Tiger Woods is a phenomenal golfer – and a terrible driver. But is he a drunk driver? The law says he is, even though his blood alcohol level as measured by a Breathalzyer after his most recent crash was 0.00 – indicating he hadn’t been drinking. But he refused to pee into a cup – which the cops wanted him to do so they could check whether he wrecked because there were other drugs in his system.
We’ll never know.
The interesting thing is this situation brings up is this dirty business of requiring drivers to provide evidence that can and will be used against them in court. A violation of the 5th Amendment – the right to not be compelled to self-incriminate – on the face of it.
Apologists will say it’s not actually required, in that you don’t have to do it. True. Technically. But if you don’t do it, then you not only get arrested but are immediately punished (in Florida, where Woods wrecked) with an automatic one-year suspension of your driving privileges – italicized to reflect the dreary fact that what used to be a right no longer is . You’ll also get slapped with a separate misdemeanor charge that, if convicted, can result in the victim being sent to jail. The word is italicized to make a point. When a person can be legally threatened with repercussions for not helping the state convict him of something, it is fair to describe him as a victim.
The state one had the burden of having to prove guilt. That is how it once was, in the days when Americans still spoke of living in a free country. One almost never hears that term said aloud anymore, except in the past tense.
What happened was a textbook example of the legal dictum that hard cases make bad law. Meaning, it is very easy to get emotional – to get angry and want something done about it – when a rip-roaring actually drunk driver blows through a red light and kills a family driving home from soccer practice. More finely, it is very hard to argue with people who are understandably emotional about the consequences of actually drunk driving. It is very difficult to explain to them that it is both unjust and dangerous to treat presumptively innocent people – remember them? – as presumptively guilty and to punish them not because they’re “drunk” just because they refused to cooperate with the authorities trying to prove they are.
In the Before Time – when America actually was a pretty free country – it was necessary for a cop to be able to show probable cause that he had a reason for turning on his lights and pulling you over. A reason such as you driving erratically; some objective fact that indicated you might be impaired. A cop could not just pull you over just because he felt like it – at least not legally. If he did that and did not have probable cause, it’d be cause for a dismissal if the matter reached court (assuming the judge cared about the law).
This burden was to onerous for the Inspector Javert types – the “moms” who are against “drunk driving” types – for whom the thing that matters most is crime gets punished, even if it means everyone must accept being treated as a presumptive criminal.
The courts took a big dump all over the 5th and 4th Amendments, which in clear, un-nuanced English (regarding the 4th) states that there must be probable cause to engender reasonable suspicion or that a warrant must be issued by a judge prior to any search. Cops used to lack the authority to just “check” people – at random – as at “checkpoints.” The latter being a term once upon a time associated with unfree countries but not America. In America – once upon a time – people could travel without being forced to stop and prove their innocence to a cop, who also got an opportunity to “check” for any other “violations” such as out-of-date ear tags or “papers” not in order. It makes those old enough to remember this once-free country sad to remember it. 
The courts invented – because it does not exist in the actual (statutory) law – this specious doctrine call implied consent. It is an Orwellian term if ever there was one, since for “consent” to have any meaning, it must be given in the absence of duress. An easy way to understand this is to mention that everyone – just about – understands that a woman must actually consent to sleep with a man; the man who forces himself on her and says that she gave her “implied consent” because she agreed to go on a date with him is guilty of sexual assault.
Never mind that. The court said that anyone who applies for a driver’s license – for permission to use the government’s roads – has given their implied consent to submit to being stopped at a “sobriety” checkpoint, without any requirement that the driver’s sobriety is in doubt and that the driver must also to submit to roadside tests that can be refused but in that case, he is subject to be arrest anyhow and will still lose his drivcing privileges for failing to be cooperative.
Some states have taken this farther. You can be held down by goons and your blood taken by force.
Woods has been charged with DUI – even though there is no evidence he was under the “influence” of anything (and clear evidence he was not under the influence of alcohol) as well as the Kafkaesque charge of refusing to submit to a lawful test. This latter being something like the legal requirement that you have no 5th Amendment right to decline to testify against yourself every April 15th by providing everyone’s favorite three latter “service” – another Orwellian term – with a true and full accounting of your earnings and financial transactions.
Woods, like all of the rest of us, is damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Even if we literally haven’t done anything at all.
Woods wrecked but that isn’t necessary to fall afoul of “drunk” driving rigmarole and the de facto requirement to participate in your own incrimination as via roadside gymnastics exercises that, if not performed to the satisfaction of the cop, is sufficient to demand you submit to the breath/blood/pee test – and if you refuse, off to the clink you go. If you are later found to be merely uncoordinated or just tired, rather than “drunk,” it’s not going to get you off the hook. They’ll still go after you for “refusal.”
And if you’re under 21 and there’s any alcohol at all in your system – or just an empty beer can in the car – you’re also subject to a “DUI” charge, too.
Isn’t it great to live in a free country?
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
You can get a DUI even after not drinking, but also not driving…….. crazy when you think about it more than a second.
Law “enforcement” today is insane, unfair and just wrong. You can get a DUI by sleeping it off in your car (which is actually the most responsible thing you could do when drunk), having empty alcohol bottles in your car (part of the reason why roads are littered with garbage), or being under the influence of something besides alcohol (like your “legal” medication).
There was a woman locally to me, who was being arrested for drunk driving in a parking lot when she was in fact having a STROKE! She almost died at the police station, when she really needed to be at the hospital. It almost happened to a friend as well, he had a stroke in a parking lot, and thankfully for him, he was found by a paramedic who realized what was happening rather than a cop who probably would have thought he was drunk.
Re: “Isn’t it great to live in a free country?”
Back in The Day, I was told by my elders, “between the lines & on the road”. Somehow, that wasn’t good enough.
I imagine that Power & Control was the issue. That, and, money.
I read this bit today, and wondered how it would apply in 1772?
‘Kentucky Cops Arrest Equestrian, 48, For GUI (Galloping Under The Influence)’
https://thesmokinggun.com/buster/dui/gui-arrest-021743
I’ve always had a vast and cosmic indifference to the game of golf (and most other games), so I was never able to get too worked up over the success or failure of Tiger Woods.
And I was never anything special as a wheelman, so I can’t really criticize his driving.
But every point you make here about the _principle_ of things is valid.
Yah, I don’t give a crap about golf,
it’s not really a Sport, imho.
The rights of the matter – That – everyone should care about.
Ditto that, David –
I’d rather watch dust accumulate on my TA than watch golf or sportsball generally. I have never understood the fascination. But, to each his own. I like to watch Star Trek reruns, so what do I know?
I like Star Trek too. At least, the older ones. They kind of messed it all up here lately.
I thought Tiger Woods died over 15 years ago after his then wife Elin hit him repeatedly in the head with a golf club as Tiger was trying to drive away from the garage? The Woods that came back to golf later sucked until they found a better version of him that could win a lower-tier tournament or two, and the photo above doesn’t look anything like the Tiger I remember.
I mean, he won the Masters and the Players’ after he came back. Not exactly lower-tier tournaments.
[…] 6:35 Eric Peters, Automotive Journalist at http://www.EpAutos.com with a great Wheels Up Wednesday talk on the auto and transportation news and politics. https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2026/03/31/sober-but-still-drunk/ […]
Not sure what is going on with Tiger Woods just hard to understand how anyone as coordinated as he is can’t figure out how to drive without crashing. If he was high on prescription meds or not it was good to refuse the pee test.
After his first highly publicized crash there was no way this event would not have been splashed all over the news. As bad as the cops can be, him dumping his car again was practically begging for bad publicity. This was never going to end well for him. Yes once the cops pull you over, you are in for trouble these days. They are aggressive, badly trained and looking for any excuse to abuse. It is a sad state of affairs and definitely if you are black even if you are famous you are in much greater danger of being arrested. I now drive a dull colored suv and part of the reason I chose the color and make was the desire to blend in with traffic and not stand out for any reason that might attract some cop who is having a bad day any reason to choose my car to pull over. I think a lot of people are making these small avoidance decisions on a daily basis in various activities of life.
You’re absolutely right on this, cops are attack dogs for the state. They used to be more disciplined and controlled, at least visibly, but now they see themselves and are treated as a privileged, protected class that a mere mortal has to abase himself to.
And on the neutral colored sport Ute or minivan, yes. I have driven such for decades without cop interaction. 2 years ago I bought a red Honda Civic coupe in a moment of weakness because it was cheap on gas and I liked the look. It only took a few months to be stopped and ticketed for 62 in a 55 by a pimple faced, buzz cut deputy in the middle of nowhere. I dumped that car shortly after.
It’s sad, but life under communism is inherently grey, bland, and dull.
My experience has been the same too. Drive flashier vehicles, you get stopped far more often.
>everyone – just about – understands that a woman must actually consent to sleep with a man
Not to put too fine a point on it, but “sleeping with” does not automatically imply “having sex with”. BTDT. Use your imagination.
Breaking news, Adi! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY27Oqss4Vw
Well, Eric, that is definitely *not* the situation I was dealing with, long, long ago. She is *definitely* a woman, and most certainly likes men, and only men. She eventually came around. 🙂
Off topic, but I want to spread some law cheer FWIW. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado can’t ban “conversion therapy” counseling, as it’s a violation of the 1st Amendment. Here’s a great quote:
“But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that
suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an “egregious” assault on both of those commitments.”
As is typical, Kentanji Brown Jackson beclowns herself by equating a non-doctor, counselor’s speech with the conduct of “practicing medicine” and provides this tyrannical money quote”
“[T]here is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States.” Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U. S. 581, 596 (1926). This was true 100 years
ago, and it should be true today.”
Yikes.
Here’s the full opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf
You cannot expect much from a pedophile lover and one who cannot even define what a woman is. How in the hell this fool worked her way up to the U.S. Supreme Court anyway? Translation: Kentanji Brown Jackson showed just how much she loves Communism. And sadly, much of the U.S. population does, as well.
What comes to mind as some bit of salvation are those roads which are *not* government roads.
Out where I am, the roads are “private roads” and “not maintained” as is demarcated by the sign present to announce your departure from the government’s paved roads.
Yes, the roads are dirt, but they are maintained to some degree by the operators of graders and backhoes who will accept a few dollars for their efforts, but who do not extract a salary through the theft known as “taxes”.
True, you cannot go as fast as you can on paved roads, but you can get moving if you know how to drive on these surfaces. Rarely are there armed government workers about, and there are no “traffic controls”. Not crashing is brought upon you by your own vigilance and reflexes and it doesn’t take a great deal of those to not hit anyone.
Typically the worst the heavily intoxicated might do is put themselves in a ditch or a tree, and then that would be *their* problem.
Our problem is getting to places using this system of “private” roads. I hear getting to the nearest cities can be done this way, albeit more slowly. Theoretically, one doesn’t even need a valid “registration”. That is, until he or she exits the “private roads” Sadly, all the roads in most towns are government roads.
We’re living in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. We stopped being the United States of America a loooooooooonnnnggg time ago.
I’m going to toss a turd in the swimming pool; I’ll toss turd in the punch bowl. This nanny tyranny goes back long before MADD; it goes back to women’s suffrage, women getting the vote. Women seek safety and security above everything else, so they vote for policies that bring them that which they seek.
Enough men support these kind of policies so you can STFU with the “blame women for it” shit. This is why the “alt-right” is destined to lose-badly-and deserves to as the don’t look in the mirror to how they contributed to where we are at now.
You are not the turd in the punchbowl-YOU ARE THE TURD.
Darlin’,
While you may be the exception, the very rare exception, the fact of the matter is that women have a more collectivist mindset. Look at any jurisdiction where women were granted the vote, even before the 20A passed, such as Wyoming. As soon as women got the vote, gov’t spending went up. That’s the facts.
You can also look at one of the big news stories in recent years: young women are turning left, while their male contemporaries are going right.
As I said, women seek safety and security above all else, and they’ll sacrifice anything to get it. Just look at MADD. Thanks to them, we have the unconstitutional drunk driving checkpoints.
“ As soon as women got the vote, gov’t spending went up. That’s the facts.”
Son, correlation does not equal causation.
We have an increasing spending and proliferation of laws due in large part to men like you that support statism who partnered up with weak women that want to vote (via the god of democracy) to take from others and to spend on their behalf.
Uh, I’m not a statist.
Hey, Marky, welcome to the evil statist club. I’ll try to get your membership card and secret decoder ring out this week…
Its like the racist or fascist call from the left. If you don’t toe the line, you’re a STATIST! Also an IDIOT!
Yeah, right!
Are you or are you not the same MarkyMark that has been arguing here in the past regarding the need for speed limits and their arbitrary enforcement by the state?
Are you not implying that the power of the state ought to prevent women from voting as it once did?
Yeah . . . . Not statist at all. /s.
Morning, Willie!
Like you, I hate the state – and voting for its authority to grow. But if we must have voting – per Bismarck and sausage making – then at the least, the franchise ought to be restricted to those who have skin in the game; i.e., people who pay taxes/own property. Male or female is not the problem, as I see it. The problem is essentially the same as giving your 12-year-old a vote over what goes on under the roof of the house he didn’t pay for.
I’ve said that limits are necessary. You can’t have everyone doing their own thing. One, not all drivers are created equal; different drivers have different abilities. Two, the great flaw of Libertarianism is that it assumes that everyone will do the right thing; they won’t. While many people will exercise caution and responsibility in residential areas (i.e. they won’t do 100 on a residential street), not everyone will; there will be some antisocial a’holes who do 80 and 100 where kids might be.
And women shouldn’t vote-not only because they’re inherently socialist, but because they’re not subject to the draft. They don’t have to worry that their votes could send them to the front lines; as men, before a certain age, we can be compelled to go to the front lines.
BTW, did you know that that’s how the deal the gtov’t offered to men for them to vote? We’ll give you the vote in exchange to sending you to the trenches in WWI. The fact of the matter is that most men didn’t vote, either; it was only the land owners who could vote back in the day. Maybe we should go back to that?
Marky,
Thanks for clarifying that you are indeed the statist I thought you were.
So after all these years hanging out here, you’ve learned nothing. Still a statist at heart. Now we’ve learned you also have misogynistic tendencies too.
Oh . . . if only everyone could abide by Marky’s Yankee sensibilities. Those that choose not to will be arbitrarily punished via state force, fined, or put in a cage. Nice. Very nice! (Said with a Soviet accent!)
“ Male or female is not the problem, as I see it. The problem is essentially the same as giving your 12-year-old a vote over what goes on under the roof of the house he didn’t pay for.”. EP
Agrees. Of course you see this Eric. You have libertarian tendency toward, personal responsibility, liberty and freedom.
This Marky character . . . Well not so much. Yet he hangs out here while claiming not to be statist despite when they have written opinions that show they indeed are.
Blind Willie, you lost me with your use of the word “misogynist.” Add that to racist, antisemetic, ableist, ageist, antivaxxer, and of course statist as well. It’s just another ad hominem designed to shut down discussion.
Good grief, if you don’t like the point he made, refute it on the merits.
Dearest Mister Liberty
You see we have words in the English language that describe things. Ideally a single word describes a more complex idea.
Mysogynist: A misogynist is a person, typically a man, who exhibits hatred, contempt, or deeply ingrained prejudice against women and girls.
Yeah, that fits. It was not used as an ad hominem attack any more than the word statist is an ad hominem attack.
It describes Marky’s belief that he clearly wrote about.
So I’m not sure where you’re coming from. I apologize I didn’t get the Mister Liberty approved style guide that prohibits the use of the word misogynistic.
Talk about not refuting an argument based on its merits. Look in the mirror brother:
Blind Willie lives up to his name. They are ad hominems because they attack the character of the one making the argument, not the argument itself.
Regardless of your denial, they are literally ad hominems (i.e “to the man”):
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem
The US government has been at war throughout most of its history and has killed millions of people throughout this bloodstained history. Since men are statistically more violent and aggressive than women due to their higher average testosterone levels, you could just as well argue that taking away the vote from men would reduce or even eliminate all of these wars that our government continues to fight that are now threatening the bring the world to the brink of possible nuclear war.
These sex-based statistical generalizations are meaningless in a political context. There are plenty of men who have stripped away our liberty in the name of safety. There are plenty of women who have achieved political power and have turned into warlike tyrants.
Arguing that women should be stripped of their right to vote or that things would somehow be better without women voting makes libertarians sound like a bunch of woman-hating idiots. This is no way to spread a message of liberty across the land.
Uh, who pushed for DUI checkpoints? MADD, among others. Who founded MADD? Mothers did. What are mothers? They’re women. ‘Nuff said.
Who pushed for the war between the states and the establishment of a powerful central government with dominion over the states? Who pushed for the Spanish American war? Who pushed for WW1? Who pushed for the establishment of the income tax? Who pushed for the creation of the Federal Reserve? Who pushed for the end of the gold standard and the establishment of the dollar as nothing but a fiat currency? Who created the national security state and the establishment of the CIA and the FBI? Since these were all done primarily by men, perhaps we would be better off if men did not vote.
Good points Martin but of course they won’t matter to Marky.
He’s a statist at heart and if he were allowed to make the laws, we would have never had the problems you point to.
You see, Marky has a certain Yankee sensibility that he has just the perfect blend of State authority and would yield it justly.
Either follow his sensibilities or get punished.
Sadly this human folly has been going on for millennia and yet he frames it as battle of the sexes.
“These sex-based statistical generalizations are meaningless in a political context.”
Are you serious? Sex-based statistical generalizations are profoundly important in politics. Every political candidate understands that. Women, on average, consistently and predictably support left-wing candidates and policies at a considerably higher rate than men do. That’s what the statistics show, regardless how unpleasant you might find that truth.
Stripping women of their right to vote in this country is not feasible; everybody knows and understands that. And MarkyMark did not propose that.
Believing that “things would somehow be better without women voting” does not make somebody a woman-hating idiot. Lots of liberty-loving realists believe that, including me and my wife.
THANK YOU! It’s nice to see that someone has a functioning brain.
The histrionic, vulgar, rageful nature of Metal Queen’s reaction supports Marky Marky’s opinion.
You raise a good point. It’s just pure emotion, isn’t it.
Truth hurt much?
Metal Queen isn’t smart enough to realize her, and all other women, along with minorities, have been played to be the fool & fall guy for the zionist jews.
Division of a successful countries culture and society, along sexual, racial and ethnic lines, is one of the oldest effective strategies the jews have used foe centuries.
There’s lots of reasons (((they’ve))) been evicted from over 109 countries since the time of Christ…..
The time to refuse any and all tests and checks (in illinois) is on the street and not put on a show for the dashcam and body cam. If you do any test on the street, youve started the process for arrest and a test at the station where refusal will result in suspension. Refusing a field test and you not being obviously abnormal will give you a very good chance of not being arrested at all and just getting a warning or ticket for whatever you were stopped for. Marijuana though is different, and street refusal alone will get a suspension
The average citizen is in no way prepared for the onslaught of how the constitution has been watered down in favor of the *state* and how to exercise what is left of our rights. The average Joe better wake up on any future police interaction. The difference being whether you drive away free to go, or in torture cuffs in the back of the prowler.
Interesting situation for Tiger. He took the implied test but the *state* didn’t get the results they wanted so they want him to take another test. This might go up the chain to the supreme court since he has some means.
In Colorado, if you refuse to blow or take a blood test it’s an automatic revocation. Even if you go to court and the case is thrown out, there’s still the “statutes” that have to be dealt with. The way the laws are written you’re still going to have to spend thousands of dollars to have a breathalyzer installed (2 years), still going to have to carry SR-22 (high risk) insurance (two years), and probably going to have to attend drug and alcohol education. Oh, and pay a $100 fine. If it is your first offense and you haven’t gone a year without a license you can probably just renew. If it’s been over a year or the hearing didn’t go well (majority of cases), you’ll probably have to do all your testing over again too. It adds up to about $15K in hassle, fines and fees.
If it’s your first “offense” and you don’t blow hot for 6 months you’ll be eligible to have the thing removed early but you’ll still have to carry SR-22 insurance. If you screw up at all you might end up right back where you started. Things that can cause a false positive include mouthwash, cough medicine, hand sanitizer, paint, gasoline fumes, industrial cleaning products. Even diabetics’ breath can sometimes trigger a high reading. If you’re on a keto diet ketosis can produce acetone, which reacts similarly to alcohol.
Many people carry a separate tester they use prior to using the connected one.
And if they’re disconnected for any reason, such as your mechanic working on your car, you might have to take it back to the installer for resetting. And if you don’t do it quickly… yep, you just extended your time with the thing another 6 months to a year.
It’s a big cash machine for everyone except the “drunk.”
Tiger Woods is a train wreck. He needs help.
I don’t drink alcohol. So I resent the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality of the madd mommies.
Same MH –
I despise on principle this business of anyone having to prove they are innocent of something. America used to be a country where, if the cops had “nothing on you” – you could tell them to F off and they had to do just that.
Cops have long responded when “being told to ‘F-off’ ” by either inventing a charge to arrest you with ANYWAY, and/or simply beating the holy f*** out of you right then and there, for DARING to presume you’re their equal and can oppose them. Only the prevalence of camcorders, soon to go digital, compact, and “cheep”, then incorporating same into our “sail fawns” has shown how PIGS often behave on the street.
Good point Douglas,
The widespread use of cellphone cameras has shown how the AGW’s lie about every encounter with us plebes. The video of Alex Pretti’s murder by the ICE Gestapo in Minneapolis showed that to the world. Too bad nothing will change though, imagine how many encounters there are that don’t get recorded. The courts are responsible for all of this with their made up rules about “qualified immunity” and other such aspects of the “just us” system that they’re a part of.
The courts are responsible for all of this with their made up rules about “qualified immunity” and other such aspects of the “just us” system that they’re a part of.
I have never understood how a concept like “qualified immunity” can ever be reconciled with a country supposedly founded upon “rule of law” and the idea that everyone is equal under the law.
Nor I, liberranter –
“Qualified immunity” is an obvious affront to equal protection of the laws – and just common sense. But then, so is “limited liability.”
I agree. I think that back before cameras were everywhere cops were incredibly corrupt. Look at how they tried to kill Frank Serpico, and he was one of their own.
I suspect that if you told a cop to fuck off you’d get “tuned up” with a “hickory shampoo” at the very least, and likely arrested on some bullshit, subjective charge like “disorderly conduct,” “resisting,” or “assaulting an officer.”
As you said, they are so stupid they pull this shit even WITH cameras…
Sadly, it does not matter if there are cameras recording every interaction between the LEO’s and the plebs they pull over. For whatever infarction they can come up with. The supreme arrogancy of the cops, the lack of accountability for their behavior, along with the “Brothers In Blue” uniting with each other, and the courts favoring them over citizens has lead us to where we are today. Last time I checked, you could still tell a cop to go to hell. It used to be your first amendment right to do so. I suppose it would be harassment to tell said officer where hell was, and give him map and directions, so he would not get lost.
Amen, Shadow –
More to come on this subject…
In today’s “police training academies” potential cops in training academies are told to always yell “stop resisting” even if the person being detained is NOT “resisting”. This is done so cops have an excuse to file multiple charges, especially if the original charge is BS.
This tactic is used all of the time in the USA…
Their training manuals are translated from Hebrew and are the same ones used to train Israeli police and IDF soldiers who patrol the West Bank and Gaza.
…and because you reminded me of a movie line, here you go, Eric. In this case, Tommy (Shawshank Redemption) taking a test, and blowing up after. Tommy summed things up nicely…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1qi7J8ykg
MADD is a criminal organization who pretends to show a compassionate face, if you don’t support them it shows you don’t CARE about “others”. Same psychology as the COVID masks/vax. Even the name is a complete deception as it is NOT run by “moms” who lost someone to a drunk driver but the same professional Hut! Hut! Hut! control freaks (both men and women). They are always at the ready to introduce a slew of new “laws” controlling what people do in the own homes as well. I would happily see the leaders of this organization take a trip to the guillotine along with the Orange Douchebag administration and CONgress,
Honestly, while it will be painful this country cannot collapse soon enough.
That it will, Metal Queen. Painful, yes. But it has been a long time in coming. Let’s just rip the bandage off already in one fell swoop, rather than this inching a bit at a time crap…
I oppose what MADD is but like Eric says, the original impulse is a tough one. The woman who started it (Candace Lightner) had her 13 year old daughter killed in a hit-and-run by a guy for whom it wasn’t his first drunk driving accident. So there’s your almost impossible to refute emotional argument. Won’t someone please think of the children?
The problem in the drunk driving argument is it’s easy to exploit when individuals do not take personally responsibility. Accidents happen, that’s a part of life. But if a person tilts the probabilities by knowingly shunting their reaction time and motor skills they need to accept the consequences of an accidental manslaughter being bumped up to a murder. I absolutely reject pre-crime policing but I don’t think there’s an ideological problem with ex post facto punishment increases when the investigation finds the chances of the event could have been reduced. Lots of laws assume this. Cutting corners on quality and that causes a scaffolding failure? It goes from an act of God to being able to assume individual negligence.
Although perhaps it falls into the hate crime enhancements fallacy. Does a murder get more heinous if the perpetrator does it because of the victim’s pronouns? Dead is dead.
But is a drunk but highly skilled F1 driver more dangerous than a stone sober but terrible geezer? I’d bet an F1 driver would have to be pretty damn drunk before I could out drive one, their natural reaction being so much better to start. “Your Honor, I have the reaction time of a squirrel on crack so even with a BAC of 0.10 I’m still a much better driver than you.” And he could no doubt prove it. Does knowing this reduce the tragedy of a victim’s hit-and-run death?
Or would have Ms. Lightner’s loss been less if her daughter Cari was killed by a distracted by 3 screaming kids soccer mom? This is the literal libertarian view vs an imperfect people reality. Would it be better if everyone had to prove they are qualified or expert drivers? That’s every bit as unjust as assuming everyone is drunk, guilty until proven innocent. Who would get to decide the qualifications to drive? Presumably everyone has to pass the same license test. Or do we get rid of driver testing altogether? You’re either a sovereign citizen free to travel unimpeded or you’re not. You have to accept that driver skill falls on a distribution curve and for every excellent driver there’s one who is bad at the equally opposite level regardless if they’ve taken on additional challenges.
If you’re to have drivers licenses, they can only be a certificate of qualification to use certain classes of certain vehicles. Driving can never be a privilege as our servants do not have the power to grant privileges to their sovereign masters.
If you need legal grounding, a license which is a privilege falls afoul of the constitutional prohibition on titles of nobility. It’s also another frontal assault on the second amendment as your vehicle is your cavalry horse /man o war/destrier, and your artillery limber.
But nobody is going to acknowledge that without being forced to. All judges up to and including the nine gowned clowns are creatures of the system and marinated in illicit government power over the citizen. Until they live in fear of being dragged out, tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail by armed local militiamen, it will continue.
This is very well-said, Anon –
I’ve used a similar example to get the point across: Me with a few beers in me vs. my ex mother-law, totally sober. She was a nice lady but a terrible driver. She didn’t drink, but she wrecked about once a year. I haven’t wrecked in 30-plus years. I’d bet the title to the Trans-Am I’m a more competent (safer) driver than someone like her even with a BAC of .10 than a sober driver like her.
What’s more, just because a driver may have been legally drunk (.08) does not necessarily mean he caused the crash or death. If I drive with a .00 BAC and a pedestrian, intending to commit suicide, jumps in front of my car, the question would be whether I intentionally or negligently caused the pedestrian’s death. However, if my blood alcohol level is .08, it is assumed I’m the cause.
How is that a problem?
You can drive. You can drive drunk. You cannot cause an accident (drunk or sober). If you do cause an accident (that’s why we call them accidents, almost never does someone wake up that day planning to get into a wreck), being drunk is an aggravating factor — a small fine becomes a very large fine, maybe prison especially if it’s a multiple offense, etc.
Not sure why this is so very difficult.
You could also — very easily — put the level of sentencing (roughly) on a scale that increases the higher your BAC was. Also scaled according to the severity of the wreck.
That’s how I view it. If something is to be public then use of it can’t be a privilege in principle. So I am asking hypotheticals because the world isn’t populated by absolutely honest and responsible people. We all own the airspace around us so does that mean every swinging dick has the right to pilot an aircraft? Yeah, in theory, but that’s a recipe for chaos. Same with airwaves. Without some basic ground rules how do we prevent nothing but radio interference and bedlam? The most obvious solution is have no public goods and everything is privately owned and operated. But would you trust Google to run the roads fairly? We’re headed down the path where governments are essentially subsidiaries of big tech where all your data and actions are run by a private company. The role of government in this would be to prevent anti-competitive monopolies but we tried that, breaking up trusts and it got us here. We just keep going in circles as a species.
“We all own the airspace around us so does that mean every swinging dick has the right to pilot an aircraft? Yeah, in theory, but that’s a recipe for chaos. Same with airwaves. Without some basic ground rules how do we prevent nothing but radio interference and bedlam?”
Actually, any swinging dick CAN use the airspace to fly and to broadcast as long as it is for “personal,” non-commercial use.
For instance, Part 103 of the federal aviation regs allows you to pilot a single-seat aircraft that weighs less than 250 lbs. with no license and no registration.
Same idea with broadcasting (i.e., CB radio).
Imagine that! Probably a vestige of the time when the Federal bureaucracy was a bit more enlightened…
On March 9, Phoenix Suns athlete Dillon Brooks was arrested in Scottsdale on suspicion of ‘marijuana’ [sic] intoxication, after a cop observed him changing lanes erratically.
In the police bodycam video, one can observe ‘field sobriety tests’ administered to Brooks. The officer speaks in a rapid-fire, upper-midwestern patois full of complex detailed instructions that would leave me (stone sober) in a state of uncomprehending bafflement. It’s like being yelled at by a meth-addled chipmunk. What the eff is he saying??
https://www.azfamily.com/2026/03/10/dillon-brooks-dui-arrest-spotlights-arizonas-marijuana-impairment-laws/
I would decline a field sobriety test on the valid grounds that an old knee injury means I can’t walk in a straight line anyway. And I would challenge any ‘law’ citing the ridiculous 1930s gangster slang ‘marijuana.’ It’s like being charged with assaulting a ‘broad.’ Absurd! Is this some kind of sick joke?
“The courts took a big dump all over the 5th and 4th Amendment, which in clear, un-nuanced English states that there must be probable cause or a warrant issued by a judge prior to any search.”
Not quite. The Fourth Amendment prohibits “UNREASONABLE” searches and seizures without a warrant issued upon probable cause.
This ambiguity leaves room for plenty of Talmudic parsing by the courts.
What is NOT ambiguous whatsoever is the Second Amendment, which clearly states that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Period, end of sentence. No weasel words about assault weapons, etc. etc.
Yet you cannot buy a gun without permission from the FBI.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution is absolutely null and void. Where in Article II does the President have the authority to assassinate a foreign head of state, attack a foreign country, and kill 180 schoolgirls?
Congress is clearly given the power to “declare war” in Article I, but it has yet to vote on an authorization for the president to use military force in Iran.
Where the Constitution uses words that can be subjectively interpreted like “unreasonable” it is necessary to look at the culture and practices of the Founders for interpretation.
Well, that ship sailed. The ZOG Empire — enslaved to Israel, populated by obese Fatmericans supported by the Federal Leviathan’s $39 trillion debt and kept in line by the post-9/11 racially-egalitarian police state — is the Founders’ worst nightmare, an order of magnitude worse than anything George III imposed upon the Colonies.
Testify, brother. It’s da troof.
You could be charged with a DUI for riding a horse, a lawn mower, a tractor, a barbie car, a bicycle, a boat and a unicycle? Also, don’t sleep it off in your parked vehicle unless you are in the back seat and throw the keys out of the vehicle, that will get you a DUI.
All true, Spitfire –
America’s transition into a country run by harpies and harridans can be dated to the beginning of the “MADD” era. Is driving drunk ill-advised? Certainly. But it is not “drunk” driving to enjoy a beer while you drive. It is ridiculous. There is such a thing as common sense – but it’s been left by the side of the road.
Side effect of “all men are created equal.” All men are equally drunk, all men are equally capable. So because you’re part of the set of “all men,” you’re just as likely to be a bad drinker, and a drunk driver as anyone else. Height, weight, natural ability… these mean nothing to the lawyers, because in their eyes we all look alike.
Common sense ran off to another galaxy in terror when liberal mothers said their little Johnny could be a Jane with a whack to the genitals and a lifetime of hormones.
Eric,
This line of thought goes back long before MADD; MADD added to and accentuated the tendency to tyranny, but the march to tyranny started long before that. When? When the 20A passed, giving women the vote. Women seek safety and security above all else, and they’ll sacrifice everything to get it-including freedom.
Nah, don’t drink while driving…PULL OVER, and FINISH your beer!
It’s a police state to steal your money and freedom and they have done a good job and If anyone thinks there going to do that blood draw on me they better be mighty fast on a different kind of draw it live free or die for me don’t comply with any of it .
There is a (supposed) attorney on YouTube that has videos on how to interact with the LEO’S when you get pulled over. The guy pulls no punches when it comes to talking about the slimy way the po-po ask questions and get riled when you keep quiet. The courts have pretty much ruled in favor of the cops. You are damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Kind of reminds me of the devil far side comic….It certainly applies to Woods…
Free. “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.
Sadly the Rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are now deemed temporary privileges by GovCo instead of carved in stone and until the people demand their God given rights to be guaranteed and secured by Government they will only be deemed temporary privileges of little worth by GovCo.
As for Tiger I didn’t pay much attention to his latest crash but you’re right he is a lousy driver. Hopefully the pressure washing trailer he clipped when attempting to pass it suffered minimal damage. As for his signs of impairment; might it have been a side effect of crashing his Land Rover?
The boxed cartoon also mentions “Double Jeopardy”. That’s long been dead and buried.
Now, if you commit some crime you can be charged by both the State Courts AND Federal Courts all for the same act. If that isn’t Double Jeopardy I don’t know what is.
That’s OK. Let’s all put our hand over our heart, Pledge Our Allegiance and sing the National Fight Song. Then, to the chants of USA, USA let’s listen to God Bless the U.S.A.
‘Murica, where you’re free to do what you’re told.
Can Lee Greenwood sing the National Fight Song?
Asking for a friend……….
‘Pledge our allegiance’ — this is done at every public meeting here. I try to arrive late, or just stand silently.
The Pledge was written by a socialist. I object like hell to the ‘indivisible’ bit, which denies the right of secession. Nobody’s gonna make me mouth that horseshit.
Just do it the right way. Try saying Bellamy’s pledge while doing the Bellamy salute. That’ll get their attention.:)
No kidding.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg