Tigers accident now under investigation

[2ball]

We all know the story but someone at the state level ain't buying it or has to do their due diligence and investigate it.

 

"...The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department executed a search warrant to investigate the black box from the car Tiger Woods crashed last week.

Sheriff’s Deputy John Schloegl confirmed to USA Today on Tuesday that the department sought data from the car to determine if criminal charges were necessary. He characterized the warrant as due diligence, according to the report. ..."

 

I think this sheriff Villanueva might be in a bit of trouble.

 

"No," Villanueva said when asked if Woods could face a reckless driving charge. "A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it. This is purely an accident."

 

Lets look at a few facts...

1. There was a crime committed - speeding

2. It was stated the vehicle may have been going 80 in 45 zone - (over 25 mpg is reckless driving)

3.The Sheriff's Department continues to rule out intoxication playing a role in the crash. -  But he had bone protruding out of his leg and couldn't walk on his own.

4. No probable cause to obtain a blood sample. - Guess who has blood samples? The hospital does!

 

Whats the point? You or me? We are written up (ticketed) on a number of violations.

-speeding

-wreckless driving

-illegally crossing a median

-damage to city property

-failure to heed oncoming traffic

-Possible DUI

 

 

Tiger - (celebrities) get a free pass and they continue to do what they do.

 

[Qqq123xx]

Yeah agree with you black box but no blood is being taken. This happens to any regular person and box and blood would of already been acquired. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Qqq123xx

[ThinkingPlus]

IBTL

[J13]

2 minutes ago, 2ball said:

We all know the story but someone at the state level ain't buying it or has to do their due diligence and investigate it.

 

"...The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department executed a search warrant to investigate the black box from the car Tiger Woods crashed last week.

Sheriff’s Deputy John Schloegl confirmed to USA Today on Tuesday that the department sought data from the car to determine if criminal charges were necessary. He characterized the warrant as due diligence, according to the report. ..."

 

I think this sheriff Villanueva might be in a bit of trouble.

 

"No," Villanueva said when asked if Woods could face a reckless driving charge. "A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it. This is purely an accident."

 

Lets look at a few facts...

1. There was a crime committed - speeding

2. It was stated the vehicle may have been going 80 in 45 zone - (over 25 mpg is reckless driving)

3.The Sheriff's Department continues to rule out intoxication playing a role in the crash. -  But he had bone protruding out of his leg and couldn't walk on his own.

4. No probable cause to obtain a blood sample. - Guess who has blood samples? The hospital does!

 

Whats the point? You or me? We are written up (ticketed) on a number of violations.

-speeding

-wreckless driving

-illegally crossing a median

-damage to city property

-failure to heed oncoming traffic

-Possible DUI

 

 

Tiger - (celebrities) get a free pass and they continue to do what they do.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with the fact that the wealthy often get special treatment but the "facts" you listed are not real facts.  

1. Crime of speeding would need to be proven as there is no radar numbers or witnesses saying he was speeding

2. "May have been" is NEVER facts

3. What does a compound fracture have to do with intoxication? Where's the fact?

4. Blood samples require a warrant. Warrant requires probably cause.  Sherriff said Tiger was coherent and calm at the scene plus it's 7am not 2am.   

 

 

I totaled my car on a highway and when the state trooper arrived he issued me a speeding ticket but never got a warrant for a blood sample.  The speeding ticket was also thrown out of court because he had zero evidence and in fact his own witness said I was not speeding and she told the officer that at the scene of the "crime".  My point is a small number of accidents are a result of driving while impaired.  You are assuming because he's Tiger Woods he was intoxicated and that's not fair.  

[J13]

4 minutes ago, Qqq123xx said:

Yeah agree with you black box but no blood is being taken. This happens to any regular person and box and blood would of already been acquired. 

 

Not true.  Not even close.

[toc]

Are we really doing this again?

[Golfrnut]

5 minutes ago, toc said:

Are we really doing this again?

[PostandGhost]

As my boy Jimmy Mads would say: 

 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[2ball]

13 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

 

I don't disagree with the fact that the wealthy often get special treatment but the "facts" you listed are not real facts.  

1. Crime of speeding would need to be proven as there is no radar numbers or witnesses saying he was speeding

2. "May have been" is NEVER facts

3. What does a compound fracture have to do with intoxication? Where's the fact?

4. Blood samples require a warrant. Warrant requires probably cause.  Sherriff said Tiger was coherent and calm at the scene plus it's 7am not 2am.   

 

 

I totaled my car on a highway and when the state trooper arrived he issued me a speeding ticket but never got a warrant for a blood sample.  The speeding ticket was also thrown out of court because he had zero evidence and in fact his own witness said I was not speeding and she told the officer that at the scene of the "crime".  My point is a small number of accidents are a result of driving while impaired.  You are assuming because he's Tiger Woods he was intoxicated and that's not fair.  

First, I just went through a car accident which wasn't my fault

Second,  lets start with the state it happened in, California

Third, i live in California.

 

1. Crime of speed is obvious and the insurance company makes that determination if the sheriff will not ( i know this for a fact as wrong as it may be they will determine from damage your rate of speed - no i am no t kidding about this - had to get a lawyer and still lost this argument when i was not at fault and not speeding)

 

2. May have been is the soft ball that sheriff threw out there - they know exactly how fast that car was going even without the black box. Impact, damage to the surround area.  - Sheriffs have officers who have special training and investigate accidents I know one here in OC thats part of his job.  The insurance companies have investigators and assessment departments that can determine all of this as well.

3. that's what i am saying, if its you - you getting a DUI test. Tiger gets a pass.

4. You can refuse the blood test sure. But guess what happens when you do ?

5. If the police have probable cause for a search warrant they could gain access to the blood test taken at the hospital

 

 

[Qqq123xx]

27 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

Not true.  Not even close.

Compelling argument. 

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, Qqq123xx said:

Compelling argument. 

 

To be fair, it's no less compelling than your declaration that he quoted.

[tiderider]

and here we go again ... golfwrx finest detectives, detecting from afar ... 

 

[Qqq123xx]

Just now, b.helts said:

 

To be fair, it's no less compelling than your declaration that he quoted.

Just fact that's all. That type of our of control accident, any normal person gets done what I previously stated, along with a breathalyzer. 

[b.helts]

Just now, Qqq123xx said:

Just fact that's all. That type of our of control accident, any normal person gets done what I previously stated, along with a breathalyzer. 

 

Sorry dude. Your hypothetical scenario is not a fact. It's a hypothetical, a supposition, a guess.

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, 2ball said:

First, I just went through a car accident which wasn't my fault

Second,  lets start with the state it happened in, California

Third, i live in California.

 

1. Crime of speed is obvious and the insurance company makes that determination if the sheriff will not ( i know this for a fact as wrong as it may be they will determine from damage your rate of speed - no i am no t kidding about this - had to get a lawyer and still lost this argument when i was not at fault and not speeding)

 

2. May have been is the soft ball that sheriff threw out there - they know exactly how fast that car was going even without the black box. Impact, damage to the surround area.  - Sheriffs have officers who have special training and investigate accidents I know one here in OC thats part of his job.  The insurance companies have investigators and assessment departments that can determine all of this as well.

3. that's what i am saying, if its you - you getting a DUI test. Tiger gets a pass.

4. You can refuse the blood test sure. But guess what happens when you do ?

5. If the police have probable cause for a search warrant they could gain access to the blood test taken at the hospital

 

 

1. A "crime" only exists when there are charges filed, ie by law enforcement. The insurance company has no part in that, you are confusing financial liability with a traffic violation. It was a single vehicle accident, the driver is almost always at fault in those cases, regardless if there was a traffic infraction committed.

2. They can only estimate a speed, 80 is extreme, the damage would likely have far worse, in fact he likely would not have survived at all at that speed

3. You only get a DUI screening if the LEOs on the scene have reason to believe you were intoxicated. Slurred speech, pupil dilation, impaired motor function, etc. Plenty of people have single vehicle accidents completely sober, you do not automatically take a field breathalyzer, there needs to be reasonable probable cause and simply crashing is not sufficient.

4. He likely would have been blood tested regardless, it's to check for potential drug interactions since he immediately went into surgery. That is completely unrelated to the accident itself

5. IF..big if, in regards to probable cause. So far everything they have stated says otherwise, they even went on record and said it was not the case. If they did execute a search warrant, it would likely be thrown out in court since they would have already contradicted themselves

 

So far you have presented zero facts, just misguided speculation. 

[Obee]

1 hour ago, 2ball said:

We all know the story but someone at the state level ain't buying it or has to do their due diligence and investigate it.

 

"...The Los Angeles County Sheriff's department executed a search warrant to investigate the black box from the car Tiger Woods crashed last week.

Sheriff’s Deputy John Schloegl confirmed to USA Today on Tuesday that the department sought data from the car to determine if criminal charges were necessary. He characterized the warrant as due diligence, according to the report. ..."

 

I think this sheriff Villanueva might be in a bit of trouble.

 

"No," Villanueva said when asked if Woods could face a reckless driving charge. "A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it. This is purely an accident."

 

Lets look at a few facts...

1. There was a crime committed - speeding

2. It was stated the vehicle may have been going 80 in 45 zone - (over 25 mpg is reckless driving)

3.The Sheriff's Department continues to rule out intoxication playing a role in the crash. -  But he had bone protruding out of his leg and couldn't walk on his own.

4. No probable cause to obtain a blood sample. - Guess who has blood samples? The hospital does!

 

Whats the point? You or me? We are written up (ticketed) on a number of violations.

-speeding

-wreckless driving

-illegally crossing a median

-damage to city property

-failure to heed oncoming traffic

-Possible DUI

 

 

Tiger - (celebrities) get a free pass and they continue to do what they do.

 

 

Wow. You might want to get outside....

[2ball]

3 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

Wow. You might want to get outside....

its raining out Obee

 

[Krt22]

14 minutes ago, Qqq123xx said:

Just fact that's all. That type of our of control accident, any normal person gets done what I previously stated, along with a breathalyzer. 

That is not even remotely a fact, just your own conjecture. Every time they administer a field breathalyzer or require a blood test, they need to have sufficient probable cause. Simply crashing is not reason enough to warrant that.  It only takes a moment of inventiveness to crash when going downhill around a curve. I would venture to say 99.5%+ of all non-fatal motor vehicle accidents there is no formal investigation into the "black box", that only comes into play when it's a high profile case such as this. For normal folks, they let the insurance company assign blame and you simply pay the piper

Edited March 3, 2021 by Krt22

[2ball]

7 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

1. A "crime" only exists when there are charges filed, ie by law enforcement. The insurance company has no part in that, you are confusing financial liability with a traffic violation. It was a single vehicle accident, the driver is almost always at fault in those cases, regardless if there was a traffic infraction committed.

2. They can only estimate a speed, 80 is extreme, the damage would likely have far worse, in fact he likely would not have survived at all at that speed

3. You only get a DUI screening if the LEOs on the scene have reason to believe you were intoxicated. Slurred speech, pupil dilation, impaired motor function, etc. Plenty of people have single vehicle accidents completely sober, you do not automatically take a field breathalyzer, there needs to be reasonable probable cause and simply crashing is not sufficient.

4. He likely would have been blood tested regardless, it's to check for potential drug interactions since he immediately went into surgery. That is completely unrelated to the accident itself

5. IF..big if, in regards to probable cause. So far everything they have stated says otherwise, they even went on record and said it was not the case. If they did execute a search warrant, it would likely be thrown out in court since they would have already contradicted themselves

 

So far you have presented zero facts, just misguided speculation. 

Here come the attacks versus a discussion from the junior editors

The evidence at hand will be determined factual or non-factual in court.

The point of this post is any average Joe is going to get citations based off of what I listed earlier, don't think so? Go re-enact this accident (but don't hurt yourself or endanger others ) an see what the sheriffs department writes you a citation for.

The police do not have to cite you for a traffic infraction but if they see cause based off the evidence at hand they can write a citation or multiple citations.

 

 

[2ball]

17 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

That is not even remotely a fact, just your own conjecture. Every time they administer a field breathalyzer or require a blood test, they need to have sufficient probable cause. Simply crashing is not reason enough to warrant that.  It only takes a moment of inventiveness to crash when going downhill around a curve. I would venture to say 99.5%+ of all non-fatal motor vehicle accidents there is no formal investigation into the "black box", that only comes into play when it's a high profile case such as this. For normal folks, they let the insurance company assign blame and you simply pay the piper

Police (and courts) usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest). They can determine at the scene probable cause for reckless driving and/or speeding.

[Krt22]

Just now, 2ball said:

Here come the attacks versus a discussion from the junior editors

The evidence at hand will be determined factual or non-factual in court.

The point of this post is any average Joe is going to get citations based off of what I listed earlier, don't think so? Go re-enact this accident (but don't hurt yourself or endanger others ) an see what the sheriffs department writes you a citation for.

The police do not have to cite you for a traffic infraction but if they see cause based off the evidence at hand they can write a citation or multiple citations.

 

 

This is not an attack, you presented pure speculation, I simply countered it. You don't seem to understand the thresholds required to be cited for a traffic violation and have it stick. There will never be evidence presented in court, if charges are never filed. 

 

And your last statement makes zero sense. either there is sufficient evidence on hand to cite you or there isn't, in all but rare cases, the citing officer has to witness the infraction or have some other tangible proof a violation occurred (ie video), and even then those cases can be dicey and many times get throw out. The fact that he crashed and injured himself by itself is not evidence of any crime or violation occurring. The same holds true for you, me or, tiger. 

[Hawkeye77]

Couldn't get past the foolishness of the claim that someone at the "state level ain't buying it" and the L.A. County Sheriff continuing to investigate, lol -- it "ain't" the California Highway Patrol, OP.

 

The rest . . . yawn.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[2ball]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Couldn't get past the foolishness of the claim is someone at the "state level ain't buying it" and the L.A. County Sheriff continuing to investigate, lol -- it "ain't" the California Highway Patrol, OP.

 

The rest . . . yawn.

don't even comprehend this statement ...

 

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, 2ball said:

Police (and courts) usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest). They can determine at the scene probable cause for reckless driving and/or speeding.

 It's a traffic accident, not a murder investigation, two very different things.  The only reason this is being further investigated is because he is a celebrity, not the other way around. He could have been speeding, but it's not like he is going to be jailed if that ends up being the case. 

[Hawkeye77]

4 minutes ago, 2ball said:

don't even comprehend this statement ...

 

Kind of the point. 
 

 

[2ball]

3 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

 It's a traffic accident, not a murder investigation, two very different things.  The only reason this is being further investigated is because he is a celebrity, not the other way around. He could have been speeding, but it's not like he is going to be jailed if that ends up being the case. 

no one said murder and no one said jail. But there is property damage and liability. That has to be determined who is at fault.

 

[2ball]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Kind of the point. 
 

 

go re-read your statement and see if that makes sense.

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, 2ball said:

Edited March 3, 2021 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, lunch is over.

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, 2ball said:

no one said murder and no one said jail. But there is property damage and liability. That has to be determined who is at fault.

 

It was a single vehicle accident, Tiger is 100% at fault to any insurance company (anyone else who is involved in a single vehicle accident would be as well). Again you are confusing criminal liability and financial liability, two completely different things.  The insurance company will find Tiger at fault, regardless if there is a traffic citation written, that will only further bolster their claim. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Krt22