Henry Ruggs, former Raiders first-round pick, apologizes to family of woman he killed in 2021 car crash
Ruggs made those comments while attending Hope for Prisoners, which aims to help formerly incarcerated individuals adjust after leaving prison. In a video from the event, Ruggs apologized to Tina Tintor's family and said he felt bad the family has to be reminded of the crash every time Ruggs is in the news, per the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
"I wish I could turn back the hands of time. I would love for them to meet the real Henry Ruggs and not the one that was escaping from something. I sincerely apologize for not only being a part of that situation, but the fact that ... my face is always in the news. My face is always in the newspaper. So, they have to constantly be reminded of the situation. Be reminded of me. Those memories have to continue to rise because of all of the fame and notoriety that I have.
"I would just tell them that I deeply apologize for just being a part of that. And I wish that they could meet the real Henry Ruggs and not the one who was just running away from everything."
Advertisement
Ruggs, now 26, was arrested in 2021 after being involved in a fatal car crash. Ruggs was reportedly going 156 mph when his car crashed into Tintor's car, killing her and her dog. Tintor was 23. Ruggs posted a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit and was charged with DUI resulting in death.
In 2023, Ruggs accepted a plea deal and received three to 10 years in prison. After receiving his sentence, Ruggs apologized to Tintor's family, saying, "My actions are not a true reflection of me."
The crash came in the middle of Ruggs' second season with the Raiders. Ruggs, a first-round pick by the team in the 2020 NFL Draft, played in 20 games in the league, catching 50 passes for 921 yards and 4 touchdowns. He was released by the Raiders shortly after the crash.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
And Now It's The Wall Street Journal's Turn To Tango With Trump
When, oh when, will Americans realize we are descending into dictatorship? President Donald Trump has already silenced ABC, CBS, and Facebook, extorting millions of dollars from them for offending him. The job was done using bogus lawsuits and the power of the presidency. And now it's the turn of The Wall Street Journal. Trump is suing the newspaper owned by his sometime supporter Rupert Murdoch. The Wall Street Journal had the effrontery to publish a piece painful to Trump—painful because the truth hurts. The truth works like water on a witch. People have been pouring it over Trump for years, but tragically he is still president. This truth though may be different. It involves Jeffrey Epstein, the hyperfixation of Trump's hardcore adherents. The Journal reported on a gutsy and grotesque birthday greeting it claims Trump sent to Epstein showing his signature on the part of a woman's body that Trump in the past boasted he could grab any time he liked. President Donald Trump answers questions while departing the White House with first lady Melania Trump on July 11, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump answers questions while departing the White House with first lady Melania Trump on July 11, 2025, in Washington, is suing the Journal for $10 billion. He claims the card is just fake news and that the venerable conservative newspaper is a worthless rag. Will his supporters stomach this too? More important, will the Journal fall by the wayside with the rest of them and payoff Trump? That depends. The two things are linked. So long as Trump has an army of angry supporters to unleash on the media and Congress, he has a lot of leverage. Trump can threaten members of Congress with campaigns to oust them from office. Trump can threaten the media by denying them things they need from the government. Some of them, like PBS, get money. Trump has now punished it by cutting its federal funding. Others need permission to do things. That's how Trump got at CBS, holding FCC approval of a license transfer over its head until it coughed up $16 million. CBS even sweetened it by conveniently timing the cancellation of the most popular but unprofitable star in late night TV—Stephen Colbert. So, what does Rupert Murdoch have that Trump could threaten? Fox News perhaps? Not so simple. Unlike ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, Fox News does not broadcast its programs over the air. It distributes its content solely over a cable network. This means it doesn't need a license from the FCC. No leverage there. And he can hardly tell his adherents to stop watching Fox News. It's being absurdly slavish. While other traditional news outlets and MAGA podcasters have lashed Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for not releasing the Epstein files, Fox hasn't. When it wasn't publishing stories about savage attacks by immigrants and squirrels, Fox was announcing that Trump was ordering Bondi to seek court permission to release the "pertinent" grand jury files from the Epstein prosecution. Fox didn't dwell on the fact that the grand jury files only reflect what the Justice Department submitted to the grand jury rather than the documents the Justice Department has in its possession. It didn't make anything either of the slippery use of the word "pertinent." Once again, Trump and his minions are obviously camouflaging the real files by talking solely about "incriminating" client lists and "pertinent" grand jury records. Fortunately for Trump, Fox doesn't care. So what else is there? Maybe those who listen slavishly to Trump and read The Wall Street Journal will stop—all 12 of them. Or maybe Trump will use or threaten to use the Justice Department to investigate Murdoch's business dealings for potential crimes. This one's a real possibility. As Stalin stooge Lavrentiy Beria famously said: "Show me the man, and I will show you the crime." Stalin, by the way was a real dictator. He could shut anybody up and wasn't shy about it. He used the gulag or the garrote. Trump is using the government against others, and he can use it against Fox. Clearly, he hasn't been shy about it. Consider, for instance, the Justice Department investigation of New York Attorney General Letitia James for supposedly lying on a mortgage application. So, Murdoch will probably join the others in kowtowing to the commander-in-chief. His only hope—and ours—is that Americans will now recover their spines and demand that it stops. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Morgan Stanley Faces Finra Probe on Client-Vetting, WSJ Says
Morgan Stanley is being probed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority over its vetting of clients for risk of money laundering, the Wall Street Journal reported. The scrutiny focuses on the US bank's clients, risk ranking and other practices from Oct. 2021 through Sept. 2004, the report said, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter. Morgan Stanley is already facing potential fines from federal investigations into its anti-money laundering practices, the report said.
The Hill
20 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's WSJ lawsuit is as dangerous as it is unprecedented
President Trump made history on Friday when he became the first president to sue a newspaper for an article that exposed something he did not want brought to light. In so doing, he again used the Oval Office as a platform to settle scores and to carry out a personal vendetta rather than to serve the public interest. Trump's unprecedented step came in the context of his heightened sensitivity about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous deceased child sexual abuser. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal triggered the suit when it published an article that claimed Trump had sent Epstein a 'lewd' birthday card in 2003 when the latter turned 50 years old. Trump reacted almost immediately, filing suit the next day seeking $10 billion in damages. But he has his eyes on something even bigger than that suit — namely the possibility of weakening the Constitution's protection of press freedom. His lawsuit alleges that the Journal's article was an attempt to 'inextricably link President Trump to Epstein' and that the Journal 'falsely claim[ed] that the salacious language of the letter is contained within a hand-drawn naked woman, which was created with a heavy marker.' The president claims that the newspaper 'failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.' His lawsuit charges that with 'malicious intent … Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.' Those allegations tee up the constitutional battle that the president wants to wage. Trump's suit against the Journal has already reaped benefits, redirecting Epstein-related ire from the MAGA base away from him. His supporters now have a familiar target: the press and its alleged persecution of the president. In addition, it is an important step in Trump's long-running desire to get the United States Supreme Court to reverse decades of precedent and make it easier for public figures to win libel and defamation suits against newspapers and other media outlets. Like other strongman leaders, if he can't control the media directly, he wants to coerce and intimidate it. Relaxing its legal protection is one way to accomplish that goal. In the 2016 campaign, Trump promised: 'One of the things I'm going to do if I win, I'm going to open up our libel law so when they (the press) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.' He has failed so far to deliver on that promise. But as we know, he is not easily dissuaded. Newspapers, radio or television stations that have the audacity not to do the president's bidding must be made to pay a price, with the hope that others will seek to avoid that fate by censoring themselves. Trump's quick and unprecedented resort to the courts sends a clear message to any media outlet that crosses him. He may be feeling good, but the rest of us should not be. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786: 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.' He went on to note that 'To the sacrifice, of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation. And all this is preferable to European bondage. ' Almost 200 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black reiterated Jefferson's sentiment. 'The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy,' he explained. 'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.' Turmp wants exactly the opposite. Seven years before Black wrote those lines, the Supreme Court, in another classic defense of press freedom, made it very hard for public figures to win defamation suits against news outlets of the kind Trump filed on Friday. 'To sustain a claim of defamation or libel,' the court said, 'the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.' Justice William Brennan explained that America's 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' meant 'that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' Echoing Jefferson, he added, 'Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.' Since 1964, public figures have found it nearly impossible to succeed in cases like the one Trump filed on Friday. Whether he or the Journal loses in the lower courts, the president may be hoping that his case will make its way to the Supreme Court so it can again come to his rescue and do his bidding. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already indicated their belief that the court's 1964 decision and its actual malice standard should be overruled. So, keep an eye on what happens to Trump's suit against The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's fate will be important in shaping the fate of the freedom of all Americans.
