Henry Ruggs III Involved in Fatal Car Crash.

[4merper4mer]

49 minutes ago, Robs House said:

I get the emotional reaction, but I don't like judging someone on outcome. If Ruggs does the exact same thing and no one gets hurt people would still want him punished for acting recklessly and putting people in danger, but no one would want him locked away for decades. 

 

I think the better approach is a dispassionate analysis weighing the act and intent more heavily than the outcome.

That policy would end up in more dead innocents at the hand of drunks that should have been in jail.

[Robs House]

39 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That policy would end up in more dead innocents at the hand of drunks that should have been in jail.

 

I doubt it. Nobody thinks they're going to kill someone when they get behind the wheel. 

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a slap on the wrist, but I am suggesting it's a far cry from cold blooded murder.

[4merper4mer]

24 minutes ago, Robs House said:

 

I doubt it. Nobody thinks they're going to kill someone when they get behind the wheel. 

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a slap on the wrist, but I am suggesting it's a far cry from cold blooded murder.

So letting Ruggs and other drunks walk more easily due to lack of intent wouldn't result in them driving drunk again?  Shirley you can’t be serious.  I know they won’t drive drunk in jail.  I also think the possibility of jail time has prevented some drunks from getting behind a wheel….not all but some.

[Robs House]

7 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

So letting Ruggs and other drunks walk more easily due to lack of intent wouldn't result in them driving drunk again?  Shirley you can’t be serious.  I know they won’t drive drunk in jail.  I also think the possibility of jail time has prevented some drunks from getting behind a wheel….not all but some.

 

I don't have the stats on this, but I'm guessing the number of drunk driving fatalities caused by people who previously caused a drunk driving fatality are pretty slim.

 

People are deterred by the fear of getting a DUI, but virtually no one thinks to themselves that they might kill someone but if so they probably won't do much time, so screw it. They don't think it's going to happen. 

 

The difference is they actually think they may get the DUI. If they thought there was a serious risk of death they wouldn't do it in the first place.

 

On a side note, I think his speed in that situation is far more aggravating than his BAC.

[4merper4mer]

10 minutes ago, Robs House said:

 

I don't have the stats on this, but I'm guessing the number of drunk driving fatalities caused by people who previously caused a drunk driving fatality are pretty slim.

 

People are deterred by the fear of getting a DUI, but virtually no one thinks to themselves that they might kill someone but if so they probably won't do much time, so screw it. They don't think it's going to happen. 

 

The difference is they actually think they may get the DUI. If they thought there was a serious risk of death they wouldn't do it in the first place.

 

On a side note, I think his speed in that situation is far more aggravating than his BAC.

Dude

[Robs House]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Dude

 

I'm just saying, I can understand someone having too much to drink and thinking they were fine and driving home. I'm not advocating for it, but I understand. I don't understand how you go that fast in that area without realizing the danger.

[4merper4mer]

22 minutes ago, Robs House said:

 

I'm just saying, I can understand someone having too much to drink and thinking they were fine and driving home. I'm not advocating for it, but I understand. I don't understand how you go that fast in that area without realizing the danger.

Because you’re drunk and have lost a measure of judgement?

[KD in CA]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Because you’re drunk and have lost a measure of judgement?

 

I've literally never been that drunk....or if I have been, I've been passed out on the floor somewhere.

 

If you're driving 156 mph anywhere other than a race track, the overwhelming influence is arrogance.

[Joe]

7 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

I've literally never been that drunk....or if I have been, I've been passed out on the floor somewhere.

 

If you're driving 156 mph anywhere other than a race track, the overwhelming influence is arrogance.

I'd say the alcohol doesn't help

[IDBillzFan]

13 hours ago, KD in CA said:

If you're driving 156 mph anywhere other than a race track, the overwhelming influence is arrogance.

 

A few years ago I got to drive a Ferrari on a racetrack outside of Vegas. Got up to about 130. Hair was on fire. The strength and power is absolutely exhilarating and enticing, but thinking you can do that on a public road is on par with somehow thinking you and the stripper -- taking your sixth 20-dollar bill -- can really make it work outside the walls of the club.

[LB3]

7 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

A few years ago I got to drive a Ferrari on a racetrack outside of Vegas. Got up to about 130. Hair was on fire. The strength and power is absolutely exhilarating and enticing, but thinking you can do that on a public road is on par with somehow thinking you and the stripper -- taking your sixth 20-dollar bill -- can really make it work outside the walls of the club.

Did you just plan on ruining hopes and dreams today?

[Seasons1992]

14 hours ago, KD in CA said:

If you're driving 156 mph anywhere other than a race track, the overwhelming influence is arrogance.

 

[Alaska Darin]

15 hours ago, Robs House said:

 

I'm just saying, I can understand someone having too much to drink and thinking they were fine and driving home. I'm not advocating for it, but I understand. I don't understand how you go that fast in that area without realizing the danger.

Dude was going ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX MILES per hour.  ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX.   You know who drives 156 MPH in public?  Literally no one.  You know who else doesn't drive that way?  Someone driving at twice the legal limit for the very first time.  I'd bet a lot of money that dude has driven drunk hundreds of times.

 

A completely INNOCENT woman died in literally the worst way a human can go.  She BURNED to DEATH because of Henry Ruggs.

 

There is no rationale argument that can be made that he deserves an ounce of leniency.  The consequences of your actions are ALWAYS a factor, even if "other people do it too."

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

19 hours ago, Robs House said:

I get the emotional reaction, but I don't like judging someone on outcome. If Ruggs does the exact same thing and no one gets hurt people would still want him punished for acting recklessly and putting people in danger, but no one would want him locked away for decades. 

 

I think the better approach is a dispassionate analysis weighing the act and intent more heavily than the outcome.

I disagree strongly.

 

The act itself doesn’t even matter unless someone gets hurt. It’s pretty much a victimless crime.

 

When it matters is when someone else does get hurt, at which point it becomes wilful and inexcusable reckless behaviour which causes injury to, or in this case the death of, another person.

 

Also, the legal system doesn’t equate it with “cold blooded murder”, which you know as a lawyer.

 

The charges won’t include homicide 1.

 

The should, however, ask for the maximum given the circumstances of the case:

 

The rate of speed involved (over 150 mph).

 

The fact that he was at twice the legal limit.

 

The fact that he was provided a free driver service which he chose not to use.

 

The fact that he has ample resources to provide for his own alternative transportation.

 

He had more resources at his disposal than the average person in order to avoid the situation entirely; that he chose not to avail himself of them, and wound up killing another human as a result is detestable.

 

There’s no reason to be dispassionate about it, because it was so senseless.

 

At least with “cold blooded murder” in most cases there’s some sort of motive you can tie everything back to.

[Nanker]

The wrong person died in that crash. That’s all I’ve got to say. Except that I did do 105 briefly on my Kawasaki 500. Very briefly… on an open road and it was flat. 

[Robs House]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker 2.0 said:

I disagree strongly.

 

The act itself doesn’t even matter unless someone gets hurt. It’s pretty much a victimless crime.

 

When it matters is when someone else does get hurt, at which point it becomes wilful and inexcusable reckless behaviour which causes injury to, or in this case the death of, another person.

 

Also, the legal system doesn’t equate it with “cold blooded murder”, which you know as a lawyer.

 

The charges won’t include homicide 1.

 

The should, however, ask for the maximum given the circumstances of the case:

 

The rate of speed involved (over 150 mph).

 

The fact that he was at twice the legal limit.

 

The fact that he was provided a free driver service which he chose not to use.

 

The fact that he has ample resources to provide for his own alternative transportation.

 

He had more resources at his disposal than the average person in order to avoid the situation entirely; that he chose not to avail himself of them, and wound up killing another human as a result is detestable.

 

There’s no reason to be dispassionate about it, because it was so senseless.

 

At least with “cold blooded murder” in most cases there’s some sort of motive you can tie everything back to.

 

I'm not saying that the consequence is irrelevant, but when it comes to judging others, and particularly when it's for the purpose of intentionally inflicting harm for retributive vengeance, I personally give more weight to the intentions and specific actions of the person, and less weight to matters of chance.

 

Are the actions of one who drives through a wall of a house that happens to be occupied and causing death somehow more morally culpable than that of one who does the exact same thing but by dumb luck hits when the house is empty?

 

Is the guy who points a loaded gun at your head and pulls the &#%$ing trigger until it goes click somehow less morally culpable if the gun incidentally misfires?

 

I understand the emotional distinction, but I don't see a meaningful distinction when it comes to judging that person's soul.

[Figster]

16 minutes ago, Robs House said:

 

I'm not saying that the consequence is irrelevant, but when it comes to judging others, and particularly when it's for the purpose of intentionally inflicting harm for retributive vengeance, I personally give more weight to the intentions and specific actions of the person, and less weight to matters of chance.

 

Are the actions of one who drives through a wall of a house that happens to be occupied and causing death somehow more morally culpable than that of one who does the exact same thing but by dumb luck hits when the house is empty?

 

Is the guy who points a loaded gun at your head and pulls the &#%$ing trigger until it goes click somehow less morally culpable if the gun incidentally misfires?

 

I understand the emotional distinction, but I don't see a meaningful distinction when it comes to judging that person's soul.

It doesn't take a very high speed to kill someone while driving under the influence. Something many of us are guilty of at some point in our lives. So no, I don't judge Ruggs soul and think he belongs in hell for his actions.  

[Arm of Harm]

On 11/4/2021 at 7:42 PM, Robs House said:

I get the emotional reaction, but I don't like judging someone on outcome. If Ruggs does the exact same thing and no one gets hurt people would still want him punished for acting recklessly and putting people in danger, but no one would want him locked away for decades. 

 

I think the better approach is a dispassionate analysis weighing the act and intent more heavily than the outcome.

I hear what you’re saying. You have a strong argument, and part of me agrees with you.

 

But actions have consequences. Imagine three men who do what Ruggs did. One makes it home safely. Another kills an innocent person while himself surviving. The third dies in a car wreck. Is it fair that the first guy had no consequences while the third paid with his life? 
 

What about the second guy, the one who killed someone? I’d argue that the consequences of his action are even worse than the third guy’s. Should he have an outcome similar to the first guy’s? 

[TakeYouToTasker 2.0]

4 hours ago, Robs House said:

 

I'm not saying that the consequence is irrelevant, but when it comes to judging others, and particularly when it's for the purpose of intentionally inflicting harm for retributive vengeance, I personally give more weight to the intentions and specific actions of the person, and less weight to matters of chance.

 

Are the actions of one who drives through a wall of a house that happens to be occupied and causing death somehow more morally culpable than that of one who does the exact same thing but by dumb luck hits when the house is empty?

 

Is the guy who points a loaded gun at your head and pulls the &#%$ing trigger until it goes click somehow less morally culpable if the gun incidentally misfires?

 

I understand the emotional distinction, but I don't see a meaningful distinction when it comes to judging that person's soul.

I make no judgment of his soul. That’s not my province.

 

Not I, nor anyone else, are in any position to take weight on that particular scale.

 

I make judgement of his actions, and of his character.

 

And while no one has the authority to judge him for eternity, we certainly can judge whether or not he’s fit to walk among the rest of us for a period of time while he’s within his mortal coil.

[Ninety-4]

Some states have vehicular homicide laws.  Don't know about NV, but I would imagine all have some version of it or something like manslaughter or more serious applies.