Beck Water Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38162272/ex-raiders-wr-henry-ruggs-iii-sentenced-3-10-years-fatal-dui Quote Ruggs, 24, had been under house arrest with alcohol and location electronic monitoring devices since pleading guilty in May to one count of DUI resulting in death and one count of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in the crash that killed Tina Tintor and her dog, Max. On Wednesday, Ruggs read from a statement directed at Tintor's family in which he apologized for his actions. "To the parents and family of Ms. Tintor, I sincerely apologize for the pain and suffering," Ruggs said. Pretty sure Ms Tintor's family don't think 3 years is nearly enough punishment for burning her alive. Ruggs got what his attorneys asked for: Quote In court documents filed before the sentencing hearing, Ruggs' attorneys had asked the judge to keep the duration of their client's prison time to a range of three to 10 years. Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld said Ruggs "wishes that he could turn back time and change the outcome of the tragic events of November 2, 2021." I'm sure he does, what with being cut from the team and losing his career and all. But he can't. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 Should have been life 4 10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Should have been life I agree. We don't punish anyone anymore. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Water Posted August 10, 2023 Author Share Posted August 10, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Should have been life Agree Same for Britt Reid, who also got 3 years. Edited August 10, 2023 by Beck Water 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 I don't want to destroy two young lives but three years is too lenient. Should've at least been 15 minimum imo. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansLanda Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 It's crazy this stuff still happens. There are so many options to not be behind the wheel - no matter your social status. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 At least he is doing some time, but I sure wish our society would come down harder on drunk drivers. We need to throw the book at them. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPoy88 Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 17 minutes ago, Beck Water said: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38162272/ex-raiders-wr-henry-ruggs-iii-sentenced-3-10-years-fatal-dui Pretty sure Ms Tintor's family don't think 3 years is nearly enough punishment for burning her alive. Ruggs got what his attorneys asked for: I'm sure he does, what with being cut from the team and losing his career and all. But he can't. So, a comparison just for everyone (and I’m just picking this since it happened a day before the Ruggs sentencing): Tory Lanez, a semi-famous rapper, just got 10 years for shooting a very famous rapper, Megan thee Stallion, in the foot following an argument. She’s fine now. And Ruggs kills a woman and her dog and gets a 3-10 sentence? There are a multitude of differences in the cases here (Lanez went to trial, for one) and I’m not attempting to make a 1:1 comparison here but damn, given the proximity of the announcements it sure does look really bad for those prosecutors out in Nevada that this is what they landed on for Ruggs. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 32 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said: So, a comparison just for everyone (and I’m just picking this since it happened a day before the Ruggs sentencing): Tory Lanez, a semi-famous rapper, just got 10 years for shooting a very famous rapper, Megan thee Stallion, in the foot following an argument. She’s fine now. And Ruggs kills a woman and her dog and gets a 3-10 sentence? There are a multitude of differences in the cases here (Lanez went to trial, for one) and I’m not attempting to make a 1:1 comparison here but damn, given the proximity of the announcements it sure does look really bad for those prosecutors out in Nevada that this is what they landed on for Ruggs. I’m all for mandatory sentencing. Murder = X years, manslaughter= X years. The amount of times I shake my head at the legal system is disgusting. You have legit murderers who can get a more lenient sentence than some assault cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 Just now, PetermansRedemption said: I’m all for mandatory sentencing. Murder = X years, manslaughter= X years. The amount of times I shake my head at the legal system is disgusting. You have legit murderers who can get a more lenient sentence than some assault cases. Two minds think alike. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongli Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 Damn...OJ gets 33 years from Nevada for kidnapping and armed robbery, but Ruggs gets just 3-10 from the same state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sack Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 At least Rugg’s had the decency to plead guilty unlike OJ. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPoy88 Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 33 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said: I’m all for mandatory sentencing. Murder = X years, manslaughter= X years. The amount of times I shake my head at the legal system is disgusting. You have legit murderers who can get a more lenient sentence than some assault cases. yes trust me I get it - two entirely different cases, the intent to harm certainly wasn’t there for Ruggs - I’m just saying the optics are bad, especially considering the horrible way the woman Ruggs hit died. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brand J Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 (edited) These are Texas laws if one gets caught selling heroine, cocaine, or another “group 1” drug: Quote Less than 1 gram: a state jail felony with possible punishment of up to 2 years (minimum 180 days) in jail and a fine of up to $10,000 1-4 grams: a 2nd degree felony punishable by a minimum of 2 years in prison and fine of up to $10,000 4-200 grams: a 1st-degree felony punishable by a minimum of 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 200-400 grams: a 1st-degree enhanced felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000 400 grams or more: a 1st-degree enhanced felony punishable by a minimum of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 Defendants who have been convicted of a prior drug crime will face harsher punishment. If a first-time offender is caught by the federal government with 200 grams of heroin for sale, they face 5 to 40 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $5 million. A second time offender arrested with the same 200 grams of heroin faces 10 years to life in prison and a fine of up to $8 million. Remember, the federal government and the states have different laws, so it is necessary to note the specific rules for each state or territory. To put 200 grams into perspective, it basically measures out to a cup and a half. Ruggs killed a woman, she and her dog burned alive, but he’ll do far less time than someone caught trying to sell a cup and a half worth of cocaine. Something seems very wrong with that picture. Edited August 10, 2023 by JayBaller10 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 1 minute ago, JayBaller10 said: These are Texas laws if one gets caught selling heroine, cocaine, or another “group 1” drug: To put 200 grams into perspective, it basically measures out to a cup and a half. Ruggs killed a woman, she and her dog burned alive, but he’ll do far less time than someone caught trying to sell a cup and a half worth of a cocaine. Something seems wrong with that picture. Absolutely. And I mentioned it before, you can have someone doing more time in prison for assault or armed robbery than someone who actually kills someone and pleads to murder. The legal system is way too subjective to be considered even somewhat “fair”. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 He'll still be young enough to sign as an NFL FB when he gets out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beck Water Posted August 10, 2023 Author Share Posted August 10, 2023 14 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said: yes trust me I get it - two entirely different cases, the intent to harm certainly wasn’t there for Ruggs - I’m just saying the optics are bad, especially considering the horrible way the woman Ruggs hit died. Apparently there was a problem with the blood alcohol evidence in Ruggs case, and the DA was afraid the defense would win a motion to suppress the evidence. I'm all for "probable cause" but this sounds sketchy AF Quote The statement said a field sobriety test couldn’t be administered to Ruggs because he was transported from the accident scene to University Medical Center of Southern Nevada. Law-enforcement officers sought a search warrant by telephone while at the scene so blood could be drawn from Ruggs at the hospital for an alcohol-content test. Wolfson said the test revealed Ruggs’ blood-alcohol content to be 0.16 percent. The legal limit for drivers in Nevada is 0.08 percent. In May 2022, Ruggs’ attorneys filed a motion to suppress results of evidentiary blood-sample testing, arguing there was insufficient probable cause for Judge Harmony Letizia to approve the warrant that allowed the blood draw. “This presented a potential legal impediment to the prosecution,” the statement from the District Attorney’s Office read. “If the result of the blood draw was suppressed, there was virtually no other evidence to prove Ruggs was under the influence. Had the suppression motion been granted – and there was a strong likelihood because no (field sobriety tests) were performed and there was not information given to the judge that Ruggs had bloodshot/watery eyes, smelled of alcohol or had been drinking prior to the crash – the DUI death charge would have been dismissed.” The statement from the District Attorney’s Office does not include that Judge Ann Zimmerman ruled on July 12 that the results of the blood-alcohol test could be used as evidence. So they didn't perform a field sobriety test because Ruggs needed to be transported to a hospital for treatment and LEO rightly didn't want to interfere with that, but then the judge wasn't informed that Ruggs had bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, or had been drinking prior to the crash - so the lack of interfering with hospital transport by insisting on a field sobriety test would then be used against the DA to suppress legitimate properly collected and handled blood evidence. Makes me queasy to consider. I think a guy driving into a young woman's car at 156 mph so that she burns to death should be considered probable cause to test for alcohol and drugs. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoPoy88 Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, Beck Water said: Apparently there was a problem with the blood alcohol evidence in Ruggs case, and the DA was afraid the defense would win a motion to suppress the evidence. I'm all for "probable cause" but this sounds sketchy AF So they didn't perform a field sobriety test because Ruggs needed to be transported to a hospital for treatment and LEO rightly didn't want to interfere with that, but then the judge wasn't informed that Ruggs had bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, or had been drinking prior to the crash - so the lack of interfering with hospital transport by insisting on a field sobriety test would then be used against the DA to suppress legitimate properly collected and handled blood evidence. Makes me queasy to consider. I think a guy driving into a young woman's car at 156 mph so that she burns to death should be considered probable cause to test for alcohol and drugs. great info and yeah I vaguely remember back when it happened they had to do a blood draw. And honestly just the sole fact that you’re driving 156MPH through a residential area at night, you’re beyond reckless, and if you kill someone I don’t even care if you had anything in your system at that point. You go away for more than 3 years. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 42 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said: At least Rugg’s had the decency to plead guilty unlike OJ. Nothing due to decency. His laywer plea bargained because he determined his client would lose in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey Posted August 10, 2023 Share Posted August 10, 2023 Right now, I wonder what kind of person he’ll be when he gets out. No NFL money. Will he do right or come out with no hope and hits the streets. Sadly, I’ll forget about this by lunchtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.