Why was Tiger Woods arrested for DUI?

[JHan]

Last edited Tue May 30, 2017, 02:34 PM - Edit history (3)

0.000 on the breathalyzer http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19496396/tiger-woods-found-asleep-car-arrest-dui-charge

and he pulled over to recover from the effects of prescription medication. http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/05/tiger_woods_busted_for_bad_reaction_to_medicine_al.html

He did what he was supposed to do when disoriented - pull over and rest to ensure others are not at risk, he was not moving. It's absurd.

EDIT: He didn't "Pull over" but was in the right lane. Some reports say he was on the side of the road. That fact does NOT change this case here.

The only person harmed in this incident was Tiger himself ( whether he suffers from addiction prescription drugs or not) and THAT distinction matters. It is an authoritarian tendency that seeks the full brunt of the law to be applied to someone whose "crime" did not harm others. A more utilitarian approach would be to recognize that since there was no harm to others, understanding should have been the first reaction instead of subjecting the individual to the full extent of the law.

[Else You Are Mad]

1. Because intent is irrelevant in a DUI.

If you are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and are caught by the police while driving, you will be arrested for it.

[JHan]

3. He was not moving, the law is ridiculous.

The purpose should be to ensure others are not at risk. Not criminalize people who are recovering due to unforeseen circumstances- especially in a situation like this where he's had several surgeries and on medication.

[Else You Are Mad]

10. I agree.

Depending on how a particular state's case law and legislation defines "operate," someone can even get a DUI for merely turn your car on and you are under the influence even if you didn't move an inch.

[rufus dog]

71. Nope

In CA it is being in the car with the keys! Case 1, buddy gets pissed at girlfriend after they did a couple shots, he drives down the street, realizes he shouldn't be driving, pulls into a parking lot, takes the keys out of the ignition and puts them on the dashboard. Gets a DUI.

Another case a coworker has too much at a hospitality suite. Tries to rent a room, no rooms, goes out the his truck, sleeps in the truck bed with keys in his pocket, issue was the truck had a shell so he could have climbed from the shell into the passenger compartment, so he got a DUI.

[Else You Are Mad]

77. Then we agree.

It depends on how the jurisdiction defines 'operation' it could be just opening the door or it could be turning the key.

[Rollo]

158. Ah, his mistake was leaving the keys in plain view. He could have put them in his pocket and perhaps

[Rollo]

157. Just having your key inserted in the ignition is proof enough you're driving, motor running or not.

[LisaL]

146. How did his car ended up on that road?

Did he figure out how to magically transport his car from one place to another?

[jalan48]

160. Tiger Woods' car had two flat tires, damaged rims and bumpers, and a broken tail light."

This is according to Sports Illustrated. Why should the police give him a pass?

https://www.si.com/golf/2017/05/30/tigers-woods-dui-arrest-car-damaged

[JHan]

163. Should someone sleeping on the shoulder of a lane, due to impairment, be arrested?

[LisaL]

166. Yes.

You are not supposed to sleep in the roadway, in case you didn't know.

[jalan48]

172. It depends on the state law. in our state the keys have to be in the ignition.

If I were a cop and I came up to a car and the driver was passed out behind the wheel and it looked like the car had been in a recent accident I would probably arrest the driver. What if they let him go and he drove into someone and killed them afterwards. The cop would most likely lose his/her job. Tiger screwed up by getting too loaded and deciding he could drive.

[pnwmom]

124. But if you're in a stopped car you're not driving. n/t

[DrDan]

131. if you are sitting in the driver's seat, with control of the keys - you can get a DUI

that's the law in Florida (and elsewhere)

[LisaL]

149. Well, presumably you drove there. Otherwise how did the car ended up there?

[SoCalMusicLover]

2. Did He Pull Over?

I had heard he was stopped in the lane, with his blinker on, and the car still running. If that's the case, it was justified.

[JHan]

5. from what I'm reading he was parked on the side of the road.

[Codeine]

24. I just read the police report.

He was in the roadway (right lane), car running, foot on brake, passed out.

[ghostsinthemachine]

4. It's all about the keys and position

Of the driver. In the ignition or able to be controlled by the driver, you are busted.

Put the keys and the driver in the backseat, and properly parked, and you are good.

[JHan]

7. It should be about whether he was moving or not - he wasn't. He was stationary.

What risk did he pose?

[ghostsinthemachine]

12. That's the way it works.

I don't make the rules, but I know them well, out of necessity. Keys in the trunk or hidden outside the vehicle. Out of the driver's seat.

[niyad]

40. what part of "IN THE RIGHT LANE" are you missing?

[JHan]

43. I'm reading a CNN report where it states he was on the side of the road.

It's possible he was partly in the right lane. And why is it so strange to ask that police exercise discretion depending on circumstances? Instead of someone's mugshot floating about the place and jokes made ( No I am not a fan of Tiger woods either)

[Codeine]

55. The police report indicates the car was in the roadway. nt

[tblue37]

42. If a car is stopped in a traffic lane, it is a danger indeed. Other drivers could accidentally

rear-end it.

Especially noiwadasys, drivers don't always notice that there is a driver stopped or slowing down in their lane, so just sitting there unmoving in a traffic lane is not a minor issue!

[LisaL]

155. It was also partially blocking a bike lane according to police report.

[Else You Are Mad]

14. That only really applies if you are on a parking lot or driveway.

If a police officer can infer that someone drove where they are parked, the location of the keys is irrelevant. It really comes down to how operate is defined in the particular jurisdiction.

[niyad]

6. a friend of mine got a dui for sleeping in her car, engine off, legally parked. and yet,

the da, who was hell on dui, routinely drank, and drove a city vehicle.

(we often thought the activist stickers on her car were a neon sign for the cops)

[JHan]

11. legally parked, sleeping in her car.. and getting a DUI?

was she able to raise hell for that?

I wish better judgment was exercised in these situations -- by law enforcement.

[niyad]

15. no, she was not able to fight it. as I said, her activist stickers made her a target.

[Mariana]

100. Hard to raise hell when law enforcement correctly enforce the law.

The problem in such cases is the laws themselves, which are written so as to criminalize responsible behavior.

[oberliner]

8. He wasn't pulled over

A Jupiter police officer said he found Woods' 2015 black Mercedes-Benz stopped in a roadway in the right lane and the golfer buckled in the driver's seat. The car was still running and the right blinker was flashing.

Woods, who had been wearing a white shirt and black shorts, was roused from his sleep, the officer said, adding that he "had extremely slow and slurred speech."

[JHan]

13. My point is he posed no risk to anyone, he was stationary.

He did what people who are disoriented should do - park to the side of the road and recover.

[niyad]

16. did you miss the part "in the right lane"?

[JHan]

21. Thing is..

I know that in some states the law is different... parked while intoxicated and sleeping, with or without keys in the ignition and it's a DUI...but it just seems ridiculous to me.

[forgotmylogin]

82. If the car was on...

The police (and probably Woods) have no idea how long he'd been there. Even with the best of intentions, he could have been driving dangerously and was obviously "under the influence" of *something* that impaired his motor vehicle skills and caused him to pull off.

If it was prescription meds that caused it unexpectedly, I'd expect a court might have leniency, but every single medication that can cause impairment is clearly labeled that you should not operate a vehicle or heavy machinery until you know how the medication affects you.

It sucks, but driving adults should know you don't take heavy medication and drive. Even if he was responsible and pulled over, he still could have endangered his own life or someone else's before he did. He shouldn't have been in the driver's seat in the first place.

[JHan]

84. I agree in part.. I just think there are options here

why couldn't he be escorted home?

Officers exercise discretion all the time and it shouldn't matter whether the person is a celebrity or not. If you are unwell you are unwell.

[forgotmylogin]

88. And if he is unwell, he needs help.

That's is the best possible situation for law intervention. If you don't *always* drive 55 in a 35 but they catch you doing it late at night when you are sure nobody's going to get hurt...you need driving school.

Saying he did nothing wrong with the vehicle parked in the right lane with the keys in the ignition and the motor running and asleep behind the wheel is sort of like saying a burglar shouldn't be arrested at home with money he robbed from a bank because "he wasn't stealing when they found him".

[JHan]

91. In the case of the burglary..

there is obvious intent - to steal. The analogy doesn't work to my mind.

I doubt Tiger's intent here was to drive and risk arrest while "driving".

[forgotmylogin]

93. But he was, in fact, "driving".

And he was under the influence of a substance even *he* knew he couldn't operate a vehicle under.

If the burglar robs a bank and then feels bad and gives the money back because he knows it's wrong, that doesn't change the fact that he robbed a bank.

[frankieallen]

120. why are you defending this guy? he was clearly high as a kite, and sitting in a running car.

no responsible cop would "escort him home".

[JHan]

122. It's about the circumstances..

It's not a matter of "defending" Tiger Woods, I don't like him particularly but my like or dislike of him is not the point...what would I be defending? His right to be addicted to prescription drugs?

I'm making ethical/moral considerations.

[frankieallen]

127. the car was running, both right tires were flat, there was damage to the front and rear of the car.

He was passed out. when woken he didn't know where he was, his speech was slurred and slow.
Clearly he was operating a 3 ton vehicle on a public road way where there were other drivers, and passengers, including children, and he was wasted on prescription meds.

Do i need to continue?
Just because he pulled over and took a nap on the side of the road does not excuse him, he is very lucky he didn't kill himself, or more importantly, someone else.

[JHan]

129. Did children die ?

You think it is reasonable for police officers to treat with a person in distress - in this case it is actually tiger woods, as a criminal?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. The crime itself is getting in the car and driving while under the influence

If law enforcement comes upon a suspicions scene and upon investigating has reasonable cause to believe that a driver operated the vehicle after ingesting a substance (a drug, alcohol...) their duty is to charge the person and let the court sort it out.

[JHan]

141. Do police always follow the law to a T?

They don't . And it doesn't negate the fact that laws are sometimes broadly applied , or unreasonably applied .

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

143. No they do not!

It's part of cops acting more like the military.
I'm not happy that local PDs have equipment like APCs and full-auto rifles.

[frankieallen]

174. yes, children died, ok?........

[B2G]

22. How do you think he got there

And what do you suppose his condition was prior to pulling over?

This is a no brainer. Seriously.

[tblue37]

53. He did NOT pull over! He stopped in the middle of the right lane--i.e.,

in traffic!

[B2G]

79. I think you're disagreeing with the wrong person. nt

[tblue37]

50. He was not off the road! He was in the traffic lane. Can you not understand that he

was IN TRAFFIC, in the right lane, where other cars could be driving along and rear-end him, causing damage to the cars and possibly injury or death to people in the cars?

And if one car hit his, another behind that car could hit them, leading to a pile-up, a chain reaction multiple car pile-up!

[padfun]

56. Well, in my three DUI.s, I wasnt posing a risk to others either

I was used to driving drunk, but they gave them to me anyways. His car was running, so yes, he was a risk earlier.

Note: I no longer drink. Last one was 16 years ago.

[JHan]

83. Btw, congrats on beating the addiction.

[padfun]

90. Thanks. It was very hard so I can relate to addicts.

Tobacco was hard too and I quit that 6 months later.

[Codeine]

9. He had obviously been operating the vehicle in an impaired state.

That being said, the fact that he had pulled over and stopped the car may be a mitigating factor when he goes before the judge.

But as far as the arrest goes, if you're behind the wheel of a running car while drunk or otherwise impaired you're going to be arrested.

[oberliner]

17. He didn't pull over

He was stopped in the right lane of traffic with the car running.

[Codeine]

18. That's what I get for taking the OP's word for it.

Thanks for the clarification.

[JHan]

31. I got it from CNN:

Jupiter, Florida, police discovered Woods early Monday on the side of the road, with his 2015 Mercedes-Benz running, its brake lights illuminated and right turn signal flashing, according to the arrest report released Tuesday. He was by himself and wearing his seat belt.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/us/tiger-woods-arrested-dui-new-details/

[LisaL]

151. Actual report says he was in the right lane, not on the side of the road.

[Thrill]

19. He was in a lane sleep?

If so, he did pose a danger to others

[oberliner]

20. That's what this NBC News story says

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/tiger-woods-was-allegedly-asleep-wheel-dui-arrest-n766086

[flotsam]

44. Why yes-he did...

A. He was in the travel lane-if 2 lane those trying to pass him had to cross the center line and even with 4 lanes he could easily cause an accident.
and
B.The car was running-and we don't know whether in or out of gear. Easily he could have operated a control and struck another car or pedestrian.

I have great sympathy and believe the zero breathalizer will mitigate the charges but as a judge there is a ton more I would need to know before I gave Tiger a walk...

[Renew Deal]

23. And when he realized he pulled over

There needs to be some common sense in these things. No need to ruin peoples lives when they try to do the right thing.

[Codeine]

25. He was in the right lane.

I just looked up the police report.

[LeftInTX]

26. I agree with you 100 percent

I take meds at night, and I refuse to drive after I have taken them. My meds are much more powerful than alcohol.

I also struggle with chronic pain.

I agree this can be a mitigating factor. Also if meds have recently been changed it can also be a factor. For instance a change in pain med can make a huge difference in ability to function.

I wonder why Tiger was driving in this state?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

126. Heard he was on painkillers for his back. His eyelids were very droopy.

[INdemo]

27. I am curious how much it cost Tiger for law enfforcement to state that his breataylzer test

was .000...doesnt mak sense. at 3AM and shortly after "last call" he pulls over and falls asleep.
The advantage Tiger had was $$ and he had 8 hours to dream up his story

First of all if his breathalyzer test was .000 he would not have been arrested and he would not have been required to post bond just for sleeping along the highway.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. He admitted to, and was charged with, driving under the influence of drugs.

The breathalyzer is irrelevant. Except in the court of public opinion.

[Codeine]

48. DUI doesn't require a BAC number

if you're under the influence of a narcotic, prescription or otherwise.

[NutmegYankee]

147. I'm always curious what happens with a medical illness

Lets say someone was driving and realizes they are getting sicker and sicker, like with the flu, so they pull over and try to sleep to ease the fatigue. Modern laws are so outrageous and Kafkaesque I wouldn't be surprised they were charged with driving while under the influence of a virus.

[regnaD kciN]

99. In my state, you can get a DUI with a .000 reading...

...as long as the cop states that "in their professional judgment," you were acting impaired.

[HipChick]

28. Black while not driving....

[Codeine]

30. He was in the damned roadway. Right lane.

Car on. In the road. Passed the fuck out.

Why is everyone so desperate to make excuses for this dipshit?

[JHan]

33. His character is not really an issue here, I don't particularly care about him myself.

[Codeine]

51. I don't care about his character either.

But if he's on the road and impaired it is a DUI, and your excuses seem silly.

[OceanChick]

62. He was in the right lane, people!

Why the fuck didn't he just take a limo?

[AngryAmish]

65. If he was not supposed to be there,why do they call the right lane the sleeping lane?

[Codeine]

70. I don't get it. nt

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

29. It's not clear to me whether . . .

. . . you are objecting to what the police officers in question here did or whether you are taking issue with the law in Florida, but let's look at how "driving under the influence" is actually defined as a matter of Florida law (as that would seem to be more pertinent than abstract speculation . . . or opinions as to how the offense "should" be defined):

* * * *

316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.—
(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:
(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;
(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or
(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

* * * *

Based on what I've read about this incident, Woods was (1) physically impaired at the time he was confronted by the police (i.e., he was "under the influence of ... any substance controlled under chapter 893 [which, I gather, would include the medications that Woods purportedly had taken]; and (2) "in actual physical control of a vehicle."

Without researching this second element as a matter of Florida law, I presume that sitting behind the wheel, parked by the side of the road -- if not actually partially IN the roadway -- with the engine running, constitutes "actual physical control," particularly as it is contrasted in the statute with "driving" per se.

Thus, as far as I can see, the arrest was perfectly proper. The police report also indicates that Woods was charged with "improper parking," which underscores that the vehicle was not safely off the roadway, at least, not in the eyes of the charging officers.

[JHan]

36. Yes, the law.

I'm reading a citizen who tried to do the right thing but was arrested still.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

52. I don't understand your point . . .

. . . insofar as your original question was "Why was Tiger Woods arrested for DUI?"

As I believe that a review of the pertinent law illustrates, the police had a reasonable basis for concluding that Woods had broken the law -- i.e., they had good reason to conclude that Woods' (mis)conduct satisfied the elements of the crime. Thus, he was arrested.

That's pretty much how these things work.

Don't forget that he hasn't yet been convicted of any crime -- presumably, it will still be up to a county attorney whether to bring charges and so on -- but police arrest on the basis of a suspicion that a crime has been committed.

[tblue37]

57. He was in the middle of the roadway, NOT "pulled over," but in the right lane--

IOW, in traffic!

[FBaggins]

32. Probably because he was driving under the influence.

Seems pretty straightforward.

[JHan]

37. He was not "driving" when arrested.

[Codeine]

39. If you are in the the road with your car on

you're damned well driving.

[FBaggins]

63. If you're going to play games with words... NOBODY arrested for DUI is ever driving when arrested

There was more than enough proof that he WAS driving under the influence to arrest him for the crime. He's certainly able to challenge that proof in court

[JHan]

67. I am not playing games lol.

Yes I am looking to the law and where discretion can be applied depending on circumstances. It is a nuanced position I am taking.

[FBaggins]

75. Stoping your car and falling asleep in a lane of travel is very dangerous

I don't see enough "nuance" to avoid a DUI charge.

Are you seeing a "famous celebrity" exception in the law?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

64. Again, the criminal statute in question . . .

. . . does not limit "driving under the influence" to situations where the perpetrator is "driving." DUI is also defined as including being "in actual physical control" of the vehicle, which (presumably, as a matter of Florida law), is construed to include sitting behind the wheel of a (stopped) vehicle, particularly when the engine is running.

So, again, what's the problem here?

[JHan]

69. I'm aware of the law..

and questioning whether discretion can sometimes be applied - regardless of whether the person is a celebrity or not.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

80. And what, in your judgment, would be the standard(s) that the police . . .

. . . should apply when exercising this discretion?

In this particular case, Woods' having done the putative "right thing" (as you put it) extended no further than his having stopped in the right travel lane -- read the police report itself; it is available online in various places. There should be no ambiguity on this point -- with the car's engine still running, with Woods asleep, and apparently, his foot still depressing the brake (as the police report indicates that the brake lights were illuminated).

To me, this seems a poor case for the exercise of the "discretion" you tout.

[JHan]

81. So the option of escorting him home was out of the question?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

85. Again, the issue . . .

. . . it not at all what COULD the police have done other than arrest Woods but, under these circumstances, where there was probable cause for the officers to conclude that the elements of the crime were satisfied, WHY they should have "exercised discretion" and done something other than arrest him.

You keep asserting that the police "should" have done something other than arrest Woods, but you offer no reason why.

Speaking for myself, in such circumstances, I'm not at all sanguine about the police taking it upon themselves to exercise "discretion." That responsibility more properly rests with the country attorney.

[JHan]

87. Officers always exercise discretion. There's nothing new about that.

Sometimes it's wise sometimes it's not - EDIT* on the flip side, sometimes their approach even escalates a situation ( not applicable here of course)

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

96. Can you not answer the question?

You are the one making the assertion not only that the arresting could have exercised discretion (which point I'll concede, for the sake of argument) but that, in this situation, SHOULD have done so.

My question to you remains, and it is a simple one: why?

Allow me to add this variable: had the situation here been the same as given, but Woods had blown above .08 on the breathalyzer, would you still be arguing that the police should have exercised discretion and not arrested?

I'm trying to ascertain where you're coming from here.

[mythology]

76. Did he teleport the car to where it was?

I'd like that super power.

He put other people in danger. Sorry if he's your hero or your cousin or you have the same barber, but this is an easy one.

[NightWatcher]

34. He was in the roadway, behind the wheel of a running car, under the influence of drugs

If you think it's because he's black, go find a white guy and put his running car in a lane of traffic with him stoned out of his mind on pills.

[JHan]

38. Where the fuck did I mention his ethnicity?

[NightWatcher]

41. Why the fuck do you have a problem with the dui?

Are you in favor of the roads being littered with passed out stoners in running vehicles?

[JHan]

45. LOL.

[LisaM]

49. That's what I was wondering.

He clearly was in no condition to drive, yet he'd somehow arrived wherever he was (right lane or off the road) after doing so. He didn't know where he was when they woke him up (according to the article I read), so there was no reason for him to be behind the wheel.

This also isn't a first offense. When he had all his previous troubles, he was found operating a vehicle while impaired. IIRC, that time, he blamed Ambien.

[tblue37]

58. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that he was in a traffic lane, NOT pulled over off the road? nt

[JHan]

61. I am not "ignoring" anything...

I'm reading two reports

1) One says he was in the right lane with his blinkers on.
2) One says he was at the side of the road.

It's possible he was still in the lane without fully impeding traffic. My issue here is discretion and whether the authorities "go after" situations like this where a little discretion is better - regardless of who the person is, whether celebrity or not. And let's face it, celebrities are a great target.

[Codeine]

68. And why, pray tell, would "discretion" be better

in a clear case of DUI? How does that warrant "discretion"?

Woods isn't even making the excuses you are.

[Orrex]

73. Do you suggest that Tiger "Bad Back" Woods pushed his car there?

Or that he drove to the spot and *then* got zonked out on prescription meds?

Or that he was driven to that spot before some zany prankster stuffed his incapacitated form into the driver's seat?


It is clear from all available evidence that he drove to the spot where they found him, and Woods himself has not disputed it. What, exactly, are you arguing?

[tammywammy]

46. He was passed out in a running vehicle in the roadway.

I would expect anyone in those circumstances to get a DUI. He was clearly impaired by the medication.

[Saboburns]

47. This is pure speculation on my part

I have zero evidence to back it up, but this is an internet message board so I am going to post what I think.

To begin with I will say that ai am a golfer, in that I play golf a couple times a wherewith my buddies, a 9 handicap. i am no pro, but I love the game to play it and watch it on TV. I have since I was young and Jack Nicklaus was still winning.

I also say that I am a Tiger Woods fan, I pulled for him and still do.

So here it goes....I happen to think, and have thought that Tiger has a Prescription pill Opiate problem. I have thought this for nearly ten years. I have zero evidence of this, merely a gut feeling.

He has quite a few operations to fix different parts of his body over the years. And I speculate that he has been taking pain pills for a while now. JUST MY SPECULATION.

I have experience with close family members and close friends who have gotten addicted to prescription pain meds, and I just happen to see similarities to what he has done and is doing.

I like Tiger Woods, you may flame me if you wish. But thus is what I think.

[JHan]

54. Nah, I won't flame you for that.

I mean I don't like the guy, he may well have a problem, but I have this crazy idea that police can exercise discretion in situations whether the person is rich, a celebrity, or poor. In this case, I think he tried to the right thing given the circumstances.

[RhodeIslandOne]

74. Wait, so you want a guy to get a pass because he's a celebrity?

While the average joe would be fucked right now in his shoes?

[JHan]

78. For your benefit I will repeat what I typed:

"I mean I don't like the guy, he may well have a problem, but I have this crazy idea that police can exercise discretion in situations *whether the person is rich, a celebrity, or poor.* In this case, I think he tried to the right thing given the circumstances."

Nowhere did I say him being a celebrity gives him* a pass on anything.

[padfun]

66. You might be right

Prince died from opiates.

[kcr]

59. It appears he had not pulled over though.

I would agree if he had pulled over. But if he was still on the road and passed out, then a DUI charge was correct.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

60. All of those who are saying that because

Tiger Woods's car was stopped would apparently think that once a person who is definitely under the influence (whether alcohol or drugs), once they stop in response to the cop car's sirens and lights, is no longer driving and that the person can't be charged, because they're not driving just then.

Getting into his car at 3am or thereabouts, after having apparently taken some power prescription pain killers, shows a real lack of judgement.

And he didn't pull over. He apparently fell asleep at the wheel. Again, not quite what you're supposed to do.

[Codeine]

72. The only people who make excuses for impaired drivers

are people who drive while impaired. Everyone knows that guy who insists he is so used to driving drunk that he's fine.

[Rustyeye77]

86. DWB

I'm just glad the cops didn't shot him.

[Codeine]

89. Lame. nt

[madaboutharry]

92. In Wisconsin you can be arrested

for DUI if you are under the influence in the same parking lot that your car is parked in.

[malaise]

94. Driving while black

and already hated

[Codeine]

95. And completely fucked up on pills

while passed out in the road.

Details.

[JHan]

98. It's fascinating your vitriol towards someone found in a victimless crime..

especially when the person most affected in this case is the person charged.

[malaise]

101. Just laugh

[JHan]

104. lol ;)

[Codeine]

102. Zero vitriol to him.

He seems to be accepting responsibility for his actions in an unequivocal fashion. I actually admire that.

I'm less sanguine of those who seek to make excuses for those who place others in danger via their intoxications.

[JHan]

103. It is not making "excuses"

There is no other victim here, there is no "crime" against another human being here. I just edited my post to include this observation: It is an authoritarian tendency that seeks the full brunt of the law to be applied to someone whose "crime" did not harm others. A more utilitarian approach would be to recognize that since there was no harm to others, understanding should have been the first reaction instead of subjecting the individual to the full extent of the law.

[Codeine]

105. "Full brunt of the law"?

It's a first offense DUI. He's going to be fined and maybe have his driving privilege temporarily revoked. It isn't as though anyone is suggesting he be locked up.

[JHan]

107. Yes..

Are you suggesting that police officers do not make moral judgments every day depending on the circumstances? If the letter of law was followed to the teeth, all of us may be in jail for one "crime" or another.

As I said in some other posts, how is it the option to escort him home didn't occur to the officers? You think officers don't ever make that kind of a judgment call?

Why do we think that people caught in victimless crimes deserve the shame of an arrest? The argument I'm making is a nuanced one but is actually a thought experiment as well -there are other examples of "Crimes" , victimless crimes, that result in people getting arrested and a blemished record ( that is the full extent of the law applied in this case) why is that seen to be better than a more humane approach which would be to escort them home?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

109. Do you believe that if Woods . . .

. . . had been impaired due to the use of alcohol, rather than on account of the medications he had taken, that it would have been appropriate for the police to have escorted him home rather than arrested him?

I mean, if what is now in play with this post of yours is a "thought experiment," I'm curious as to where your own thinking on this takes you.

[JHan]

110. Except the issue here ( for me) isn't really what was taken..

He did not continue driving, he was "stationary" - and we really should deal with the "keys in ignition" law some mentioned which is absurd and the other definitions of "driving" which could criminalize ( as someone else noted) responsible behavior. We can't separate morals or ethics from this - did he break the law - yes, technically he did. Does that mean the law is just and he deserved to have his record blemished? no it doesn't.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

112. So, if I understand you correctly . . .

. . . even if Woods had been drinking (and, say, blew above .08 on the breathalyzer), you believe that the "just" thing in this circumstance would have been for the police not to arrest him -- or, I gather, anyone in such a situation -- but escort him home instead?

Indeed, now I read you to be saying not only should the police have exercised "discretion" so as not to arrest him, but that the law itself -- which defines DUI to include being in "physical control" of a vehicle and not only actually moving -- is somehow unjust.

While I appreciate your laying out your position, I can't possibly agree with you -- truth be told, I find your position rather absurd, as a practical matter. It amounts to a claim that driving-while-impaired should be not treated as a criminal offense where it happens to work out that nobody gets hurt. And I hardly see where stopping in a travel land and going to sleep -- even where one is NOT impaired -- could ever be considered "responsible behavior."

[JHan]

113. It's not really absurd, it's applying a moral judgement to a situation...

which you cannot separate from the application of law.

As I said elsewhere just now...

There was no victim, except perhaps Tiger himself. If actions result in a person being killed, their car indented, them swerving off the road due to the irresponsible driving of others, then yes, harm was caused. That isn't this case here.

People can be arrested if a police officer decides he or she will follow the letter of the law in that circumstance, resulting in a blemished record. This happens a lot in poorer communities, partly due to "broken windows" policing. No victim involved but they get a stain on their record, meaning getting a job becomes more difficult. Tiger is not the same of course, he's a celebrity and enjoys a certain measure of privilege ( although some love to target celebrities) but I'm taking the individual out of situation here and looking at it on the bare facts alone.

Driving while drunk is a problem as it pertains to risk to *others*, same if one is impaired due to smoking weed or some other substance and becomes unwell. I am in favor of drunk driving laws, however, it is possible that in certain situations they are too broadly applied, and enforcement too harsh compared with the risk to others or level of inebriation. I am surprised that the idea Police Officers exercise discretion or moral judgments depending on the scenario while taking into account appropriate use of resources, would be surprising.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

117. I can't agree, so will we just have to disagree, I'm afraid.

The notion that something like impaired driving should only be treated as a crime in the specific situation where somebody is harmed is contrary to basic criminal law theory. Here, Woods' actions were a THREAT to others, even if, in this instance, no one was, in fact, harmed.

It is perfectly reasonable for society to "criminalize" actions that pose a threat. Civil tort law, meanwhile, serves to address separately the situation where actual harm is caused to others.

Sure, it is legitimate to question whether so-called "victim-less crimes" should criminalized, and that debate can be had. But conduct that obviously poses a threat to others is not properly characterized as falling into the category of a "victim-less crime" simply because, in a given instance, there was no victim. That, I would respectfully submit, is the fundamental point you are missing here.

[JHan]

128. It would be insane for me to defend impaired driving.

That is not what I am doing.

There was no threat posed here, he was stationary. So lets envision a hypothetical that's similar here - say an individual is put on prescription medication , which is to be taken every couple of hours. After taking their medication, after a couple of hours while they happen to be driving they become unwell and stop the car at the side of the road - (now the report doesn't say traffic was impeded , no one crashed into the car, there was no traffic build up) . All we know is that it was in the right lane, how much in the right lane we don't know.

would you expect a reasonable response from police officers to someone dealing with the effects of prescription medication to arrest them, fingerprint them, take a mugshot or escort them home?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

152. To my mind, you keep changing the hypothetical predicate for your

. . . "thought experiment."

Earlier, I understood you to be saying that the position you were taking -- i.e., that where no "harm to others" occurred, there should be no arrest, much less punishment; indeed, it should not constitute a crime at all -- did not depend on whether the impairment was due to alcohol or an adverse reaction to medication.

Now, you seem to be retreating to a position where some sort of leniency should be extended only in the much more narrow instance where (1) only medications are involved and (2) the driver in question is suddenly overcome and attempts immediately to ameliorate the situation. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that may be descriptive of what happened here with Woods, but that wasn't how you were framing your position earlier.

Rather, your "no harm/no crime" argument, which you seemed to be advancing earlier, would have applied where (1) the driver imbibes alcohol, and (2) chooses thereafter to go off driving, and (3) subsequently determines that, due to his now-perceived impairment, decides to pull over.

As I noted previously, merely the THREAT posed by the actions described in this second scenario is sufficient to ascribe criminal liability . . . as has been determined by the state of Florida and (I'm presuming) pretty much every other state in the U.S. Moreover, doing so is perfectly consistent with sound criminal law theory. By contrast, what you are advocating -- or, at least, seemed to be advocating previously -- is unsound. Criminalizing actions that pose a threat to others, even where no harm may, in a given instance, transpire, has lengthy antecedents in common law and makes perfect sense. An action that does not produce a "victim" does not, in itself, define a "victim-less crime," properly (and historically) understood.

I've appreciated this discussion, but now you appear to shifting your pivot foot, as it were, each time you get boxed in. Past that point, further discussion is generally not fruitful.

[JHan]

164. I've been pretty consistent actually.

My arguments have been consistent - Should someone sleeping in the shoulder of a lane, due to impairment, where no one else was harmed, be arrested? What are the options there - people keep projecting scenarios that did not happen - no one else was injured, no other car was damaged, who did he incur damages against? himself perhaps? If so , why arrest?

Yes I am well aware of the law and the ways laws are applied.

[EX500rider]

119. "towards someone found in a victimless crime"

DUI is hardly a victim-less crime..
Just because he didn't plow into anybody this time...

"According to new reports, an average of 28 people a day have been killed in DUI accidents during 2016. In 2015, approximately 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired crashes, which was an increase of nearly 300 from the year before."

[JHan]

121. The bare facts of this case is that no one was harmed.

Yes, I believe that in the application of law, specifically laws pertaining to DUI's, level of inebriation AND risk to others should be taken to account because the law is sometimes too broadly applied. If you take the view that a record should be blemished even though no one else is harmed what other justification can be used to arrest people? He didn't plow into anyone because he was not moving - he was stationary. And there's no record stating that he harmed anyone while driving in this instance.

[LisaL]

154. It's not required for DUI charges that someone be harmed.

[JHan]

161. So it is perfectly fine, in your view, that someone sleeping on the shoulder due to impairment..

should be arrested?

I am familiar with the law, I am questioning how the law is applied in circumstances depending on context.

[LisaL]

167. You keep claiming he was on the shoulder.

Which isn't what police report said. He was in the right lane, partially blocking right lane and partially blocking bike lane.
So, yes, it's perfectly fine for him to be arrested.

[phylny]

171. Victimless because he and everyone else around him were lucky.

This time.

I got a speeding ticket a year and a half ago. Seventy in a 55. No one was hurt. I am not black, either. I'm a middle-aged white woman. It was a beautiful day, my sunroof was open, my music was great, and I neglected to pay attention to how fast I was driving. No one was hurt. In fact, people speed on that road all the time. I still got pulled over.

Know what? I'm glad. I'm glad because now I drive the speed limit. Getting a ticket has changed my behavior so that I don't kill myself or someone else.

Victimless this time. Hopefully this will get Woods to seek the help he obviously needs. And I'm glad he was charged.

[JHan]

97. Interesting replies and I've edited my OP to reflect that...

[DrDan]

111. and under the influence - this has nothing to do with being hated or black

here is the police report

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/tiger-woods-doc.pdf

"black" is mentioned once . . . in the context of the color of his car

and I post this as a fan of Tiger - from a golfing perspective

[RhodeIslandOne]

118. A stupid insult to black people who've been arrested for no crime of any sort

Tiger committed a crime, passed out behind the wheel on pills, even if you don't give a shit and think he's entitled because he hits a little ball real good.

He was probably too zonked to even pull the "Do you know who I am?" card.

[JHan]

123. You're attributing arguments to me that I never made. You're just ranting.

[RhodeIslandOne]

125. I was replying directly to malaise and her post

About "driving while black"

[WinkyDink]

106. The "I" is for "Influence," not "alcohol."

[JHan]

108. I know that.

[WellDarn]

114. Just a little help,

You seem to be getting hell from a bunch of posters who insist that the police reports say his car was in the middle of the road. I'll set aside my personal biases and not assume that anything a cop puts in a report after arresting a black guy is a lie. Even after doing that, however, it's important to note that the report only says that Woods was in the roadway.

"In the roadway" includes having any portion of the vehicle, even a single millimeter, touching or extending over any paved or graded portion of the road. Unless they have something more than the report, the people who are attacking your statement that Woods was pulled over by claiming he was in the middle of the right lane are revealing more about themselves than about this incident.

[LisaL]

132. He was in the right lane per the police report.

Vehicle was running and he was asleep in it. He also could not successfully carry out his sobriety test tasks.

[WhollyHeretic]

116. He also had 2 flat tires and damage to the front and back of the vehicle

Looks like this was a more recent addition to the article: "According to a more detailed police report issued Tuesday afternoon, both tires on the driver's side of Woods' car were flat at the time of his arrest and there was damage to the front and rear bumpers."

[guillaumeb]

130. How many passes have members of the Palin family received over the years?

Simply asking.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

133. Florida law: must be lawfully parked, in passenger seat, keys not in ignition, headlights off.

find a lawful parking space instead of pulling over by the side of the road. Move to the passenger’s seat to sleep and make certain that the engine is turned off, and that the keys to the vehicle are not in the ignition.

Factors that are considered when determining actual physical control may include:

If you’re awake
If your headlights are on
Where the ignition key is
If the vehicle is legally parked or in the roadway
If your vehicle’s engine is running or the ignition is on
Where and in what position you are found in the vehicle
Laws differ from state to stater and each factual patternis looked at on a case by case basis, but here are some examples of cases where people have been charged with DUI and were not driving.

Sleeping in the drivers’ seat of their car with the car off and their keys in their pocket.

Stting in the drivers’ seat with the keys in the ignition, just listening to music.

Stumbling up to their car fumbling their keys to open the door.

Walking from their car to their front door that had been seen previously drinking.

Asleep with the seatbelt on, but hybrid car with no ignition

[SDJay]

134. As Someone Who Has Lost Multiple People Close To Me

because of drunk drivers - a family member and three close friends - I get pretty pissed off when I see someone talk about DUI as a 'victimless' crime. No, no one got hurt because of this guy this time - thankfully - but that's no different than saying "I shot a gun into a crowd of people, but since I didn't hit anyone it was a victimless crime." It's asinine.

I hope he gets the same treatment from the legal system as anyone else, and I hope he gets help if he's got an addiction problem. Period. If he doesn't and keeps this up, he may kill himself and/or someone else at some point, and even for some I guess that wouldn't be 'victimless.'

[JHan]

135. I am not defending impaired driving.

I am sorry for your loss.

However, do you think someone who is dealing with the effects of prescription drugs and clearly distressed and stationary should be arrested, fingerprinted, a mugshot taken and their record blemished.

Yes, in this case there were no victims - the only victim perhaps is Tiger himself yet he is criminalized.

[LisaL]

136. You seem to think that only alcohol qualifies a driver for DUI.

That is not the case at all.

[JHan]

138. No I am not I am looking at the facts before me

And contextualizing them.

[LisaL]

145. The facts indicate that he was on the road, with the car running.

He couldn't successfully carry out sobriety tasks.
I don't see anything suggesting this wasn't a legit arrest.

[melman]

159. lol contextualizing

That's one word for it.

But I can think of a better one. Starts with a 't' and ends with 'rolling'.

[JHan]

162. I never trolled in this post but your post is a good contender for that..

In all seriousness, I don't think you understand what "trolling" means. Someone taking a different view to you is not "Trolling"

[SDJay]

144. As He Should Be

'this time[' no one got killed is not a defense to what happened, IF what we're reading is true. His car was banged up, so apparently he hit something or multiple things before taking a snooze on the road at 3 a.m. It's no different than reckless endangerment in some ways. He put himself - and others, regardless of how people want to spin this - in danger of serious injury or worse.

He can get as plastered as he wants and drive his car all over his own property by himself - I wouldn't care in the least. That's not a crime. Putting others in situations of unreasonable or even extreme danger of serious bodily injury or death is. Period.

And thank you for the wishes.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. I had a friend killed by a drunk driver.

Don't get behind the wheel if you're under the influence of anything. Tiger's a bright guy- it's not exactly news that prescription pain meds incapacitate people to the point of not being able to drive.

As you are no doubt aware, the breathalyzer is irrelevant to being under the influence of medication, not alcohol.

This will not destroy the man's life. He will be fine, and hopefully learn an important lesson.

[JHan]

139. Again, no one was killed here.

Yes context matters, yes the circumstances of his distress and whether others were harmed matters. Humans will not always make rational decisions and even then we make judgment calls re behavior depending on context. It could be Tiger Woods or it could be some poor sod who took a risk, ended up on the side of the road conked out - my view would be that arrest/fingerprinting and getting a stain on the record is an excessive response to the situation.

[LisaL]

142. People are arrested for DUI day in and day out when no one was killed.

So not sure what your problem is with the arrest when it seems perfectly legit.

[Warren DeMontague]

148. You are totally, even willfully, missing the point.

It is the decision to get behind the wheel when under the influence- of anything- that leads directly to that sort of thing. And like it or not, that decision is a crime, whether or not "anyone was hurt". Thank fucking God no one was hurt, because if they had been Tiger Woods could be looking at much more serious charges.

The "poor sod" and Tiger Woods need to know better.

I made some shitty decisions, too, when I was young. I learned. Part of that learning process was seeing one of my best friends in the ICU and taken off life support in his mid 20s.

Tiger Woods is -hopefully- learning this lesson relatively easily, by comparison. He's getting off cheap.

[jalan48]

150. He's super rich, he'll get the best attorneys and either get off or get a reduced charge.

All in all I'd say he's in pretty good shape other than for the embarrassment of being arrested and having the mug shot taken.

[whistler162]

153. From the google

https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/can-you-get-a-dui-when-you-re-not-driving-parked-car-duis-explained-



https://www.fightduicharges.com/blog/getting-a-dui-while-parked/

[Eliot Rosewater]

156. Ticket aside, Tiger seems like a decent fellow. I loved watching him play

I had hoped he would break asshole Nicklaus majors record.

I hate Nicklaus.

[Awsi Dooger]

173. My father felt the same way about Tiger eclipsing Jack's record

Dad died in October 2012. When I asked him during his final days what he wanted me to root for sportswise, he only perked up while loudly saying he wanted Tiger to surpass Nicklaus' 18.

That was an election year so naturally Nicklaus was an asshole throughout. I remember he wouldn't even refer to Obama by name, instead calling him, "that other guy," with a dismissive tone and facial expression.

I was disgusted this year while watching Nicklaus campaign for Trump in Ohio. The American PGA players are right wing simpletons almost without exception. One of the foreign players called them out on it a few years ago. Might have been Geoff Ogilvy but I don't remember exactly.

Anyway, Tiger and anyone else he might have encountered is fortunate he wasn't on I-95, which is only a few miles away from where this incident happened and also heads north/south. That freeway at that hour attracts speed demons and lane changing nutcases galore.

[deaniac21]

165. I guess he apologized just because he is so nice.

[GatoGordo]

168. As someone who was arrested for DUI (Ambien)

You are subject to arrest even if they cannot detect alcohol. He was clearly under the influence of something, and in control of his vehicle. (Even if he was in the backseat sleeping, with his keys in his pocket in some locations)

This is why a person should not submit to field sobriety tests. (contrary to popular opinion, you are not required to perform these tests. You are ONLY required to submit to an objective blood or breath test) You might spend a night or two in the hoosegow, but if they don't blood test for meds that you are under, AND you don't submit to their subjective field tests, (and keep your yap shut) you are very unlikely to be found guilty for "operating under the influence" if you refuse their subjective tests. No DA is going to prosecute when they "think a person might fail a test that was never given". REMEMBER, a field sobriety test doesn't do you any favors... even if you pass it. It is a tool used to prove your guilt, not your innocence.

I found this out the hard way.

[VOX]

169. Wood's car had front and rear flats, damage, and was running.

The story has been updated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/30/us/tiger-woods-arrested-dui-new-details/index.html
(CNN) Tiger Woods' 2015 Mercedes-Benz showed signs of "fresh damage" on the driver's side of the vehicle when he was found asleep at the wheel the morning of his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, police records show.

New documents released late Tuesday afternoon by Jupiter, Florida, police reveal that both tire rims on the driver's side of the Mercedes had minor damage and the front and rear tires on that side of the vehicle were flat.

Police also observed damage to the bumper on the driver's side, white scrapes and scuffs on the rear bumper, and the passenger side rear taillight was not working, according to the documents.

Jupiter police discovered Woods early Monday on the side of the road, with his car running, its brake lights illuminated and right turn signal flashing, according to the arrest report released earlier Tuesday. He was by himself and wearing his seat belt.

The report said Woods had to be awakened and that his speech was slurred. Woods told police he was coming from golfing in Los Angeles and he didn't know where he was, the document said. According to the report, he later changed his story and asked how far he was from his house. Woods has a home on Jupiter Island.
<snip>

[Dreamer Tatum]

170. Why was he drugged and planted in his damaged car on the road?

The cops really have it in for him. The truth will come out, soon enough.