Tony Stewart hits and kills another driver

[SonicHawk]

If you guys admit that Stewart could possibly be at some fault I'll admit that Oj may have done it.

 

[Spounge84]

This is ridiculous. So many excuses for someone who drives fast for a living.

So many assumptions about things you don't know.

 

[SonicHawk]

This is ridiculous. So many excuses for someone who drives fast for a living.

So many assumptions about things you don't know.

Wait, a man is dead because a professional driver at the top of his sport ran him over during a caution lap and the assumption is that there wasn't something that went seriously wrong and negligent?

 

[SonicHawk]

If you ask me, Tony Stewart is the victim here. (and I say that, but wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.)

Ok, you've officially lost it. Tony squishes the head of this young idiot, but TONY's the victim. I guess when you have more to lose it should be harder to lose it right? Right?

 

[SonicHawk]

I'm done arguing about it. I don't know how anyone can vilify Stewart from what is known and what has been released.

I was actually awake skimming my twitter feed at about 2 in the morning when I saw it reported by SportsCenter. It is a truly sad story and there are obviously no winners in this situation. I hope Ward's family is coping and has the support of the racing community in their area.

I'm not vilifying Stewart, in my opinion it looked like he made a horrible mistake and things went horribly wrong and a man's dead. It's not like he was trying to do it, or set out to do it, all I know is this young man is dead, no matter how stupid he is.

 

[bigtrain21]

I'm done arguing about it. I don't know how anyone can vilify Stewart from what is known and what has been released.

I was actually awake skimming my twitter feed at about 2 in the morning when I saw it reported by SportsCenter. It is a truly sad story and there are obviously no winners in this situation. I hope Ward's family is coping and has the support of the racing community in their area.

I'm not vilifying Stewart, in my opinion it looked like he made a horrible mistake and things went horribly wrong and a man's dead. It's not like he was trying to do it, or set out to do it, all I know is this young man is dead, no matter how stupid he is.

What I don't understand is how you can have that opinion when we don't know what happened. It is entirely possible that Stewart didn't see him. There is another camera angle that is being reviewed that might shed more light on it but at this point any opinion vindicating him or vilifying him is premature.

 

[Anonymous]

If you ask me, Tony Stewart is the victim here. (and I say that, but wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.)

Ok, you've officially lost it. Tony squishes the head of this young idiot, but TONY's the victim. I guess when you have more to lose it should be harder to lose it right? Right?

You an "eye for an eye" kinda guy, aren't you Sonic?

I think I'm getting it: Someone dies, so somebody else has to pay.

The payee is determined by net income, experience level, work history, and the laws of probability, without regard to the facts of the case, scientific evidence, and expert testimony?

All righty then... :roll:

 

[bigtrain21]

I don't know, I'll leave it to the authorities, but the dude must be popular...

I haven't seen this much spin and defense by a sports community since Joe Pa messed up...

At least with Joe Pa he was a nice guy with a stellar rep, so what happened was hard to believe.

I think quite a bit of the spin is to counteract the people who are jumping to conclusions.

 

[fenderbender123]

I agree, we don't know at this time. I'm not in anyway ready to throw the book at Stewart.

Really? That's not what you said earlier today.

This was involuntary manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such.

I just want to point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with backpedaling. All it means is that the person has an open mind and is willing to listen and think about what other people are saying. Sometimes that means they will modify their opinion...maybe slightly, or maybe a lot. Either way, people should be applauded for it because it means they are intelligent and are willing to listen to arguments and opinions. This is a fantastic trait that is shared by most highly intelligent people. It doesn't surprise me to see Sonic 'backpedal' because I know he is intelligent.

 

[TXHawk]

This is ridiculous. So many excuses for someone who drives fast for a living.

So many assumptions about things you don't know.

Wait, a man is dead because a professional driver at the top of his sport ran him over during a caution lap and the assumption is that there wasn't something that went seriously wrong and negligent?

Oh there absolutely was negligence, recklessness and hot-headedness on display in that video. By Ward. It's impossible to draw any conclusions about Stewart's mental state or potential negligence in that video without filling in the blanks with wild speculation. You want to convict a man based on that? I hope you never end up on a jury.

 

[SonicHawk]

If you ask me, Tony Stewart is the victim here. (and I say that, but wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.)

Ok, you've officially lost it. Tony squishes the head of this young idiot, but TONY's the victim. I guess when you have more to lose it should be harder to lose it right? Right?

You an "eye for an eye" kinda guy, aren't you Sonic?

I think I'm getting it: Someone dies, so somebody else has to pay.

The payee is determined by net income, experience level, work history, and the laws of probability, without regard to the facts of the case, scientific evidence, and expert testimony?

All righty then... :roll:

No, absolutely not. And if the only evidence you had was the video (no physical, no additional angles, no testimony) there is no crime committed.

I don't believe Tony should go to jail if it was an unavoidable tragedy, but if he took any step that would suggest he was trying to 'buzz' him, then absolutely. I have never called it murder, it's always been either manslaughter (unlikely) but more likely gross negligence if there is any charge.

I'm just not so quick to call this just an accident.

 

[SonicHawk]

This is ridiculous. So many excuses for someone who drives fast for a living.

So many assumptions about things you don't know.

Wait, a man is dead because a professional driver at the top of his sport ran him over during a caution lap and the assumption is that there wasn't something that went seriously wrong and negligent?

Oh there absolutely was negligence, recklessness and hot-headedness on display in that video. By Ward. It's impossible to draw any conclusions about Stewart's mental state or potential negligence in that video without filling in the blanks with wild speculation. You want to convict a man based on that? I hope you never end up on a jury.

Why is the assumption because I would like to see some sort of further investigation towards manslaughter/gross negligence on the part of the police mean I'm ready to hang Stewart in the town square? There's just too much gray area.

There is no denying that Ward's actions were beyond stupid, that doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.

 

[Spounge84]

I just want to point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with backpedaling. All it means is that the person has an open mind and is willing to listen and think about what other people are saying. Sometimes that means they will modify their opinion...maybe slightly, or maybe a lot. Either way, people should be applauded for it because it means they are intelligent and are willing to listen to arguments and opinions. This is a fantastic trait that is shared by most highly intelligent people. It doesn't surprise me to see Sonic 'backpedal' because I know he is intelligent.

I think we have a different definition of backpedaling. I think of backpedaling as changing one's story to try to win an argument, not changing one's mind based on new evidence. What I see Sonic doing is the former, not the latter.

 

[huskylawyer]

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 pedestrian...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 "Pedestrians 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.

 

[fenderbender123]

I just want to point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with backpedaling. All it means is that the person has an open mind and is willing to listen and think about what other people are saying. Sometimes that means they will modify their opinion...maybe slightly, or maybe a lot. Either way, people should be applauded for it because it means they are intelligent and are willing to listen to arguments and opinions. This is a fantastic trait that is shared by most highly intelligent people. It doesn't surprise me to see Sonic 'backpedal' because I know he is intelligent.

I think we have a different definition of backpedaling. I think of backpedaling as changing one's story to try to win an argument, not changing one's mind based on new evidence. What I see Sonic doing is the former, not the latter.

What's the difference? If he feels like he's losing an argument, then he must have thought rationally about the opposing arguments, no?

 

[SonicHawk]

Watch out huskylawer, any thought that Stewart might be in the wrong in anyway will be criticized.

 

[kearly]

Need more evidence. If Stewart does go to trial, I suspect he will be acquitted for exactly that reason. Reasonable doubt exists for Stewart, at least right now.

That said, I watch the video and I see the first vehicle steer LEFT and miss the victim pretty easily. Then about a full second or two later, Stewart comes in and clearly accelerates his vehicle while jutting RIGHT as he passes the guy. Some theorize it was a fishtail loss of control that caused this turn, but some of the witnesses did not express that view. Should be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers.

It's impossible to know if Stewart wished harm or if it was just an accident. But it did appear that there was intention there to at least scare the guy.

I think this is kind of a "it takes two to tango thing." The victim was a moron to get out of his car and run on the track to instigate a driver in his car going at high speed in dark conditions. But watching the video, it appeared to me that there is a distinct element of intention of what Stewart did. Whether he wanted to kill the guy or just scare him we'll probably never know. If it's the latter, I would prefer he not get manslaughter as the victim played a role in the tragedy as well. I suspect it will be impossible to prove the former, despite Stewart's history of rage issues.

Barring further evidence I would prefer to avoid judgement, even if there are a few reasons to have suspicion. Should be interesting to see how the legal process plays out.

 

[TXHawk]

No one seems to be able to explain why Stewart would have been so angry. He didn't wreck and his car wasn't damaged. It doesn't appear from the video that the two cars even touched. The race steward didn't think they did. Stewart probably didn't even know that Ward had hit the wall since it happened behind him and these cars don't have mirrors. As far as racing deals go this was nothing, at least from Stewart's perspective.

So why was he allegedly so damned pissed off as he came around on the caution that he wanted to teach the kid a lesson by buzzing him?

 

[SonicHawk]

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'.

 

[Scottemojo]

No one seems to be able to explain why Stewart would have been so angry. He didn't wreck and his car wasn't damaged. It doesn't appear from the video that the two cars even touched. The race steward didn't think they did. Stewart probably didn't even know that Ward had hit the wall since it happened behind him and these cars don't have mirrors. As far as racing deals go this was nothing, at least from Stewart's perspective.

So why was he allegedly so damned pissed off as he came around on the caution that he wanted to teach the kid a lesson by buzzing him?

People only see Tony portrayed one way in the media, so their assumption is that he is always acting as a hothead. And yet with some, the kid is getting a free pass for putting himself in the wrongest of places because he is a hothead.

This idea that somebody died, so we all have to get worked up, annoys me. It was a dumb kid trying to gain entry into the Darwin awards because he was pissed off. His own personal Running of the Bulls. Is it sad? Sure. But the kid broke rules intended to keep this from happening, and paid the ultimate price.