Tiger was doing 87mph in a 45 mph zone

[Imurg]

Isn't this just giving people the opportunity to say Well, you didn't prosecute Tiger for doing 90, why are you prosecuting me for doing 70.?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Isn't this just giving people the opportunity to say Well, you didn't prosecute Tiger for doing 90, why are you prosecuting me for doing 70.?

Because you didn't cripple yourself & physically prevent yourself from driving. So we are.

 

[clubchamp98]

Well, the two people on this thread who used to deal with these things for a living don't think you would have been.

That does seem a bit strange.
If you hurt yourself enough you are not prosecuted.
But the lads who deal with this sort of stuff know their job .
But if it’s not in the public interest to keep a stupid ,reckless driver off the road for a very long time the law needs upgrading.

 

[Mandofred]

Because you didn't cripple yourself & physically prevent yourself from driving. So we are.

This view is based on law? As long as I hurt myself and accidentally don't hurt anybody else....good enough. Is there a list of injuries I can get that will allow me to avoid fines? Hurt my toe....tough luck, you get fined. Break legs.....ok, good enough......

 

[clubchamp98]

The law on motorists in the USA is very strict.
The cops don’t let you off with anything.
I find that they are not prosecuting very strange.

 

[evemccc]

I am on the other side of the coin .
He should be prosecuted to show the law is for everyone even the rich.
It would create a job for a driver if the ban was long enough.
He should have to pass another driving test and the ban starts then.
The laws on stupid motorists need stepping up.
It was only luck he didn’t hurt anyone else.
The next guy in court is going to claim he shouldn’t be done Tiger wasn’t.
Just my opinion formed from my personal experience of tosses in cars. That’s what Tiger was.

Agree with this.

In the news today a girl (18yrs old, whole life ahead of her) killed by speeding motorist (30 months is all he got).

I think punishments for breaking the law, in my opinion, should also act as a deterrent, esp if media broadcasts it

 

[rudebhoy]

I'm surprised they never tested him after the accident, and just took his word for it that he hadn't consumed drugs or alcohol. Very strange given his previous.

 

[pokerjoke]

He was speeding
I probably speed every time I drive,and I bet 100% of people have that are posting.

 

[Blue in Munich]

This view is based on law? As long as I hurt myself and accidentally don't hurt anybody else....good enough. Is there a list of injuries I can get that will allow me to avoid fines? Hurt my toe....tough luck, you get fined. Break legs.....ok, good enough......

Obviously not; that was put in terms of typical TraffPol sympathy as a response to someone bleating on about why they were being done when someone else wasn't.

If you want the view of the law on whether or not he should be prosecuted under our system then here it is. I've taken the liberty of bolding a couple of points that might be particularly pertinent;

The Public Interest Stage
4.9 In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

4.10 It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.

4.11 When deciding the public interest, prosecutors should consider each of the questions set out below in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) so as to identify and determine the relevant public interest factors tending for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors to form an overall assessment of the public interest.

4.12 The explanatory text below each question in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) provides guidance to prosecutors when addressing each particular question and determining whether it identifies public interest factors for or against prosecution. The questions identified are not exhaustive, and not all the questions may be relevant in every case. The weight to be attached to each of the questions, and the factors identified, will also vary according to the facts and merits of each case.

4.13 It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.

4.14 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:
a. How serious is the offence committed?

• The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• When assessing the seriousness of an offence, prosecutors should include in their consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm caused, by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).

b) What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

• The greater the suspect’s level of culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• Culpability is likely to be determined by:
  1. the suspect’s level of involvement;
  2. the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned;
  3. the extent to which the suspect has benefitted from criminal conduct;
  4. whether the suspect has previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail or whilst subject to a court order;
  5. whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated;
  6. the suspect’s age and maturity (see paragraph d below).
• A suspect is likely to have a much lower level of culpability if the suspect has been compelled, coerced or exploited, particularly if they are the victim of a crime that is linked to their offending.
• Prosecutors should also have regard to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, affected by any significant mental or physical ill health or disability, as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether the suspect is likely to re-offend and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.

c) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?

• The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The more vulnerable the victim’s situation, or the greater the perceived vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
• A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.
• It is more likely that prosecution is required if the offence was motivated by any form of prejudice against the victim’s actual or presumed ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim, or demonstrated hostility towards the victim, based on any of those characteristics.
• Prosecutors also need to consider if a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence, the availability of special measures and the possibility of a prosecution without the participation of the victim.
• Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.
• However, the CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.

d) What was the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence?

• The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18.
• The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered, including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on their future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
• Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system, which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Prosecutors should consider the suspect’s maturity, as well as their chronological age, as young adults will continue to mature into their mid-twenties.
• As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• However, there may be circumstances which mean that, notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18 or lacks maturity, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where:

1. the offence committed is serious;
2. the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution; and
3. the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals that might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.

e) What is the impact on the community?

• The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• The prevalence of an offence in a community may cause particular harm to that community, increasing the seriousness of the offending.
• Community is not restricted to communities defined by location and may relate to a group of people who share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, including an occupational group.
• Evidence of impact on a community may be obtained by way of a Community Impact Statement.

f) Is prosecution a proportionate response?

• In considering whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, the following may be relevant:
  1. The cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g), but cost can be a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest.
  2. Cases should be prosecuted in accordance with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects, prosecution might be reserved for the main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.

 

[Hobbit]

This view is based on law? As long as I hurt myself and accidentally don't hurt anybody else....good enough. Is there a list of injuries I can get that will allow me to avoid fines? Hurt my toe....tough luck, you get fined. Break legs.....ok, good enough......

If convicted of a "Dry Reckless Charge" he would get the standard $145 fine. A "Wet (drink or drugs) Reckless Charge" would see a $3000 fine and a 6 month licence suspension. The only way he'd serve time would be if he injured someone else.

There's plenty of info on the current sentencing applied in California. The guidelines might allow for stiffer sentencing but its just not happening.

 

[Billysboots]

Obviously not; that was put in terms of typical TraffPol sympathy as a response to someone bleating on about why they were being done when someone else wasn't.

If you want the view of the law on whether or not he should be prosecuted under our system then here it is. I've taken the liberty of bolding a couple of points that might be particularly pertinent;

The Public Interest Stage
4.9 In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

4.10 It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.

4.11 When deciding the public interest, prosecutors should consider each of the questions set out below in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) so as to identify and determine the relevant public interest factors tending for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors to form an overall assessment of the public interest.

4.12 The explanatory text below each question in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) provides guidance to prosecutors when addressing each particular question and determining whether it identifies public interest factors for or against prosecution. The questions identified are not exhaustive, and not all the questions may be relevant in every case. The weight to be attached to each of the questions, and the factors identified, will also vary according to the facts and merits of each case.

4.13 It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.

4.14 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:
a. How serious is the offence committed?

• The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• When assessing the seriousness of an offence, prosecutors should include in their consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm caused, by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).

b) What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

• The greater the suspect’s level of culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• Culpability is likely to be determined by:
  1. the suspect’s level of involvement;
  2. the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned;
  3. the extent to which the suspect has benefitted from criminal conduct;
  4. whether the suspect has previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail or whilst subject to a court order;
  5. whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated;
  6. the suspect’s age and maturity (see paragraph d below).
• A suspect is likely to have a much lower level of culpability if the suspect has been compelled, coerced or exploited, particularly if they are the victim of a crime that is linked to their offending.
• Prosecutors should also have regard to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, affected by any significant mental or physical ill health or disability, as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether the suspect is likely to re-offend and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.

c) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?

• The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The more vulnerable the victim’s situation, or the greater the perceived vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
• A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.
• It is more likely that prosecution is required if the offence was motivated by any form of prejudice against the victim’s actual or presumed ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim, or demonstrated hostility towards the victim, based on any of those characteristics.
• Prosecutors also need to consider if a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence, the availability of special measures and the possibility of a prosecution without the participation of the victim.
• Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.
• However, the CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.

d) What was the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence?

• The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18.
• The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered, including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on their future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
• Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system, which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Prosecutors should consider the suspect’s maturity, as well as their chronological age, as young adults will continue to mature into their mid-twenties.
• As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• However, there may be circumstances which mean that, notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18 or lacks maturity, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where:

1. the offence committed is serious;
2. the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution; and
3. the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals that might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.

e) What is the impact on the community?

• The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• The prevalence of an offence in a community may cause particular harm to that community, increasing the seriousness of the offending.
• Community is not restricted to communities defined by location and may relate to a group of people who share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, including an occupational group.
• Evidence of impact on a community may be obtained by way of a Community Impact Statement.

f) Is prosecution a proportionate response?

• In considering whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, the following may be relevant:
  1. The cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g), but cost can be a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest.
  2. Cases should be prosecuted in accordance with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects, prosecution might be reserved for the main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.

I’m having flashbacks. And it’s not pleasant.

 

[Baldy Bouncer]

He was speeding
I probably speed every time I drive,and I bet 100% of people have that are posting.

Not at nearly double the limit they don't, I'll bet.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I'm surprised they never tested him after the accident, and just took his word for it that he hadn't consumed drugs or alcohol. Very strange given his previous.

I'm not; he is under the care of medics. Is he in a fit condition to give the sample; will the giving of a sample have an adverse effect on his health; will it have an adverse effect on his treatment? Given the extent of his injuries & the treatment he would have been receiving I'm not at all surprised that no sample was taken.

And if they had taken a positive sample, how do they go on with taking him down to the local station in that condition for the evidential tests?

 

[Mandofred]

Obviously not; that was put in terms of typical TraffPol sympathy as a response to someone bleating on about why they were being done when someone else wasn't.

If you want the view of the law on whether or not he should be prosecuted under our system then here it is. I've taken the liberty of bolding a couple of points that might be particularly pertinent;

The Public Interest Stage
4.9 In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution or to offer an out-of-court disposal, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

4.10 It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.

4.11 When deciding the public interest, prosecutors should consider each of the questions set out below in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) so as to identify and determine the relevant public interest factors tending for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors to form an overall assessment of the public interest.

4.12 The explanatory text below each question in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g) provides guidance to prosecutors when addressing each particular question and determining whether it identifies public interest factors for or against prosecution. The questions identified are not exhaustive, and not all the questions may be relevant in every case. The weight to be attached to each of the questions, and the factors identified, will also vary according to the facts and merits of each case.

4.13 It is quite possible that one public interest factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.

4.14 Prosecutors should consider each of the following questions:
a. How serious is the offence committed?

• The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• When assessing the seriousness of an offence, prosecutors should include in their consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm caused, by asking themselves the questions at b) and c).

b) What is the level of culpability of the suspect?

• The greater the suspect’s level of culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• Culpability is likely to be determined by:
  1. the suspect’s level of involvement;
  2. the extent to which the offending was premeditated and/or planned;
  3. the extent to which the suspect has benefitted from criminal conduct;
  4. whether the suspect has previous criminal convictions and/or out-of-court disposals and any offending whilst on bail or whilst subject to a court order;
  5. whether the offending was or is likely to be continued, repeated or escalated;
  6. the suspect’s age and maturity (see paragraph d below).
• A suspect is likely to have a much lower level of culpability if the suspect has been compelled, coerced or exploited, particularly if they are the victim of a crime that is linked to their offending.
• Prosecutors should also have regard to whether the suspect is, or was at the time of the offence, affected by any significant mental or physical ill health or disability, as in some circumstances this may mean that it is less likely that a prosecution is required. However, prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether the suspect is likely to re-offend and the need to safeguard the public or those providing care to such persons.

c) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim?

• The circumstances of the victim are highly relevant. The more vulnerable the victim’s situation, or the greater the perceived vulnerability of the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• This includes where a position of trust or authority exists between the suspect and victim.
• A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.
• It is more likely that prosecution is required if the offence was motivated by any form of prejudice against the victim’s actual or presumed ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity; or if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim, or demonstrated hostility towards the victim, based on any of those characteristics.
• Prosecutors also need to consider if a prosecution is likely to have an adverse effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence, the availability of special measures and the possibility of a prosecution without the participation of the victim.
• Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.
• However, the CPS does not act for victims or their families in the same way as solicitors act for their clients, and prosecutors must form an overall view of the public interest.

d) What was the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence?

• The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18.
• The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered, including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on their future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
• Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system, which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Prosecutors should consider the suspect’s maturity, as well as their chronological age, as young adults will continue to mature into their mid-twenties.
• As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• However, there may be circumstances which mean that, notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18 or lacks maturity, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where:

1. the offence committed is serious;
2. the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution; and
3. the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals that might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.

e) What is the impact on the community?

• The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
• The prevalence of an offence in a community may cause particular harm to that community, increasing the seriousness of the offending.
• Community is not restricted to communities defined by location and may relate to a group of people who share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, including an occupational group.
• Evidence of impact on a community may be obtained by way of a Community Impact Statement.

f) Is prosecution a proportionate response?

• In considering whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, the following may be relevant:
  1. The cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified when considering the other questions in paragraphs 4.14 a) to g), but cost can be a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest.
  2. Cases should be prosecuted in accordance with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects, prosecution might be reserved for the main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.

Key point....under our system. Again.....I don't know the rules where he was.....which wasn't here.......and I'm too lazy to try to research it enough to find out. I don't think he should be tossed in jail etc etc. Fined?.....yeah. I know he can pay any fine without blinking an eye......but.....

Someone suggested he take the driving test over again. I kind of laughed at that one. I've only taken the test in Washington state (and my UK wife as well) but I think it is similar in most states......it's easy.....real easy.

 

[Captainron]

Didn’t touch the brakes? Suggests to me that he took a micronap behind the wheel. Lucky to get out of there alive.

 

[rudebhoy]

I'm not; he is under the care of medics. Is he in a fit condition to give the sample; will the giving of a sample have an adverse effect on his health; will it have an adverse effect on his treatment? Given the extent of his injuries & the treatment he would have been receiving I'm not at all surprised that no sample was taken.

And if they had taken a positive sample, how do they go on with taking him down to the local station in that condition for the evidential tests?

Taking a blood sample isnt exactly going to affect his health. I thought that at the least the police would have requested one.

 

[rudebhoy]

He was speeding
I probably speed every time I drive,and I bet 100% of people have that are posting.

I've never driven at twice the speed limit. I doubt many other people on here have either.

 

[Billysboots]

Taking a blood sample isnt exactly going to affect his health. I thought that at the least the police would have requested one.

Can’t speak for the U.S, but it’s quite common in the U.K. for doctors to refuse access to a seriously injured driver for the purpose of obtaining a blood sample. If there’s any suggestion that securing a sample is likely to prejudice medical treatment, especially patients in major trauma, you’ve got more chance of plaiting fog.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Taking a blood sample isnt exactly going to affect his health. I thought that at the least the police would have requested one.

Our initial sample is deep lung breath, and I would imagine theirs is too. That, or a sobriety test involving walking a line. Given that he has just been in a high speed impact that probably deployed the airbag into his chest and the general beating up he would have taken a breath test is out. I'm fairly sure police aren't qualified to take blood so that is down to the medics, and as @Billysboots has said, the medics aren't necessarily keen. I can only imagine they are even less keen in the land of the free to sue.

 

[KenL]

Idiot.

My sympathy for him has just gone out the window.

Interesting. I heard the police knew a cause but were not publishing it.

No doubt he was in a sh*tty 4x4 that has rubbish handling.