Jump to content

[Edit -Released by Raiders] Henry Ruggs involved in a fatal car crash, "DUI resulting in death" charges expected


DCOrange
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, StHustle said:

This is not your usual case and yes a lawyer that is trying to help a man get away with this is a scumbag to me. I don't care what you say. Yes he deserves representation...plenty scumbags willing to take his money! I don't care what the law is or how the system is created to work...any person attempting to help someone get away with the murder of a completely innocent person is a SCUMBAG! It don't make it ok cause it's your job! Hitler had plenty workers as well!

 

If a lawyer was unwilling to represent him the county would have to provide him with a public defense attorney anyways. And if his attorney didn't defend him to the best of his ability he could have the conviction thrown out in appeals court. Convicting someone of a major crime isn't supposed to be easy. Defense attorneys have a thankless job but it's necessary to keep our justice system totally equal.

  • Agree 4
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this guy did was horrible. He should do jail time. Never drive again.

However I don't believe he should spend his life in jail. There's a difference between reckless and malicious. This is a personal feeling, but I don't believe this level of reckless deserves life in jail. I would reserve that for multiple human fatalities, but that's just me, and I know everyone is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So who decides whether this a case where the defendant deserves representation? You based on your sense of morality? 

 

Yea. I think I will stick with the current system, thanks. Every single individual deserves to be properly represented. If nothing else to ensure that when said person is convicted that person cannot later find a procedural irregularatory to have the conviction quashed. Better that the original trial lawyer raises those matters initially and the original court is presented with any such arguments. 

 

Good defense attorneys are performing an essential societal service. Even when they are defending "bad" people.

 
I never said he doesn’t deserve representation. When did I say that? Maybe I should make bullet points so you understand what hat I’m saying.

 

•Everyone deserves res presentation and there are plenty slimeball lawyers available to try to get people off who are clearly guilty. In my opinion, any lawyer who indeed takes that sort of case fits in that category.

 

•In a case where you know that, in fact you were committing multiple crimes that caused an innocent person to die, you shouldn’t try to get off but simply plead for the least time you’ll have to serve. I can understand doing that, and that always involve admitting guilt and pleading accordingly.

 

•This case is an extreme one and all cases should be viewed independently based on circumstances and not have some blanket idea applied to it as if it’s equal. His actions caused a young woman to burn alive along with her dog. Witness heard her screaming! So effin sad man. How can you view a lawyer attempting to use a technicality in an attempt to help a person who did this get off Scott free as anything but scumbag behavior? Again, there are plenty scumbag lawyers willing to do this and just cause they are stepping in to provide this “essential service” it still takes one of these scumbag lawyers I spoke of to fill this role. Doesn’t make them any less of a scumbag cause they’re doing their job. 

 

.

2 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

You say that until your lawyers show you what kind of time you're looking at.

 
I would man up and face it! My actions caused a totally innocent person to have a horrible death and family left to deal with that  fact their lives one went out burning alive for the rest of their lives.

 

 

.

1 hour ago, WotAGuy said:


It seems your anger should be directed toward Ruggs; he’s the one you said should just plead guilty.  The lawyer is just doing what Ruggs is paying him to do. Ruggs could decline to have this motion advanced. But it looks like he’s going to fight this all the way, which is his decision and his right. 


I am definitely upset with Ruggs! He should MAN TF UP! However I’m sure his lawyer would love the accolades of somehow winning this case and getting him off Scott free. What a boost to their career right! Who cares what injustices or victims family members who get completely crushed all over agin in the process!

 

 

.

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

If a lawyer was unwilling to represent him the county would have to provide him with a public defense attorney anyways. And if his attorney didn't defend him to the best of his ability he could have the conviction thrown out in appeals court. Convicting someone of a major crime isn't supposed to be easy. Defense attorneys have a thankless job but it's necessary to keep our justice system totally equal.


Ok and we all have free will. So if you were a public defender and assigned a case where it’s very evident a man molests kids but there is some glaring technicality that could set him free, would YOU accept this case and help him get off to boost your career or decline and let someone with no morals go ahead and handle it? Again, the world or any county even will never be short of scumbag lawyers who would live to represent a high profile defendant and get them off no matter how heinous the crime is they obviously are guilty of.

  • Vomit 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StHustle said:


Ok and we all have free will. So if you were a public defender and assigned a case where it’s very evident a man molests kids but there is some glaring technicality that could set him free, would YOU accept this case and help him get off to boost your career or decline and let someone with no morals go ahead and handle it? Again, the world or any county even will never be short of scumbag lawyers who would live to represent a high profile defendant and get them off no matter how heinous the crime is they obviously are guilty of.

 

It isn't about boosting your career. Even the most heinous criminals deserve a defense lawyer who does everything in his or her power in the interests of their client. 

 

To suggest otherwise is to undermine the very fabric of our justice system. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StHustle said:

So if you were a public defender and assigned a case where it’s very evident a man molests kids but there is some glaring technicality that could set him free, would YOU accept this case and help him get off to boost your career or decline and let someone with no morals go ahead and handle it?

 

A public defender who didn't accept that case would be out of a job. If you allow for the justice system to create exceptions, then you accept that those exceptions will sometimes be applied incorrectly and ultimately put innocent people behind bars. We leave as little room as possible for error in the justice system to make sure everyone gets the same treatment.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

What this guy did was horrible. He should do jail time. Never drive again.

However I don't believe he should spend his life in jail. There's a difference between reckless and malicious. This is a personal feeling, but I don't believe this level of reckless deserves life in jail. I would reserve that for multiple human fatalities, but that's just me, and I know everyone is different.

I agree. In terms of intentionality there is a clear difference IMO between criminal negligence causing death and murder 1. I don’t even think that the difference in characterization would change with the number of victims.  Even though he is entirely at fault so that he has earned  the consequences his life too is pretty much over. Just a horrible outcome all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, StHustle said:


Ok and we all have free will. So if you were a public defender and assigned a case where it’s very evident a man molests kids but there is some glaring technicality that could set him free, would YOU accept this case and help him get off to boost your career or decline and let someone with no morals go ahead and handle it? Again, the world or any county even will never be short of scumbag lawyers who would live to represent a high profile defendant and get them off no matter how heinous the crime is they obviously are guilty of.

 

This is easily the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this board in 20 years. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StHustle said:

 
I never said he doesn’t deserve representation. When did I say that? Maybe I should make bullet points so you understand what hat I’m saying.

 

•Everyone deserves res presentation and there are plenty slimeball lawyers available to try to get people off who are clearly guilty. In my opinion, any lawyer who indeed takes that sort of case fits in that category.

 

•In a case where you know that, in fact you were committing multiple crimes that caused an innocent person to die, you shouldn’t try to get off but simply plead for the least time you’ll have to serve. I can understand doing that, and that always involve admitting guilt and pleading accordingly.

 

•This case is an extreme one and all cases should be viewed independently based on circumstances and not have some blanket idea applied to it as if it’s equal. His actions caused a young woman to burn alive along with her dog. Witness heard her screaming! So effin sad man. How can you view a lawyer attempting to use a technicality in an attempt to help a person who did this get off Scott free as anything but scumbag behavior? Again, there are plenty scumbag lawyers willing to do this and just cause they are stepping in to provide this “essential service” it still takes one of these scumbag lawyers I spoke of to fill this role. Doesn’t make them any less of a scumbag cause they’re doing their job. 

 

.

 
I would man up and face it! My actions caused a totally innocent person to have a horrible death and family left to deal with that  fact their lives one went out burning alive for the rest of their lives.

 

 

.


I am definitely upset with Ruggs! He should MAN TF UP! However I’m sure his lawyer would love the accolades of somehow winning this case and getting him off Scott free. What a boost to their career right! Who cares what injustices or victims family members who get completely crushed all over agin in the process!

 

 

.

 

2 hours ago, StHustle said:


Ok and we all have free will. So if you were a public defender and assigned a case where it’s very evident a man molests kids but there is some glaring technicality that could set him free, would YOU accept this case and help him get off to boost your career or decline and let someone with no morals go ahead and handle it? Again, the world or any county even will never be short of scumbag lawyers who would live to represent a high profile defendant and get them off no matter how heinous the crime is they obviously are guilty of.

Who gets to decide which are the special cases are with the special rules?

 

It sucks but it's just how it is, there is no perfect system where only and all of the guilty are punished.

 

Besides even if he did manage to get the DUI aspect of the suppressed, driving 150+mph and killing someone in another car isn't something you don't go to jail for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SACTOBILLSFAN said:

 

This is easily the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this board in 20 years. 

 

You must be an attorney. Lol...please explain or your post is worst than mine. 

 

Simply shared my opinion that any attorney who knows their client is guilty should drop the case. PERIOD. To move forward and attempt to figure how to help them get away their crime makes you a scumbag in my book. Yes they need a lawyer but that doesn't mean it has to be you. Let one of your scumbag colleagues handle the case.

 

If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read here then either you don't read or have questionable morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StHustle said:

 

You must be an attorney. Lol...please explain or your post is worst than mine. 

 

Simply shared my opinion that any attorney who knows their client is guilty should drop the case. PERIOD. To move forward and attempt to figure how to help them get away their crime makes you a scumbag in my book. Yes they need a lawyer but that doesn't mean it has to be you. Let one of your scumbag colleagues handle the case.

 

If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read here then either you don't read or have questionable morals.

 

If every attorney did as you suggest and went around saying "I think this one is guilty I am not touching it" the result would be a system where a whole bunch of people get no representation. That would destroy our system and lead to huge unfairness. 

 

Everyone is entitled to due process. Everyone is entitled to representation and everyone is entitled to their day in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StHustle said:

 

You must be an attorney. Lol...please explain or your post is worst than mine. 

 

Simply shared my opinion that any attorney who knows their client is guilty should drop the case. PERIOD. To move forward and attempt to figure how to help them get away their crime makes you a scumbag in my book. Yes they need a lawyer but that doesn't mean it has to be you. Let one of your scumbag colleagues handle the case.

 

If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read here then either you don't read or have questionable morals.


So you’re basically stating you don’t believe in the due process.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StHustle said:

 

You must be an attorney. Lol...please explain or your post is worst than mine. 

 

Simply shared my opinion that any attorney who knows their client is guilty should drop the case. PERIOD. To move forward and attempt to figure how to help them get away their crime makes you a scumbag in my book. Yes they need a lawyer but that doesn't mean it has to be you. Let one of your scumbag colleagues handle the case.

 

If that's the dumbest thing you've ever read here then either you don't read or have questionable morals.

How could defense attorneys realistically exist if they only represented innocent people? I mean the entire objective of the State's side is to prosecute people they think they can convict of a crime, that doesn't exactly create a large market of innocent people needing defense attorneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StHustle said:

… Again, the world or any county even will never be short of scumbag lawyers who would live to represent a high profile defendant and get them off no matter how heinous the crime is they obviously are guilty of.

Damn….were you wronged by a lawyer at some point in your life? Lot of anger in  your posts in this thread. 😱

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

What this guy did was horrible. He should do jail time. Never drive again.

However I don't believe he should spend his life in jail. There's a difference between reckless and malicious. This is a personal feeling, but I don't believe this level of reckless deserves life in jail. I would reserve that for multiple human fatalities, but that's just me, and I know everyone is different.

hmmm. So if his gf had died in the crash too then life in prison? But hitting a girl at 156 mph in city street coming home from bf place and burning alive along w her dog as bystanders heard her screams and tried in vain to get her out is not ??

 

I don't know. Glad I am not a judge and have to face all the families with my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cba fan said:

hmmm. So if his gf had died in the crash too then life in prison? But hitting a girl at 156 mph in city street coming home from bf place and burning alive along w her dog as bystanders heard her screams and tried in vain to get her out is not ??

 

I don't know. Glad I am not a judge and have to face all the families with my decision.

Not really something you can throw a trivial number on. The dudes not a predator... i dont believe hes an imminent threat to the public in the way that Manson is,there's levels and degrees to everything.

What happened I personally don't believe jail for life solves much.

 

Now someone starts a reckless but accidental fire in an apt building and 9 people die? Getting closer. It's really a case by case kinda thing, and that's why judges decide on sentencing, and there isn't just a one size fits all flat sentence for every crime 🤷‍♂️ still sucks all around

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If every attorney did as you suggest and went around saying "I think this one is guilty I am not touching it" the result would be a system where a whole bunch of people get no representation. That would destroy our system and lead to huge unfairness. 

 

Everyone is entitled to due process. Everyone is entitled to representation and everyone is entitled to their day in court. 

 

Everyone is also entitled to their own opinions, no matter how emotional, ridiculous and utterly irrational they may be. 

 

Goodness! It’s the best process that exists, I believe. It won’t always be perfect, but I don’t see a better option.  Making any kind of decisions before the process runs it’s course is pure foolishness and undermines our entire legal system. Treat everyone fairly and equally. Period. Then let the chips fall where they may, and pray you got it right. 

 

 

.

Edited by Augie
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to post in this thread that has veered far afield from football, but like many football concepts I am agreeing with Mr. Gunner on this issue.  I have things to say but would rather not get involved in an internet legal philosophy debate on TBD - TSW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cba fan said:

 

I don't know. Glad I am not a judge and have to face all the families with my decision.

Couldn't agree more with this part.

 

Ruggs life is destroyed as is, and rightfully so, I for one don't think life is appropriate. 

 

What is? Not for me to decide. 

 

With the SF case of the teenager hitting the mom and baby and simply getting probation (which is a joke) there seems to be not alot of consistency in sentencing. 

 

Glad I don't have to make these decisions for sure though.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...