Tiger Woods DUI Arrest

Cops can SO easily fake a breathalyzer failure. NEVER go for the Breathalyzer. ALWAYS require a blood test, administered by a medical professional who is NOT a cop!
Of course, if you ARE drunk, it wont matter anyway, unless where you are arrested has varying degrees of DUI according to the test result. But I KNOW people who have failed breathalyzers though they did NOT drink. One girl I know got hit by a van full of drunken cops and their wives returning from a Christmas party WITH OPEN CONTAINERS OF LIQUOR IN THE VAN! The cops were NEVER tested, breath or blood, though many witnesses testified to their drunken state. The girl had just gotten off work 10 minutes earlier and hadn't had ANYTHING to drink that evening, according to testimony of her coworkers and bosses, and yet her breathalyzer test showed she was at 0.3% blood alcohol level, or 3 times the legal limit at the time.
She was at a traffic light, waiting to make a left turn, when the light turned yellow. There was the van coming, but it should have slowed and stopped to clear the intersection. Instead, the driver of the van FLOORED it to run through the light, which was red when it entered the intersection and hit her in the side. Tire marks, vehicle damage, and eyewitness testimony showed the van must have been travelling in excess of 70 mph as it hit her car, in a 35 mph zone. Yet the cops got rides home from fellow officers, and the girl went to jail for 2 days before bail was set. She lost her license to drive. She was charged with MULTIPLE counts including speeding, reckless driving, running a red light, DUI, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct, and failing to signal for the turn! They threatened her with consecutive prison sentences that would keep her in prison for as much as 50 years! Unless she would plead guilty to DUI , and serve 6 months in county jail. She couldn't afford a lawyer, so she agreed to plead and went to jail. But as the story unfolded and witnesses came forward, and lawyers came forward to represent her for free, the case was overturned. But she had already served her 6 months. Eventually, she sued, and won some $150,000.00 from the state hiway patrol, which we taxpayers had to pay. The cops were NEVER charged, despite the testimony of witnesses, the overwhelming evidence of THEIR reckless driving, their falsifying of test results, false official reports, and perjury when they lied under oath. NONE of them even lost their JOBS!

1) Your over-generalization about breathalyzers to discredit their general usefulness is short-sighted. Even though blood tests are more accurate, breathalyzer technologies have been improving, and home versions have been coming out that can rival the units used by police. More often than not, they do the job.

2) Tiger Woods's DUI was in the morning. It's not like it was at a late-night DUI checkpoint. At a checkpoint, someone else's breath could still linger freshly on the machine, or someone could easily forget to recalibrate between many stops. Woods could have simply submitted to the test, and done multiple repetitions on the machine (like taking temperature multiple times). And no one else's breath would have been on that machine. Accuracy level would have been reliable.

3) Woods refusing to take the test after getting pulled over...in the daylight hours of the morning...on the cop's reasonable suspicion of Woods DUI creates a presumption of guilt. Many drivers suspected of DUI for erratic driving and/or being off balance deny being under the influence of alcohol, because they don't want to admit they have had too much to drink.

4) Another former athlete star to blame prescription medications for intoxication was NASCAR's Jeremy Mayfield. He blamed allergy medicine after he was found to have taken meth. Law enforcement also found later during a house raid he had meth, and $100K worth of firearms. I brought this up as a point about high-profile athletes who deny wrongdoing and end up getting busted on a greater magnitude later. Lance Armstrong also comes to mind.

5) It is possible Woods could have mixed alcohol with drugs...or medications. Just saying he may have had something to hide. By refusing to take the Breathalyzer, he probably figures he can also get out of the blood test by just blaming the prescription medication. If he didn't consume alcohol, he should have taken the test, and then if he believes it was invalid, he then could have taken a blood test to challenge the Breathalyzer...But of course, the follow-up blood test could have also shown that something else that he may not have wanted to show up was flowing in his blood. He may be hoping his blood cleanses itself to wipe out the evidence. I say "check the hair." Hair Analysis can show traces of use of therapeutic or recreational drugs.

My comment was meant to point out that cops CAN and DO fake breathalyzer 'fail results, and for any number of reasons, be it racism, sexism, to fill "arrest quotas", improper calibration, poor training, and now sometimes to increase revenues for privately run jail and prison profits, should the 'Sheriff' or 'Chief' or their political boss happen to own stock in such a company. Its MUCH more difficult to get a medical professional to manipulate or falsify a blood test result, and even if it ISNT deliberately falsified, a blood test is inherently far more reliable and accurate in most cases.
What Wood's particular case turns up isn't really the point. The point is that your best chance for an accurate and honest measure of blood-alcohol content is a blood test at the hospital. Even a blood sample taken by 'qualified' cops at the station and transported to the hospital for testing can easily be swapped or manipulated somehow in order to guarantee a 'fail' result if that is what the cops want, for ANY reason.
Also, hair can be used to discover a 'history' of drug use, it is not very accurate in determining WHEN a drug was used or whether a person is currently under the influence.

Your premise that most or all cops lie or swap the results is invalid. Most officers are law-abiding servants of the public. Sure there are the Christopher Dorners out there who paint a bad image and make the rest of police look bad. But to cast the entire law enforcement as corrupt, especially with the sarcastic use of quotations when saying 'qualified', renders your assertion with no validity.
ALSO, another flaw with your latest comment has to do with the hospital system. You honestly think that the hospital is ALWAYS more organized and competent than a law enforcement professional who administers a blood test? Hospitals occasionally make grave errors too. Ask anybody who is put into shock and doesn't get pulled out of that state due to lack of medical preparation by whoever is treating the patient in that moment. Or...ask a patient who catches MRSA after being placed on a hospital bed or on an operating table due to lack of proper sanitation.
If you hadn't broadbrushed the entire law enforcement in your comments, you might have had an argument.
And one more thing...as Carlos Mencia comedian says, "If you're gonna rant, make it funny."

Where did I say MOST or ALL cops? NOWHERE! DUH! Learn to read!

I read between the lines Colin Kaepernick.

Though not expressly, you said it without saying it. Go back and read some the first and second sentences (and a big block of your second post) of each of your comments. You said "Always require a blood test administered by a medical professional who is NOT a cop." You strongly emphasized with the all caps word "NOT" before saying the word cop. Your all caps tells readers to make sure the tester is "NOT a cop".
If you had just said, "Get a medical professional" without following it with the words "NOT a cop", that would have been fine.

In your second post, you said the following:
"cops CAN and DO fake breathalyzer 'fail results, and for any number of reasons, be it racism, sexism, to fill 'arrest quotas', improper calibration, poor training, and now sometimes to increase revenues for privately run jail and prison profits, should the 'Sheriff' or 'Chief' or their political boss happen to own stock in such a company."

When you said "DO", that took what could have been a benign suggestion of possibility, and made it into an overly broad generalization of police ethics or motives.

BULLSHIT! Lear to READ the LINES, not insert BS between the lines fool!

lol it was good, im taking civics and nobody debates this good

Thanks.