Brigham woman will serve up to 5 years for killing husband

Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2006-11-22 15:28

Story here.

Initially charged with first-degree felony murder she pleaded guilty in September to second-degree felony manslaughter. Is it just me, or did she almost get away with murder (5 years?)

"Her attorney, Ronald Nichols, urged the judge to be lenient because Vickie Ruiz was under the impression that the .22-caliber handgun could not kill a person."

"She blamed alcohol for her rash actions, but then continued to party with friends, including a boyfriend, and seemed overly interested in how much insurance money she would get, her daughter told the judge. "To this day, she is still causing heartache and distress," Sherry Ruiz said."

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I really don't give a crap what that woman claimed about not knowing that the handgun could kill some one. EVERYONE who knows what a handgun is (which is pretty much everyone who does not live in a tribe in a jungle somewhere) knows that guns are designed to kill. That judge obviously was grasping at straws to let this woman off the hook. Guns kill (it's all over billboards, just take a drive down the highway). I'd love to know where she shot him. I'd bet head. I highly doubt it was in the arm or other fleshy part where she just happened to hit an artery and he bled to death.

What kind of BS sentence is that?? Even the judge blamed the victim!

How is it that every single person involved with the deceased (victim's daughters and family) tells long tales of horror about this murderous woman going back up to 5 years before she killed him and for months after she killed him and begs for a long sentence and yet the judge practically lets her off the hook?

I am guessing here, that she was out on bond prior to trial, but how exactly was she allowed to drink and party months after she murdered her husband? Shouldn't there have been restrictions on her during that time? Not to mention the daughters claim she was allowed to bring misery and heartache on the family. Shouldn't there have been orders of protection for them? Well, I guess the only shred of good about the pre-trial period is that her lawyer won't be able to ask for time served credits to cover that up to 5 year sentence she got.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Paragon on Wed, 2006-11-22 22:58

I don't even know what to say. I don't understand how someone could be so blatantly biased, yet there it is, right in front of me...

I'm going to sleep, maybe after I get some rest I'll be able to make sense of this. I doubt it, though.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bryanh on Thu, 2006-11-23 06:49

That is, the mentally retarded do not get leniency in murder cases, but stupidity..well, that's different.

I can visualize the scenario (i.e. the defense) given in the article, of being used hundreds of times a year by lawyers for murderers, armed robbers, and others. Whatever happened to the idea of "creating a dangerous precedent"? I guess this is just another principle of justice that goes out the window, when a woman criminal is involved.

-Axolotl

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Sun, 2006-11-26 03:47

You're absolutely right! She may have just spawned the "I didn't know guns could kill" defense.

Stupid is as stupid does

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Paragon on Sun, 2006-11-26 17:52