Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

This 100% what should happen - and still would have near zero punitive effect on TW. At least it would decrease the chances that his recklessness will injure or kill someone else.

Vanessa and Elin should require him to surrender his license or at least never drive again

Why is it their responsibility to “require him” to do that?

Google is telling me the law changed in October and his refusal may result in suspended license for a year. That’s good.

Anonymous wrote:He needs to just pay the money for a driver.

Exactly. Why is this dumba$$ still driving?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

This 100% what should happen - and still would have near zero punitive effect on TW. At least it would decrease the chances that his recklessness will injure or kill someone else.

Vanessa and Elin should require him to surrender his license or at least never drive again

Anonymous wrote:Hoping an attorney can chime in. Tiger takes the breathalyzer and it shows he was NOT drinking. He then refuses a urine test and he is charged with a DUI.

My questions:
-Was Tiger charged with the DUI because of the refusal? If one refuses, does a judge get involved?
-The police statement said Tiger appeared impaired. Would police be wearing body cameras to prove their point?
-What happens next?

Inferences are often drawn against a driver who refuses a breathalyzer, urinalysis or other chemical tests. Under implied consent laws, the act of driving is considered an advance agreement to submit to such tests if there is probable cause for a DUI or DUID arrest.
In many jurisdictions, a refusal to provide a sample is not just a procedural hurdle; it can be used directly as evidence in court:
Consciousness of Guilt: Prosecutors may argue that a driver refused the test because they were aware of their own intoxication and wanted to avoid providing incriminating evidence.
Admissible Evidence: Judges or juries are often permitted to consider a refusal as evidence of impairment during a criminal trial.
Heightened Punishment: If later convicted of a DUI, a prior refusal may lead to more severe sentencing or "heightened punishment".

Anonymous wrote:Hoping an attorney can chime in. Tiger takes the breathalyzer and it shows he was NOT drinking. He then refuses a urine test and he is charged with a DUI.

My questions:
-Was Tiger charged with the DUI because of the refusal? If one refuses, does a judge get involved?
-The police statement said Tiger appeared impaired. Would police be wearing body cameras to prove their point?
-What happens next?

From what I understand it’s a straightforward if/then situation. If you refuse the urine test, then you spend 8 hours in lock up because you can’t prove sobriety. What’s next is likely a he said/she said. They can’t prove he was impaired either. Any impairment viewed could be explained away as effects from the accident by a good attorney. I agree with the tweet a few pages ago- no way in hell would I agree to a urine test if I blew a 0.0. This will go nowhere. He’ll pay a fine or something.

Anonymous wrote:Hoping an attorney can chime in. Tiger takes the breathalyzer and it shows he was NOT drinking. He then refuses a urine test and he is charged with a DUI.

My questions:
-Was Tiger charged with the DUI because of the refusal? If one refuses, does a judge get involved?
-The police statement said Tiger appeared impaired. Would police be wearing body cameras to prove their point?
-What happens next?

Police always say people fail the field tests, no matter what.

Hoping an attorney can chime in. Tiger takes the breathalyzer and it shows he was NOT drinking. He then refuses a urine test and he is charged with a DUI.

My questions:
-Was Tiger charged with the DUI because of the refusal? If one refuses, does a judge get involved?
-The police statement said Tiger appeared impaired. Would police be wearing body cameras to prove their point?
-What happens next?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like the back of something like this was sticking out into the road from a driveway. It’s very easy to miss this. And it will easily make you rollover, speeding or not, especially if the back ramp was down.

If the back ramp was down in the road there are no taillights either. Very easy to crash into one of these things. Sure, maybe he was in an altered state, but sober people hit these trailers all the time.

That's NOT what happened!

You have a photo of the truck and trailer it was hauling and precisely where it was on the side of the road or whatever they're claiming? No, you don't. Both parties can be partially at fault, you know.

The truck was in motion, starting to pull into a driveway.

Then he looked in his mirror, saw an SUV coming at high speed and pulled over onto the side of the road as per his statement to police.

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

This 100% what should happen - and still would have near zero punitive effect on TW. At least it would decrease the chances that his recklessness will injure or kill someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like the back of something like this was sticking out into the road from a driveway. It’s very easy to miss this. And it will easily make you rollover, speeding or not, especially if the back ramp was down.

If the back ramp was down in the road there are no taillights either. Very easy to crash into one of these things. Sure, maybe he was in an altered state, but sober people hit these trailers all the time.

That's NOT what happened!

You have a photo of the truck and trailer it was hauling and precisely where it was on the side of the road or whatever they're claiming? No, you don't. Both parties can be partially at fault, you know.

The truck was in motion, starting to pull into a driveway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

this full stop

+1 !!!

He needs to just pay the money for a driver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

this full stop

Not going to happen. That's not the penalty in this case.

Anonymous wrote:He's a deadly threat to himself and others. Revoke his license. Separately, he needs to work on himself.

this full stop