Henry Ruggs involved in serious car accident; Charged with DUI resulting in death; Released

[billking]

On 11/20/2021 at 6:17 AM, NCOUGHMAN said:

Reports from people who tried to help before authorities got involved stated that the fire and heat was too much for them to continue try to get her out and she was screaming burning alive 🙏🏿. Even video shows the car fully engulfed when the first cop arrived. I think the people who tried to help before authorities got there will be key witnesses. Ruggs lawyers just doing their job but those eye witness testimony will imo do ruggs in.

ok well it was something I remembered one of the first on scene witnesses mention but yes that would not look good if that was the defense Ruggs lawyer chose to use. And him a no show for a court ordered sobriety test is just bad in every way. I hate to say this but besides the obvious pain he has caused this team I think has given up on this season and it's hard not to blame them.

[BigD1123]

15 minutes ago, billking said:

ok well it was something I remembered one of the first on scene witnesses mention but yes that would not look good if that was the defense Ruggs lawyer chose to use. And him a no show for a court ordered sobriety test is just bad in every way. I hate to say this but besides the obvious pain he has caused this team I think has given up on this season and it's hard not to blame them.

Also the video of Ruggs saying "Stop yellin man Fuuu" if the prosecution shows that video. And they have the unedited with the woman screaming. On top of witnesses saying she was screaming. I don't see how any jury doesn't blast him. The more I see the more I think he should probably hope for a plea deal. And not even a sweet one. Just something that gets him out of jail by the time his little girl is in her mid to late 20s 

[billking]

1 hour ago, BigD1123 said:

Also the video of Ruggs saying "Stop yellin man Fuuu" if the prosecution shows that video. And they have the unedited with the woman screaming. On top of witnesses saying she was screaming. I don't see how any jury doesn't blast him. The more I see the more I think he should probably hope for a plea deal. And not even a sweet one. Just something that gets him out of jail by the time his little girl is in her mid to late 20s 

Right but his attorney may be able to get him out of that simply by explaining that he first had a concussion and he wasn't aware of who was screaming so he probably will be able to say if Ruggs knew it was the woman in the other vehicle he would never have done that. Honestly I really hope he didn't know because if he did, then they just need to lock him up and lose the key.

[BigD1123]

50 minutes ago, billking said:

Right but his attorney may be able to get him out of that simply by explaining that he first had a concussion and he wasn't aware of who was screaming so he probably will be able to say if Ruggs knew it was the woman in the other vehicle he would never have done that. Honestly I really hope he didn't know because if he did, then they just need to lock him up and lose the key.

Yeah that's sickening to even think of. Then watching the video it gives me friggin chills.

[billking]

1 hour ago, BigD1123 said:

Yeah that's sickening to even think of. Then watching the video it gives me friggin chills.

Yeah it's about as unpleasant a scene as anyone can imagine, and worse is that it's senseless, most people who get pegged with a DUI are usually trying to just get home without drawing a lot of attention and some fluke thing happens and the next thing they know their in the drunk tank. Ruggs intentionally drove his car on residential streets in a manner that showed absolute disregard for the public safety his passenger and himself and what's even more damning is there's video evidence of him doing essentially the same thing in the same car on another residential street last year and he probably wasn't intoxicated so it is an obvious behavior he enjoys, so to sum it up this was an eventual outcome the only unknown was where and when.

 

[Rich7sena]

On 11/6/2021 at 10:08 AM, ronjon1990 said:

You're right 😉

3-10 years.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ex-raiders-receiver-henry-ruggs-iii-to-plead-guilty-in-fatal-las-vegas-dui-crash-that-killed-woman-dog-173055012.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK2r4U2pjoZAzjNJM9YzjcG3Fwox2tZwp3KkxElJ_6Ak2PugWlWiw8RgG7CJrHe3atVDa3mkT1cTzEweHqXZOT7y-NErA4natcWOrzbTHJHZtNrvb64y4OClwlkV_Q6zPyqKcIPoXuneiCmTWipE-uRC0a8gyWaoaKdDZaj0NcLh

[ronjon1990]

42 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

3-10 years.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ex-raiders-receiver-henry-ruggs-iii-to-plead-guilty-in-fatal-las-vegas-dui-crash-that-killed-woman-dog-173055012.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK2r4U2pjoZAzjNJM9YzjcG3Fwox2tZwp3KkxElJ_6Ak2PugWlWiw8RgG7CJrHe3atVDa3mkT1cTzEweHqXZOT7y-NErA4natcWOrzbTHJHZtNrvb64y4OClwlkV_Q6zPyqKcIPoXuneiCmTWipE-uRC0a8gyWaoaKdDZaj0NcLh

“This resolution is conditioned upon the court accepting the stipulations of the parties,” Chesnoff said. “In the event that the court does not accept the stipulations, Mr. Ruggs will be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, proceed to trial and litigate all issues.”

Court still has to accept it, and given the circumstances.....there would be a lot more than a few questions being asked. 

That's the kind of plea deal you cop when you're driving the speed limit while drunk and hitting someone. But, then again, we have seen that many District Attorneys offices have gone incredibly lenient recently. It's why I left the DA's office to begin with. I can handle a lenient prosecutor when it's warranted. Sometimes, too often really, it's simply not. I would have told his attorney any plea deal going under 15 was a joke, given the overwhelming evidence and to kick rocks until they wanted to be realistic. But rich and famous people get to play by different rules, there's no denying that. 

I'll say this, he serves the median of that- 6.5 years, probably with some time served- it's a mockery of the justice system. 

[Rich7sena]

33 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

“This resolution is conditioned upon the court accepting the stipulations of the parties,” Chesnoff said. “In the event that the court does not accept the stipulations, Mr. Ruggs will be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, proceed to trial and litigate all issues.”

Court still has to accept it, and given the circumstances.....there would be a lot more than a few questions being asked. 

That's the kind of plea deal you cop when you're driving the speed limit while drunk and hitting someone. But, then again, we have seen that many District Attorneys offices have gone incredibly lenient recently. It's why I left the DA's office to begin with. I can handle a lenient prosecutor when it's warranted. Sometimes, too often really, it's simply not. I would have told his attorney any plea deal going under 15 was a joke, given the overwhelming evidence and to kick rocks until they wanted to be realistic. But rich and famous people get to play by different rules, there's no denying that. 

I'll say this, he serves the median of that- 6.5 years, probably with some time served- it's a mockery of the justice system. 

Well, I am glad your sentiment is not shared by all lawyers. And, I am happy it was not shared by the state attorneys in this case and suspect the judge will sign the parties' mutual agreement. Criminal justice should not be about seeking the maximum possible sentence, but I understand that is a matter of personal politics and morals. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

Ruggs had that green privilege.

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Ruggs had that green privilege.

How anyone can be cheering him getting off light is, frankly, disgusting. 

 

[BobbyPhil1781]

3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

How anyone can be cheering him getting off light is, frankly, disgusting. 

 

It is disgusting that as long as you have money and know the right people (both usually go hand in hand), this **** can happen. Just like Stalworth back when. Ruggs needs to be locked up far, far, far longer

[RaidersAreOne]

Throw the entire book at the POS. 

[jimkelly02]

17 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

“This resolution is conditioned upon the court accepting the stipulations of the parties,” Chesnoff said. “In the event that the court does not accept the stipulations, Mr. Ruggs will be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, proceed to trial and litigate all issues.”

Court still has to accept it, and given the circumstances.....there would be a lot more than a few questions being asked. 

That's the kind of plea deal you cop when you're driving the speed limit while drunk and hitting someone. But, then again, we have seen that many District Attorneys offices have gone incredibly lenient recently. It's why I left the DA's office to begin with. I can handle a lenient prosecutor when it's warranted. Sometimes, too often really, it's simply not. I would have told his attorney any plea deal going under 15 was a joke, given the overwhelming evidence and to kick rocks until they wanted to be realistic. But rich and famous people get to play by different rules, there's no denying that. 

I'll say this, he serves the median of that- 6.5 years, probably with some time served- it's a mockery of the justice system. 

The search warrant was bad… the prosecutor knew that and had to cut a deal otherwise they risked an Acquittal on some of the charges. The cops didn’t do any field sobriety tests on site, then went to a favorable judge and got a warrant based on the speed and the death of the woman.  

I have a personal problem with this.  I’m very pro-police and law and order… but this is a classic example of how the justice system bears its weigh down on an individual and how rules can be broken by the police and prosecutors/ judges.  Police officers, judges, and prosecutors swear an oath to uphold the law, including the constitution, but have you ever heard of a single police officer who elects to not conduct a search because it might not be legal? Never! They always elect to Violate the constitutional rights of a citizen and then the burden is on the citizen to fight the search in court, which is an uphill battle.  Why is there no punishment for unconstitutional searches?

That warrant to draw blood, which is the most invasive form of a search, should never Have been signed.  The police did not detect and document any signs of impermanent. A police sergeant on duty COACHED the officer who applied for the warrant on how to work around the PC issue they knew existed.
There was no Probable Cause to pull the blood.  But certain judges work with prosecutors and exchange favors or rule outside of the law, whether that be due to politics, emotion, or popular opinion.  The perceived public backlash on the judge if he denied the search warrant application pushed him to sign it.  And they justify that by saying “take it up on appeal”.

There are very troubling problems with that:

1) the prosecutors stack charges and use enhancements to push the prison time exposure thru the roof.  It becomes a case of taking it to trial (and don’t get me started on the “trial tax” …. Which for those that are unaware is when defendants get on average 3x the sentence at trial Versus the last offer prior to picking a jury) and getting decades upon decades in prison or pleading guilty in exchange for reduced charges.

2) Yes, the search could be challenged prior to trial but again judges tend to duck responsibly and side with the prosecutors (unless it’s egregious) and rarely go against other judges…. So even a legally bad search that leaves a defense team with highly probable grounds for overturning would in Ruggs’s case end up being contested after trial while he’s doing a massive prison sentence.  And the length of time it takes to have your appeal case heard could easily be 3 years.  So for Ruggs it makes more sense to just accept the guilty plea and take a 3-10 then take it to trial and get 45yrs and have to sit in prison for 3+ years until your legal team Hopefully gets a correct decision and the case is overturned and sent back to the lower courts.  By the time it’s all settled he’d probably spend 6 years minimum in prison and end up with a time served plea deal.

How is all that just, when it’s on the state/feds to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  It’s a total farce.

[jimkelly02]

 

17 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

How anyone can be cheering him getting off light is, frankly, disgusting. 

There’s a difference from wanting someone to face a just punishment and getting off light.  Ruggs deserves prison time, no question.  
People just have different opinions on what’s fair and best for this situation.

[jimkelly02]

Also, I looked into the state of Nevada’s statutory good time and parole guidelines:

Ruggs would be eligible for 20 days of good time per month and 10 days of work credits.  However, those credits only come off the EOS (end of sentence) and do not reduce the parole eligibility date.  With good time Ruggs is likely to serve 5-6yrs on the maximum 10 year sentence.
Thus, Ruggs will see the parole board for the first time roughly 4 months prior to his parole eligibility date.  If approved for parole he’s immediately eligible for a half way house.  Although, most inmates who don’t need the half way house to save up money end up waiving it. 

I also looked into Nevada’s parole guidelines and they use a points system to assess eligibility for parole but the board can depart upwards or downwards from the points system but must give a reason.  Given how he’s likely to Score on the parole guideliness assessment and assuming he behaves and earns most of the good time (GT is actually calculated monthly with the assumption it will be earned for the entire sentence and changed only if it’s lost) I’m very confident he’ll be given parole at his first trip to the board.

At the end of the day, it’s my opinion Ruggs spends 2.75 to 4 years in prison on the 3-10 sentence.  
 

Edited May 3, 2023 by jimkelly02