Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Henry Ruggs involved in fatal DUI


runthepost
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't like huge life changing punishments for something that was not intentional.  One night of stupidity is not the same thing as having bad intentions.  I assume that he is extremely remorseful.  

 

If he has a problem and he's a continuing risk to society because of it, I get it, but a 22 year old often simply makes a one-off bad decision. 

 

RIP to the victim and prayers for the family, and to Ruggs and his family as well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't like huge life changing punishments for something that was not intentional.  One night of stupidity is not the same thing as having bad intentions.  I assume that he is extremely remorseful.  

 

If he has a problem and he's a continuing risk to society because of it, I get it, but a 22 year old often simply makes a one-off bad decision. 

 

RIP to the victim and prayers for the family, and to Ruggs and his family as well.

Would you say the same if your son or daughter were the victims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

Would you say the same if your son or daughter were the victims?

Yes.  I don't know the facts of the situation, but the fact don't change simply because I'm now the parent.  

 

No, I do not think the young man should have his life destroyed because of an accident that took my child's life.  But, I would have to see what was in his heart first.

 

I know several parents who had a severely injured child to an accident and they don't seek vengeance on the perp.  Drinking first doesn't really change that for me either.  Just the way I see it.  Punishment, yes, Pay restitution in what even form that means, yes.  Life or career destroyed, no.  That's the meaning of the word, accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  I don't know the facts of the situation, but the fact don't change simply because I'm now the parent.  

 

No, I do not think the young man should have his life destroyed because of an accident that took my child's life.  But, I would have to see what was in his heart first.

 

I know several parents who had a severely injured child to an accident and they don't seek vengeance on the perp.  Drinking first doesn't really change that for me either.  Just the way I see it.  Punishment, yes, Pay restitution in what even form that means, yes.  Life or career destroyed, no.  That's the meaning of the word, accident.

 

Are you suggesting that drinking and driving is fine? Or that it shouldn't weigh into the punishment?

 

Accident is a malleable term, there are true accidents without blame, but also 'accidents' where personal/organisational choices contributed. This would sadly seem to be very much the latter and there has be consequence to those actions. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Are you suggesting that drinking and driving is fine? Or that it shouldn't weigh into the punishment?

 

Accident is a malleable term, there are true accidents without blame, but also 'accidents' where personal/organisational choices contributed. This would sadly seem to be very much the latter and there has be consequence to those actions. 

I'm just focusing on the narrow issue of intent.  I mean, if he's too drunk to drive correctly, why does he get punished for choosing to drive...wouldn't he also be too drunk to think correctly?

 

Judicial system sorts out intent.  The act of killing ranges from Murder 1 capital offense, murder 2....manslaughter...involuntary manslaughter, reckless indifference, etc. ....self defense....all have different degrees of punishment based upon the intent.

 

To the big one, wearing the uniform of your country and killing a person in the enemy's uniform is not punished, but encouraged.

 

Its the same act, killing another, all punished differently based upon the attempt to look at intent.  

 

That's all I was doing.  Not try to make a social statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

I don't like huge life changing punishments for something that was not intentional.  One night of stupidity is not the same thing as having bad intentions.  I assume that he is extremely remorseful.  

 

If he has a problem and he's a continuing risk to society because of it, I get it, but a 22 year old often simply makes a one-off bad decision. 

 

RIP to the victim and prayers for the family, and to Ruggs and his family as well.

You have some strange takes lol. If heavy punishment didn't come down on things like this just because it was an "accident" then you would be hearing about things like this a lot more. He didn't accidentally get drunk, he didn't accidentally get behind the wheel. Those are choices you have to live with. He killed someone he should lose his job and go to jail. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm just focusing on the narrow issue of intent.  I mean, if he's too drunk to drive correctly, why does he get punished for choosing to drive...wouldn't he also be too drunk to think correctly?

 

It's not a binary state. I've been drunk enough plenty times where physical coordination has become a foreign concept, but I still don't lose all sense of what is right/wrong. Responsible adults who know they're going to drink just don't put themselves in the position of even considering driving. By your stance, being drunk could be used as diminished responsibility for all actions. 

 

Well ahead of things, and this needs to play out, but while there should be a chance for rehabilitation he still has to serve the punishment.

 

Career wise, it's up to teams to whether they think his talent (probably a few years down the road now) is worth the heat they might get for picking him up. A lot of that heat will depend on how much remorse he's seen to show. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

It's not a binary state. I've been drunk enough plenty times where physical coordination has become a foreign concept, but I still don't lose all sense of what is right/wrong. Responsible adults who know they're going to drink just don't put themselves in the position of even considering driving. By your stance, being drunk could be used as diminished responsibility for all actions.  Responsible adults who know they're going to drink just don't put themselves in the position of even considering driving. By your stance, being drunk could be used as diminished responsibility for all actions. 

 I think the lack of motor control goes hand in hand with the lack of processing thought.  Yeah, I can know right from wrong, but the significance of the situation goes away as much as I can still walk down the street and start and steer the car but somehow not always know when to brake.  

 

Impairment is the inability to make good decisions...like when to brake.....step into a car.....or even leave the house to walk to the car.  Its all a function of the same impairment.   Seems like the system is picking a point in the middle of the chain to punish.  JMO.  The sober decision to get impaired by yourself seems like the real crime here. 

 

Maybe the law should be that you're not allowed to get yourself impaired except under the presence of a sober person, the same concept as having a designated driver.

 

Anyway, I just think that a person making bad decisions when impaired is not the same thing as making evil decisions when sober.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IndySouthsider said:

Dude was going a 156mph. 
 

@DougDewYou could not be more wrong. His life should be ruined. He ruined someone else’s.

Like I said, when the facts come out, we'll see where his mind was.  But, I'm also not going to follow the case so I'll probably never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruggs deserves whatever punishment he gets. He was driving 156 miles an hour, had alcohol content of twice Nevada's legal limit and a loaded handgun was found in the car. No sympathy if his life or career is ruined. The victim has lost her life because of Ruggs' recklessness. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

I'm just focusing on the narrow issue of intent.  I mean, if he's too drunk to drive correctly, why does he get punished for choosing to drive...wouldn't he also be too drunk to think correctly?

 

Judicial system sorts out intent.  The act of killing ranges from Murder 1 capital offense, murder 2....manslaughter...involuntary manslaughter, reckless indifference, etc. ....self defense....all have different degrees of punishment based upon the intent.

 

To the big one, wearing the uniform of your country and killing a person in the enemy's uniform is not punished, but encouraged.

 

Its the same act, killing another, all punished differently based upon the attempt to look at intent.  

 

That's all I was doing.  Not try to make a social statement.

 

This actually is one of the best "intended" philosophical viewpoints I have come across lately and it is refreshing. Kudos.

 

Sadly, it's intent will fall on a lot of deaf ears. The emotion will outweigh the reason and reason will be viewed as ignorant or an  heartless intent by many. This is sadly what our society has become, where without blame there isn't any closure and that compounded with the details of the accident itself, dictate the magnitude in which the "emotional blame" net is cast and how far it extends.

 

An accident, by definition ALWAYS carries zero intent. Carrying words such as unexpected or unforeseen should give clue. It is why there are so many ways to assess the outcome once the accident occurs. You're real intent here before casting stones towards Ruggs or the hypothetical situation involving your own inner circles seems to suggest wanting to see where Ruggs emotional view of this accident will fall ultimately allowing Ruggs to decide which side his fate will land within, meaning you reserve emotion disguised as judgement and refuse to fall prey to the magnitude until Ruggs reveals his emotion to you. Ruggs emotion will reveal his intent, which of course was always zero to begin with. Ruggs's emotional state that will ultimately choose which side he lands on is his intent moving forward once this accident has been put behind him. This process separates the judge from the mob.  

 

The ones who chastise this are the mob, those who jump without caution by failing to see the intent of your proclamation and try to associate the proclamation onto one side or another right away, where the proclamation isn't intended to pit a side in origin but present itself on a case by case basis by reserving the emotion. It's a third level of consciousness that is rare in our society. A true judgement is the third level faced with two sides. 

 

To me, it's similar to the "gambler" doctrine. Within the third consciousness one realizes that gambling is a disease, Period as an accident is an accident, Period. However within the emotional framework of human society the magnitude of the emotion dictates that fact. If you win, you are heralded. The more you win the greater the magnitude of emotional heralding you receive and if you lose you are chastised and the same rules apply within the emotional magnitude based on the amount of losses, yet gambling still remains a disease, Period as an accident remains an accident, Period regardless of whether you are heralded or chastised and at what magnitude. 

 

**P.S. for those who cannot articulate what I have written here, I'm indifferent to the Ruggs situation and could care less (have no opinion on the matter) either way and I am certainly no judge, (or am I), so do not go lumping me onto some emotional side to make yourself sanctimoniously feel better in doing so.

 

-Peace

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Indeee said:

This actually is one of the best "intended" philosophical viewpoints I have come across lately and it is refreshing. Kudos.

 

Sadly, it's intent will fall on a lot of deaf ears. The emotion will outweigh the reason and reason will be viewed as ignorant or an  heartless intent by many. This is sadly what our society has become, where without blame there isn't any closure and that compounded with the details of the accident itself, dictate the magnitude in which the "emotional blame" net is cast and how far it extends.

 

An accident, by definition ALWAYS carries zero intent. Carrying words such as unexpected or unforeseen should give clue. It is why there are so many ways to assess the outcome once the accident occurs. You're real intent here before casting stones towards Ruggs or the hypothetical situation involving your own inner circles seems to suggest wanting to see where Ruggs emotional view of this accident will fall ultimately allowing Ruggs to decide which side his fate will land within, meaning you reserve emotion disguised as judgement and refuse to fall prey to the magnitude until Ruggs reveals his emotion to you. Ruggs emotion will reveal his intent, which of course was always zero to begin with. Ruggs's emotional state that will ultimately choose which side he lands on is his intent moving forward once this accident has been put behind him. This process separates the judge from the mob.  

 

The ones who chastise this are the mob, those who jump without caution by failing to see the intent of your proclamation and try to associate the proclamation onto one side or another right away, where the proclamation isn't intended to pit a side in origin but present itself on a case by case basis by reserving the emotion. It's a third level of consciousness that is rare in our society. A true judgement is the third level faced with two sides. 

 

To me, it's similar to the "gambler" doctrine. Within the third consciousness one realizes that gambling is a disease, Period as an accident is an accident, Period. However within the emotional framework of human society the magnitude of the emotion dictates that fact. If you win, you are heralded. The more you win the greater the magnitude of emotional heralding you receive and if you lose you are chastised and the same rules apply within the emotional magnitude based on the amount of losses, yet gambling still remains a disease, Period as an accident remains an accident, Period regardless of whether you are heralded or chastised and at what magnitude. 

 

**P.S. for those who cannot articulate what I have written here, I'm indifferent to the Ruggs situation and could care less (have no opinion on the matter) either way and I am certainly no judge, (or am I), so do not go lumping me onto some emotional side to make yourself sanctimoniously feel better in doing so.

 

-Peace

 

 

 

 

Too deep for my brain, LOL.

 

Hopefully I can comment in a reasonable way. 

 

Intent should have a lot to do with the degree of punishment IMO. Also though, what if he has driven drunk multiple times, or drove recklessly multiple times, and has been counseled repeatedly that he is playing with fire and that something bad is bound to happen if he doesn't stop.

 

While, technically, the narrow definition of intent hasn't changed, do you punish someone for not listening to others' good judgment?  I think you do, but I don't know what the charge is and how it moves the needle along the punishment scale. 

 

Lots of stuff to sort out here.  We can surmise what he was doing driving 156 mph in a city street, but until I get evidence that he is truly a bad or troubled person at his soul, I feel empathy towards him as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Too deep for my brain, LOL.

 

Hopefully I can comment in a reasonable way. 

 

Intent should have a lot to do with the degree of punishment IMO. Also though, what if he has driven drunk multiple times, or drove recklessly multiple times, and has been counseled repeatedly that he is playing with fire and that something bad is bound to happen if he doesn't stop.

 

While, technically, the narrow definition of intent hasn't changed, do you punish someone for not listening to others' good judgment?  I think you do, but I don't know what the charge is and how it moves the needle along the punishment scale. 

 

Lots of stuff to sort out here.  We can surmise what he was doing driving 156 mph in a city street, but until I get evidence that he is truly a bad or troubled person at his soul, I feel empathy towards him as well.

 

Intent does render punishment degree after motive is determined, however in this case it doesn't apply unless Ruggs comes out and blatantly states that he intended to drive fast wanting to kill someone and their pet. Does not matter about the facts/details. All the facts/details will do is increase or decrease the magnitude of emotional response this accident will render and that response will be in the public opinion.

 

Countless mistakes only matter when applied to past moments of emotional clarity offered from said "repeat offender". Meaning that IF Ruggs, as I am not privy to his personal life history, and am only using a hypothetical situation to aid illustration, has shown a history of "remorse" over multiple times after multiple accidents and the same accidental outcomes continue to occur (habitual) then it would be deemed that said remorse in each aftermath judgement sentencing has been "lip service" to lessen the fate and in this moment a harsher fate would be/might be laid out based on said defendants blatant intent to deceive the court. <This still does not affect the origin of the court appearance. ALL accidents are void of intent, regardless of how many opportunities a defendant has had to change their course of decision making before the accident/s occur. 

 

Ha!! Look... it might be over your head but if you actually slow yourself down and seriously think about it rationally, your first instinct had you in a very rare light regardless of whether you knew you were there or not. In order to understand the true sequence you must be able to separate all the moving parts and classify them appropriately. 

 

The old saying "devil is in the details" in truth means that where those details are interesting and paints the entire picture, those details take away from the impartial judgement, i.e. the devil will trick you with all that glitters drawing one's attention towards an emotional response and not a fate based sentencing on indifference. The directive being impartial judgement and adequate fate aimed at motive, in the case of true intent or remorse (or lack thereof) in the case of an accident which is always found out along a straight line, point A to B, eye to eye. 

 

-Peace

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Intent does render punishment degree after motive is determined, however in this case it doesn't apply unless Ruggs comes out and blatantly states that he intended to drive fast wanting to kill someone and their pet. Does not matter about the facts/details. All the facts/details will do is increase or decrease the magnitude of emotional response this accident will render and that response will be in the public opinion.

 

Countless mistakes only matter when applied to past moments of emotional clarity offered from said "repeat offender". Meaning that IF Ruggs, as I am not privy to his personal life history, and am only using a hypothetical situation to aid illustration, has shown a history of "remorse" over multiple times after multiple accidents and the same accidental outcomes continue to occur (habitual) then it would be deemed that said remorse in each aftermath judgement sentencing has been "lip service" to lessen the fate and in this moment a harsher fate would be/might be laid out based on said defendants blatant intent to deceive the court. <This still does not affect the origin of the court appearance. ALL accidents are void of intent, regardless of how many opportunities a defendant has had to change their course of decision making before the accident/s occur. 

 

Ha!! Look... it might be over your head but if you actually slow yourself down and seriously think about it rationally, your first instinct had you in a very rare light regardless of whether you knew you were there or not. In order to understand the true sequence you must be able to separate all the moving parts and classify them appropriately. 

 

The old saying "devil is in the details" in truth means that where those details are interesting and paints the entire picture, those details take away from the impartial judgement, i.e. the devil will trick you with all that glitters drawing one's attention towards an emotional response and not a fate based sentencing on indifference. The directive being impartial judgement and adequate fate aimed at motive, in the case of true intent or remorse (or lack thereof) in the case of an accident which is always found out along a straight line, point A to B, eye to eye. 

 

-Peace

 

 

 

 

Lack of intent doesn't equal lack of accountability.    He needs to, and will be , held accountable.    

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Shive locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...