Random Raider Stuff

[jimkelly02]

1 hour ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Hobbs blood test was just under dui levels so he got a careless driving charge 

It’s funny how that news isn’t widely known.  I’m just finding out about it now.

Cops/prosecutors straight up lie alllll of the time to further their case.  If he Was under the legal limit why was he initially charged with DUI?  And even more important how come it isn’t in the news that he wasn’t legally drunk.  The news never comes out snd makes a correction/update.

for this exact reason…. I’m not convinced at all Ruggs was going 156MPH right before the crash.  He very very easily could have gone 156MPH at some point that night… a few minutes before…but crashed at 85mph.

how different does the story play out if the truth comes out Ruggs crashed at 85mph and wasn’t legally drunk (blows a .06BAC).  I think he’s probably still on the team but on a medical leave for the year.

 

[Rich7sena]

David Carr, while swearing that he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year, *opined* that Derek would strongly consider not playing for the Raiders next year if Bisaccia doesn't return or if pieces aren't added to round out the roster.

First, there's no way he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year. Second, I think this puts more tinder in the fire regarding the "mutual" nature if Carr's return in 2023.

[mct288]

8 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

David Carr, while swearing that he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year, *opined* that Derek would strongly consider not playing for the Raiders next year if Bisaccia doesn't return or if pieces aren't added to round out the roster.

First, there's no way he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year. Second, I think this puts more tinder in the fire regarding the "mutual" nature if Carr's return in 2023.

I feel this is the Carrs’ way of making it appear that it’s his choice. The way I see it is that if they aren’t adding talent, then they are probably tearing it down. If they’re tearing it down, I would assume he’d be one of the first to go; he would yield the most capital, afterall. 

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, Rich7sena said:

David Carr, while swearing that he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year, *opined* that Derek would strongly consider not playing for the Raiders next year if Bisaccia doesn't return or if pieces aren't added to round out the roster.

First, there's no way he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year. Second, I think this puts more tinder in the fire regarding the "mutual" nature if Carr's return in 2023.

But he said he would rather retire than play for another team.

[roi34]

9 hours ago, mct288 said:

I feel this is the Carrs’ way of making it appear that it’s his choice. The way I see it is that if they aren’t adding talent, then they are probably tearing it down. If they’re tearing it down, I would assume he’d be one of the first to go; he would yield the most capital, afterall. 

he prob saw Stafford and said that could be me

[big_palooka]

9 hours ago, Rich7sena said:

David Carr, while swearing that he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year, *opined* that Derek would strongly consider not playing for the Raiders next year if Bisaccia doesn't return or if pieces aren't added to round out the roster.

First, there's no way he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year. Second, I think this puts more tinder in the fire regarding the "mutual" nature if Carr's return in 2023.

I didn't hear that at all in what he said. He said he likes Rich because he went through it all with him this season. But the crux of the conversation was he wants to win and he needs commitment to seeing them get the pieces around him to do so. Feels they are close if they can just get a few pieces.

Which, nothing illogical about that. Carr has watched the FO blow countless draft picks and has had to do more with less because of it. On the back 9 of his career, I'd be ready for a chance to compete at a higher level to.

Edited January 27, 2022 by big_palooka

[101Raider]

12 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

It’s funny how that news isn’t widely known.  I’m just finding out about it now.

Cops/prosecutors straight up lie alllll of the time to further their case.  If he Was under the legal limit why was he initially charged with DUI?  And even more important how come it isn’t in the news that he wasn’t legally drunk.  The news never comes out snd makes a correction/update.

for this exact reason…. I’m not convinced at all Ruggs was going 156MPH right before the crash.  He very very easily could have gone 156MPH at some point that night… a few minutes before…but crashed at 85mph.

how different does the story play out if the truth comes out Ruggs crashed at 85mph and wasn’t legally drunk (blows a .06BAC).  I think he’s probably still on the team but on a medical leave for the year.

 

I obviously don’t know the full details of these specific events, but going on the premise that a legal BAC is <0.08, blood alcoholic content level decreases by 0.015 percent every hour.  It’s quite possible (and happens very frequently) that a driver refuses a roadside breathalyzer/sobriety test (which is legal in many, many states, though understand that refusal has big repercussions too I.e. revocation of driving license for 6 months unless cleared if charges), at this point a BAC level is drawn  by medical personnel at either the precinct or hospital  which takes time, reducing the BAC by quite a bit.

 In Ruggs case, I guarantee that a field sobriety test was not taken, but rather done at the hospital due to the nature of the incident.

 

In case youre wondering, once upon a time I served in the military in a position that was quite involved with legal proceedings (I served as a medical unit’s Commander)so have had lots of experience with this and had quite a few cases thrown out because by the time a BAC level was taken, the Soldier was under the legal limit. In addition, I’ve been on the medical side of this as well as I’m in the psychiatric field and often do ER consults, with DUIs being quite commonly linked with my speciality.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by 101Raider

[RaidersAreOne]

I'm so sick of all the lame Carr brothers on TV and Twitter. 

[jimkelly02]

3 hours ago, 101Raider said:

I obviously don’t know the full details of these specific events, but going on the premise that a legal BAC is <0.08, blood alcoholic content level decreases by 0.015 percent every hour.  It’s quite possible (and happens very frequently) that a driver refuses a roadside breathalyzer/sobriety test (which is legal in many, many states, though understand that refusal has big repercussions too I.e. revocation of driving license for 6 months unless cleared if charges), at this point a BAC level is drawn  by medical personnel at either the precinct or hospital  which takes time, reducing the BAC by quite a bit.

 In Ruggs case, I guarantee that a field sobriety test was not taken, but rather done at the hospital due to the nature of the incident.

In case youre wondering, once upon a time I served in the military in a position that was quite involved with legal proceedings (I served as a medical unit’s Commander)so have had lots of experience with this and had quite a few cases thrown out because by the time a BAC level was taken, the Soldier was under the legal limit. In addition, I’ve been on the medical side of this as well as I’m in the psychiatric field and often do ER consults, with DUIs being quite commonly linked with my speciality.

Your absolutely right! Every lawyer worth his weight will tell you if your even close/if it’s at all possible your Over the limit to always refuse the test and just accept the loss of license.  Then you claim your hyper glycemic (similar physical conditions as being drunk) and demand medical treatment.  They HAVE to treat you first.  By as much time as possible.  The longer before they take your blood the more your BAC will drop.  Essentially, as long as your in the .11-.14 range you should be able to have enough time pass that your going to come in just under the legal limit of .08.

im interested to see how the BAC reading plays out with Ruggs.  Given the severity of the case it’s going to end with a favorable plea bargain for Ruggs or it’s going to trial.  Depending on circumstances sometimes lawyers will wait to file a motion to suppress the BAC results (if it’s not a slam dunk win) because if they lose then it gives more negotiating power during Pre-Trial to the prosecution.  

[NYRaider]

On 1/26/2022 at 7:13 PM, Rich7sena said:

David Carr, while swearing that he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year, *opined* that Derek would strongly consider not playing for the Raiders next year if Bisaccia doesn't return or if pieces aren't added to round out the roster.

First, there's no way he hasn't spoken to his brother about next year. Second, I think this puts more tinder in the fire regarding the "mutual" nature if Carr's return in 2023.

David Carr essentially speaks to the media for Derek. I don't care if we had prime Jerry Rice on our roster, Carr threw the ball 3 yards short of the marker on the final play of the season and we lost the game. If he would prefer to play somewhere else, trade him.

[NYRaider]

On 1/27/2022 at 6:34 AM, RaidersAreOne said:

I'm so sick of all the lame Carr brothers on TV and Twitter. 

 

[NCOUGHMAN]

Well rich got hired by the bears so that prolly not making carr happy right about now

[NYRaider]

Just now, NCOUGHMAN said:

Well rich got hired by the bears so that prolly not making carr happy right about now

Trade him for Khalil Mack

[NYRaider]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:43 AM, big_palooka said:

I didn't hear that at all in what he said. He said he likes Rich because he went through it all with him this season. But the crux of the conversation was he wants to win and he needs commitment to seeing them get the pieces around him to do so. Feels they are close if they can just get a few pieces.

Which, nothing illogical about that. Carr has watched the FO blow countless draft picks and has had to do more with less because of it. On the back 9 of his career, I'd be ready for a chance to compete at a higher level to.

I agree that Carr definitely has thugged it out for the franchise but he's not a game changing player. He has one more cheap year on his deal, if he doesn't want to be here, right now is the perfect time to sell high.

[SimonGruber]

Maybe a grain a salt but this dude was the first I saw with the Ruggs story