# Tony Stewart hits another driver



## ace2000 (Aug 11, 2014)

I'm not a big NASCAR fan, and I do recognize his name but don't know much about the guy.  This accident is pretty senseless and I'm not sure who I blame more - probably both equally.

http://deadspin.com/reports-tony-stewart-ran-over-opposing-driver-during-1618893708/all

Warning:  This graphic video could be disturbing to some viewers.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 11, 2014)

The driver who got out of the car angrily on the track was dumb to do so amid all the cars. But if Tony Stewart hit him purposefully, he needs to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter.


----------



## pedro47 (Aug 11, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> The driver who got out of the car angrily on the track was dumb to do so amid all the cars. But if Tony Stewart hit him purposefully, he needs to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter.



Ditto on your comments and observation. Why would a driver get out of his car during a yellow flag caution and walk toward moving traffic ?


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 11, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> The driver who got out of the car angrily on the track was dumb to do so amid all the cars. But *if *Tony Stewart hit him purposefully, he needs to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter.



That's a big "if".  Pure speculation!  Even suggesting it may have been intentional is unfair to Tony Stewart!

George


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I'm not a big NASCAR fan, and I do recognize his name but don't know much about the guy.  This accident is pretty senseless and *I'm not sure who I blame more - probably both equally.*
> 
> http://deadspin.com/reports-tony-stewart-ran-over-opposing-driver-during-1618893708/all
> 
> Warning:  This graphic video could be disturbing to some viewers.






Really???? Are you serious??? 

So if you were driving along on the expressway, at night, going through a turn, and a man suddenly appeared standing in the middle of the road in front of you and you struck him, you would feel the same way? Wait, you'd only be traveling 55 mph. So you'd be just as much to blame huh?

Yikes. I really don't know what to think of that, unless you're making some sort of joke in poor taste.

Personally, I feel terrible for Stewart who now has to live with the fact that he unintentionally killed someone that was STUPID enough to: 1 get out of his car on a racetrack and 2. pull a misguided Superman move thinking he could somehow stop race traffic.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 11, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Yikes. I really don't know what to think of that, unless you're making some sort of joke in poor taste.



It's not in poor taste, I can assure you.  There are plenty of analysts that agree that Stewart could have avoided the incident and I agree with them.  I personally think Stewart was trying to send a message and make it close but I don't think he tried to hit him.  Nothing discounts the fact that if the driver wouldn't have got out of the car in a fit of rage, none of it would've happened.

It's just my opinion, you've stated yours.


----------



## Elan (Aug 11, 2014)

Watched the video many times and followed the story all day yesterday since it blew up Twitter early yesterday morning.   I suspect that only Tony Stewart will ever know for sure what he was trying to do.  Yeah, it was dumb for the kid to get out of his car, but that doesn't explain Tony Stewart fish-tailing his car under caution.  I'll wait to hear Tony's explanation, if he ever gives one.  I'm guessing he'll keep his mouth shut.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2014)

Elan said:


> Watched the video many times and followed the story all day yesterday since it blew up Twitter early yesterday morning.   I suspect that only Tony Stewart will ever know for sure what he was trying to do.  Yeah, it was dumb for the kid to get out of his car, but *that doesn't explain Tony Stewart fish-tailing his car under caution*.  I'll wait to hear Tony's explanation, if he ever gives one.  I'm guessing he'll keep his mouth shut.



Trying to avoid a collision with a wack job in the middle of the race track perhaps??


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 11, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Trying to avoid a collision with a wack job in the middle of the race track perhaps??



+1 for this post, really, what was he supposed to do?


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 11, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> +1 for this post, really, what was he supposed to do?



I'd probably advise him not to fishtail his vehicle on a dirt track as he passed him by.  That's just me though.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2014)

I honestly hope to God that a child never darts between parked cars, and some folks here strike them. Using their twisted logic, they would be "to blame".

Very, very odd.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I'd probably advise him not to fishtail his vehicle on a dirt track as he passed him by.  That's just me though.




So, you know a few things about racing then, and are therefore qualified to offer Tony Stewart advice. So tell us, how long have you been racing? Where and what type and class of racing? Have you _ever_ driven a race car? Have you _ever_ driven _any_ vehicle on a race track? Have you _ever_ gotten _your vehicle sideways_ while traveling at the speed of these race cars? 

Please, do tell.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 11, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> So, you know a few things about racing then, and are therefore qualified to offer Tony Stewart advice. So tell us, how long have you been racing? Where and what type and class of racing? Have you _ever_ driven a race car? Have you _ever_ driven _any_ vehicle on a race track? Have you _ever_ gotten _your vehicle sideways_ while traveling at the speed of these race cars?
> 
> Please, do tell.



I've just listened to the experts discussing what happened (probably more than you've done).  Several agree that Stewart could've done more to prevent what happened.

I'm sure you'll be able to tell us all about your previous racing experience though... please share.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I've just listened to the experts discussing what happened (probably more than you've done).  Several agree that Stewart could've done more to prevent what happened.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be able to tell us all about your previous racing experience though... please share.



Some experts. 

Perhaps try making up your _own_ mind given the information available, and disregard what the "experts" say. 

A real problem with our society today is many base their decisions and thought processes on what others tell them. Don't use your own God given brain - let someone else do the thinking for you.

I'd be more than happy to tell you about my racing experience, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. Suffice to say I apparently have much more of it than you.


----------



## Elan (Aug 11, 2014)

Stewart will never be found guilty of anything criminal, IMO.  That case just can't be proven.  But that doesn't mean he's entirely innocent either.  Personally, I feel that it's highly likely he was trying to send Ward some kind of message and things went horribly wrong.  Can I prove it?  Nope.  But nobody here can prove otherwise, either.  As I said, it's most likely only Tony will ever know for sure what he was doing, and I don't think he's going to say much.  What he ultimately says will speak volumes toward his innocence, IMO.


----------



## SmithOp (Aug 11, 2014)

Need more facts.  Did his pit call him by radio to tell him the other driver was on the track?  Visibility is very limited in those cars at night.

As far as sliding, that is how those cars are designed to go around the corners, sideways.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 11, 2014)

Phydeaux found his red meat to drum up another debate. Hahaha.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 11, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> Phydeaux found his red meat to drum up another debate. Hahaha.



I said debate, by more appropriately silly argument with half cocked retorts!


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 11, 2014)

It's yellow flag!  I have raced and you always take yellow flags seriously.  Ward put his life in his hands by getting in front of cars.  Stewart, intentionally or not, was more at fault than Ward by not driving with caution.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 11, 2014)

sptung - I thought you were female?


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> sptung - I thought you were female?



You have a point?


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 11, 2014)

sptung said:


> You have a point?



I'm guessing that you are sptung's husband - right?  I have noticed before, that based on the writing style, and tone, that it appears that 2 or more people post from this user name.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 11, 2014)

sptung said:


> It's yellow flag!  I have raced and you always take yellow flags seriously.  Ward put his life in his hands by getting in front of cars.  Stewart, intentionally or not, was more at fault than Ward by not driving with caution.



This is getting crazy, so when a driver hits debris under yellow he wasn't driving with caution?  This was a moving object, how do you avoid it if you even see it??

Things happen and with the high yellow flag speed, dark conditions, and who knows what all I don't see how Stewart shares any blame here.

I'm pretty sure NASCAR will bear this out and it will be determined that Stewart did nothing wrong.


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> I'm guessing that you are sptung's husband - right?  I have noticed before, that based on the writing style, and tone, that it appears that 2 or more people post from this user name.



Nope, all you are getting is me.  Sometimes I proof read and sometimes I don't.  Same person.  My husband has no time for TUG.


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 11, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> This is getting crazy, so when a driver hits debris under yellow he wasn't driving with caution?  This was a moving object, how do you avoid it if you even see it??
> 
> Things happen and with the high yellow flag speed, dark conditions, and who knows what all I don't see how Stewart shares any blame here.
> 
> I'm pretty sure NASCAR will bear this out and it will be determined that Stewart did nothing wrong.



Sometimes racers instead of slowing down, speed up around other drivers to try to gain position.  It is against the rules but some drivers do that.  It is annoying and dangerous.  Put it another way, what if the car caught fire and the driver got out of the car and the driver would be in the middle of the track.  My guess is that Tony Stewart could have been trying to gain position when speeding up.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 11, 2014)

sptung - Wow!  I had no idea you were so adventurous!  Do you own your own race car?  What type of racing do you do?


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 11, 2014)

sptung said:


> Sometimes racers instead of slowing down, speed up around other drivers to try to gain position.  It is against the rules but some drivers do that.  It is annoying and dangerous.  Put it another way, what if the car caught fire and the driver got out of the car and the driver would be in the middle of the track.  My guess is that Tony Stewart could have been trying to gain position when speeding up.



As you know in NASCAR speeding up does no good because your re-start position is set to when the yellow comes out and with all the cameras it's easy to determine.

Yes it is dangerous when drivers don't slow down but seeing a burning car in front of you is a lot different than and individual walking out on to a darkened track.

I don't know if it happens all the time but when I've seen a car catch fire I see the red flag come out until it's safe to move again.  I don't think your comparison is a good one.

I've never raced so I'm sure you know more about this than I do but I think  Stewart will be held blameless.


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 11, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> sptung - Wow!  I had no idea you were so adventurous!  Do you own your own race car?  What type of racing do you do?



Not much anymore, reflex slows down as one gets older.  I used to go to the race tracks around Northern CA.  I am just an amateur.   No I don't own a race car.  I have a good friend who has his own race car and also co-owns a company that organizes race events around California.  You can race using a street car, like BMW M3 etc.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 12, 2014)

I am not a NASCAR fan or a racing driver or expert.  I did see several experts who seemed credible.  First, Stewart was racing on a dirt track with basically newbie drivers. He did this often.  Second, it is not unusual for a racers at these events to run onto the course in the middle of a race if they felt they were "cheated" by another racer.   Even Stewart has done this in the past.  Third, the likelihood of this happening with super star Stewart on the track was greater because these much lower ranked drivers want to show him how tough they are.  Of course none of the above makes Stewart guilty of anything. I think he showed poor judgment in participating in this race. However,  his    poor judgment  by racing against inferior drivers didn't  kill this racer.

It is very hard to believe that Stewart intended to kill or hurt another driver or that he was criminally negligent.  I think NASCAR has to change their rules so that   racers can't run onto the race course without being suspended and fined.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 12, 2014)

pgnewarkboy said:


> ...  his (Stewart's)   poor judgment  by racing against inferior drivers didn't  kill this racer.



That is correct.  The act of Stewart gunning his sprint car right before passing Kevin Ward Jr. on the track, causing the car to fishtail into him, getting him caught under the back right tire and then throwing him 50+ feet in the air is what killed the racer.

Did Stewart intend to hurt Ward?  Most likely not -- he probably just wanted to humiliate him by spraying him with dirt.  But Stewart's action of gunning the car did have the outcome of killing Ward.  Viewing the video clearly shows that.

Was Ward's action of walking out on the track stupid?  Of course.  But Stewart's actions were definitely negligent, even if the tragic outcome was not intended.  Now it is up to the authorities to decide if that negligent act was a criminal act.  I would think something like involuntary vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate.

Kurt


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 12, 2014)

Ward walking on to an active raceway is also highly negligent. 

In the world of negligence you often assigned shares of negligence. Who is the most negligent here?   it is also likely against track rules / race code / law. 

A bad analogy would be you or me hitting someone walking across an interstate. They should not be there. They broke a rule of the road.


----------



## Elan (Aug 12, 2014)

SMHarman said:


> A bad analogy would be you or me hitting someone walking across an interstate. They should not be there. They broke a rule of the road.



  If Stewart indeed "punched it" as he passed Ward, as many have alleged since immediately after the incident, it seems it would be more analogous to intentionally swerving toward the pedestrian in order to teach him/her to not walk across the interstate, and accidentally clipping and killing him/her.  They shouldn't have been there, but had you not intentionally swerved, they'd have made it across safely and still be alive today.

  There's little doubt Ward was negligent.  I'm just not sure that makes him 100% responsible for his death.

  Does anyone know if New York has the charge of Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter?  I heard it does not.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 12, 2014)

SMHarman said:


> Ward walking on to an active raceway is also highly negligent.



I definitely agree with this -- I was just focusing on Stewart's negligence in my post, but there was definitely negligence on both sides.  The question is how negligence on both sides is handled.  Who decides who is more negligent; how does that affect what criminal charged may or may not be filed, etc.

BTW, I really like the way Elan compared this to a pedestrian crossing an interstate.

Kurt


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 12, 2014)

Elan said:


> If Stewart indeed "punched it" as he passed Ward, as many have alleged since immediately after the incident, it seems it would be more analogous to intentionally swerving toward the pedestrian in order to teach him/her to not walk across the interstate, and accidentally clipping and killing him/her.  They shouldn't have been there, but had you not intentionally swerved, they'd have made it across safely and still be alive today.
> 
> There's little doubt Ward was negligent.  I'm just not sure that makes him 100% responsible for his death.
> 
> Does anyone know if New York has the charge of Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter?  I heard it does not.



I think it would be a real stretch to apply motor vehicle laws to a sporting evet.  Most traffic laws don't apply on private property anyhow.  DUI is an exception but come on, traffic laws applying on a race track, I don't think so.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 12, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I think it would be a real stretch to apply motor vehicle laws to a sporting evet.  Most traffic laws don't apply on private property anyhow.  DUI is an exception but come on, traffic laws applying on a race track, I don't think so.


Interesting.  So are you saying it is not possible to commit a crime such as vehicular homicide on private property?  We aren't talking about speeding or illegal passing, etc. -- we are talking about crimes committed with a vehicle.  I would have thought those types of crimes could be committed on public roads as well as private property.

Kurt


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 12, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> BTW, I really like the way Elan compared this to a pedestrian crossing an interstate.



+1 

And in my mind, that's exactly what I think happened in this case.  We'll never know the real truth, so I'm obviously stating only what I believe happened.  It'll be hard to prove anything regarding this matter against Stewart.  Which is ok with me, he'll have to live with it regardless.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 12, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Interesting.  So are you saying it is not possible to commit a crime such as vehicular homicide on private property?  We aren't talking about speeding or illegal passing, etc. -- we are talking about crimes committed with a vehicle.  I would have thought those types of crimes could be committed on public roads as well as private property.
> 
> Kurt



I really don't know the answer.  You would think yes but then again every state is different.

If there was intent then it doesn't matter what weapon was used.  I know if I'm sober and change lanes on a freeway and collide with someone I didn't see and kill them, I'd expect a vehicular homicide charge.  During a sporting event that involves cars racing around, I don't think the same rules would apply.


----------



## Elan (Aug 12, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I think it would be a real stretch to apply motor vehicle laws to a sporting evet.  Most traffic laws don't apply on private property anyhow.  DUI is an exception but come on, traffic laws applying on a race track, I don't think so.



  I'm not pretending to know the law.  I just heard the term Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter mentioned specifically in relation to this incident, so I brought it up.  Regardless, I don't think any state considers killing someone while operating your vehicle simply a traffic violation?


----------



## Pens_Fan (Aug 12, 2014)

The rules of a sport are not the same as that in normal life.

In normal life, you are not allowed to drive three inches from the car in front of you at 200 mph.  You are not allowed to do a little fender rubbing with the car next to you, and if you get a little irked with that fender rubbing, spin the other guy out causing him to wreck.

All of this in the real world would get your license suspended and possibly a little jail time.  In racing, it's called Friday night.

Not saying that there can't be consequences for the actions on the track, but they do not directly correspond to what would happen to your average driver on the street.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 12, 2014)

Pens_Fan said:


> The rules of a sport are not the same as that in normal life.
> 
> In normal life, you are not allowed to drive three inches from the car in front of you at 200 mph.  You are not allowed to do a little fender rubbing with the car next to you, and if you get a little irked with that fender rubbing, spin the other guy out causing him to wreck.
> 
> ...



Exactly, same as hockey.  If we're on the street and I punch you for slashing me with a stick we're both going to end up in jail at least over night.  Happens everyday in the arenas.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 12, 2014)

Elan said:


> Stewart will never be found guilty of anything criminal, IMO.  That case just can't be proven.  But that doesn't mean he's entirely innocent either.  Personally, I feel that it's highly likely he was trying to send Ward some kind of message and things went horribly wrong.  Can I prove it?  Nope.  But nobody here can prove otherwise, either.  As I said, it's most likely only Tony will ever know for sure what he was doing, and I don't think he's going to say much.  What he ultimately says will speak volumes toward his innocence, IMO.



Tony Stewart has a loooong history of being a hothead!

Two years ago Stewart threw his helmet at Matt Kenseth following a wreck in the Irwin Tools Night Race and threatened to take him out during future races that year.  “I checked up twice not to run over him. And I learned my lesson there, and I’m going to run over him every chance I got until the end of the year. Every chance I got,” Stewart said following the August 2012 race, according to CBS News. 

While others were braking, he revved up.  I personally think he was trying to fishtail to splat mud on him and it went horribly wrong.  Ward, however, did something incredibly stupid which unfortunately lead to his death.  That's just my opinion of course.

Criminal charges will never be bought up because there's no way to prove intent here.  A civil wrongful death lawsuit, however, is very possible because you don't need to prove intent.  I'm sure Stewart's lawyers have gotten to him and told him to not say anything except remorse.  If the family does bring up a wrongful death lawsuit which I think they will, I think Stewart will lose millions.


----------



## Elan (Aug 12, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> Tony Stewart has a loooong history of being a hothead!
> 
> Two years ago Stewart threw his helmet at Matt Kenseth following a wreck in the Irwin Tools Night Race and threatened to take him out during future races that year.  “I checked up twice not to run over him. And I learned my lesson there, and I’m going to run over him every chance I got until the end of the year. Every chance I got,” Stewart said following the August 2012 race, according to CBS News.
> 
> ...



  For once, we agree completely!  

  I find it strangely odd that there are those who so quickly dismiss the possibility of Stewart acting badly given his past confrontations with fellow drivers.  I'm no NASCAR fan, but even I knew of his reputed short fuse.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 12, 2014)

Elan said:


> For once, we agree completely!
> 
> I find it strangely odd that there are those who so quickly dismiss the possibility of Stewart acting badly given his past confrontations with fellow drivers.  I'm no NASCAR fan, but even I knew of his reputed short fuse.



All the more reason not to go on the track to confront a hot head while he's still driving.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 12, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> All the more reason not to go on the track to confront a hot head while he's still driving.



No disagreement here.  Unfortunately Ward holds the vast majority of the blame for the circumstances that lead to his death.

A criminal case will never happen.  A civil wrongful death case however........


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 12, 2014)

Elan said:


> For once, we agree completely!



I thought the same thing!


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 12, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> While others were braking, he revved up.  I personally think he was trying to fishtail to splat mud on him and it went horribly wrong.  Ward, however, did something incredibly stupid which unfortunately lead to his death.  That's just my opinion of course.
> 
> Criminal charges will never be bought up because there's no way to prove intent here.  A civil wrongful death lawsuit, however, is very possible because you don't need to prove intent.  I'm sure Stewart's lawyers have gotten to him and told him to not say anything except remorse.  If the family does bring up a wrongful death lawsuit which I think they will, I think Stewart will lose millions.



Absolutely agree.  While I think criminal charges would be appropriate here, there is no way a jury would come back with a guilty verdict.  It will be interesting to see how the civil suit comes out.

Kurt


----------



## Elan (Aug 12, 2014)

Here's a decent article on what could happen to Stewart pending the completion of the investigation:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...rash-death-possible-criminal-charge/13972537/


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 13, 2014)

My my my - what a bunch of wild speculation.

Kurt - it has not been established that Stewart "gunned it" except by your desire to hang him high. He could just as easily "fishtailed" hitting the brakes.

And before you respond with the question - YES I have driven cars very similar to the unlimited sprint cars these guys where using on the same type of track - mine was just limited on engine size.

Ward had no business walking down the track wearing dark clothing and "expecting" other drivers to see him.

When you are wearing a face shield covered with flung up dirt particles and in a dark corner and expecting the broke down driver to do the sane thing by walking "up" the track to the rail - it could be quite unexpected to suddenly have that driver be in the spot where your rear wheel is going.

I'm also pretty sure all the participants signed a release before the race.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 13, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> it has not been established that Stewart "gunned it" except by your desire to hang him high. *He could just as easily "fishtailed" hitting the brakes*.


Did you even look at the video?  See the link in the original post:

http://deadspin.com/reports-tony-stewart-ran-over-opposing-driver-during-1618893708/all

At 0:36, you see Stewart's car pass Ward, you *hear the engine revved*, you see the car fishtail and clip Ward with the back tire, and you see the car *accelerate*.  Even a 5 year old could see that.

And you think that was caused by Stewart hitting the brakes?  :hysterical:

I know you have a personal vendetta against me because I have called you out on some items in another board.  Nice to see you are trying to carry that over to here. 

Kurt


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 13, 2014)

I have a vague remembrance of signing waivers back in my racing days, but iirc it was to hold the facility blameless in event something goes wrong. A CYA by the track operators. But running down, or playing 'chicken', or intimidation by race car, or however it is deemed after the investigation, should not be tolerated. IMO Stewart should not get into a race car until the investigation is complete, and maybe for a long time afterwards.

I would not get on a track with him at this time. Not that there is a snowball's chance, but just sayin'.

Jim


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 13, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> I have a vague remembrance of signing waivers back in my racing days, but iirc it was to hold the facility blameless in event something goes wrong. A CYA by the track operators. But running down, or playing 'chicken', or intimidation by race car, or however it is deemed after the investigation, should not be tolerated. IMO Stewart should not get into a race car until the investigation is complete, and maybe for a long time afterwards.
> 
> I would not get on a track with him at this time. Not that there is a snowball's chance, but just sayin'.
> 
> Jim



So in your eyes he's guilty until proven innocent?  You want to take away his livlihood?


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 13, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Did you even look at the video?  See the link in the original post:
> 
> http://deadspin.com/reports-tony-stewart-ran-over-opposing-driver-during-1618893708/all



Very cheap shot Kurt - of course I looked at the video.



PigsDad said:


> At 0:36, you see Stewart's car pass Ward, you *hear the engine revved*, you see the car fishtail and clip Ward with the back tire, and you see the car *accelerate*.  *Even a 5 year old could see that.*



Do you want us to think of you as a 5 year old?



PigsDad said:


> And you think that was caused by Stewart hitting the brakes?  :hysterical:



Actually to me it looks like Stewart is moving along fine - until the instant he hits Ward and *then* he veers - I think it is from being startled to suddenly see a person where he expected to see only track.

Suppose Stewert had his foot on the gas while coasting around the track as is normal - the suddenness of seeing Ward "lunge" into his line of sight could easily have startled him into veering right and blurping the gas.

I wasn't *THERE* and neither were *YOU. THAT is my point.
*


PigsDad said:


> I know you have a personal vendetta against me because I have called you out on some items in another board.  Nice to see you are trying to carry that over to here.
> 
> Kurt



It appears *YOU* are carring on the banter from that site - I just happen to disagree with your "rush to judgement" re Stewart.

And BTW - where do you suppose the mic was that picked up the engine revving? perhaps it was near the camera - 100 feet away and much closer to a bunch of *OTHER* cars. I doubt it was Stewerts car you hear revving at all - but you've allready convicted him of manslaughter so it MUST be him.

But then a 5 year old wouldn't yet have learned the addage "believe only half of what you see - and none of what you hear". Right Kurt?


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 13, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Very cheap shot Kurt - of course I looked at the video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you done editing your post just to add personal insults yet, Amp?  I'll be polite and wait until you are done.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 13, 2014)

Guess I better get my word in before this thread is closed.

I don't see how we or anyone else can really draw any conclusions based on the video from post #1. The actual incident happens nearly or pretty much off camera. We only see what happens after the tragic accident. We would really need to see what happens in the seconds before to see if there was any ill intent by Tony Stewart. Not after.

I was never a huge Tony Stewart fan. Sure I was happy to see him win the championship back in 2011. Though that was only because I didn't want to see Edwards win, and Jimmie Johnson wasn't in the running on race #36


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 13, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> So in your eyes he's guilty until proven innocent?  You want to take away his livlihood?



In my- and a lot of other eyes- he killed a man and an investigation is ongoing. Yes, he should NOT be in a race car while being investigated. After a policeman pulls a trigger, s/he is suspended, a commercial driver or locomotive engineer is barred from operating their commercial vehicle while an investigation is conducted. I expect no less for a race driver.

Jim


----------



## easyrider (Aug 13, 2014)

The rules of all racing events are that you NEVER get out of the car unless it is on fire during the race. Ward deliberately broke this rule designed to keep all participants safe. Ward could have caused injury or death to the other drivers as he stood on the track but instead suffered the consequences of his actions.

After watching the video it looks like Ward ran down onto the race line hoping to confront Stewart. It looks like Ward actually was trying to jump into Stewart's car and in doing so was accidentally killed. It looks to me like Ward actually grabbed the wing of Stewart's car and couldn't hold on. 

Either way I doubt that Stewart actually would try to hit a driver with his car as he had zero to gain from this.

Bill


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 13, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> Are you done editing your post just to add personal insults yet, Amp?  *I'll be polite* and wait until you are done.



Interesting that you think I give even two cents about what you think or what you do.

Why, don't you go rag on Bill - he *also* disagrees with your naive view on the Stewart deal.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 13, 2014)

This is a really good listen from Colin Cowherd's ESPN radio show yesterday.  IMO I agree with most of it.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11343290


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> This is a really good listen from Colin Cowherd's ESPN radio show yesterday.  IMO I agree with most of it.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11343290



That was interesting.  Yet another person with credibility and NASCAR experience who also agrees that Stewart revved his car right before passing Ward causing the fishtail.  Not that he hit the brakes.  Not that the perfectly timed engine revving sound on the video came from some other vehicle (on the grassy knoll, perhaps?).  Not that Ward jumped in front of Stewart sprint car.

Thanks for the link.

Kurt


----------



## easyrider (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> This is a really good listen from Colin Cowherd's ESPN radio show yesterday.  IMO I agree with most of it.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11343290



That was indeed an interesting tape and I definitely agree with some of it. 

It could be a fishtail but on the video it still looks like Ward was trying to grab Stewart's vehicle to me. This is racing, not Friday night wrestling. 

During the race a driver is instructed by officials as to when the driver can leave the vehicle unless the vehicle is on fire. To me this broken rule is the main issue.

Here is a slow motion of what looks like Wards jump and grab. It looks like he grabbed and hung onto Stewarts car causing the fishtail , imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex01w-xXcfY

Bill


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

Thanks for that link Bill - now perhaps Kurt can lay off calling for Stewart's head on a stick and take a second to feel some empathy for Stewart.

I'm not sure Ward grabbed for Stewart's car, I think what we're seeing is Ward getting flung into the air by the initial hit, then he try's to grab the wing and then he gets sucked under the wheel. You can see it a little better on a HD regular speed version. Also Stewart's car doesn't move, react to, or steer in any way until Ward gets hit. Play it over and over and it's plain as day. Also no way Stewart see's him till the last second. He may or may not have known he was out on the track, but couldn't have known exactly where until that first car passes Ward. No way Sterart could of seen Ward around that car. So that gave him what, 2 seconds to see him and react.

It is pretty clear that Ward had a lot to do with "forcing" the action - and therfore "forcing" Stewart into a really bad situation where it will never ever be that 100% of the people believe he intended no harm to Ward.

No matter what Stewart says or does - or what the authorities say or do - now there will always be some haters who think and say Stewart "intended" to "scare, intimidate, hit, injure, kill" (fill in the blank) Ward.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> No matter what Stewart says or does - or what the authorities say or do - now there will always be some haters who think and say Stewart "intended" to "scare, intimidate, hit, injure, kill" (fill in the blank) Ward.



Maybe people will think that because of what Stewart has said and done in the past.  He's had a lot of incidents in the past and has even threatened to run somebody over on the track before.  Stewart's own previous actions and words are what's causing doubt in some people's minds.

I'm not a Stewart hater as I believe most everybody else who are not Stewart haters who have doubts about his actions and/or intents.  If it was almost any other driver who didn't have a checkered past like Stewart I think there would be a lot more sympathy for him.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 14, 2014)

Passepartout said:


> In my- and a lot of other eyes- he killed a man and an investigation is ongoing. Yes, he should NOT be in a race car while being investigated. After a policeman pulls a trigger, s/he is suspended, a commercial driver or locomotive engineer is barred from operating their commercial vehicle while an investigation is conducted. I expect no less for a race driver.
> 
> Jim



The policemen get suspended with pay, and that is simply not true about commercial drivers and locomotive engineers.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> Maybe people will think that because of what Stewart has said and done in the past. He's had a lot of incidents in the past and has even threatened to run somebody over on the track before. Stewart's own previous actions and words are what's causing doubt in some people's minds.
> 
> I'm not a Stewart hater as I believe most everybody else who are not Stewart haters who have doubts about his actions and/or intents. If it was almost any other driver who didn't have a checkered past like Stewart I think there would be a lot more sympathy for him.



Exactly. There is some skepticism, healthy skepticism.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 14, 2014)

easyrider said:


> Here is a slow motion of what looks like Wards jump and grab. It looks like he grabbed and hung onto Stewarts car causing the fishtail , imo.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex01w-xXcfY



Hey Bill -- this video is no longer on YouTube (user account has been terminated).  Do you perhaps have another source for it?  I would be interested in viewing it.

Was this a different video than the OP's link?  Authorities said they have at least one more video but I have not seen any links to it.  Having another angle would be very useful / interesting.

Kurt


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 14, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Interesting that you think I give even two cents about what you think or what you do.



I find it _even more_ interesting that every one of your posts in this thread -- *every single post* -- mentions me.  Really Amp, get over it.  You need to start directing your obsessions elsewhere.

Kurt


----------



## easyrider (Aug 14, 2014)

The link isn't working for me anymore. It was or is a slow motion of the incident. After viewing it I thought that Ward was actually trying to damage Stewarts car and grabbed the wing then got sucked under the rear wheel.

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (Aug 14, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> The policemen get suspended with pay, and that is simply not true about commercial drivers and locomotive engineers.



If Tony Stewart gets suspended we shouldn't be too worried that he is not getting paid.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

PigsDad said:


> I find it _even more_ interesting that every one of your posts in this thread -- *every single post* -- mentions me.  Really Amp, get over it.  You need to start directing your obsessions elsewhere.
> 
> Kurt



Only because *YOU* are the poster boy for "mob mentality" and "hang him high" which I abhore.

If you didn't stake out such sad sick twisted positions on things - I wouldn't mention you at all.

Get over yourself


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> Maybe people will think that because of what Stewart has said and done in the past.  He's had a lot of incidents in the past and has even threatened to run somebody over on the track before.  Stewart's own previous actions and words are what's causing doubt in some people's minds.
> 
> I'm not a Stewart hater as I believe most everybody else who are not Stewart haters who have doubts about his actions and/or intents.  If it was almost any other driver who didn't have a checkered past like Stewart I think there would be a lot more sympathy for him.



Fair enough - I think this is a pretty accurate assessment.

I am not a Stewert fan - I just dislike the "rush to judgement" that seems rampant on this board - I think we should at minimum wait for the official reports.


----------



## Elan (Aug 14, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> Only because *YOU* are the poster boy for "mob mentality" and "hang him high" which I abhore.
> 
> If you didn't stake out such sad sick twisted positions on things



  I don't recall anyone ever saying Stewart should be hung.  

  We all viewed the original video.  We all formed some sort of opinion from that and the other (limited) available information.  Most, if not all, of those that have stated that they think Stewart *might* have acted negligently have also stated that negligence likely can't be proven.  How is that a "twisted" position?  It's nothing more than a rational opinion based on available data.  

  BTW, I missed seeing Bill's video before it was yanked also.  Would love to see it.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 14, 2014)

sptung said:


> If Tony Stewart gets suspended we shouldn't be too worried that he is not getting paid.



I don't think any of us can speak for anyone else's ability to absorb even a small hit to our income.  Having to pay someone else to drive his car may not matter to him but unless and until he it is found that there's some wrong doing on his part, I think he needs to be left alone.

I can't imagine what he's going through right now knowing that his car killed another driver.

Everyone wants to feel sorry for the one who got killed but because of his stupidity, Stewart has to live with this forever.

Very similar to a locomotive hitting a car at a crossing.  The driver runs around the gates or through the red lights or what ever warning there is, gets hit by the train and kills himself, his wife, and his kids.  It happens more time than you ever hear about and the engine crew spends the rest of their career re-living that at every  crossing from then on.

Just before I retired I worked for a while with an engineer than came off the road to work in the yard.  He really left a sweet run to put up with the yard work so I asked him about why he did it.  He replied with some tears welling up that he couldn't stand to kill another person at a road crossing.  Nothing else was said by either of us but I know that it is still heavy on his heart that the stupidity of others is causing him so much pain.

Stewart is in the same situation, you don't expect other drivers on the track, one was there, died, and now Tony has to live with it.

I wish others would get off his back and just look at the facts and forget the speculation.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> I don't think any of us can speak for anyone else's ability to absorb even a small hit to our income.  Having to pay someone else to drive his car may not matter to him but unless and until he it is found that there's some wrong doing on his part, I think he needs to be left alone.
> 
> I can't imagine what he's going through right now knowing that his car killed another driver.
> 
> ...




Very well said. Agreed!


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 14, 2014)

Elan said:


> I don't recall anyone ever saying Stewart should be hung.
> 
> ....



Here's a few



Beefnot said:


> ...he needs to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter[/COLOR].





PigsDad said:


> ....  I would think something like involuntary vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate.
> 
> Kurt





Elan said:


> ...  Does anyone know if New York has the charge of Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter?  I heard it does not.





PigsDad said:


> Absolutely agree.  While I think criminal charges would be appropriate ...


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Very well said. Agreed!



Thank you....


----------



## Elan (Aug 14, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> Stewart is in the same situation, you don't expect other drivers on the track, one was there, died, and now Tony has to live with it.
> 
> I wish others would get off his back and just look at the facts and *forget the speculation*.



  Don't you get that your "stance" of this being entirely Ward's fault is just as speculative as saying Stewart might have shared in the blame?  At this point, both positions are speculative.  This isn't a courtroom.  This is the court of public opinion.  We don't have to be entirely convinced of guilt or innocence to express opinion.  As most have inferred, if they were on a jury, they'd acquit Stewart of criminal negligence.  But that likely wouldn't change their opinion of what happened. 

  I sincerely hope something comes out that will show that Stewart is completely innocent.  If he acted negligently, that's a large cross to bear, regardless of any legal outcome.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

Elan said:


> BTW, I missed seeing Bill's video before it was yanked also.  Would love to see it.



All it was was the same video in slow motion.  Here's another similar link.

http://youtu.be/uNAhCVG_KzE

Just search Tony Stewart slow motion on YouTube and there are many versions of the same thing.

I personally think it's too grainy and dark to see what Bill sees in it, but I can understand his take on it.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Elan said:


> Don't you get that your "stance" of this being entirely Ward's fault is just as speculative as saying Stewart might have shared in the blame?  At this point, both positions are speculative.  This isn't a courtroom.  This is the court of public opinion.  We don't have to be entirely convinced of guilt or innocence to express opinion.  As most have inferred, if they were on a jury, they'd acquit Stewart of criminal negligence.  But that likely wouldn't change their opinion of what happened.
> 
> I sincerely hope something comes out that will show that Stewart is completely innocent.  If he acted negligently, that's a large cross to bear, regardless of any legal outcome.



If Ward would not have exited his vehicle, he'd be alive today, and this thread wouldn't exist. Would you agree with that statement or not? Simple yes or no please.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> All it was was the same video in slow motion.  Here's another similar link.
> 
> http://youtu.be/uNAhCVG_KzE
> 
> ...



Having now seen this in slow motion, I have a different take. It is possible Ward grabbed hold of the rear of the car, hung on, and his body weight thereby caused the car to slide in the manner it did. Or, more likely, his body caught under the right rear tire that caused the slide, mimicking an intentional throttle acceleration. I've completely discounted the audio, because NO ONE HERE know the position of the camera filming this relative to the microphone capturing the audio. If this comes out in the end, you read it here, first.


----------



## Elan (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> If Ward would not have exited his vehicle, he'd be alive today, and this thread wouldn't exist. Would you agree with that statement or not? Simple yes or no please.



  I don't know.  I'll never know.  That's also speculation.   

  But, based on what I know, I'm of the opinion that he'd likely still be alive.  

  Similarly, if this was simply a case of Ward clearly jumping out in front of Tony Stewart's car, there wouldn't be an ongoing story line or police investigation, either.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> If Ward would not have exited his vehicle, he'd be alive today, and this thread wouldn't exist. Would you agree with that statement or not? Simple yes or no please.



Yes, of course.  Ward holds the vast majority, if not all, of the culpability behind his own death.

That's not what is being debated here, though.  Does Ward exiting his vehicle then automatically give Stewart the right to intentionally run him over or even just brush him?  The question of Stewart's intent is the one being debated.  I don't know the answer to that question.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2014)

One thing that I haven't heard mentioned here yet is the fact that the first driver did swerve and did a minor spin right before Stewart drove through and did his swerve.  That would seem to indicate that Stewart actually may not have seen him (it appears the first driver didn't).

The "hang-em" discussion is just silly.  We are all just stating our opinion on what happened - nothing more and nothing less.   Personally, I still believe Stewart was guilty of some mischief.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Personally, the slow motion did it for me. I'm standing with my theory in post #79. A temporary lock up of the right rear tire would undoubtedly cause a car to react in the manner Stewart's did on a slick mud packed surface. Do I have proof? Of course not, but this makes simple sense to me from a physics standpoint.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> Yes, of course.  Ward holds the vast majority, if not all, of the culpability behind his own death.
> 
> That's not what is being debated here, though.  Does Ward exiting his vehicle then *automatically give Stewart the right to intentionally run him over or even just brush him?*  The question of Stewart's intent is the one being debated.  I don't know the answer to that question.




That is where you are mistaken. You could be 100% dead wrong in that statement. If we eventually learn that it was Ward's body that caused the temporary lock up of the right rear tire, which in turn caused the slide, I hope you would be big enough to come back here and correct yourself. I'll tell you this, if I am wrong, and Stewart was found to have deliberately slid his car into Ward, I WILL admit my error.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> Everyone wants to feel sorry for the one who got killed but because of his stupidity, Stewart has to live with this forever.
> 
> Very similar to a locomotive hitting a car at a crossing.  The driver runs around the gates or through the red lights or what ever warning there is, gets hit by the train and kills himself, his wife, and his kids.  It happens more time than you ever hear about and the engine crew spends the rest of their career re-living that at every  crossing from then on.
> 
> ...



Thank-you for this explanation.  I can really appreciate and better understand your perspective now.

I do think, however, that besides hitting and killing someone the 2 situations are completely different.  With the train, it's running on a fixed track and the operator has no ability to change their course of travel.  There's also presumably no previous relationship between the train operators and the person being hit.

With Stewart there are several factors that I find troubling.

1. His long previous history of hot headedness including at least one previous threat to run somebody over on the track.

2. He was quoted soon after the incident as saying, "business as usual" when asked about racing in the cup race at Watkins Glen the following day.  It wasn't until just a couple of hours before that race started that he changed his mind.

3. He's a world class race car driver and possibly the best driver in the world.  Other less experienced and less skilled drivers were able to see and avoid Ward.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> That is where you are mistaken. You could be 100% dead wrong in that statement. If we eventually learn that it was Ward's body that caused the temporary lock up of the right rear tire, which in turn caused the slide, I hope you would be big enough to come back here and correct yourself. I'll tell you this, if I am wrong, and Stewart was found to have deliberately slid his car into Ward, I WILL admit my error.



You're misquoting me and taking me out of context.  I didn't make a statement of fact!  It was a question!


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> *You're misquoting me* and taking me out of context.  I didn't make a statement of fact!  It was a question!



I made no changes whatsoever to your post, therefore I am *NOT* misquoting you. Further, I don't appreciate your accusation.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

I could be wrong, but I perceive emotion in many of the responses on this thread. As someone that follows neither dirt track nor Nascar, I had never heard of either of these drivers, and would thus like to believe that my opinions here have been sourced from logic, rather than emotion.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> I made no changes whatsoever to your post, therefore I am *NOT* misquoting you. Further, I don't appreciate your accusation.



You said that I made a *STATEMENT* when I was simply posing a *QUESTION*!

Yes, technically you didn't misquote me, but you did take me out of context by incorrectly interpreting and commenting on my *QUESTION* like it was a *STATEMENT* which it clearly wasn't!

So can you now admit you mistakenly interpreted what I actually said?


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> You said that I made a *STATEMENT* when I was simply posing a *QUESTION*!
> 
> Yes, technically you didn't misquote me, but you did take me out of context by incorrectly interpreting and commenting on my *QUESTION* like it was a *STATEMENT* which it clearly wasn't!
> 
> So can you now admit you mistakenly interpreted what I actually said?



Lighten up Francis. My intention was not to take you out of context, technically,  but I can see how you view my post as such. We can both admit our errors, and now move on as adults, yes?


----------



## arlock (Aug 14, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAhCVG_KzE&feature=youtu.be

Here's the problem with the "Stewart hit him intentionally" theory:  Go to 0:08 of the video.  Stewart's car doesn't swerve until after the car was half-way beyond Ward.  When the car does swerve, the back end swerves AWAY from where Ward was.  Further, during the video, Stewart's car doesn't move left or right on the track until it swerves.  At 0:09, Ward appears to lunge at Stewart's car, and at that moment is when it sounds like the car accelerated.

It would be cruel and inappropriate to make a comment about survival of the fittest, or the Darwin Awards, but it's needless to say that Ward would still be here had he stayed in his car.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

arlock said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNAhCVG_KzE&feature=youtu.be
> 
> Here's the problem with the "Stewart hit him intentionally" theory:  Go to 0:08 of the video.  *Stewart's car doesn't swerve until after the car was half-way beyond Ward.  When the car does swerve, the back end swerves AWAY from where Ward was.*  Further, during the video, Stewart's car doesn't move left or right on the track until it swerves.  At 0:09, Ward appears to lunge at Stewart's car, and at that moment is when it sounds like the car accelerated.
> 
> It would be cruel and inappropriate to make a comment about survival of the fittest, or the Darwin Awards, but it's needless to say that Ward would still be here had he stayed in his car.



Bingo!!!  Good eyes!!

And again, the _reason the car swerves_ is most likely due to the right rear wheel locking up momentarily from Wards body.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 14, 2014)

Clemson Fan said:


> ...I do think, however, that besides hitting and killing someone the 2 situations are completely different. ...



How it happens is different but how the participants feel afterwords may be very similar, that's all I'm saying.

I have no idea what Stewart saw or felt but I think that until there is evidence that he did something wrong, I'm putting the entire blame on the other driver.  That could change if anything else comes to light.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> How it happens is different but how the participants feel afterwords may be very similar, that's all I'm saying.
> 
> I have no idea what Stewart saw or felt but I think that until there is evidence that he did something wrong, I'm putting the entire blame on the other driver.  That could change if anything else comes to light.



Watch the slow motion video. Read the posts immediately above. Decide for yourself. The car doesn't swerve until AFTER the contact, and then it swerves to the RIGHT, not left - direction of travel, and camber of the track.


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 14, 2014)

The video is interesting - why does Ward have his arm raised so high?  

He isn't pointing at Tony's car - the angle is far higher than that.  Does he have his hand up in a "halt," motion?  Is he reaching for the car?

Also, right before the car reaches him, he appears to either flex his knees, or stumble.  Did he stumble just as the car reached him, or was he flexing to lunge toward the car?


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Watch the slow motion video. Read the posts immediately above. Decide for yourself. The car doesn't swerve until AFTER the contact, and then it swerves to the RIGHT, not left - direction of travel, and camber of the track.



That is a very good point.
From my experiences driving race cars and serving on safety crews race cars tend to swerve towards an object if they hit it with the rear tire because the rear tire on that side slows and that slowing affects the line of the car.

I never hit a person - but did on several occasions hit broken off wheels and other assorted debris the track.

Getting out of your car is legit if it is on fire *OR* you feel it is far enough from the "line" that you can exit to greater safety.

Getting out of the car was not the cause of Wards death. Walking* DOWN* the track (towards the infield) *WAS* - he should have gone *UP* the track towards the outer rail.

It doesn't take a math wiz to calculate that the kinetic energy of a 1300 pound car traveling at 40 - 45 MPH is enough to badly hurt a 150 pound man.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Watch the slow motion video. Read the posts immediately above. Decide for yourself. The car doesn't swerve until AFTER the contact, and then it swerves to the RIGHT, not left - direction of travel, and camber of the track.



I guess everyone sees what they want to see, but I think the car is swerving BEFORE the contact myself.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> I could be wrong, but I perceive emotion in many of the responses on this thread. As someone that follows neither dirt track nor Nascar, I had never heard of either of these drivers, and would thus like to believe that my opinions here have been sourced from logic, rather than emotion.


 
Properly applied logic cannot ignore historical behavior.  Based on Stewart's historical behavior, it is entirely appropriate to have logical skepticism.  If it was Mother Theresa (RIP) who had hit Ward, well then one's logic might lead them to a different perspective.  In any case, it does not mean Stewart did not intend to harass or hurt Ward, and in most posts there has been no posting of a conclusion to that extent.  It does not also mean that Stewart absolutely did not intend threat or harm, and it is not logical to err to that conclusion as well.


----------



## Elan (Aug 14, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> I guess everyone sees what they want to see, but I think the car is swerving BEFORE the contact myself.



  There are many possibilities for what happened.  Let's say Stewart is just trying to put a scare into Ward by driving close to him.  At the last second, Stewart realizes he's too close and is going to hit Ward.  So he steers right and "gooses it" in attempt to kick the ass end left, away from Ward.  But it's too late.


----------



## arlock (Aug 14, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> Properly applied logic cannot ignore historical behavior.  Based on Stewart's historical behavior, it is entirely appropriate to have logical skepticism.  If it was Mother Theresa (RIP) who had hit Ward, well then one's logic might lead them to a different perspective.  In any case, it does not mean Stewart did not intend to harass or hurt Ward, and in most posts there has been no posting of a conclusion to that extent.  It does not also mean that Stewart absolutely did not intend threat or harm, and it is not logical to err to that conclusion as well.



Historical Behavior,i.e. circumstantial evidence, only becomes relevant if there are any serious doubts, or equivocation based upon the direct evidence, i.e. the video.  The video clearly shows that either A, Ward lunged at the car, causing the swerve, or B, that Stewart swerved AWAY from Stewart (again, swerve happened after Ward was half way down the length of the car).  Either way, there's nothing there that could put a SERIOUS thought in the mind of a REASONABLE person of any sort of intent to cause harm.  Now historical behavior to reach the conclusion that Stewart intentionally caused the original car-car collision, that's a no brainer.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2014)

arlock said:


> The video clearly shows that either A, Ward lunged at the car, causing the swerve, or B, that Stewart swerved AWAY from Stewart (again, swerve happened after Ward was half way down the length of the car).



Stewart swerved twice in both directions.  He swerved directly into him first and then after impact swerved away from him.  You're talking about the second swerve.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 14, 2014)

arlock said:


> Historical Behavior,i.e. circumstantial evidence, only becomes relevant if there are any serious doubts, or equivocation based upon the direct evidence, i.e. the video. The video clearly shows that either A, Ward lunged at the car, causing the swerve, or B, that Stewart swerved AWAY from Stewart (again, swerve happened after Ward was half way down the length of the car). Either way, there's nothing there that could put a SERIOUS thought in the mind of a REASONABLE person of any sort of intent to cause harm. Now historical behavior to reach the conclusion that Stewart intentionally caused the original car-car collision, that's a no brainer.


 
The interpretation of what happened in the video is not even agreed upon, not even within this thread.  So I reject that part of your premise.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

arlock said:


> Historical Behavior,i.e. circumstantial evidence, only becomes relevant if there are any serious doubts, or equivocation based upon the direct evidence, i.e. the video.  The video clearly shows that either A, Ward lunged at the car, causing the swerve, or B, that Stewart swerved AWAY from Stewart (again, swerve happened after Ward was half way down the length of the car).  Either way, there's nothing there that could put a SERIOUS thought in the mind of a REASONABLE person of any sort of intent to cause harm.


What you've said to this point may be a no brainer .... however what you then say ...



arlock said:


> Now historical behavior to reach the conclusion that Stewart intentionally caused the original car-car collision, that's a no brainer.


IS a brainer (?) --- Auto racing has a long and storied tradition that the car in front "owns" the track from guardrail to guardrail and those overtaking need to watch out for the lead car. 

Ward was clearly trying to go outside and around Stewart who was in front, Ward likely hit the "marbles" (rubber debris) on the little used portion of track and slid into the rail ruining his RR tire and ending the race for him.

Stewart very likely didn't even know Ward had crashed.

At that point Wards smart choices were to
A: wait in his car for the safety crew to get him clear of the race or "perhaps"
B: get out and move to a safer position on the outer rim of the track

He took the less than smart choice - and it cost him dearly indeed.

If he had walked onto interstate 70 and been killed - no one would blame the poor driver who had to live with that.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

Beefnot said:


> Properly applied logic .....



:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2014)

Elan said:


> There are many possibilities for what happened.  Let's say Stewart is just trying to put a scare into Ward by driving close to him.  At the last second, Stewart realizes he's too close and is going to hit Ward.  So he steers right and "gooses it" in attempt to kick the ass end left, away from Ward.  But it's too late.



Have you watched the slow motion video? The car doesn't swerve until AFTER contact with Ward. After, not before


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Have you watched the slow motion video? The car doesn't swerve until AFTER contact with Ward. After, not before



Watch it more closely.  The way Elan described it is what I believe happened also.  The car swerved twice, first was towards him, second swerve was away from him (after he realized he hit him).


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 14, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> Watch it more closely.  The way Elan described it is what I believe happened also.  The car swerved twice, first was towards him, second swerve was away from him (after he realized he hit him).



The "magic swerve" theory? 

Stewart's car comes into frame from stage left and maintains it's direction for the entire time it is in frame until it contacts Ward.

That's what my eyes see - what happened before Stewart's car enters frame is speculation.

The revving sound is either edited in or was from a car much closer to the mic than Stewart's - that's what my ear hears.


----------



## Elan (Aug 14, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> Have you watched the slow motion video? The car doesn't swerve until AFTER contact with Ward. After, not before



  Yeah, I watched it. It's hard to keep all of the swerves straight in this thread. 

  Regardless, what I'm suggesting as a possibility is that about the time Ward is right at the front of Stewart's car, Stewart realizes he's likely going to hit Ward, so he punches it and steers right, in attempt to kick the ass end out left and avoid Ward.  Due to the time required for the car to react, the car doesn't move (significantly) until after the impact with Ward.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 14, 2014)

ampaholic said:


> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


 
I know, it is quite difficult for even the most enlightened individuals to keep up with my genius.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 14, 2014)

Looks like Tony will sit out this weekends race in Michigan.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nasca...--jeff-burton-will-replace-him-214523909.html


----------



## Passepartout (Sep 24, 2014)

*Stewart will NOT face charges in Ward's death*

Today, the Grand Jury released their findings from the week-long investigation.

*From Fox Sports*

Tony Stewart will not face criminal charges in the crash that killed 20-year-old Kevin Ward Jr. during a sprint car race at Canandaigua (N.Y.) Motorsports Park on Aug. 9.

The determination that charges will not be filed was made by a grand jury in Ontario County (N.Y.) Wednesday afternoon, following a week of hearings.

Ward died in a crash during an Empire Super Sprints Series race at the half-mile upstate New York dirt track. Stewart was inside of Ward when he drifted to the outside and Ward made contact with the wall.

Under caution, Ward got out of his car and walked toward Stewart's car, gesturing at the three-time NASCAR champion. As Stewart's car approached Ward, Stewart's right-rear wheel hit Ward, who was thrown into the air and died as a result of the contact.

In a press conference Aug. 10, Ontario County (N.Y.) Sheriff Phillip C. Povero said, "At this moment there are no facts or evidence that would support a criminal charge or criminal intent."

So there you have it.

Jim


----------



## Phydeaux (Sep 24, 2014)

If Stewarts car had indeed swerved twice, as some people here seem to believe, I don't think we would have seen this verdict.

I trust my eyes. The car swerved after the body was tangled up in the right rear tire. Done.


----------



## Beefnot (Sep 24, 2014)

Phydeaux said:


> If Stewarts car had indeed swerved twice, as some people here seem to believe, I don't think we would have seen this verdict.
> 
> I trust my eyes. The car swerved after the body was tangled up in the right rear tire. Done.



 By virtue of disagreement as to what people were seeing, and Stewart not making any incriminating statements, then the evidence is lacking to prosecute.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2014)

And now here comes an enormous civil suit, which those in the know say will be settled out of court.


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> And now here comes an enormous civil suit, which those in the know say will be settled out of court.



Update - I just heard that there may not be a civil suit, because of this:



> A toxicology report shows Kevin Ward Jr., the driver who was struck and killed by NASCAR driver Tony Stewart, had marijuana in his system the night he died, the Ontario County District Attorney said today.


----------



## Chrispee (Sep 24, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> Update - I just heard that there may not be a civil suit, because of this:



I believe that marijuana can stay detectable in the system for up to 30 days, so do you think this will actually preclude a civil suit or just muddy the waters when it comes to negotiations?


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 24, 2014)

Chrispee said:


> I believe that marijuana can stay in your bloodstream for up to 30 days, so do you think this will actually preclude a civil suit or just muddy the waters when it comes to negotiations?



I have no idea - I just heard it on sports radio - I don't know if it's accurate or not, but they said the levels were high.

More Info.:



> Ontario County D.A. says Kevin Ward Jr. had enough marijuana in his system "to impair judgement"



So apparently his usage was current.  How sad for his family - I wonder if they knew.


----------

