Tony Stewart hits and kills another driver

Discuss any and all sports-related topics. From the College Sports to Baseball and everything in between. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • SonicHawk wrote:No one is suggesting he was angry enough to want to harm the kid, that's the unfortunate part. There's no motivation for murder, that's why it's not murder.

    There's is plenty of motivation for him to want to 'buzz' the kid. The kid was trying to show him up, be on the track, pretend like he belongs. Stewart is a competitor at the top of his game, it's not that odd for him to want to say, 'sit down kid'.


    So he decided all this in the maybe two seconds (if that) he had that he even knew the kid was on the track? The driver of the 45 car ahead of Stewart that almost hit Ward told his mechanic that he didn't see him at all until the last second and Ward would have been obscured from Stewart's vision by that car. So you're saying that Stewart, who had no reason to be angry at all when the caution came out, became instantly inflamed by some anonymous guy on the track he probably had no idea was angry at him and decided to teach him a lesson?

    You're playing a whole lot of "let's read Tony Stewart's mind" here. Are you psychic? If you are how about passing on rhe numbers for the next Powerball!
    TXHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 378
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:03 am
    Location: Arlington, TX


  • huskylawyer wrote:I have no quarrel in this fight but as a person who doesn't watch much car racing, from my uninformed view of the video I feel like I can reasonably assume that Stewart intentionally tried to scare the kid a bit when he apparently hit the throttle and tried to get close to him (Stewart is one of the best drivers in the world, so he knows what he is doing). That assumption might be wrong because I simply don't know how one drives in a car like Stewart was driving, but on a first glance, that is what I thought happened.

    It happens on regular roads all the time. How many times have you seen some idiot jay walking with oncoming traffic, slowly and almost deliberately, almost rubbing it in and saying to themselves, "I'm a Carter-is-an-idiot...sorry you need to get to work quickly, but this is my world." (I see this crap all the time on Rainier Ave, where intersections seem to occur once ever 10 miles it seems). A lot of cars speed up to subtly say to the idiot, "move your butt." Everytime I see it, I think, someone is gonna get hit (which might explain the "Carter-is-an-idiots have the right of way" sign that was recently put up on Rainier Ave)

    Regardless of whether Stewart is charged, there is going to be a big lawsuit. Get your popcorn ready.


    Moderator Objection:

    huskylawyer, you are new around here, so I'll be easy on you.

    Please be advised:
    According to paragraph 12, sub-section 43, line 8, of the Seahawks online conversational code, the word "pedestrian" can no longer be utilized on .NET to describe an upright individual moving forward at a slow pace using the legs, and/or to describe an individual that contributes with an average performance characteristic.

    According to the new ruling, .NET users must now substitute the multi-word conjunction: "Carter-is-an-idiot" for the word: "Pedestrian" in both thread titles and post content. Further use of the P-word will be dealt with swiftly, and harshly.


    Don't worry, Counselor, I fixed it for ya. :mrgreen:
    HoustonHawk82
     


  • It doesn't look like this is fading out at all in the media, as day-3 of discussing it on the Today show occurred.

    Been looking for some different camera angles but I can't find anything yet. I'd really like to see the incident from a wider angle, or from a camera further into turn 1, so I can judge how fast Tony was going in relation to the other cars and at what point the yellow flag and yellow track lights actually came on. This guy had his phone zoomed-in too close and we aren't getting enough of it to really break it down. That we all can agree on.
    HoustonHawk82
     


  • This is an example of the rule to "Stay in your car until the race is stopped, or rescue people get to you".

    :les:
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18469
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

    Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

    Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4585
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:49 am


  • TXHawk wrote:
    SonicHawk wrote:No one is suggesting he was angry enough to want to harm the kid, that's the unfortunate part. There's no motivation for murder, that's why it's not murder.

    There's is plenty of motivation for him to want to 'buzz' the kid. The kid was trying to show him up, be on the track, pretend like he belongs. Stewart is a competitor at the top of his game, it's not that odd for him to want to say, 'sit down kid'.


    So he decided all this in the maybe two seconds (if that) he had that he even knew the kid was on the track? The driver of the 45 car ahead of Stewart that almost hit Ward told his mechanic that he didn't see him at all until the last second and Ward would have been obscured from Stewart's vision by that car. So you're saying that Stewart, who had no reason to be angry at all when the caution came out, became instantly inflamed by some anonymous guy on the track he probably had no idea was angry at him and decided to teach him a lesson?

    You're playing a whole lot of "let's read Tony Stewart's mind" here. Are you psychic? If you are how about passing on rhe numbers for the next Powerball!


    You're playing a whole lot of "I know everything and you're dumb for having questions" and it's getting tired. I'm sorry that I don't know everything about the situation like you, hopefully I can become as informed as you are on an issue.

    The 45 car driver is not Tony Stewart. He's not the one who put the kid into the wall in the first place, I don't really care what the 45 car driver says, his thoughts are meaningless in this situation.

    Stewart had no reason to be angry at all? Well, I'm certainly glad you even understand Tony's feelings in the situation.

    Man, why aren't you helping with the investigation?

    You're asking me for the powerball numbers, well, I got news for you buddy, you already know them.
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5558
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:56 pm


  • Cartire wrote:The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

    Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

    Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.


    I don't take much stock into what the other drivers did because they aren't Tony Stewart and are not indicative of the situation. There's absolutely no question that Ward's actions were the majority of the reason we had such a horrifying result.

    If Stewart really made no mistake but ignorance of the potential situation then I guess I just think too much of Stewart and Sprint Cup drivers in general.
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5558
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:56 pm


  • I think we should turn this forum back to its rightful owners. Summer transfers are way more important than a human life, and since so many are into soccer, it is inevitable.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34987
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


  • I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4877
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • IndyHawk wrote:I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

    I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

    Such is the culture of racing.
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 14663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    IndyHawk wrote:I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

    I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

    Such is the culture of racing.


    I am definitely not ruling what you are saying but everything I have read about those cars that Tony was driving say you have to hit the gas to get better control of the car. That's what makes it so difficult. I hope the other video they have is better and they have some radio traffic to refer back to.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    IndyHawk wrote:I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

    I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

    Such is the culture of racing.


    But, what you just described is manslaughter. A crime.

    I dont know what the intentions were. And I think an easy case can be built that ward endanered himself (which i think is what will end up happening), but I think Tony could at least be charged with manslaughter. Rather the DA thinks that he will succeed will determine if this happens.
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4585
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:49 am


  • Cartire wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    IndyHawk wrote:I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

    I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

    Such is the culture of racing.


    But, what you just described is manslaughter. A crime.

    I dont know what the intentions were. And I think an easy case can be built that ward endanered himself (which i think is what will end up happening), but I think Tony could at least be charged with manslaughter. Rather the DA thinks that he will succeed will determine if this happens.

    Technically, attempted manslaughter is committed on Nascar tracks dozens of times every race. Every time they bump, spin, and try to get a guy loose could result in death. Hell, every retaliatory baseball beaning is an attempt to cause bodily harm and could be prosecuted.

    You mentioned intentions. For me, that is where it all lies. And in this case, intentions cannot be known. Only guessed, which is what I did.

    And hell yes, Ward endangered himself.
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 14663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:14 am


  • Sonic vs everyone? That...like never happens.
    JesterHawk
    * Smackmeister *
     
    Posts: 7667
    Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:56 pm


  • I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2728
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:39 pm


  • SonicHawk wrote:
    Cartire wrote:The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

    Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

    Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.


    I don't take much stock into what the other drivers did because they aren't Tony Stewart and are not indicative of the situation. There's absolutely no question that Ward's actions were the majority of the reason we had such a horrifying result.

    If Stewart really made no mistake but ignorance of the potential situation then I guess I just think too much of Stewart and Sprint Cup drivers in general.


    NASCAR Sprint Cup drivers race on larger tracks with better lighting. They have a much better field of view from their cockpit and are in constant radio communications with spotters and crew chief who can warn them of trouble.

    Sprint car drivers race on very small, dimly lit dirt tracks. They have a much more limited field of view from the cockpit and a wing board which blocks their vision on the right. Their visors get covered with dirt and mud and they only have a limited number of clear tear offs so normally don't tear them off at the beginning of a caution but wait until the race is ready to go green. The cars have no radios or mirrors.

    Sprint cars have roughly the same horsepower as the NASCAR cars but are about 2000 lbs lighter and have a power to weight ratio similar to a Formula 1 car. They are simple but brutally powerful beasts. Since dirt tracks are so small the straightaways tend to be short or non-existent so the cars are set up with a right rear tire larger than the other three tires to help push the nose of the car to the left. Drivers have to turn their front wheels to the right when turning left to counter the tendency of the tail to want to come around and they use the throttle as their primary steering control to help them maintain a racing line. The car is in a controlled slide for most of the way around a dirt track. The car is also set up to run at high speeds and is not very maneuverable at lower speeds during cautions.

    The bottom line is that there is a world of difference between sprint car racing on dirt tracks and NASCAR's Sprint Cup racing on large paved tracks. It's much more a seat-of-the-pants type racing and its drivers have far less situational awareness no matter how good they are.
    TXHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 378
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:03 am
    Location: Arlington, TX


  • HansGruber wrote:I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.


    Actually, it isn't so simple:

    Regarding pedestrians.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

    And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

    Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.


    Actually, it isn't so simple:

    Regarding pedestrians.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

    And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

    Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).


    There you go with that P-word again...

    :mrgreen:
    HoustonHawk82
     


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.


    Actually, it isn't so simple:

    Regarding pedestrians.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

    And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

    Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

    Stallworth went to jail for the DUI.

    I've hit a pedestrian in Pioneer Square, some drunk frat kid that ran in front of my car. SPD showed up while I was treating him and wrote him a ticket and told my insurance he was at fault.

    The only automatic right of way streets in Seattle are those weird streets like Pike in front of the market that have been designated primarily as foot traffic only or during events like when they close Leschi to Seward for the bike days, etc.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/walk/laws.htm
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2728
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:39 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:
    HansGruber wrote:I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.


    Actually, it isn't so simple:

    Regarding pedestrians.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

    And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

    Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

    Stallworth went to jail for the DUI.

    I've hit a pedestrian in Pioneer Square, some drunk frat kid that ran in front of my car. SPD showed up while I was treating him and wrote him a ticket and told my insurance he was at fault.

    The only automatic right of way streets in Seattle are those weird streets like Pike in front of the market that have been designated primarily as foot traffic only or during events like when they close Leschi to Seward for the bike days, etc.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/walk/laws.htm


    Fair enough. But again, the point is, just because a jay walker is at fault, does not necessarily mean that the driver is blamess. In the civil context, some jurisdictions will apportion liability based on culpability.

    Again, if kid is jaywalking, and you intentionally speed up to scare him (which I've seen numerous times), and hit him accidentally, the driver does not necessarily have a free pass. See SMC 11.58.310

    And different communities within Washington treat jay walking differently (I'm not getting paid for this, so not going to talk about preemption law and all the nuances, hehe).

    And Sallworth was charged with manslaughter...(and he claims he flashed his headlights at the jay walker). He copped a plea however.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Shouldn't you be sending cease and desist letters instead of on a Seahawks forum?

    ;) Good to have a lawyer on my side!
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5558
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:56 pm


  • SonicHawk wrote:Shouldn't you be sending cease and desist letters instead of on a Seahawks forum?

    ;) Good to have a lawyer on my side!


    Ha!

    A lot of folks sound like trial lawyers in this thread. I'm not a litigator (though my biz partner is), and he always says common sense and pragmatism usually sways the juries, as some soccer mom from Bellevue isn't gonna understand (or frankly care) about the legal nuances. So along that vein, here is the "common sense no agenda" take on Stewart situation:

    1) Is Stewart a hot head? - Answer - YES
    2) Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world, i.e., someone who is constantly aware of his surroundings and understands how to operate his vehicle better than 99% of the rest of the planet? - YES
    3) Was the young driver who got out of his car stupid and at fault in part (not ragging on him as his death was tragic; but just being blunt): YES
    4) Did Steward intentionally try to kill him? - No, most sane people aren't gonna think that Stewart is a sociopath and murderer.
    4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

    I think most reasonable people, based on the video and Stewart's history, can come to these conclusions, if they are being honest with themselves and not just in outright denial.

    With all the said, a prosecutor in an area that supports car racing isn't going to bring charges unless there is a smoking gun (e.g., Stewart radioing in and saying "I'm gonna teach this kid a lesson"). Also, just from a practical standpoint, finding criminal (or perhaps even civil) liability could kill the sport, as do we really want a criminal investigation every time a race car driver is injured or killed due to aggressive driving techniques on the track? No. The slippery slope would be crazy (e.g., charging a DB in football if he does an illegal hit and seriously injures someone).

    Sports is a different breed, thus the reason I think the chances of criminal charges are extremely remote. Now the civil case could get interesting...

    BTW - has there been any release of the radio transmissions? I'd assume that the crew would radio in and say, "caution flag up..some driver left his car and there is a crash." IF that happened, that would lend credence to the argument that Stewart knew he was out there. If not, that helps Stewart of course.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

    However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34987
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


  • huskylawyer wrote:4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES


    I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

    However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.


    Good point. But answer this question (apologize if you already did)

    Do you think Stewart tried to teach the kid a lesson and get close and/or kick up track dirt on him? You don't need to answer whether he is guilty of some crime (completely different issue). Just whether or not Stewart intentionally drove close.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES


    I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?


    There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

    Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

    Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possibly come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.

    People can answer the question and form an opinion, but some people simply don't want to offer an opinion and simply say, "not enough information" I "get it", but I suspect deep down people are troubled, even with the limited information (but they are afraid to admit it or have an agenda.).
    Last edited by huskylawyer on Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Largent80 wrote:If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

    However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.


    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    SonicHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5558
    Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:56 pm


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES


    I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?


    There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

    Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

    Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possible come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.


    We don't have the information to answer that key question though. You said it yourself that we have very limited information. What limited information brought you to that conclusion strictly limiting yourself to the watching the video?
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES


    I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?


    There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

    Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

    Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possible come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.


    We don't have the information to answer that key question though. You said it yourself that we have very limited information. What limited information brought you to that conclusion strictly limiting yourself to the watching the video?


    Ok, let me do this slowly.

    Draw upon the answer to the first set of questions (a) hot head, (b) driving abilities, (c) video.

    Now based on those answers, if you had to answer, "do you think he drove close on purpose", what do you say. The answer isn't "not enough information." We ALL understand that. But with the logical assumptions (a) & (b) and the video (c), how do you answer the main question. It isn't that difficult. Yes or no answer. If your answer is no, so be it, but I'd question the common sense and logic there...
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • SonicHawk wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

    However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.


    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    Anyone who cites that McDonald's case as some sort of pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits never has any idea what they're talking about.
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • huskylawyer wrote:Ok, let me do this slowly.

    Draw upon the answer to the first set of questions (a) hot head, (b) driving abilities, (c) video.

    Now based on those answers, if you had to answer, "do you think he drove close on purpose", what do you say. The answer isn't "not enough information." We ALL understand that. But with the logical assumptions (a) & (b) and the video (c), how do you answer the main question. It isn't that difficult. Yes or no answer. If your answer is no, so be it, but I'd question the common sense and logic there...


    I am asking you to look at the video in a vacuum and tell me what you see that makes you think he drove close on purpose. That's all.

    In regards to your absolutely condescending for no reason reply. I don't know. The reason I don't know is that Stewart being a hothead and a fantastic driver have absolutely nothing to do with whether Stewart saw Ward or not. Now if more video evidence comes out or we hear on race radio that Stewart knew he was there, then of course that would change my answer from "I don't know" to "Yes".

    No need to do this slowly in the future. I am following along quite nicely.
    Last edited by bigtrain21 on Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

    However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.


    Good point. But answer this question (apologize if you already did)

    Do you think Stewart tried to teach the kid a lesson and get close and/or kick up track dirt on him? You don't need to answer whether he is guilty of some crime (completely different issue). Just whether or not Stewart intentionally drove close.


    Sorry, not good point. The case of Liebeck vs McDonald's Restaurants was not a sham lawsuit. If you did actually know it, and not just the late night comedy and hearsay of what happened, you would completely understand the legitimate lawsuit she had and why she won.

    http://plotmistress.com/wp-content/uplo ... 2-Copy.jpg

    I put that picture as the link and not into here because its graphic. But thats the result of the coffee spill. 3rd degree burns. The coffee was brewed at a staggering 190 degrees. About 40 degrees above normal restaurant brewing temps.

    I get the aspects of Tort Reform, but she had a case. It was just the media's take on it was lopsided and everyone who read about it assumed money grab.

    To your point about Tony "teaching the kid a lesson". If they can prove that, its involuntary manslaughter. Plain and simple. If he did something that knowingly increased the chances of Ward getting hurt, then he can easily be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

    That being said, you have to prove he intentionally did it. Ward is still at fault for his actions, but if they prove Tony did something on purpose that increased the chance of his demise, well, no good for Tony.
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4585
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:49 am


  • Think of it this way. It is like a LSAT logic question where you are given limited information but you MUST provide the most logical answer. Test time!!!! :D


    Driver A has a history of being a hot head on the race track, getting into confrontations with other drivers, and driving aggressively. Driver A is also one of the best drivers in the entire world, capable of maneuvering his vehicle in ways 99% of the population cannot, and constantly aware of his surroundings. Driver B gets out of his car on the track to taunt Driver A because he was mad at Driver A because he thinks Driver A bumped him, causing him to crash, Driver C avoids him, and Driver A hits Driver B after circling the track. Based on this information, what is the most likely answer:

    1) Driver B intentionally jumped in front of Driver A to kill himself.
    2) Driver A didn't notice Driver B at all and it was an accident.
    3) Driver C is completely to blame for not stopping and helping Driver B off the track.
    4) Driver A purposely got close to Driver B but accidentally hit him.

    Based on the limited information, how do you answer?

    The point of the question is that we can all agree that we don't know everything. But if push comes to shove, it is completely reasonable for people to think that Stewart knew what he was doing, just by using some common sense and a little logic. That doesn't mean that the kid wasn't at fault, and frankly, whether Stewart should even be charged with a crime.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Your LSAT question is lacking a lot of details.

    I am kind of shocked that you think that because he is a hothead and a good driver means he would irresponsible enough to throw dirt with his tires on a guy walking towards him on the track.

    You never answered my question though. I can ask it slower for you if it is confusing you.

    In a vacuum, what concerns you about that video in regards to the actions of Stewart?
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:Your LSAT question is lacking a lot of details.

    I am kind of shocked that you think that because he is a hothead and a good driver means he would irresponsible enough to throw dirt with his tires on a guy walking towards him on the track.

    You never answered my question though. I can ask it slower for you if it is confusing you.

    In a vacuum, what concerns you about that video in regards to the actions of Stewart?


    Umm....that's the point lol, and you should take the LSAT. The point of the LSAT is to see how you draw inferences and conclusions based on limited information. You don't get essays with 10 million facts and and such (though I wish they did that!)

    In a vacuum, not much to infer from the video, other than at least two drivers managed to steer clear of the kid, and then Stewart didn't. Based on that information alone, I'd think "the guy who hit him doesn't know how to drive." Now when you add the fact about Stewart's background and competency behind the wheel, much easier to draw negative inferences against Stewart.

    Not sure how that is a controversial or even illogical way of reasoning.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.


    I thought we were operating in a vacuum, solely on what you saw in the video? LOL.

    But your response is what a good criminal defense lawyer would say. Bring in other issues to minimize or detract from the limited information that goes against your client....

    Like I said, a lot of posters sound like trial lawyers here. :D
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Vrabel, i.e., Keyzer Soze said it best in The Usual Suspects:

    To a cop the explanation is never that complicated. It's always simple. There's no mystery to the street, no arch criminal behind it all. If you got a dead body and you think his brother did it, you're gonna find out you're right.

    I'm jaded and tend to let common sense guide my reasoning. Hence my thoughts about the whole, sad, situation.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Okay here is my LSAT.

    Driver A & Driver B are racing at night with limited visibility. Driver B crashes and blames Driver A. Driver B gets out of his car in a dark driving suit and angrily approaches Driver A who is moving at a high rate of speed and may or may not know Driver B is on the track due to a variety of reasons. Driver A hits driver B.

    1) Driver A is responsible for hitting Driver B because he is a hot head and fantastic driver.
    2) Driver A is not responsible because Driver B never should have got out of his car.
    3) More information is needed to come to any sort of conclusion since we don't know if Driver A saw Driver B.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.


    I thought we were operating in a vacuum, solely on what you saw in the video? LOL.


    Um, we are. We saw that he was mad at stewart in the video and attempting to approach Stewarts car. I am including nothing other than what we saw in the video.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:Okay here is my LSAT.

    Driver A & Driver B are racing at night with limited visibility. Driver B crashes and blames Driver A. Driver B gets out of his car in a dark driving suit and angrily approaches Driver A who is moving at a high rate of speed and may or may not know Driver B is on the track due to a variety of reasons. Driver A hits driver B.

    1) Driver A is responsible for hitting Driver B because he is a hot head and fantastic driver.
    2) Driver A is not responsible because Driver B never should have got out of his car.
    3) More information is needed to come to any sort of conclusion since we don't know if Driver A saw Driver B.


    THREE!!!!

    Woot, Harvard Law here I come (I had to settle for Michigan Law; yes, unsolicited information. Sue me 8) ).

    I at least answered your question, whereas you did not...
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.


    I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Doesn't quite work that way, but whatevs.

    You're just missing the point. The point is a defense to people who are making REASONABLE assumptions based on limited information. Just because you "need more information" is immaterial. We're trying to determine if one can draw a reasonable conclusions based on limited facts. Just because you don't like the facts, or feel that it is missing other elements, doesn't mean you CAN'T answer the question.

    Juries everyday draw conclusions without knowing all the fact (e.g. no murder weapon, no motive, etc.). But they still render decisions...
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.


    I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Does quite work that way, but whatevs.


    Your LSAT question doesn't prove anything anyway. Mine doesn't either.

    Answer this question. Did Stewart see Ward? If the answer is yes then I think Stewart should be charged and I have said that all along. If it is no then he is not at fault. I personally don't believe we know whether he saw him or not.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:
    bigtrain21 wrote:I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.


    I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Does quite work that way, but whatevs.


    Your LSAT question doesn't prove anything anyway. Mine doesn't either.

    Answer this question. Did Stewart see Ward? If the answer is yes then I think Stewart should be charged and I have said that all along. If it is no then he is not at fault. I personally don't believe we know whether he saw him or not.


    1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
    2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

    Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • huskylawyer wrote:Is Tony Stewart a hothead?
    Yes, but in previous cases where he lost his temper it always involved a wreck or heavy damage to his car. In this case he did not wreck and there was no damage to his car. Ward did hit the wall but there doesn't appear to have been any contact between the two cars. Since sprint cars don't have mirrors and Ward's car was behind him it's very possible that Stewart wasn't even aware it happened.

    2) Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world, i.e., someone who is constantly aware of his surroundings and understands how to operate his vehicle better than 99% of the rest of the planet?

    Yes, but as I've explained before the ability to maintain situational awareness in sprint cars is far more difficult than racing in NASCAR's highest series. The cars have no mirrors, no radios, no spotters relaying information, right side visibilty is blocked by the wing board, visors get covered with dirt and mud, and the tracks tend to be dimly lit.

    4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face?

    It's impossible to tell from the brief instance that Stewart's car appeared in the video prior to hitting Ward. The previous car nearly hit him as well and the driver told his mechanic he didn't see him until the last second. Stewart was running several feet higher on the track than that car and had less margin of error to avoid Ward. There is no way of knowing when Stewart saw Ward on the track and how much time he had to avoid him.

    BTW - has there been any release of the radio transmissions? I'd assume that the crew would radio in and say, "caution flag up..some driver left his car and there is a crash."


    The cars have no radios. The only information that Stewart would have had was the yellow lights on the track indicating that the caution was out. He would have had no advance warning of a driver in the middle of the track.
    TXHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 378
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:03 am
    Location: Arlington, TX


  • TXHawk wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:Is Tony Stewart a hothead?
    Yes, but in previous cases where he lost his temper it always involved a wreck or heavy damage to his car. In this case he did not wreck and there was no damage to his car. Ward did hit the wall but there doesn't appear to have been any contact between the two cars. Since sprint cars don't have mirrors and Ward's car was behind him it's very possible that Stewart wasn't even aware it happened.

    2) Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world, i.e., someone who is constantly aware of his surroundings and understands how to operate his vehicle better than 99% of the rest of the planet?

    Yes, but as I've explained before the ability to maintain situational awareness in sprint cars is far more difficult than racing in NASCAR's highest series. The cars have no mirrors, no radios, no spotters relaying information, right side visibilty is blocked by the wing board, visors get covered with dirt and mud, and the tracks tend to be dimly lit.

    4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face?

    It's impossible to tell from the brief instance that Stewart's car appeared in the video prior to hitting Ward. The previous car nearly hit him as well and the driver told his mechanic he didn't see him until the last second. Stewart was running several feet higher on the track than that car and had less margin of error to avoid Ward. There is no way of knowing when Stewart saw Ward on the track and how much time he had to avoid him.

    BTW - has there been any release of the radio transmissions? I'd assume that the crew would radio in and say, "caution flag up..some driver left his car and there is a crash."


    The cars have no radios. The only information that Stewart would have had was the yellow lights on the track indicating that the caution was out. He would have had no advance warning of a driver in the middle of the track.


    These are all fair and good arguments.

    The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

    Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you. :)
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
    2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

    Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.



    So you have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him but you are willing to believe he went after this kid because he is a good driver and has got into confrontations in his past. I am not sure how much you follow NASCAR but there are quite a few confrontations on a weekly basis. Every driver gets into confrontations. Stewart gets into significantly less confrontations than a lot of drivers.

    I really don't know why you have a problem with my position. You seemingly feel like I should have enough information to say that stewart ran down this kid with his car while trying to teach him a lesson when none of that has been proven.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • huskylawyer wrote:
    These are all fair and good arguments.

    The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

    Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you. :)


    Let me say this slowly so you understand. People can view Stewart with skepticism. I have no problem with that. You aren't viewing him with skepticism you are rushing to judgement.
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1685
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:48 pm


  • bigtrain21 wrote:
    huskylawyer wrote:
    1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
    2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

    Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.



    So you have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him but you are willing to believe he went after this kid because he is a good driver and has got into confrontations in his past. I am not sure how much you follow NASCAR but there are quite a few confrontations on a weekly basis. Every driver gets into confrontations. Stewart gets into significantly less confrontations than a lot of drivers.

    I really don't know why you have a problem with my position. You seemingly feel like I should have enough information to say that stewart ran down this kid with his car while trying to teach him a lesson when none of that has been proven.


    I never suggested that Stewart "ran down this kid with his car." I suggested that Stewart wanted to kick dirt up the kid's face or do a close drive-by, and an ACCIDENT happened. That is a HUGE and important distinction....

    Ok, for real, back to work.
    huskylawyer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 290
    Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:09 pm
    Location: Seattle


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:44 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE SPORTS BAR ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests