Tiger Woods

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by MikeSid

In most jurisdictions, traffic infractions have been de-criminalized. They are civil infractions, not crimes.

If you are speeding or run a red light and get pulled over for it, you get a ticket. You don't go to jail. It is a civil infraction.

If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian and kill them, you have committed both a traffic infraction and the crime of vehicular assault/homicide.

Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible.

So Tiger broke traffic laws. He committed civil infractions. He didn't break any criminal laws (without proof of his speed). And his intent is irrelevant. A driver is liable regardless of intent. The question is whether the driver committed a civil infraction or a committed a crime.

If Tiger's accident had harmed a pedestrian or passenger, he'd be charged with a crime.

Interesting. Good to know.
Why should Bill Stickers go free?

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by MikeSid

In most jurisdictions, traffic infractions have been de-criminalized. They are civil infractions, not crimes.

If you are speeding or run a red light and get pulled over for it, you get a ticket. You don't go to jail. It is a civil infraction.

If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian and kill them, you have committed both a traffic infraction and the crime of vehicular assault/homicide.

Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible.

So Tiger broke traffic laws. He committed civil infractions. He didn't break any criminal laws (without proof of his speed). And his intent is irrelevant. A driver is liable regardless of intent. The question is whether the driver committed a civil infraction or a committed a crime.

If Tiger's accident had harmed a pedestrian or passenger, he'd be charged with a crime.

Or had been driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Otherwise, its just an infraction....

[Baz]

Originally Posted by MikeSid

In most jurisdictions, traffic infractions have been de-criminalized. They are civil infractions, not crimes.

If you are speeding or run a red light and get pulled over for it, you get a ticket. You don't go to jail. It is a civil infraction.

If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian and kill them, you have committed both a traffic infraction and the crime of vehicular assault/homicide.

Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible.

So Tiger broke traffic laws. He committed civil infractions. He didn't break any criminal laws (without proof of his speed). And his intent is irrelevant. A driver is liable regardless of intent. The question is whether the driver committed a civil infraction or a committed a crime.

If Tiger's accident had harmed a pedestrian or passenger, he'd be charged with a crime.

OK thanks.

Just seems like the official statement should say something like:

"Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible."

Instead of just stating it was "an accident".

Now I need to look up exactly what they posted.

[speeder]

I think that in the case of a single vehicle accident such as this, we, (and the police), can infer that he probably was going too fast or was inattentive, (or both), but in order to cite him, there has to be at least a witness or two? So the police don't write citations for thing they cannot demonstrate somehow.

Is this correct, Michael?

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by speeder

I think that in the case of a single vehicle accident such as this, we, (and the police), can infer that he probably was going too fast or was inattentive, (or both), but in order to cite him, there has to be at least a witness or two? So the police don't write citations for thing they cannot demonstrate somehow.

Is this correct, Michael?

Technically, traffic trained officer can write a citation based on the facts of the accident and often times will at a later date.. No witnesses are required. In this case, it would be very easy to issue him a citation for 22350cvc. Unsafe speed. But that is not criminal, its an infraction and he may be cited once the traffic collision report is completed.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Baz

OK thanks.

Just seems like the official statement should say something like:

"Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible."

Instead of just stating it was "an accident".

Now I need to look up exactly what they posted.

Baz, I've had the same questions you and others had yesterday re: "how will the local sheriff's department find (and what wording will be used) that he was not going to be guilty of a chargeable offense" when it's obvious the vast majority of drivers negotiate that road without losing control of their vehicle?

When the official statement that it was "an accident" was released today, like you I thought it meant a whitewash. What... to discourage more unrest and rioting by the usual suspects? Nah... couldn't be.

But anyway... in encouraging news, shortly after that statement on the evening news, I think the local sheriff said he would be 1) dumping Mr. Woods' phone to see if he was on it at the time of the crash and 2) also checking data on the Genesis' "black box" to find out the speed and exact time he lost control.

[Heel n Toe]

What is the law in CA re: talking or texting while driving?

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Baz, I've had the same questions you and others had yesterday re: "how will the local sheriff's department find he was not going to be guilty of a chargeable offense" when it's obvious the vast majority of drivers negotiate that road without losing control of their vehicle?

When the official statement that it was "an accident" was released, like you I thought it meant a whitewash. What... to discourage more unrest and rioting by the usual suspects? Nah... couldn't be.

But anyway... in encouraging news, shortly after that statement on the evening news, I think the local sheriff said he would be 1) dumping Mr. Woods' phone to see if he was on it at the time of the crash and 2) also checking data on the Genesis' "black box" to find out the speed and exact time he lost control.

You guys don't seem to understand, you are not charged with an infraction. You are charged when its a misdemeanor or a felony. Regardless of the cause, a Traffic Accident report is whats being written. Because it was a Traffic Accident...... The initial investigation indicated that he wasn't driving impaired, so there are no immediate criminal charges. That doesn't mean that later he couldn't be issued a citation for something else.

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

What is the law in CA re: talking or texting while driving?

Gotta be hands free. Kinda interesting, because with Bluetooth even though your phone will show both, you could be using Bluetooth. If that becomes an issue, I'm sure they will check whether his phone was connected or not though. That would also be an infraction, not criminal.

[Wayne 962]

The road where Tiger crashed is defective (in my opinion). I just wrote a separate thread about it here: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1086960-road-where-tiger-crashed-defective-my-opinion-you-judge.html

Very clearly a design defect in the road, and if someone is not paying attention (and actually overriding the visual cues in their brain), then they will repeat his fate. There are a lot of accidents on this road - this is for sure one reason why!

-Wayne

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

What is the law in CA re: talking or texting while driving?

He was driving a "state of the art" technology car as far as hands free is concerned.

Now whether he was tech savvy enough to pair his phone with the car, or was fumbling with it trying to let people know he was running behind, or just the fact that he was driving a vehicle he was unfamiliar with at a high rate of speed.

Whatever, I feel sorry for him and hope he heals up quick. Having a bad back and then messing up your stilts is no bueno. He's got good Docs, best wishes and speedy recovery.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Wayne 962

Very clearly a design defect in the road, and if someone is not paying attention (and actually overriding the visual cues in their brain), then they will repeat his fate. There are a lot of accidents on this road - this is for sure one reason why!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1086960-road-where-tiger-crashed-defective-my-opinion-you-judge.html#post11238932

I think you may have something there, but one has to point to the fact that surely, more than 99.9% of drivers negotiate that stretch of road successfully every day.

I know I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But if Woods was clipping along at 60+, on his phone, etc. he would've been at a disadvantage. At the press conference Tuesday, the sheriff said he frequently sees people flying through there at 80 or more.

[stevej37]

I never heard anyone say anything about the weather on that early morning.
Fog?

[sc_rufctr]

Sorry but I really don't understand the negative comments about Tiger.

He's probably one of the most liked celebrities in America (if not the world) and his success has been nothing but good for the Black People of America. "We" need people like him front and centre.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by bivenator

See Kobe Bryant for an example of man who had his past rewritten.

Or OJ Simpson

Originally Posted by javadog

I bet you're wrong. Right leg, from having his foot hard on the brake or the floor, when the impact hit. Same thing happened to my youngest kid. Same leg, same compound fractures of both the upper and lower leg with ankle involvement.

It is a classic injury pattern

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Tobra

It is a classic injury pattern

Yes, it’s almost as if physics are involved.

[Heel n Toe]

Special privileges for "special people" again? Celebrity privilege?
__________________________________________________ ____________
Detectives find cause of Tiger Woods crash but won't reveal

The Los Angeles County sheriff says detectives have determined what caused Tiger Woods to crash his SUV last month in Southern California but would not release details, citing unspecified privacy concerns for the golf star

By STEFANIE DAZIO Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles County sheriff says detectives have determined what caused Tiger Woods to crash his SUV last month in Southern California but would not release details Wednesday, citing unspecified privacy concerns for the golf star.

...snip...

Sheriff Alex Villanueva has been criticized for his comments about the crash, calling it “purely an accident” and saying there was no evidence of impairment. Woods told deputies he did not know how the crash occurred and didn’t remember driving. He was unconscious when a witness first approached the mangled SUV. But a sheriff's deputy said the athlete later appeared to be in shock but was conscious and able to answer basic questions.

Investigators did not seek a search warrant for Woods' blood samples, which could be screened for drugs and alcohol. In 2017, Woods checked himself into a clinic for help in dealing with prescription drug medication after a DUI charge in his home state of Florida.

Detectives, however, did obtain a search warrant for the data recorder of the 2021 Genesis GV80 SUV, known as a black box. Villanueva would not say Wednesday what data had been found in the black box.

“A cause has been determined, the investigation has concluded,” Villanueva said during a live social media event Wednesday in response to a question posed by The Associated Press.

But Villanueva claimed investigators need permission from Woods — who previously named his yacht “Privacy” — to release information about the crash.

“We have reached out to Tiger Woods and his personnel," Villanueva said. "There's some privacy issues on releasing information on the investigation so we're going to ask them if they waive the privacy and then we will be able to do a full release on all the information regarding the accident.”

Woods’ agent at Excel Sports, Mark Steinberg, did not immediately respond to an email.

“We have all the contents of the black box, we’ve got everything,” Villanueva said. “It’s completed, signed, sealed and delivered. However, we can’t release it without the permission of the people involved in the collision.”

...snip...

Villanueva's statement about privacy issues did not make sense to Joseph Giacalone, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired New York City Police Department sergeant, who has criticized the sheriff's response to the Woods incident from the start.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a department ever ask for permission like that,” he said. “What happens if his lawyers say ‘no, you can’t send it out now.’ And then where does that leave us?”

Giacalone said it's unlikely that deputies would have sought the permission of non-celebrity victims in similar crashes to release information. If the sheriff's hesitancy stemmed from a potential medical episode behind the wheel, Giacalone said authorities could simply say it was a medical emergency without giving additional details.

Full article: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/detectives-find-tiger-woods-crash-reveal-76796020

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by MikeSid

In most jurisdictions, traffic infractions have been de-criminalized. They are civil infractions, not crimes.

If you are speeding or run a red light and get pulled over for it, you get a ticket. You don't go to jail. It is a civil infraction.

If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian and kill them, you have committed both a traffic infraction and the crime of vehicular assault/homicide.

Without proof of Tiger's speed, a criminal charge of negligent driving is probably not possible.

So Tiger broke traffic laws. He committed civil infractions. He didn't break any criminal laws (without proof of his speed). And his intent is irrelevant. A driver is liable regardless of intent. The question is whether the driver committed a civil infraction or a committed a crime.

If Tiger's accident had harmed a pedestrian or passenger, he'd be charged with a crime.

How about damage to personal property? I know each state is different and damage to property may not rise to the level of a crime but I think moves the needle? Correct?

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Special privileges for "special people" again? Celebrity privilege?

Full article: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/detectives-find-tiger-woods-crash-reveal-76796020

Good question, and seems like someone at Jalopnik decided to ask an expert.

02/03/2021
LA County Sheriffs May Have A Good Reason For Not Releasing What Caused Tiger Woods' Crash
https://jalopnik.com/la-county-sheriffs-may-have-a-good-reason-for-not-relea-1846594595

If an average citizen had been the one who crashed, few would care about the details in a case where no other people were hurt. But then withholding the information until checking with the person wouldn’t be done, Professor Giacalone said, adding that if it were just a simple matter of health privacy the sheriff could simply say it’s a medical issue and be done with it.

Not satisfied with this lack of information, we did some digging. I was put in contact with an attorney, Anthony Daye, of the Daye Firm in Huntington Beach, California. He pretty much summed up the sheriff’s reasoning as having to do with HIPAA laws. If you’re unfamiliar with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), it’s a federal law passed in 1996 that essentially protects the release of sensitive health information without prior consent or knowledge of the person.

This may explain why the department would need to speak to Woods and his representatives before releasing information — if the matter is actually health-related.

Daye put forward another interesting question that no one is addressing or answering: Why was there no toxicology report done on Woods either at the crash site or in the days afterward? Especially since the question has been raised over whether he was asleep at the wheel, a reasonable point given Woods’ prior history of abusing Ambien.

So it could come down to one of two things: It’s something that incriminates Woods, or it has to do with his health. Whatever the reason is, it’s doubtful if we will ever know the full extent of what really happened behind the wheel.

[Scott Douglas]

So the good people of CA get to pay for all the investigating but don't get to know the results of said investigation.
If the results are going to be withheld, why even have an investigation?