missfee said:

Seriously? I'd be mortified if I took out a fire hydrant and hit a tree with my car.

Genesia said:

Exactly, who has time to feel "embarrassed"???

missfee said:

I think he's embarrassed because a beautiful woman who is his wife and the mother of his children was taking after him with a 5-iron.

Dude just needs to come correct like David Letterman did. People might still think Letterman screwed up, but no one jokes about it any more. The admission and the apology took all the jokes away.

Unless Tiger mans up, he's going to get BARBECUED on sports radio and late night talk shows for the foreseeable future.

I see no reason his wife would take a club to the car to get him out. And why does that lady need Gloria Allred to represent her?

Vendetta1 said:

smells like bullshit doesn't it?

We all know the deal with Tiger and his wife, but he doesn't owe anyone an explanation. Especially these media tools.

Uptown ur missing the point....the media we understand but the man cancelled 3 times with the police....they are(the police) is asking him for his side if the story so yes he needs to step up and explain himself to them...media has notta to do with this,they only reported he has done the cancelling to talk to police.

toots said:

No he doesn't not legally anyway, it's called 5th Amendment rights. Since this is only a traffic matter and didn’t involve any other parties, Mr. Tiger Woods isn’t obligated to speak to the police. It's wise for Mr. Woods to keep his mouth shut; I'm certain Legal Counsel are now advising him how he should precede.


=====
[Edited 11/30/09 7:18am]

RodeoSchro said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Exactly. This whole situation reeked of domestic dispute from the get go. Who gets into a crash peeling out of their driveway? Someone who is majorly pissed off, or trying to get away from someone that's who.

That said, it’s no one’s business but their own.

Vendetta1 said:

because she's an ambulance-chasing attention whore....

TD3 said:

Wow still don't get it do u.He hit a fire hydrent which is city property and there is audio tape of him calling 911. They have to send the bill somewhere don't they? I'm sure the taxpayers are not willing to flip the bill for a hydrent nor misuse of the 911 system.Yeah his precious car was totalled and involved in a accident which if u or I have insurance have to be reported if you want it fixed here in the good ol USA.Of course he is rich but you can't tell me they don't have to insurance either. So what he has legal councel, what's stopping him from talking to the authorities without his attorney being there? NOTTA. 5th Admentment my ass its also called withholding information aka lieing or hiding the truth if he hasn't cancelled so many times.

toots said:

I understand that he lives in a gated community. Is the fire hydrant actually city property?

errant said:

Maybe pending where and what the city claims as theirs. Same for the tree he hit the cost to replace both may be covered under insurance if he has any. Here in Illinois its mandatoried we have insurance and they do checks(just got finished with a random one and a guy at work got hit with one last week) if I didn't provide info they would suspend my license till I had proof of insurance. The fire hydrent may belong to city anyway seemingly the fire dept has rights to use it n flush them when needed.
Edited to say: my grandfather is town board commisioner, chief of fire dept., owns his own backhoe service and has to know where zoning is.
[Edited 11/30/09 8:18am]

shit, if Tiger Woods can't afford a tree, a hydrant, a new Escalade, and some new clubs then what the fuck hope do I have?

I don't want to know his business, I just want to know if he got that ass whupped

JustErin said:

"Peeling out" is such a bad-ass 70's term. Love it!

toots said:

I just heard a reporter say on the news that legally he doesn't have to talk to the cops

Reputed 'Other Woman' Denies Affair with Tiger Woods
By Michael Y. Park

The so-called "other woman" whose name has surfaced in the wake of Tiger Woods's accident has hired a high-profile celebrity lawyer and issued an adamant denial of any relationship with the golfing champ.

"I did not have any involvement with him [Woods]," Rachel Uchitel told E! News. "Whatever was written in the Enquirer was not said by me, it was said by two people that claimed they were friends of mine, but they're not."

She added: "I am overwhelmed, so I hired Gloria Allred to handle the situation. I don't want to get this much attention, and I wish everybody would leave me alone."

Just days before Woods, 33, crashed his car near his Florida home, the National Enquirer claimed he'd been carrying on a romance with the New York nightclub manager. Following the crash, rumors swirled that Woods's wife, Elin, had argued with the golfer about an affair just before the accident, and that she had caused the scratches police found on his face.

In a statement after the accident, which took place early in the morning after Thanksgiving, Woods denied "the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors." He also asked for everyone to respect his privacy, and has repeatedly canceled interviews with police.


Sources contradict Uchitel's account, however, saying she's claimed flings not only with Woods but with actor David Boreanaz, and that her mother has told friends her daughter has dated New York Yankee players Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez.

"She is a fun party girl; she was definitely into celebrities," according to a source. "She's into being around famous people. Her job was to rack up VIP clientele. She is a flirtatious girl."



http://www.people.com/peo...78,00.html

^ I knew that story was bound to surface. I smell a divorce in 2010.

DesireeNevermind said:

Half.....a billion.

....and this folks, is why Derek Jeter is the smartest/greatest pro athlete in the world. He gets it, unlike these foolish athletes who get married when they shouldn't.

toots said:

I'm aware there are sometimes (especailly on message boards) just because we know what we mean, we assume what we've typed is clear.

Let's go back to your original statement, because your subsequent statement even if you still think you now what you are talking about, you are incorrect... still.



Mr. Woods isn't under any legal obilgation to speak to the police about the traffic accident that took place outside of his home. The police investgation can (I'm sure it will ) continue without Mr. & Mrs. Woods participation and/or cooperation. Mr. Woods is only obligated to show proof he has a driver license, car registration, and insurance. I'll repeat, he doesn't have to speak with police authorities. I'm sure Mr.Woods has already handed over all this information without parting his lips.


This was a minor accident and it's strange he would clam up like this. It appears he's trying to prevent some embarrassing information getting out and he has that right. If Mr. Woods did speak with the police and he or his wife gave false statements, they could be charged with resisting arrest without violence, a misdemeanor, which invovles jail time and a minimal fine. Very very doubtful it would ever come to this tho'. Mr. Woods Legal Counsel will advise him how he should precede.

Maybe in the ol' USA we need to bring back high school civic classes. Everyone should know their civil rights and have rudimentary understanding of The Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.



=====
[Edited 11/30/09 11:29am]

Wanda Sykes on Tiger Woods;

"big Viking bitch!!!"

TD3 said:[quote]

toots said:

Well see if cops and attorneys are involved and were called in the first place yeah he does have to talk even court ordered.and by the way attorneys r involved he might have no choice. Which brings me to wonder why can't he talk to the cops but talk freely on his twitter. So funny some r defensive

On the news it said that he isn't required to talk to the police...all the State Troopers need are his license, registration, and insurance. That's it. So if he's hiding something (and he is definitely hiding something) then its air tight....that is unless someone close to them falls weak to the tabloids and spills the beans in exchange for 50K.

TD3 is very correct. Aren't you a lawyer anyway TD?
[Edited 11/30/09 10:34am]

missfee said:

yes.

toots said:

Tiger Woods: A Legal Analysis
Posted: November 29, 2009

WINDERMERE, Fla. – Three times in the last three days Florida Highway Patrol officers knocked on Tiger Woods’ door seeking an explanation about what led to his traffic accident outside his Isleworth mansion in the early morning hours Friday.

Three times Woods declined to speak to them.

Based on statements by Woods’ agent, Mark Steinberg, it now appears Woods will not speak to investigators at all. Woods’ attorney, Mark NeJame, presented Woods’ driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance to officers on Sunday as his cooperation with the investigators assigned to the case.

What’s the deal? Legally, is Woods required to answer their questions? How might this affect the investigation and any potential charges? What legal risks are out there for Woods?

GolfChannel.com posed these and other questions to a pair of criminal defense attorneys from Orlando, Hal Uhrig of The Defense Group, and Adam Pollack:

Is Woods legally required to speak to FHP investigators?

Uhrig: There are only a few things that the statute really requires Tiger Woods to provide: his name, driver’s license information, proof of insurance and that sort of information. Beyond that, he may simply be disinclined to have any conversation with the FHP.

Does it matter that he is avoiding investigators?

Uhrig: It certainly matters to curious people who want to know. There may be something, more than just an accident, that he is not prepared to discuss. He doesn’t want to lie, but he doesn’t want to talk about it.

Pollack: I think the worst thing that can happen in this type of case is, unfortunately, that this is going to open all kinds of speculation. The Enquirer and magazines like that will have a field day speculating as to what happened. Mr. Woods and his wife have no way to combat that. People will wonder why he wouldn’t say anything. The natural reaction is: What do you have to hide? That is a public relations issue. But I suspect when he gets back to doing what he’s good at, this will blow over and just be a bad memory for him.

How might less than full cooperation affect the FHP’s findings?

Uhrig: They may make every negative imprint against him if he refuses to talk and assume he was driving carelessly or recklessly.

What’s the worst legal outcome you see Woods facing based on the known facts?

Uhrig: They could charge him with careless driving, because he lost control of the car. That’s a small fine. They would probably not charge him with reckless driving because he did not fly out of the driveway at 60 mph and drive in circles and sideways into (the fire hydrant and tree). If he just left his driveway and lost control, it may be careless driving, but there may be mechanical reasons, something on the car may have failed.

Pollack: At this point, it seems like careless driving would be the worst charge. The problem is that nobody can put him behind the wheel. I guess his wife could, but she didn’t actually see the accident. She came out after the fact. Without any witness, there is nobody to put him as the driver. I know that sounds crazy, but that’s what the law says. You have to be able to put him behind the wheel at the time of the accident. Mr. Woods doesn’t have to say anything in his defense.

What should we make of the fact that Woods has hired Mark NeJame, a criminal defense attorney, to handle this matter?

Uhrig: I doubt he’s using him for any criminal stuff. I think he’s looking at him as a spokesperson. Mr. NeJame is somebody who has been involved in high profile cases before. He may be the filter through which Mr. Woods provides whatever information he’s going to.

The initial police report stated that alcohol was not a factor. There appears to have been no testing for alcohol or drugs, no breathalyzer or blood draw. Also, Woods wasn’t informed that he was being arrested for suspicion of DUI, a requirement before he can be tested. Does that rule out DUI charges?

Uhrig: It would be all but impossible. If they don’t have a test of his breath, blood or urine shortly after the accident, their chance of a DUI are almost none.

Pollack: If alcohol or drugs was suspected to play a role, then the Florida Highway Patrol could have ordered a compulsory blood draw. There is a procedure they have to follow. The fact that (the report stated no alcohol was involved) leads me to believe they didn’t order a blood draw.

There was an unsubstantiated report that a domestic dispute might have precipitated the accident. Even if that were true, what are the chances the FHP investigation could lead the Orange County Sheriff’s department to pursue domestic charges of any sort?

Uhrig: I suppose if somebody in the household came forward and complained that somebody was beating somebody, or somebody was trying to escape, there could be an investigation. People are going to speculate one way or another, but I don’t think law enforcement is going anywhere with that. If they were to consider a criminal investigation, neither he nor his wife have any obligation to say anything to the police. They can say, `Leave us alone.’ If police want to try to develop evidence that somebody did something unlawful to the other and charge, they can do that, but they can’t compel Mr. or Mrs. Woods to provide them with any details they don’t want to give them. You would be kind of spinning your wheels

TD3 said:

I knew I had asked you this before but couldn't remember if it was you or somebody else. Sorry for the repeat.

Police Still Want to Speak to Tiger Woods, Charges Are Pending

Police are still trying to get Tiger Woods to open up about his car accident early Friday morning.

In a statement issued by the Florida Highway Patrol Monday, spokeswoman Kim Montes says that repeated tries to interview the famed golfer, 33, have failed.

"As of Nov. 30, 2009, the Florida Highway Patrol has been unable to speak to Mr. Woods about the crash he was involved in on the morning of Nov. 27, 2009, despite attempts to do so," the statement reads. "Mr. Woods' representatives have provided us with his driver license information, vehicle registration and current proof of insurance, as required by Florida Law."

Montes adds that charges are pending, but didn't go into any detail.


http://www.people.com/people/

Identity said:

What’s the worst legal outcome you see Woods facing based on the known facts?

Uhrig: They could charge him with careless driving, because he lost control of the car. That’s a small fine. They would probably not charge him with reckless driving because he did not fly out of the driveway at 60 mph and drive in circles and sideways into (the fire hydrant and tree). If he just left his driveway and lost control, it may be careless driving, but there may be mechanical reasons, something on the car may have failed.

Pollack: At this point, it seems like careless driving would be the worst charge. The problem is that nobody can put him behind the wheel. I guess his wife could, but she didn’t actually see the accident. She came out after the fact. Without any witness, there is nobody to put him as the driver. I know that sounds crazy, but that’s what the law says. You have to be able to put him behind the wheel at the time of the accident. Mr. Woods doesn’t have to say anything in his defense.

What should we make of the fact that Woods has hired Mark NeJame, a criminal defense attorney, to handle this matter?