Tiger Woods On Accident: 'Situation Is My Fault' ; Lawyer Mark NeJame Tells Police.....

You were saying ...

I’m interested in *your* theory as to how a guy could trash a fire hydrant and his Escalade into a tree twenty feet from his driveway.

Ideas?

Actually, with people, that's not too hard. I mean, you would think that people could stay in their proper lanes when driving, but then again, when you consider all the "accidents" that people have (with "trees" no less -- ask insurance agents... LOL...) you can see that it's amazing that people can stay in their proper lanes at all... :-)

I mean, my grandmother was driving her car and ended up with the car trying to go up a tree in a park, when she grabbed for her purse that slipped onto the floorboard... LOL..

Then there was my daughter who ended up going after a cow in a field when going off a country road... :-)

And then there was the time I was on a six-lane freeway (three lanes each side) and was in the center lane (closest to the center guard rail) and actually, somehow, ended up on the far right of the freeway, up an embankment and chopped off a freeway light pole... ooops...

It knocked me out and when I came to, there were police cars, fire trucks, and they were already hosing the gasoline off the freeway -- and I had no idea how I got there... :-). I understand that sometimes when someone is knocked out, their immediate memory of the incident might be gone and not come back. So as to how I got from the center lane to the far right and up an embankment, I couldn't tell you... LOL...

So..., that's just from my immediate experience and knowledge I tell you these particular things. Can you imagine all the stories you would get from the general public about fire hydrants and trees and guard rails...?? LOL...

Have fun asking that question... :-)

You were saying ...

If people didn't believe me, that's different from me not really denying it in the first place.

Well..., you're not aware of the fact that you (as the accused person) can either "feed" the rumors or not feed them, by how you respond to them.

First of all, either with you (if you are accused of being a peeping tom, or Tiger Woods, if he is accused of hooking up with some bimbo) -- will have many people that, first of all, don't even know what the rumors are, and/or haven't heard about them. Now, that may seem surprising to you, but that's a fact, No matter how many people you think know all about it, there are a great number who don't know a thing about it.

So, a response that details the rumors (by mentioning it -- and saying "I did not have sex with that woman") actually goes a very long ways in enforcing that image of Clinton having sex with that woman, or you denying a specific rumor of being a "peeping tom" goes a long ways to enforcing, in some people's minds that you are a peeping tom.

But, if you deny baseless rumors and gossip and say that it's malicious (without saying what it is) for those who may only see that one statement, they do not get re-inforced with the image of you being a peeping tom. They only know (from that statement) that you are denying "baseless and malicious rumors" and that you take responsibility for the accident (as in Woods' case) and that's that.

As I said, you can reinforce and dignify the baseless and malicious rumors and rumormongers by stating what they are stating, specifically -- or -- you can deny them on the basis that they are rumors, gossip, malicious and so on and state from the "positive side" what you "are saying" -- which in Tiger Woods' case, taking responsibility for the accident that he had.

The point is this--if someone said something about you that wasn't true, wouldn't you deny it? Or would you issue a statement "addressing" the allegations but not actually denying them?

There are two different ways to approach this according to what you are facing. As individuals, pretty much all of us face one set of circumstances with rumors and may, once in a very long while, face the other set of circumstances, as in Tiger Woods' case.

In pretty much all of our own cases, if we were confronted with a rumor, by another person that we know, we would say, simply, that this particular rumor was not true and deny it directly -- no matter whether that was true in our case or not -- that's what most people would do -- lie directly and deny it or tell the truth directly and deny it... LOL...

And that may or may not work for individuals. Most of the time, it doesn't work there either..., with individuals to individuals.... they are still not believed... :-)

Then there is the other circumstance, when you are dealing with the public and with statements that go into print and are quoted in a widespread manner. In those case, there are very many in the public who don't know the situation in the first place, and an overwhelming number of mainstream news places are not going to repeat the salacious rumors or gossip, but they will print your statement (charges dealing with crimes, however will be repeated, just making that distinction). There are always tabloids that will repeat this stuff, but they've got the salacious gossip reputation that they already deserve... LOL...

So, on a public statement, you don't repeat the salacious gossip in the very statement in which you are making a statement on your own behalf. You castigate the rumors and rumor-mongering, saying that they are vicious and unwarranted, and then you make a positive statement about the matter at hand -- which in Tiger Woods' case is taking responsibility for the accident that he was in when he was driving.

That's the positive and productive way to deal with salacious gossip and rumormonering -- by not repeating it and perpetuating it in the very statement about your own situation... LOL...

As for who I would sue, I would sue anyone accusing me of being a peeping tom who knew (or didn't know for sure, but didn't care) that I wasn't, but said I was anyway.

Well..., that's a laugh a minute... LOL...

You wouldn't get within a mile of ever being able to sue anyone... :-)

A scenario that is repeated constantly (in the news can go this way...). There are news reports that come out that make it on the evening news. The reporter says that they received reports in several neighborhoods by people seeing strange people hanging around windows of houses in the dark and the station was giving a warning to people to be on the lookout for a possible peeping tom.

The women in these neighborhoods get nervous and are on edge and start talking about it among themselves and promise to keep a watch out for anything that looks stange and let each other know. Some women calls that there is a shadowy figure in the next yard over and that figure walked back into your house. The police are called and they come out to your address to question someone there about the report. You answer the door and laugh and say you were looking for your cat that occasionally gets out of the house and you have to hunt her down and get her back inside. There's nothing more to it than that.

The reporter at the station gets the police report for them following up on a peeping tom call and give the details and say you reported to the police you were looking for your cat.

The women in the neighborhood now think they've got a peeping tom living right in their own neibhorhood and they organize meetings to see what to do about it. They say, "Sure, he says he was looking for his cat, but we've heard that kind of stuff before and he was hanging around that neighbor's window.

And then, you probably don't give it a second thought, and a couple of months later when you go chasing down your errant cat again and the police are called a second time, because (unknown to you at the time) the neighbor women are thinking it's you and they are looking for something). The police come out again and they say that they are sorry, but they have to follow up on this again. They say you are seen wandering around in the dark out of your yard. It hits the news again, along with the prior reports that have come out as a public service message for how women and people should deal with peeping toms in their own neighborhood. And then, your second police report comes out and then the reporter says that many women in the neighborhood are questioning what on earth a man is doing wandering around in the dark over at a neighbor's house.

The station "raises the public awareness" of peeping toms in neighborhoods, and mentions that you've already had two police calls out to your house (on public record) to ask you about wandering around in the night in mysterious ways and you gave the reason being that you were looking for your cat. The station reports that many women in the neighborhood do not believe this reason at all and they are worried that they've got a peeping tom in the neighborhood.

All that is reported is factual, people can do and say all these things and the news can report it all and put "two and two together" and warn people on how they should respond if they suspect they have a peeping tom in the neighborhood.

This would be seen as a public service message and making sure people are "warned" about potential trouble and peeping toms in the neighborhoods.

I've see this happen over and over again, with rapes, with thefts, with break-ins with all sorts of things on the news.

You can wind this story up 100-different-ways-to-Sunday and there's nothing you can do about it... :-)

After all that, I'll guarantee you, that people who lived around in that neighborhood would be always suspicious and the rumors would be flying around, all the time, that you are the neighborhood peeping tom and you would be watched like a hawk from then on and the rumors would be repeated to every woman who ever came into that neighborhood... LOL...

You were asking ...

All very good points!

Thanks... and I was saying all that not to put you on the spot... :-)

No, it just makes the point that things like this are not easily dispelled, news agencies are not necessary capable of being sued (because a lot of "information" may be basically factual -- like you looking for the cat and the police did come out, along with the fact that some other person said "something" [but they were also lying, but you can't prove that, and it was reported as the person said it]).

And so, that's why I don't take gossip and rumors as anything "substantial" but simply sheer speculation with about 1,000 rumors equaling one solid fact and piece of information.

Unfortunately too many people operate in their everyday lives on speculation, gossip and rumors. I try to knock the gossip and rumors down to the level of where they really belong (at least with me personally in regards to others)... in that these rumors/gossip are not too credible at all... :-)

And, in regards to Tiger Woods, what we do know is that there is "something" that Tiger Woods is apologizing for, but we don't know exactly what it is and how extensive it is. It's still gossip and rumor-mongering, to detail it any further than he is willing to state it in the apology. It could be something very simple or something quite extensive, but the fact is, we simply don't know. And Tiger Woods wants those particular matters related to his family to be kept in the family to deal with it.

As to the actual accident, itself, that was also subject to a lot of gossip and rumor-mongering, but we do have the "basics" according to the Florida Highway Patrol, which puts the accident in what I would call a basically "nothing category"... LOL...

It's nothing because I've got a bunch of relatives who have had all sorts of accidents and so have I, but it's all considered to be "nothing" by all the people around me, including me. They're just accidents and they're really no big deal.

What people were trying to "make a big deal" was the "gossip and the rumor-mongering" for something that was "supposedly" behind the accident, which the Florida Highway Patrol totally dispelled in their statement, saying that there was never any question raised in regards to spousal abuse, plus the neighbors and what they said in their statement. Those are the actual and "factual" things that I'll go on, plus the actual statement that Tiger Woods did make.

And that's about as far as I would go. I'll let the National Enquirer continue to make their money the way they always have, soliciting and disseminating salacious gossip and incessant rumor-mongering.

I would sure hope that many at Free Republic are smarter than to buy into the salacious gossip and the incessant rumor-mongering of the National Enquirer and the like "rags"... (they're called "rags" for a reason... LOL...).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.