in a person's blood, time of search is an issue in DWI cases.

Law enforcement needs:

(1) consent, or

(2) a search warrant based on probable cause, stated in the PC affidavit, or

(3) proof of exigent circumstances that excuse the failure to get a warrant (a tough showing for the state).

 

If you have an accident, the state can take your blood? Is that what you are saying?

You misunderstand the law, and/or appear to not believe in the constitution.

1. A wreck, no matter how egregious, is not PC for a blood search warrant.

2. There are no "silly delays from your lawyer" when it comes to blood testing in DWI cases. Lawyers are not involved, there is no right to immediate counsel on the side of the road. Lawyers get involved well after the incident, particularly when cops do not perform their duties correctly.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's really not that hard for law enforcement to follow the law.

Thanks for the clarification. We agree. 

[Vic Mackey 47953]

8 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. 

Yep they do everything they can to not let you see jail time for normal DWIs. They are like speeding tickets these days. Everyone has someone in their circle who has had one for the most part. But good for them for getting sober and changing their life 

There was a bartender that had 3 of them. He was out parole for this 3rd and then drove drunk and killed someone. This happened a few years ago in Dallas. Now he's going away for life and was charged with murder. You have 3 of them and still out there doing it and kill someone? That for sure needs to be murder. I hate driving at night here in the Dallas area because of all the drunks on the road. Wrong way drivers too. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

2 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

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.

If politicians and lawyers weren’t some of the worst offenders, this could happen. 

[Pato del Muerto 53495]

If PC is as simple as a cop saying he smelled alcohol on his breath, then there might as well not be any right to say no.  Because that can’t be disproven. 

[TreatyOak 17371]

14 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

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.

I certainly don't have an informed opinion of the merits of his defense lawyer's claim. However, I've seen the security footage of Ruggs driving 150 miles an hour and I've seen the video of him sitting on the ground following the wreck. It sure looks like they had plenty of reasons to test his alcohol level. 

I would like to understand how driving drunk and killing someone affects the sentence. Does it normally increase the penalties? Was his lawyer fighting to have his test removed from the case due to this, or is it just because it is the lawyer's only angle to play to have the case thrown out?

Edited July 13, 2022 by TreatyOak

[4th and 5 5005]

Defense lawyer trying to suppress evidence of intox due to violation of statute or constitution

Causing the death of another (or serious bodily injury to another), by reason of intoxication, increases the penalty from typically a class B misd to a 2nd (or 3rd for SBI) degree felony in Texas

[4th and 5 5005]

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

Yep they do everything they can to not let you see jail time for normal DWIs. They are like speeding tickets these days. Everyone has someone in their circle who has had one for the most part. But good for them for getting sober and changing their life 

There was a bartender that had 3 of them. He was out parole for this 3rd and then drove drunk and killed someone. This happened a few years ago in Dallas. Now he's going away for life and was charged with murder. You have 3 of them and still out there doing it and kill someone? That for sure needs to be murder. I hate driving at night here in the Dallas area because of all the drunks on the road. Wrong way drivers too. 

 

A creative use of the felony murder rule in Texas (DWI 3rd is a felony + act clearly dangerous to human life in the course of + cause death of individual) to increase the punishment to a 1st degree for what would otherwise be a 2nd degree felony intoxication manslaughter.

Edited July 13, 2022 by 4th and 5

[TreatyOak 17371]

I like this lawyer's videos. In this video, he covered the hearing last November, so it won't address the PC issues.

 

[4th and 5 5005]

I'm not going to spend any time watching that video to see if it is addressed, but even without proof of intoxication, there result should be more or less the same in NV

For instance, intoxication manslaughter in Texas is a second degree felony

Aggravated assault (recklessly + cause serious bodily injury OR cause bodily injury via use or exhibition of a deadly weapon) is also a second degree felony.

So the range of punishment is the same, with or without proof of intoxication, in a case like this, were it to occur in Texas, so should be similar in NV.

[TrashMaster G 18088]

22 hours 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…

Seriously.  It seems like driving like that as a result of sober decision-making is almost even more disgusting.

 

1 hour ago, 4th and 5 said:

Defense lawyer trying to suppress evidence of intox due to violation of statute or constitution

Causing the death of another (or serious bodily injury to another), by reason of intoxication, increases the penalty from typically a class B misd to a 2nd (or 3rd for SBI) degree felony in Texas

Is there not also a statute for craven indifference to human life?  Something even stronger than reckless endangerment?

[4th and 5 5005]

depends on the Nevada state law, Texas has something similar in TPC 19.02(b)(2), the murder statute, but it would not apply in Ruggs case due to no intent to cause SBI

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

State could get creative if they could find an underlying felony in NV to use the felony murder rule, assuming they have it, like if Racing on a Highway were a felony (in Texas it is, if you have 2 priors)

Otherwise you'd have to go with Manslaughter, which is also a second degree felony, no better than Agg Assault

[Texzilla58 4791]

I think you would find that a bad idea. Certainly excessive speed/wreck/smell of alcohol, slurring speech etc. should and appears was used as probable cause. But giving your rights away is dangerous territory. Had a friend get pulled over in an entrapment situation. He was eventually able to prove he wasn't DWI, but the time and expense was eye watering (and the state doesn't care about expense while the DA just wants a high conviction rate. As long as this DA thought there was any chance of salvaging his "win" he was willing to ignore a lot of evidence that my friend was innocent). An extra level to my friends nightmare was that if he lost, he was basically unemployable in his chosen field. Those that will lose a security clearance or the like face extreme extra punishment. 
It's frustrating to watch the Ruggs situation as this guy has destroyed innocent life, ruined his life and caused horrible grief to many others. But it will play out, and he will not avoid punishment.

I’m not talking about a situation as you describe. I’m saying if you are in a deadly accident as a matter of immediate investigation of that matter you are either breathylyzing or blood testing automatically. Ruggs should have been immediately tested at the scene and results part of the evidence for court. The second you choose to drive drunk you have taken a loaded weapon onto the highway. There is no excuse. But as has been said, the lawyers use it as bread and butter income same as weed laws.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Such specious excuses.  In some industries an accident triggers a drug and alcohol test for all involved, no probable cause needed.  Would be best to change the law to that for every accident involving injury or substantial damage.

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

7 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

depends on the Nevada state law, Texas has something similar in TPC 19.02(b)(2), the murder statute, but it would not apply in Ruggs case due to no intent to cause SBI

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

State could get creative if they could find an underlying felony in NV to use the felony murder rule, assuming they have it, like if Racing on a Highway were a felony (in Texas it is, if you have 2 priors)

Otherwise you'd have to go with Manslaughter, which is also a second degree felony, no better than Agg Assault

I wonder if your avatar knows how distracting she is. I’ll bet she has no idea. 

[pwood220 0]

Yep they do everything they can to not let you see jail time for normal DWIs. They are like speeding tickets these days. Everyone has someone in their circle who has had one for the most part. But good for them for getting sober and changing their life 
There was a bartender that had 3 of them. He was out parole for this 3rd and then drove drunk and killed someone. This happened a few years ago in Dallas. Now he's going away for life and was charged with murder. You have 3 of them and still out there doing it and kill someone? That for sure needs to be murder. I hate driving at night here in the Dallas area because of all the drunks on the road. Wrong way drivers too. 

My husband is a police sergeant in a Dallas county police department. The current Dallas DA is rejecting all of their DWI cases, even those with property damage and/or injury. He is refusing to prosecute or even plea bargain. It’s going to get worse in Dallas before it gets better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Felix 644]

9 hours ago, pwood220 said:

My husband is a police sergeant in a Dallas county police department. The current Dallas DA is rejecting all of their DWI cases, even those with property damage and/or injury. He is refusing to prosecute or even plea bargain. It’s going to get worse in Dallas before it gets better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a lie.

[royiv 9788]

9 hours ago, pwood220 said:

My husband is a police sergeant in a Dallas county police department. The current Dallas DA is rejecting all of their DWI cases, even those with property damage and/or injury. He is refusing to prosecute or even plea bargain. It’s going to get worse in Dallas before it gets better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmmm. If this is true, it seems like something that the media would be very interested in. You should get on the phone to the DMN and WFAA post haste. I'm sure they would love a hot tip like this one.

[closetohumping 17817]

20 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

Yep they do everything they can to not let you see jail time for normal DWIs. They are like speeding tickets these days. Everyone has someone in their circle who has had one for the most part. But good for them for getting sober and changing their life 

There was a bartender that had 3 of them. He was out parole for this 3rd and then drove drunk and killed someone. This happened a few years ago in Dallas. Now he's going away for life and was charged with murder. You have 3 of them and still out there doing it and kill someone? That for sure needs to be murder. I hate driving at night here in the Dallas area because of all the drunks on the road. Wrong way drivers too. 

Actually DWIs are a lot worse these days, even the first one.  People lose jobs over them.  20 years ago?  Slap on the wrist.

[Huckleberry 34644]

14 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Such specious excuses.  In some industries an accident triggers a drug and alcohol test for all involved, no probable cause needed.  Would be best to change the law to that for every accident involving injury or substantial damage.

Yes, we should definitely let the government do something without consent because citizens frequently consent to it in exchange for specific employment. This is wonderful logic. 

Too bad motorcycles and jet skis are now illegal but what are you gonna do? Safety! 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Such specious excuses.  In some industries an accident triggers a drug and alcohol test for all involved, no probable cause needed.  Would be best to change the law to that for every accident involving injury or substantial damage.

accident at work =/= accident in private life.

The drug/alcohol screen following an accident/ injury at work isn't just about the employee.

[4th and 5 5005]

14 hours ago, pwood220 said:

My husband is a police sergeant in a Dallas county police department. The current Dallas DA is rejecting all of their DWI cases, even those with property damage and/or injury. He is refusing to prosecute or even plea bargain. It’s going to get worse in Dallas before it gets better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I call bullshit on this. Prove me wrong

[4th and 5 5005]

19 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

I’m not talking about a situation as you describe. I’m saying if you are in a deadly accident as a matter of immediate investigation of that matter you are either breathylyzing or blood testing automatically. Ruggs should have been immediately tested at the scene and results part of the evidence for court. The second you choose to drive drunk you have taken a loaded weapon onto the highway. There is no excuse. But as has been said, the lawyers use it as bread and butter income same as weed laws.

 

17 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Such specious excuses.  In some industries an accident triggers a drug and alcohol test for all involved, no probable cause needed.  Would be best to change the law to that for every accident involving injury or substantial damage.

 

Y'all don't spend much time looking at the constitution, do you?

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

4 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Actually DWIs are a lot worse these days, even the first one.  People lose jobs over them.  20 years ago?  Slap on the wrist.

It's not my world, but yeah I believe the consensus view is that the current law and application are way too overbearing.  I guess there could be a lack of jailtime for repeat offenders, thus making deadbeats with little job prospects seem to skate by, but others can pretty much have their life fucked up pretty quick.

[Zeus 6862]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:31 PM, ImissWallyPryor said:

If politicians and lawyers weren’t some of the worst offenders, this could happen. 

laws are for poor people 

[NOOBSDUDE 596]

If you have an accident, the state can take your blood? Is that what you are saying?
You misunderstand the law, and/or appear to not believe in the constitution.
1. A wreck, no matter how egregious, is not PC for a blood search warrant.
2. There are no "silly delays from your lawyer" when it comes to blood testing in DWI cases. Lawyers are not involved, there is no right to immediate counsel on the side of the road. Lawyers get involved well after the incident, particularly when cops do not perform their duties correctly.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's really not that hard for law enforcement to follow the law.

Crazy to think that a fork lift driver backs into a pallet of water that he has to submit to a test or he’s fired yet a person who kills someone’s in a piece of equipment shouldn’t have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NeverMarryAStripper 22297]

Yeah, it really sucks having that pesky constitution.  Don't worry though, I think the current supremes are working on getting rid of it

[mr. sunshine 2859]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:31 PM, ImissWallyPryor said:

If politicians and lawyers weren’t some of the worst offenders, this could happen. 

Hey man I’ll have you know I’m a stay at home drunk lawyer 

[4th and 5 5005]

1 hour ago, NOOBSDUDE said:

Crazy to think that a fork lift driver backs into a pallet of water that he has to submit to a test or he’s fired yet a person who kills someone’s in a piece of equipment shouldn’t have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Crazy to think that a person's body could be searched without their consent, without probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that evidence of that crime would be found via that search.

What other of the bill of rights don't you believe in?

 

[conVINCEd 21477]

I would just like to point out that there is a pretty big difference between a guy who splits a bottle of wine with his wife at dinner and gets popped because he didn’t come to a complete stop before turning right on red and someone who is .16 two hours after killing someone because they treat the the local roads like their personal racetrack while drunk.

[Gene Parmesan 4064]

1 hour ago, NOOBSDUDE said:

Crazy to think that a fork lift driver backs into a pallet of water that he has to submit to a test or he’s fired yet a person who kills someone’s in a piece of equipment shouldn’t have to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His place of employment is free to fire him as well. 

[Texzilla58 4791]

 
Crazy to think that a person's body could be searched without their consent, without probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that evidence of that crime would be found via that search.
What other of the bill of rights don't you believe in?
 

The evidence of the crime is the dead woman in the other car he murdered.

Driving is a privilege not a right. The DL contract should state if you’re in an accident with death or serious injury all parties will be breathilyzed or blood drawn as soon as possible. Don’t like it don’t drink and drive.

[Texzilla58 4791]

I would just like to point out that there is a pretty big difference between a guy who splits a bottle of wine with his wife at dinner and gets popped because he didn’t come to a complete stop before turning right on red and someone who is .16 two hours after killing someone because they treat the the local roads like their personal racetrack while drunk.

While there might be a difference, you or wife shouldn’t drive if you drink. Take a fucking Uber or a cab.

[Deej 77820]

If all the attorneys here are so worried about the Constitution, they should provide free legal services to everyone charged with DWI's. It's for the good of all of our freedoms. 

Then all those falsely accused could save money proving their innocence. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Deej

[NeverMarryAStripper 22297]

So now the rights under the Constitution are not inalienable, but rather privileges that need to be purchased?  It is entirely possible to be completely disgusted with Ruggs and his callous indifference to human life while still recognizing that he still has the same rights under the Constitution as any other citizen and that any infringement of those rights is a danger to us all.

 

[4th&Five 42004]

 

[Guest]

He should be in prison as long as the victim is dead.

[TexasMan 11456]

So he'll be out in a year and a half, then sign with the Browns or Cowboys in 2025.

[Deej 77820]

1 hour ago, TexasMan said:

So he'll be out in a year and a half, then sign with the Browns or Cowboys in 2025.

Wide receivers coach for aggy. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, TexasMan said:

So he'll be out in a year and a half, then sign with the Browns or Cowboys in 2025.

He's not nearly good enough. He's the Josh Brent of WR's.

[TreatyOak 17371]

 

LOL. Ray Rice & Henry Ruggs jerseys

[Carl Spackler 3615]

4 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Fuck that guy and fuck the District Attorney for agreeing to that plea agreement.

[Texzilla58 4791]

So now the rights under the Constitution are not inalienable, but rather privileges that need to be purchased?  It is entirely possible to be completely disgusted with Ruggs and his callous indifference to human life while still recognizing that he still has the same rights under the Constitution as any other citizen and that any infringement of those rights is a danger to us all.
 

So you’re saying wealth has no bearing on how criminal prosecutions and legal problems are resolved? Prisons must be full of rich folks.

I hope the victim’s family gets every dime he has left after paying his lawyers. And every dime he makes after he serves his ridiculously short prison sentence. What kind of defense would he have if the lawyer fees were delayed until after any civil lawsuits by the family?

[Ignatius 4142]

On 7/14/2022 at 3:57 PM, 4th and 5 said:

I call bullshit on this. Prove me wrong

Yeah that’s a crock of shit…

[markstanco 12786]

On 5/3/2023 at 10:41 AM, Texzilla58 said:

I hope the victim’s family gets every dime he has left after paying his lawyers.

He was a fairly newish player and not in to his 2nd contract (or at least I dont remember him signing one last year).  I too want them to ruin him financially, but it cant be that much money in the end.  Lots of rookies blow that first contract money quickly. 

[ztejas 44227]

On 5/2/2023 at 2:03 PM, TexasMan said:

So he'll be out in a year and a half, then sign with the Browns or Cowboys in 2025.

Lol he won't play another snap in the NFL.

[Texzilla58 4791]

He was a fairly newish player and not in to his 2nd contract (or at least I dont remember him signing one last year).  I too want them to ruin him financially, but it cant be that much money in the end.  Lots of rookies blow that first contract money quickly. 

He got a $6.1m signing bonus on his 4 year $16m initial contract. How much is left? How much will the Raiders try to get back? If the family could get a mil or two hat would be great.

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

On 11/2/2021 at 2:22 PM, Helobious said:

Even with an expensive lawyer he’ll probably be doing at least 1-2 years in prison for this. He’ll also likely get sued big time. Football is definitely over for him.

Nailed Prediction #1.