Not sure if you guys saw the Derek Carr 20 min presser, but worth the watch. Then saw this Woody with an A+ response
The disturbing thing about Toney's post is that he seems to think that this is merely an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone. Really? Is he suggesting that a lot of players drive around at 156 mph with a .16 BAC? Woody is on the money. I have to wonder if this is the first time Ruggs will be held accountable for his conduct. I don't know if he was a problem child at Alabama or a solid citizen, but we all know that star players at big-time football schools often have boosters and coaches who follow them around and clean up their messes.
I know this when I was in my 20's and 30's I thought I was indestructible and did lots of stupid things. I did not have access to a car that could go 150mph. I can only imagine how it feels to be a super athlete with amazing reflexes. He must have thought there was nothing he could not do. .161 is not a very high reading and one can often function quite well at such a level of intoxication. I don't think this is reflective of Ruggs neccessarily being a bad person but just being stupid which is pretty common for someone in their 20's. But, the result of his reckless actions here is beyond horrible. Regardless it is a horrific tragedy that has killed one person, seriously injured the mother of Rugg's child, likely destroyed Rugg's future and brought untold misery to not only the victims family but to Rugg's family. I feel terrible for everyone here even Rugg's.
Absurd .16 is twice the legal limit. At 200 lbs as Ruggs was that's roughly 9 beers deep according to the scientists. Scientists also say your body can get rid of 1 drink per hour and this reading was 2 hrs after the crash. So essentially he drank a 12 pack of beer and got behind the wheel of his corvette. drink a 12 pack nonstop and tell me you can function quite well...
.16 is not that high. In my experience it is in the .20 and above where there is a problem and generally those are the drivers on the road that are the issue. But, it also depends highly on tolerance. People with alcohol problems can function normally at that level everyday of the week. But, someone who drinks little could havr severe issues. But, I am pretty old school and recall when .12 was the limit and .16 was considered very low. The bigger problem is driving at 150 mph not the .161 but that problem is greatly exacerbated by his intoxication level. While he might be able to function and drive quite normally at 60 mph his reaction time and judgment mistakes will be of a much greater issue at a higher speed.
Think about what you are saying here. A guy went out, slammed into the back of a stationary vehicle at over 150 mph at 3 oclock in the morning and you are saying in "your experience" he wouldn't have been that drunk and the problem was only his speed. Obviously he was wasted drunk or he wouldn't have been driving that fast in the first place
I don't know how alcohol effected him. He was still able to operate a vehicle at 150 mph weave in and out of traffic and react in time to hit his breaks. But, again I was responding to your argument that .161 is an extremely high reading. .161 is not that a high a reading but a pretty average reading for most DUIs and one that is not generally associated with accidents and evidence of bad driving. It greatly depends on indivdual tolerance. But, put someone going 150 mph and reductions in reaction time, focus and judgment make matters a 100 times worse. The speed here is likely the biggest factor in the accident not his level of intoxication. Does that take away from his responsibility or how awful this event was and how many lives have been utterly destroyed. No. It is a tradegy. But, it is also part of parcel of society and being young. Young people do stupid things everyday and take stupid risks. In this case many people will pay for his stupidity and the risk he took with others lives.
There can be a big discrepancy between what a breathalyzer reads and what a blood test shows. Unfortunately I know this from experience when I was a teenager. 0.16 on a blood test is more like a 0.12 on a breathalyzer. Definitely above the legal limit and I'm sure he had a decent buzz. I wouldn't think he was hammered drunk. In any event he should go to jail. Not only was he legally impaired, he was driving like an asshole and killed someone.
1. The reason for the .08% level is that at that level, most people will be sufficiently affected to make it unsafe for them to drive. There is research to support that conclusion. At one time, for example, the legal limit here in New Jersey was .15%. It was later lowered to .10% and now to .08%. The .08% standard is pretty universal now. Of course, different people have different tolerances for alcohol. 2. The two-hour interval between the accident and the blood tests could cut either way. If Ruggs was drinking steadily up until the time he got behind the wheel, his level could have been lower at the time of the crash than at the time of the blood tests (i.e., his level was on the rise between getting behind the wheel and the blood tests). If he had stopped drinking a while before getting behind the wheel, his level could have been higher at the time of the crash than at the time of the blood test (i.e., his level was on the decline). 3. If he was out partying before the accident, I'm sure there will be plenty of cellphone photos and videos showing it, and they'll surface in the next few days.. 4. As for whether he was hammered, he was driving at 156 mph, and news reports indicate he was nasty and belligerent at the scene and in the emergency room and refused to perform field-sobriety tests. 'Nuff said.
Ask and you shall receive. https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/henry-ruggs-filmed-partying-in-las-vegas-before-deadly-crash/ My question for you, and in no way am I doubted you, but how would his BAC ever be higher two hours later if he waited to receive the blood test? He's a dirtbag for sure, but given how guilty he was, he did the right thing in refusing the field sobriety tests from a personal protection standpoint. You have a better chance of being under the legal BAC limit if you defer to the blood test which could be (and usually is) hours away.
Vilma, here's how it works. Blood-alcohol level isn't static. When you drink, your blood-alcohol level rises. At some point it peaks and then declines because the body burns off alcohol at about .015% per hour. When it peaks depends on what you drink and when you drank it. If the defendant drank steadily until he got behind the wheel, it's possible that his level was on the rise and didn't peak until the time of the blood tests. This used to be called the extrapolation defense and was a cottage industry among DWI defense attorneys (and their expert witnesses). Their argument was that even though the level was above .08% at the time the tests, it was really below that level at the time he drove. As for refusing field tests, it's a risky move. In a lot of states, the law permits the judge or jury to infer guilt from the refusal to perform field tests or give breath samples. The idea is that a sober motorist has no reason to refuse but a drunk one does. It's not mandatory, but a fact-finder is permitted to draw that inference.
I'm going to put this out there. Neighborhoods in most places are deserted after midnight, 3 am, whatever. That is not the case in Vegas. I'm not saying Vegas is responsible for the accident but the place has trouble in every corner and promotes a life style that leads to bad decisions. The culture of Vegas will be toxic to many wealthy young players and there will be future tragedies for players there, of one kind or another. Gambling, sex, and potential violence lurk in every shadow. Its a really bad idea for the NFL to have a team there.
I can only imagine the shape he was in after slamming into a car at 150 mph. How can you ask a guy to take a field sobriety test after an impact like that???
Thanks man. That makes sense. Meh. In every NFL market you can find all of those things except on a smaller scale in Buffalo and Green Bay. None of them are exclusive to Vegas. There's tons of mischief that goes on in Manhattan which is a 20 minute ride through the Lincoln Tunnel from MetLife with no traffic. This is a weak take. None of this stuff has been a reported problem with the Vegas Golden Knights or other Raiders players.
if so... well, zero empathy for him tragedy for victims, for him epic irresponsibility... him being belligerent at the scene is in the unforgivable category for me
He burned a 23 year old woman and her dog to death. They're going to throw the book at him. I'll be very surprised if he is out of prison before his 30th birthday.
You can always ask, but I can't imagine the results of those field test would be of much value. The defense would argue that poor performance was the result of shock or head trauma.
you could do a breathalyzer. which you are allowed to refuse. I doubt the cop was asking him to walk straight. I doubt he could even stand up.
What state allows you to refuse breath tests? I believe that Nevada requires a motorist to take the breath tests or face a license suspension.
