Former 1st round #12 pick Henry Ruggs: 3 to 10 yrs prison for drunk driving fatal crash

[John from Riverside]

2 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

FFS.  Just F Christ's FS.  A woman (and her dog) are dead.  And you think he 'just' got wasted and deserves a second chance. 🤨

I absolutely believe in second chances
 

And I absolutely believe he should go to prison

[Buffalo716]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm not laughing at what happened, I'm laughing at the people who think getting loaded and doing 150+ in a residential area isn't inherently malicious

Well it certainly is

 

I've never even came close to that speed sober in my life

 

And I'm sure it's not going to be easy with Henry rugs if he has any sort of a conscience

 

I also don't know what the average DUI vehicular manslaughter sentence is so I can't judge how lenient or not it is

[Nephilim17]

What about his actual prison sentence (which we know he'll serve the short end of) AND like 20 years of community service? 

 

That would give a drunk driver a) a second chance at life but b) ensure he remembers for a long, long time that his actions were horribly wrong c) he will give back to the community for many years as he's taken away from the community and d) serve as a deterrent. I know 3 years in prison won't deter most people but maybe 20 years of community service — like something substantial, maybe 10 hours a week for the first five years out of prison but maybe 5 hours a week for the remaining 15 years. And real community service, like helping people in society who are truly in need. Don't do the work, go back to jail.

 

Just rough numbers and a crazy thought.

[Beck Water]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Well it certainly is

 

I've never even came close to that speed sober in my life

 

And I'm sure it's not going to be easy with Henry rugs if he has any sort of a conscience

 

I also don't know what the average DUI vehicular manslaughter sentence is so I can't judge how lenient or not it is

 

So comes too close to playing lawyer for me, but the point with Ruggs was he pled guilty to one felony charge, vs the 3 felony charges he originally faced.

Charge he pled to was "DUI resulting in death" (felony) and "vehicular manslaughter" (misdemeanor)

 

Quote

As part of his agreement, Ruggs pleaded guilty in May in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court to one count of driving under the influence resulting in death, a felony, and one count of vehicular manslaughter, a misdemeanor. Prosecutors dropped three original felony charges — two counts of reckless driving and driving under the influence resulting in bodily harm — and a misdemeanor charge of possessing a gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

 

Apparently the original charges would have carried a much longer prison term (when combined I guess)

[4merper4mer]

7 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

And yet here in FLORIDA it is LEGAL to drive while holding your phone and talking or playing with it.

 

Studies have shown this is MORE DANGEROUS than driving drunk; it's more distracting.

 

Way to go Florida and every other state that allows this crap.

 

This country is so f-ing stupid.

 

 

So you’re saying “at least Ruggs wasn’t talking on his phone in Florida”?    That would have been REALLY dangerous.

22 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

 

I also don't know what the average DUI vehicular manslaughter sentence is so I can't judge how lenient or not it is

Why do you need to know the average sentence is to decide whether you think 3 years for causing a person to burn to death is lenient?  
 

Spoiler alert:  if it happens a billion times it’s lenient a billion times.

[Buffalo716]

12 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

So you’re saying “at least Ruggs wasn’t talking on his phone in Florida”?    That would have been REALLY dangerous.

Why do you need to know the average sentence is to decide whether you think 3 years for causing a person to burn to death is lenient?  
 

Spoiler alert:  if it happens a billion times it’s lenient a billion times.

I never said 3 years was good but is this the first time you ever followed a trial? Welcome to the American judicial system

 

Where money talks

 

And 3 years is obviously not much but I'm not a judge 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Buffalo716

[NoSaint]

51 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

My original point was responding to someone saying he deserves a life sentence,  and I disagreed because he intended to drive drunk but didn't intend to hurt or kill anyone.  Feel his sentence is fair, he made a dumb decision but there wasn't any violence on his mind

I’d be much more apt to buy that if he was not going 156 mph. 
 

but I’ve made the argument that the drunk part only effects my judgment so much compared to the horribly reckless driving. Killing someone while 30(? 40?) over the speed limit should negate manslaughter and kick to a murder charge. 
 

that aside, I do get the point you are making on DUI and have often waffled on how to handle punishment of both run of the mill guys getting caught at a sobriety check point with no single victim vs a .11 driver that has a weird fluke accident vs a .22 that had no idea what was happening when they got in the car in the first place and wakes up to discover the horror. 

[Neo]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Have you ever killed someone while making a mistake/error?  Or at least seriously injured someone? 

To answer your question directly, despite its irrelevance to my post, no.

[JerseyBills]

27 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I’d be much more apt to buy that if he was not going 156 mph. 
 

but I’ve made the argument that the drunk part only effects my judgment so much compared to the horribly reckless driving. Killing someone while 30(? 40?) over the speed limit should negate manslaughter and kick to a murder charge. 
 

that aside, I do get the point you are making on DUI and have often waffled on how to handle punishment of both run of the mill guys getting caught at a sobriety check point with no single victim vs a .11 driver that has a weird fluke accident vs a .22 that had no idea what was happening when they got in the car in the first place and wakes up to discover the horror. 

Ya I see both sides as well. I just feel like any tragedy , if there was no intent to cause harm, should equal a way lighter sentence 

 

I just know I've left the bar or club many times , as driver and passenger with my buddies and we were all drunk asf and only cared about the girls we were hopefully meeting up with lol

 

There was no ill will on our end if an accident happened,  just young , dumb and full of ***** hahaha

 

But I agree, 150 mph+ is absolutely insane 

[BillsShredder83]

19 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Two minds think alike.

 

 

The audacity of this freaking dude lol nothing should surprise me with him, and yet here i am. Unfathomable idiocy

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, Neo said:

To answer your question directly, despite its irrelevance to my post, no.

 

"Irrelevance"?  Seriously? 

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Good thing nobody said he should be killed

Good thing I didn't say anybody did!

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Good thing I didn't say anybody did!

that was your implication

 

besides, an eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind...the first guy loses an eye so he takes the second guy's eye out, then the first guy loses his other eye and can't find the guy who did it so he's out two eyes the the other guy's only out one

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Regardless of this tragedy.... I've read through all the replies on this thread

 

And Henry rugs life is just as impacted as the woman that he killed accidentally

 

He is a kid.. and he will never be the same

 

I'm not going to kick him when he's down

 

Let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone

 

RIP to the lady

I’m pretty sure her life was impacted more than his life…..because her life no longer exists.  For the love of Pete you can’t be real with that crap.

 

While I agree passing judgement on anyone is folly, it is also important that as a society, we remove people like Ruggs from the general population in a way that sends a message.  IMO that message should be we can’t afford to have our fellow citizens burned to death in their car so when you cause that to happen you will go away for a long time………so…….don’t.  Thinking that Ruggs should go away for a long time is not “kicking him while he’s down”.

 

All of the above is different than judging him as if we were the eyes of God.  We should not do that.  It’s not personal but he has to go.

[Neo]

32 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

"Irrelevance"?  Seriously? 

Two men walk into an auditorium and approach the podium.   Each picks up a loaded pistol, closes his eyes, and fires toward the crowd.  One bullet kills a young woman.  The other hits no one, and embeds itself into a wall.  Who’s the worse man and why?

 

My point …  you are conflating the bad judgement and the outcome.  I am addressing only the judgement.  It was horrible, and there but for the grace of God go I.

 

Prophylactic inter web post …  i’ve never driven a car that fast or that drunk, not that that’s relevant either.

 

The victim is the woman.  I want justice and mercy for Ruggs.

[GoBills808]

Just now, 4merper4mer said:

I’m pretty sure her life was impacted more than his life…..because her life no longer exists.  For the love of Pete you can’t be real with that crap.

 

While I agree passing judgement on anyone is folly, it is also important that as a society, we remove people like Ruggs from the general population in a way that sends a message.  IMO that message should be we can’t afford to have our fellow citizens burned to death in their car so when you cause that to happen you will go away for a long time………so…….don’t.  Thinking that Ruggs should go away for a long time is not “kicking him while he’s down”.

 

All of the above is different than judging him as if we were the eyes of God.  We should not do that.  It’s not personal but he has to go.

tend to agree w this

 

imo if you kill someone going 100mph over the speed limit in a neighborhood while drunk you have forfeited your place in society

3 minutes ago, Neo said:

Two men walk into an auditorium and approach the podium.   Each picks up a loaded pistol, closes his eyes, and fires toward the crowd.  One bullet kills a young woman.  The other hits no one, and embeds itself into a wall.  Who’s the worse man and why?

 

My point …  you are conflating the bad judgement and the outcome.  I am addressing only the judgement.  It was horrible, and there but for the grace of God go I.

 

Prophylactic inter web post …  i’ve never driven a car that fast or that drunk, not that that’s relevant either.

 

The victim is the woman.  I want justice and mercy for Ruggs.

the one guy gets Class C reckless endangerment and the other guy gets Class A manslaughter

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

that was your implication

 

besides, an eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind...the first guy loses an eye so he takes the second guy's eye out, then the first guy loses his other eye and can't find the guy who did it so he's out two eyes the the other guy's only out one

Hammurabi is vindicated!

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Hammurabi is vindicated!

lol well sort of but in reverse

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

tend to agree w this

 

imo if you kill someone going 100mph over the speed limit in a neighborhood while drunk you have forfeited your place in society

Penal colonies.  The ultimate "we cannot abide people who do things like this in our society" method.

[Neo]

8 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

the one guy gets Class C reckless endangerment and the other guy gets Class A manslaughter

I understand.   I agree.   Sentences in our legal system often rely on outcome, which I deliberately avoided.  THERE’S a philosophical debate, to be sure.

 

If they’re each your son, sentence notwithstanding, who do you judge more harshly?   That’s my post.  To me, they committed the same crime.  The random trajectories of the bullets and random configuration of the audience determined the outcome.

 

Adieu !!

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Neo said:

Two men walk into an auditorium and approach the podium.   Each picks up a loaded pistol, closes his eyes, and fires toward the crowd.  One bullet kills a young woman.  The other hits no one, and embeds itself into a wall.  Who’s the worse man and why?

 

My point …  you are conflating the bad judgement and the outcome.  I am addressing only the judgement.  It was horrible, and there but for the grace of God go I.

 

Prophylactic inter web post …  i’ve never driven a car that fast or that drunk, not that that’s relevant either.

 

The victim is the woman.  I want justice and mercy for Ruggs.

 

OK so you didn't kill or even injure anyone whenever you drove drunk.  Maybe you weren't as impaired as Ruggs was?  Maybe you just got lucky?  I don't know.  But the outcome is very relevant.  Unless you're trying to say that anyone who drives drunk should face the consequences whether they kill someone or not?

[4th&long]

There is no Justice this world.

[The Firebaugh Kid]

If you’ve ever driven 100ish, you know how dangerous it is. HE WAS DOING 156. 
There is no margin for error at that rate of speed, you’re borderline suicidal for even driving that fast. That alone warrants a murder charge to me. I hope her father knows some people that can take care of him when he gets out of prison in 3 years. 

Edited August 11, 2023 by The Firebaugh Kid

[Beck Water]

3 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

I never said 3 years was good but is this the first time you ever followed a trial? Welcome to the American judicial system

 

Where money talks

 

And 3 years is obviously not much but I'm not a judge 

 

I Hear Ya, Buff716.

I don't understand why going 156 miles an hour into the back of another car doesn't constitute sufficient probable cause to draw blood for alcohol and tox screen

 

But then

 

There's a lot about our judicial system that I don't understand, especially its results, so I suppose you're right in the implication that this case would have plenty of company

[Dukestreetking]

I've read all posts.

 

And I agree: I made alcohol-driving mistakes when I was younger.

 

BUT, no matter how drunk, I had an inherent sensibility not to drive 156mph on surface streets.

 

That, gentleman (and @muppy), demonstrates a fundamental character flaw. 

 

Last: I do appreciate his remorse.

 

But, frankly, and I don't like to admit this publicly... but I too have killed, and to this day I have remorse.

 

Not about the enemy deaths: no, never. But rather to those brothers/sisters I may have let down by not doing more.

 

Bottom line: there is killing and then there is straight up murder. In war, God does not guide the musket or pull the trigger, even though you make your own decisions in a chaotic, ambiguous landscape.

 

Obviously, this was not war. In the civilian world--as all should know--decisions Ruggs made stand in much sharper relief, the "rules" more coherent and known.

 

And, by that standard, it is eminently clear that the sentence was too lenient. Ruggs should have more time to reflect on his decisions, regardless of alcohol, and fully understand the context in which they were made.

[Dr.Sack]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:09 AM, Fleezoid said:

 

I'm not sure it's as much decency as it is the glaring evidence. If there was any way he could have plead innocent to any of the charges, my guess is he'd have done it. 

He had an occupant in the car with him. Many times the occupant takes the fall. 

[frostbitmic]

Have the Chiefs signed him to a futures contract yet ?

 

I'd be surprised if he even does three years in prison, famous people get breaks us plebes don't.

[Mr. WEO]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:17 PM, Neo said:

I understand.   I agree.   Sentences in our legal system often rely on outcome, which I deliberately avoided.  THERE’S a philosophical debate, to be sure.

 

If they’re each your son, sentence notwithstanding, who do you judge more harshly?   That’s my post.  To me, they committed the same crime.  The random trajectories of the bullets and random configuration of the audience determined the outcome.

 

Adieu !!

 

 

Murder and attempted murder.  Both going away.

 

Justice got Ruggs...

[SectionC3]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:22 PM, Doc said:

 

OK so you didn't kill or even injure anyone whenever you drove drunk.  Maybe you weren't as impaired as Ruggs was?  Maybe you just got lucky?  I don't know.  But the outcome is very relevant.  Unless you're trying to say that anyone who drives drunk should face the consequences whether they kill someone or not?

I agree on outcome to a point.  But if you're rolling around at .22 and, by the grace of God, you don't hurt anyone, I'm not of the school that you get treated the same as someone who has a PD or PI accident that doesn't result in death or a significant serious injury.  

[BillsShredder83]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:01 PM, Neo said:

Two men walk into an auditorium and approach the podium.   Each picks up a loaded pistol, closes his eyes, and fires toward the crowd.  One bullet kills a young woman.  The other hits no one, and embeds itself into a wall.  Who’s the worse man and why?

 

My point …  you are conflating the bad judgement and the outcome.  I am addressing only the judgement.  It was horrible, and there but for the grace of God go I.

 

Prophylactic inter web post …  i’ve never driven a car that fast or that drunk, not that that’s relevant either.

 

The victim is the woman.  I want justice and mercy for Ruggs.

This probably wont do well here, but wanted to tip my cap to ya.  Good thought experiment, love philosophy!

[NoSaint]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:37 PM, Beck Water said:

 

I Hear Ya, Buff716.

I don't understand why going 156 miles an hour into the back of another car doesn't constitute sufficient probable cause to draw blood for alcohol and tox screen

 

But then

 

There's a lot about our judicial system that I don't understand, especially its results, so I suppose you're right in the implication that this case would have plenty of company

I don’t know why 156 into the back of a car isn’t enough for murder and damn near life without a tox screen 

[BillsShredder83]

19 hours ago, Dukestreetking said:

I've read all posts.

 

And I agree: I made alcohol-driving mistakes when I was younger.

 

BUT, no matter how drunk, I had an inherent sensibility not to drive 156mph on surface streets.

 

That, gentleman (and @muppy), demonstrates a fundamental character flaw. 

 

Last: I do appreciate his remorse.

 

But, frankly, and I don't like to admit this publicly... but I too have killed, and to this day I have remorse.

 

Not about the enemy deaths: no, never. But rather to those brothers/sisters I may have let down by not doing more.

 

Bottom line: there is killing and then there is straight up murder. In war, God does not guide the musket or pull the trigger, even though you make your own decisions in a chaotic, ambiguous landscape.

 

Obviously, this was not war. In the civilian world--as all should know--decisions Ruggs made stand in much sharper relief, the "rules" more coherent and known.

 

And, by that standard, it is eminently clear that the sentence was too lenient. Ruggs should have more time to reflect on his decisions, regardless of alcohol, and fully understand the context in which they were made.

Thank you for your service!  Our country really let down a lot of people.  Too many people didnt come back, and too many people struggling with what you talk about.  Even the best case scenario over there =/= the cost of going there

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I agree on outcome to a point.  But if you're rolling around at .22 and, by the grace of God, you don't hurt anyone, I'm not of the school that you get treated the same as someone who has a PD or PI accident that doesn't result in death or a significant serious injury.  

 

Just to clarify, you mean sober?

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Just to clarify, you mean sober?

No.  Whether there’s a PI or PD accident in a DWI often dictates how the case is charged and, eventually, pleaded.  Higher BACs w/o accident often are treated the same as much lower BACs w/ accident.  I don’t like that approach.  

[LeGOATski]

They should've kept him in jail until age 35-40 to ensure he couldn't play pro football again

[Beck Water]

9 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

He had an occupant in the car with him. Many times the occupant takes the fall. 

 

I think in this case they had witnesses who came running over to attempt to save the woman and her dog by getting them out of her car

And the witnesses told the police who was driving

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

They should've kept him in jail until age 35-40 to ensure he couldn't play pro football again

his career shouldn’t effect the punishment. 
 

[Neo]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:22 PM, Doc said:

 

OK so you didn't kill or even injure anyone whenever you drove drunk.  Maybe you weren't as impaired as Ruggs was?  Maybe you just got lucky?  I don't know.  But the outcome is very relevant.  Unless you're trying to say that anyone who drives drunk should face the consequences whether they kill someone or not?

Respectfully, I don’t think you’re close to what I did say.  I also don’t think re-saying it will satisfy you.

 

You’re speaking back and forth to several things and mixing them together and writing to me.  The things are decisions, circumstances, judgement, outcomes and consequences.  I spoke to one, narrow, issue or aspect of the situation.  Go back and see if you can find it.

 

Try this mishmash of sentences, independent and related at the same time.  Young men have lapses in judgment.  Ruggs exercised very bad judgement.  There was a very bad outcome as a direct result of his exercise.  He should be punished.  The inter webs encourages, among other things, sanctimony, hypocrisy and manufactured disagreement.  I’ve exercised bad judgement and no one’s been hurt.   I hesitate self reflectively before I criticize people who exercise bad judgement.  I feel for him and for her.

 

Outcome is irrelevant to everything I wrote in my original post and everything of interest to me in this thread.

 

That’s all I got.

[LeGOATski]

21 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

his career shouldn’t effect the punishment. 
 

I see no reason why punishments shouldn't be adjustable based on individual circumstances 

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I see no reason why punishments shouldn't be adjustable based on individual circumstances 

Constitution?  Bill of rights?  14th amendment?  Meh.