News Tiger Woods Arrest Video

[TheDynasty]

[MiamiBoyz]

Another fallen black icon shot down by the man! Shame shame

[SpicyM]

LOL .. is this really the way how American cops test alcohol in drivers??

Took 30 minutes of this charade to just get the "suspicion of DUI"


here is the complete vid..

[JamesDrews]

wtf is that for a bullshit test, here we use this thing

[j3rkules]

Originally Posted by JamesDrews

wtf is that for a bullshit test, here we use this thing

Yeah, exactly.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by JamesDrews

wtf is that for a bullshit test, here we use this thing

Yep.. takes 10 seconds and if you refuse that you are oficially considered drunk ..

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by j3rkules

Yeah, exactly.

In Russia we say "to blow into tube". It takes a few seconds and doesn't look like a circus in the US videos.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by JamesDrews

wtf is that for a bullshit test, here we use this thing

The roadside tests are designed to make you fail. Notice how he moved the light way past where he would be able to view without moving his head. They also do things such as make you say your abc's backwards. Stand on 1 foot with your head back and touch your nose. All sorts of silly shit.

[Konda]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

LOL .. is this really the way how American cops test alcohol in drivers??

The test is not just for alcohol, it is a test to show if you are fit to drive or not.

It's called DIU, Driving under the Influence. It doesn't have to be alcohol, it can also be under the influence of something else (like drugs).

If you can't do those simple tasks you are very likely to be under the influence of something and you are not in a shape to be driving.

If he only did a breathalyzer it would have shown that he was not drunk, but that doesn't mean he wasn't under the influence of something else. He was obviously not fit to drive due to the medication he took, so the test does make sense as it proofs that he couldn't perform the tests, so shouldn't have been driving.

There are lots of things you can be under the influence of that they can't test for, or at least not with instant results. By doing these tests they can proof in court that the person was unfit to drive.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by Konda

The test is not just for alcohol, it is a test to show if you are fit to drive or not.

It's called DIU, Driving under the Influence. It doesn't have to be alcohol, it can also be under the influence of something else (like drugs).

If you can't do those simple tasks you are very likely to be under the influence of something and you are not in a shape to be driving.

If he only did a breathalyzer it would have shown that he was not drunk, but that doesn't mean he wasn't under the influence of something else. He was obviously not fit to drive due to the medication he took, so the test does make sense as it proofs that he couldn't perform the tests, so shouldn't have been driving.

There are lots of things you can be under the influence of that they can't test for, or at least not with instant results. By doing these tests they can proof in court that the person was unfit to drive.

Did they do the alcohol test first ?? Then I could understand that.. but still..
There are instant drug tests too and you don't need to perform this grotesque.

If local police suspects you are drugged, they can ask you to undergo a blood test. Again, no need for this bullshit. They have a dash cam to film a suspicious drive.

[mineistaken]

So 1 hour and 38 minutes of paid officers time went into concluding he was (or may be) under the influence... Talking about wasting tax p[ayer money...

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by Konda

The test is not just for alcohol, it is a test to show if you are fit to drive or not.

It's called DIU, Driving under the Influence. It doesn't have to be alcohol, it can also be under the influence of something else (like drugs).

If you can't do those simple tasks you are very likely to be under the influence of something and you are not in a shape to be driving.

If he only did a breathalyzer it would have shown that he was not drunk, but that doesn't mean he wasn't under the influence of something else. He was obviously not fit to drive due to the medication he took, so the test does make sense as it proofs that he couldn't perform the tests, so shouldn't have been driving.

There are lots of things you can be under the influence of that they can't test for, or at least not with instant results. By doing these tests they can proof in court that the person was unfit to drive.

That would make sense if police always used blow test first and only if it showed zeros (and they still suspect some influence) they'd go this clown test route.

Is this the case? As it seems not so much...

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

In Russia we say "to blow into tube". It takes a few seconds and doesn't look like a circus in the US videos.

In Québec it is : souffle dans balloune !!!!!

[xXXtesy10]

hey man!!

[CaptainHowdy]

Drunken shit happens ...

[DirtyDanza]

Hate to tell you all but "blowing into the tube" is for sure not accurate. Dr. Pepper will give you a false positive as will gum.

We just threw up a page dealing with DUI and Prescription Drugs in Nevada.

DUI is not as simple as most think it is.
In Nevada, we have the "Implied Consent" law.

I feel bad for Tiger, What a downward spiral he's had since he lost his women.

[RyuLion]

damn, he's way to drunk to be on the road..

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by DirtyDanza

Hate to tell you all but "blowing into the tube" is for sure not accurate. Dr. Pepper will give you a false positive as will gum.

No, they will not. Maybe you tested some toys (there are all kinds of breathalizers, some are just for fun).
And if miraculously and very very rarely dr pepper or gum would give something, it would still be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay under the legal limit (unless it is 0,00) or/and withing margin or error (applied in favor to the driver).


Secondly - perp always can request blood test if he/she does not agree with tube results.

[DirtyDanza]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

No, they will not. Maybe you tested some toys (there are all kinds of breathalizers, some are just for fun).
And if miraculously and very very rarely dr pepper or gum would give something, it would still be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay under the legal limit (unless it is 0,00) or/and withing margin or error (applied in favor to the driver).


Secondly - perp always can request blood test if he/she does not agree with tube results.

I'm not going to argue with you on the internet over it. But I can tell you this. I do this every day, 100's of times per year. The Intoxalyzer 8000 (99% used nationwide at police stations) will give you false readings on tons of stuff. Even belching, jewelry, braces, gum you name it will give you false readings way over the legal limit. This is why the officer administering the breath test must observe the subject to make sure nothing was put in the mouth and they did not ingest anything prior to the test. Not to mention the FST's are nothing more than roadside exercises. No one will pass those.

[Speigelau]

RIP Kimbo Slice

[porncrash]

Mh, I just got a msg "Video is not available"