Raiders' Henry Ruggs in fatal accident - will be charged with DUI resulting in death

[Dante84]

Update: Not a rumor, actually happened. Story developing.

Per TMZ: 10:27 AM PT -- A source close to Ruggs tells us the NFL'er is expected to be OK. The condition of the other people involved in the crash is still unclear.

10:40 AM PT -- A law enforcement source tells us at least one person involved in the crash has died. Ruggs' attorney, David Chesnoff, tells TMZ Sports, "On behalf of our client Henry Ruggs III we are conducting our own investigation as of this writing and ask everyone to reserve judgment until all the facts are gathered."

A lot of rumors floating around, and there was a pretty bad vehicular accident last night in Las Vegas.

I have no idea if Ruggs was involved as the internet claims.

I did put a call in but I've gotten absolutely nothing back https://t.co/S16JxGqmJT

— Benjamin Allbright (@AllbrightNFL) November 2, 2021

Update: TMZ has the story:

Raiders wide receiver Henry Ruggs III was involved in a serious car accident in Las Vegas early Tuesday morning. https://t.co/4ksgaIQAdz

— TMZ (@TMZ) November 2, 2021

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Every repeat drunk driver or speeder ever would probably have something to say about that, but I don't have the one right answer for it either... wouldn't be sad if someone who was so reckless rotted in jail (and no I've never driven 125mph through a suburb while drunk before), and then on one hand no amount of jail time "fixes" many people, yet to a large extent the point is to protect them from the public, too, if they pose a threat in the future (and what's the value of "probably won't do that again, against the real risk of him doing it again)...

Yeah, you're talking about a restorative model vs. a retributive model.

Restorative/rehab model says we put them in prison to make them 'better' and reduce/eliminate their threat to society.

The retributive model says we put 'em in there to punish them.

And in the middle is your other point -- we put them in there as something of a holding tank to keep them from harming others while they're incarcerated.

From a strictly retributive standpoint, 4 years in prison for killing someone while engaging in reckless conduct is awfully light. From a restorative standpoint he's as likely to be 'shocked' out of the behavior in 2 years as he is 10.

But frankly I think the restorative model is about total bullshit so I'd say keep him in there as a penance for what he's done. That's the etymology of 'penitentiary' -- they were called that as they were initially designed as places where people served their penance for their wrongs.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Kiimo

I suppose it's really not at all the same thing white knuckling a drive home 2mph under the speed limit terrified you might get pulled over for having five drinks and like...

what Ruggs did

Sure.

And that 25% figure also falls WELL below the number of people who actually DO it and don't get caught.

You wanna trade the number of guys who get dinged for a .09 on a second offense for those who were at a .20 and didn't? Sure -- have at it. But the math won't change appreciably. The underlying behavior is the issue and the numbers bear it out.

As a proxy, and when compared to essentially any other criminal offense, it fairly well establishes that prison sentences don't mean a hell of a lot when it comes to deterring drunk driving.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Kiimo

Um, really? He deserved to go to prison but it's not like it was premeditated. He never wanted that to happen.


I'm more concerned about violent repeat offending rapists or murderers going free. I feel like there is little chance dude ever speeds again




That said, don't you dare even think about bringing this guy to the Chiefs

Hell, it looks like I already said this earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I mean - this is the debate over prisons as a whole, and the responses are myriad.

But ultimately it boils down to 3 main factors:

1) Specific deterrence: Drunk drivers have high rates of recidivism. By getting this particular drunk driver off the street, you lessen the risk to society as a whole of being injured by him the NEXT time he drives drunk.

2) General deterrence: By throwing his ass in jail, you show the rest of society that things are far different than they were back in the day when the sheriff escorted your granddad home when he'd had a few too many that night and got pulled over.

3) The retributive element: Henry Ruggs engaged in behavior that killed someone. As a society we owe it to the family of that person to ensure that Ruggs is punished for it. That he suffers just as you will now have to suffer for the loss of your loved one.

I mean ultimately think of the logical extremes to your argument here and apply it to murder. Murderers have extremely low rates of recidivism. By and large, they've already killed the person they wanted dead (very few killers are random, high volume killers). The odds of them killing anyone else are pretty low. In many ways they could go back to be model citizens now that they've murdered their ex-wife. But methinks maybe we shouldn't condone that sort of behavior.

Well...at least I didn't contradict myself this time...

[Bearcat]

Arizona's tough on that shit... second hand knowledge, but I think even a first time offender requires a breathalyzer installed at your ignition for a year or two, and it has a camera to make sure it's you blowing into it, and you have to blow into it every 15 minutes while you're driving. And then if you blow into it even thinking you're okay and blow over, it reports it back.

And even after all the costs around that and the court fees, any license suspension, I'm sure there are people who go out of their way to get around it... some people will always think they're above the law.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Kiimo

I suppose it's really not at all the same thing white knuckling a drive home 2mph under the speed limit terrified you might get pulled over for having five drinks and like...

what Ruggs did

Don't do either one. Don't ****ing drink and drive!...ever! God damn.

[Kiimo]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Don't do either one. Don't ****ing drink and drive!...ever! God damn.

I live in Los Angeles. You don't **** around with that here unless you have 15-20 grand handy for a first offense

[George Liquor]

Originally Posted by Kiimo

I live in Los Angeles. You don't **** around with that here unless you have 15-20 grand handy for a first offense

Unless you're an illegal. Then you can kill a couple teens and skate in less than 3 years.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

I don't know Vick killed some dogs, and yes thats awful enough

But this dudes victim was a human being who was burned alive

That seems like a short time to spend in jail for burning a innocent person alive in their car. And their dog.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

That seems like a short time to spend in jail for burning a innocent person alive in their car. And their dog.

Well unfortunately the way it works here is if you have money your punishment is usually going to be less. There will be times they do something so incredibly ridiculous that they get more punishment but generally having money is going to work in your favor.

Ruggs was able to hire a high end lawyer and get minimum punishment for his action, had some regular dude working a 9-5 living paycheck to paycheck did that in his 2012 Honda Civic he'd be looking at 20 years bare minimum.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by Red Dawg

He should be banned.

If you only knew half of the dark shit the billionaire owners are into...NFL inc. isn't exactly a bastion of morality. They try to paint a fake facade to the fans...smoke and mirrors PR. Throw some dough at charities and a pre-arranged photo op of some golden scissors cutting a ribbon.

[fuzzy]

Jesus Christ. This thread is still going YEARS later.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by fuzzy

Jesus Christ. This thread is still going YEARS later.

You don't need to just throw your noobness in our faces like this.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wazu

You don't need to just throw your noobness in our faces like this.

I am a newbie trying to understand the culture of this forum a tad better. Nowhere else on the planet have I discovered such a fascination for bumping a 4 year old Henry Ruggs thread ad nauseam. Is this some sort of an inside bit?

[wazu]

Originally Posted by fuzzy

I am a newbie trying to understand the culture of this forum a tad better. Nowhere else on the planet have I discovered such a fascination for bumping a 4 year old Henry Ruggs thread ad nauseam. Is this some sort of an inside bit?

Bumping this thread actually makes sense because the original context of the Ruggs accident is relevant.

We have way, way, WAY stupider bumps on an almost daily basis. Some of it is because the poster who wants to bring something up about a player is so bad at posting that their thread creation privs have been removed. Others are just cowards who are afraid of taking on the awesome responsibility of creating a new thread.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by fuzzy

I am a newbie trying to understand the culture of this forum a tad better. Nowhere else on the planet have I discovered such a fascination for bumping a 4 year old Henry Ruggs thread ad nauseam. Is this some sort of an inside bit?

Oh no.

You think THIS might be a bit. And that's it's strange?

Have you accidently licked a friends pussy and/or stolen a laptop? Been on any planes that broke apart mid-air or threatened a Senator while flying one? Have you ever gotten a truly truly awful tattoo?

My guy, this place is friggen weird as hell. If a WR from a division rival having a thread bumped after killing a person but now contemplating a comeback is a little too strange for you, we're proooooooobably not gonna be your speed.