This, again, is a pathetically weak straw man. As I have already said quite clearly:
In this situation, the primary fact is that he did make a driving error that caused a serious crash. What we’re discussing is whether the additional fact that he has made prior driving errors that were caused by impairment should contribute to the total known circumstances in order to satisfy the standard of probable cause.
The right to be free from unreasonable searches. 4th amendment, last time I checked.
Ya think?
The paper I read said he crossed a median, and then 2 lanes of oncoming traffic, before going off the road. So what other possibilities are there other than negligence? Some sudden health condition? Mechanical breakdown of the brand new car? Some action by another party?
I know this is obvious, but clearly the issue here is minimising how much other lives are ruined by impaired drivers injuring or killing innocent victims. Most societies have slowly come to realise that is more important. I didn’t realise the US was apparently still so behind on this.
OK, thanks - then my position is that the right to have roads free from impaired drivers over-rides this, and therefore testing any driver involved in an accident is not an “unreasonable search”. For me, past history of the individual doesn’t come into it and doesn’t need to. If you have 10 DUI convictions on your record but were sober this time, no harm no foul. If you have driven for 50 years and never had a drink, but did so this time, you still fucked up and deserve the consequences.
I’m not a lawyer, so if you’re telling me that’s the way things work, I’m not disputing it as a factual matter. But I don’t in any way accept that this is a reasonable conclusion, or a reasonable way to balance the rights of a driver with the rights of other road users. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me that a conviction for DUI should lead to the consequence that if you choose to continue to drive, you are automatically consenting to testing in any future accident, whereas people without such a prior conviction are not.
Again, I’m not suggesting using a prior DUI as evidence. Just as a basis for obtaining evidence, and only in the limited circumstances where a crash has actually occurred.
Well, many states (most?) have implied consent laws that basically say that by accepting a license to drive by the state you have consented to give a breath test when there is probable cause that you have driven while impaired. You could probably draft a law that lowers the standard from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.
This type of accident doesn’t seem consistent with the drugs Tiger has taken in the past. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think that people on drugs like Xanax and Ambien drive at high rate of speeds. And being so early in the morning, it doesn’t seem likely that he was drunk. On the news they said that the hills and curves on this road contribute to a lot of accidents. To me, his accident seems consistent with someone driving too fast and losing control rather than someone driving under the influence. If the officers didn’t smell alcohol or pot in the car, I wouldn’t think they’d have a reason to check for other impairments.
We’re pretty progressive on this one, we’re way further behind on a lot more common sense concepts.
The reports are talking about his legs, but I can’t imagine this was exactly helpful in recovering from back surgery <2 mos ago…
People driving under the influence frequently drive too fast and lose control. But you have the right side of this argument, driving too fast and losing control is not evidence of impairment itself.
Supposing his accident was the result of pain meds, still, fuck that. If someone can’t move without popping a few tranquilizers or whatever, then maybe they shouldn’t be driving, especially when they have all the fucking money in the world to hire a private driver. Hell he could afford a self-driving car.
I used to like Tiger Woods, and I thought he was a feel-good story for sports and our society more broadly, but I’ve kinda lost those warm and fuzzies. He seems like an arrogant ass.
Just so we’re clear here, Woods has never been involved in a accident involving DUI before that we know of. You’ve implied otherwise multiple times.
He was pulled over once while impaired but was not convicted of DUI. As far as the law is concerned, he has no history. And that was in Florida and not California.
Any argument that his prior acts should have factored in here would mean that the police would be basing it on media reports and rumor, not facts of law. Which is a very messy proposition.
He wasn’t sure he could play golf in April. I think he’s pretty damn sure now that he can’t.
Not sure how closely you follow golf, but that has been pretty obvious from day 1.
Tremendous golfer. Miserable human being.
It’s a little odd to accuse me of this just after quoting me quite carefully not saying this, but actually saying:
However,
this much I certainly agree with.
This discussion is partly about the specifics of Woods’ situation, and partly about the general principles involved when someone does have a DUI conviction, and we should be careful not to muddy the two.
CNN was milking this like he was dead. Even sky shots following the wrecked car on its trailer to wherever it was going. An odd scrawl kept saying that the authorities said he was unable to stand on his own. Like they pulled him out through the windshield and tried to see if he could walk it off.
Even a mundane weather forecast is played up like the season finale of a soap opera nowadays.
Aside from hyperventilating media - it actually is possible to lose your life from a broken legs, especially those involving compound fractures, of which he apparently had multiple of. Requiring lengthy surgery, a rod inserted through a bone to stabilize it, and lots of rods and screws and hardware would indicate these were not simple fractures. Requiring surgical release of pressure on muscles and soft tissue indicates a fracture that, untreated, could well result in amputation and even death. Even with successful surgery, there could be permanent damage/weakening/impairment to the limb(s) involved.
I do hope he at a minimum makes sufficient recovery to be able to walk around without pain or impairment. Even better if he can resume his golfing career, but the man has had a buttload of prior surgeries for various injuries and this was a nasty crash so who knows?
The latest picture I saw of the interior of the SUV had blood splashed all over the airbags so it’s entirely possible he had the sort of injuries that are usually survivable these days but very much require medical attention in order to survive.
They also said they didn’t perform a field sobriety test due to the seriousness/extent of the driver’s injuries, prioritizing medical treatment over testing. The first responders on site have said there were no obvious signs of impairment (odor of alcohol, for example).
Or, like I said, the priority was medical treatment over sobriety testing. Or some of both. Although there are some drug tests that would still work this long after the accident medications used in treating injuries and during surgery might confound those.
Apparently, the location he crashed is a location associated with crashes for reasons I’m not entirely clear on. Perhaps some sort of steepness that makes it very easy to build up excessive speed. In other words, you don’t need to be drunk to crash there. Or otherwise impaired.
Would first responders/ER personnel necessarily recognize Tiger Woods? (Actually, one deputy said that after he asked the driver his name and the driver said “Tiger” he said he then recognized Tiger Woods, so maybe. But if Mr. Woods hadn’t said his name maybe the deputy wouldn’t have recognized him.) If the emphasis is on extraction and removal to a hospital, followed by emergency surgery, would anyone necessarily be paying much attention to the person’s ID? Well, OK, I’m sure there is some administrative person/action that will note name and insurance, but the people actually treating him may or may not recognize him or recall his prior DUI records while busy trying to control bleeding, safely extract him from a wreck, or put his legs back together.
Well… yes. But again, if the driver’s injuries are serious they might take priority, especially if there are not obvious signs of a DUI or other impairment.
I don’t suppose it’s news that many nations take impaired driving far more seriously than anywhere in the US does. My preference would be for more stringent enforcement and follow up, but I’m not in charge here.
Unfortunately, we don’t have reliable tests for either distracting emotional states or lack of adequate sleep, either of which can be just as impairing as any chemical.
For the record - yes, he probably should have been tested. I’m sure they drew blood for a variety of reasons, they probably could have used some for drug testing along with a urine sample. It’s just not routine in the US.
Regardless of prior record, I wouldn’t be opposed to such testing for ANY driver, even one with a reputation of being a sober teetotaler, for impairing substances, which include many more things than just alcohol. There are a number of OTC medications that can cause impairment every bit as bad as alcohol and many people are not aware that these medications can do that.
And that is what I meant by mental/emotional states of mind that can contribute to an accident.
If his impatience led him to drive recklessly instead of calling ahead to say too bad, he would be late, then I would also hold him culpable for that and wouldn’t have a problem if charges are brought against him in relation to that.
IANAL but I think in the US it’s a question of whether or not it falls under “unreasonable search and seizure”, which is prohibited, or not.
Um… yes, actually all those alternatives you name are, in fact, possibilities. Some more likely than others.
Maybe not usually, but it is possible. It could also be a contributing factor if they impair reaction time so that in a situation where an unimpaired driver might have maintained/regained control the impaired driver was unable to do so.
If someone is an alcoholic time of day has nothing to do with it.
And the LA County sheriff has even brought this up.
There doesn’t have to be just one cause of this accident - it could be a combination of factors.
That might be brought up should this ever reach a court of law.
However, I feel that first responders were right to prioritize medical treatment over everything else. If I was in a serious crash I’d be mad as hell (assuming I was conscious) if my first aid/medical transport/necessary surgery was delayed to collect evidence of my sobriety or lack of it. On the other hand, like I said, they’d probably be collecting blood, urine, and maybe whatever other bodily fluids are around anyway so they could use some of those for testing.
Not necessarily Tiger’s fault, but a longtime criticism I’ve had of the media - they have frequently acted as tho ANY mention of Tiger was AT LEAST as important as ANYTHING any other golfer was doing. Really encouraged me to stop watching golf live, as they would cut away from golfers who were contending, to show Tiger lining up a meaningless putt, interview Tiger (when he recently began granting interviews), etc.
At some point Tiger became more popular than just about all other aspects of golf combined. Brought a lot of money into a lot of peoples’ pockets, but sure turned me off.
Sure, alcoholics in general may drink at any time, but I don’t think there’s any reason to think that Tiger is an alcoholic. I know he has mixed prescription meds and become impaired from those, but I don’t think I’ve heard of Tiger having problems with alcohol that would lead me to think he was an alcoholic. But if that was a cause in this accident, I would suspect that the officers would have found signs like bloodshot eyes, alcohol on his breath, bottles in the car, etc. and they would have tested for alcohol.