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

[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.