Tony Stewart not charged by grand jury in death of Kevin Ward Jr.

[bounce]

I could argue that if Tony Stewart's car had not approached Ward, Ward would still be alive.

Obviously if Ward had stayed in his car he would be alive. But, it has nothing to do with Stewart being liable for his actions.

It's not like there has never been a race car driver that has gotten out of their car like Ward did. Most of the time when they do, they live and go on unscathed.

If there has never been a race car driver that got out of his car like Ward did or if every single race car driver that got out of their car died...then we could say without question that Ward should have known that his likelihood of getting killed was almost certain.

The problem here is that most people don't know how the law works in situations like this.





YR

Then explain "how the law works in situations like this," instead of just implying that everyone else is an idiot.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Then explain "how the law works in situations like this," instead of just implying that everyone else is an idiot.

I have explained it.

But, some people call *ME* the idiot for showing how the law works in a situation like this.

No matter how many examples I provide they would rather put their hands over their ears and scream 'lalalalalala I can't hear you!' and make up things that they don't know anything about and call me the idiot.

I know next to nothing about dirt track racing, so I don't try and proclaim that I know how dirt track racing works and then imply somebody who does have expertise in dirt track racing that they are an idiot because I think I know how to better run a dirt track car than they do. And I don't still proclaim that they are an idiot when they show me examples of why my reasoning is faulty and their reasoning is superior.

And the mind numbing part of it is that I have stated that I don't believe the jury should indict Stewart because you really can't tell from that camera angle. But, *if* he did try to scare Ward and his car wheels did slip out and accidentally hit and kill Ward, he is liable for Ward's death.

Why?

Because that is how the law works.

Proving that he did try to scare Ward is the real issue.




YR

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know that you are trying to apply your knowledge of the law here and I understand how that can be frustrating when you try to lay it out and it's still not accepted. I do understand that but the part that we diverge on, IMO, is the idea that Stewart tried to scare him. The dynamics of how a Sprint Car works, IMO, preclude any such discussion because the situation dictates that if Stewart tried to avoid Ward, the result would be what we saw. If he doesn't try to avoid Ward, then he hits him. It's a no win situation that was created by Ward leaving his vehicle. How much the weed impacted the situation, I can not say. I don't really think it matters as the rules are clear in situations like this. You don't leave your car. The Law can come to a different conclusion but if they do their job, I don't see how they could.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And then whose fault is it?

If you feel the need to assess blame then you have to point the finger at Ward.

 

[bounce]

If you feel the need to assess blame then you have to point the finger at Ward.

I don't, but everyone wants to assign blame.

 

[Sarge]

Why would anyone rely on camera angles to prove their point? That is obsurd.....There were HUNDREDES of spectators at this race and dozens upon dozens of people who actually WITNESSED the incident. Not a ONE has come forward to say they thought there was any intent from Stewart. Some of you claiming to know the law and make silly comparisons are just kidding themselves into believing what they want. You see a video that is totally inconclusive ONE WAY OR THE OTHER and make legal arguments based on that?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I know that you are trying to apply your knowledge of the law here and I understand how that can be frustrating when you try to lay it out and it's still not accepted. I do understand that but the part that we diverge on, IMO, is the idea that Stewart tried to scare him. The dynamics of how a Sprint Car works, IMO, preclude any such discussion because the situation dictates that if Stewart tried to avoid Ward, the result would be what we saw. If he doesn't try to avoid Ward, then he hits him. It's a no win situation that was created by Ward leaving his vehicle. How much the weed impacted the situation, I can not say. I don't really think it matters as the rules are clear in situations like this. You don't leave your car. The Law can come to a different conclusion but if they do their job, I don't see how they could.

If I were on a jury, I would not convict Ward based on that evidence. It does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt to me that Stewart's intentions were to scare Ward and then he accidentally (but unlawfully) struck Ward. That doesn't meant that as a juror I cannot think that Stewart's intentions were to scare Ward. I can do that and still find Stewart innocent. This happens quite a bit in cases with juror interviews where the jury feels the defendant was guilty, but the state didn't provide enough evidence for it to happen.

I tend to believe that is what Stewart did. I would not call him a murderer, but somebody that was reckless and his recklessness helped kill Ward. And I feel that if the shoe was on the other foot, Ward would probably try to scare Stewart as well. Race car drivers like to intimidate other race car drivers.

Ward helped kill himself by getting too close to the traffic. The marijuana in his system just provided more doubt that he was to blame. Regardless of the marijuana in his system, I could not convict Stewart based on the evidence. I would get the feeling that he most likely did try to scare him (they had a beef about Ward's accident, they were under caution, no other driver came close, it is common for a race car driver to try and scare somebody with their car, etc). Of course, I've said much of this about Stewart not being indicted already. I have just had Stewart fanboys trying to act like they know the how the law works and basically making stuff up instead of giving logical reasoning and expertise as to why Stewart did not try to scare Ward.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Why would anyone rely on camera angles to prove their point? That is obsurd.....There were HUNDREDES of spectators at this race and dozens upon dozens of people who actually WITNESSED the incident. Not a ONE has come forward to say they thought there was any intent from Stewart. Some of you claiming to know the law and make silly comparisons are just kidding themselves into believing what they want. You see a video that is totally inconclusive ONE WAY OR THE OTHER and make legal arguments based on that?

Any law enforcement figure is going to use a video over a witness statement. With video law enforcement can replay the video and gather more evidence that is UNBIASED.

There is a stunningly low rate of accuracy of people picking the correct perpetrator in police lineups. Even people that have been raped have often times pick out the wrong person in a lineup. Eyewitness accounts are very inaccurate because often times events occur so quickly that it is hard to really recall what actually happened. And there are going to be biases on those eyewitness accounts. Especially when it is race car fans who just watched a world famous race car driver get into an accident.

Believe that law enforcement would rather use eye witness accounts over a video is a prime example of somebody that doesn't know how the law and law enforcement officials work, yet acts like they do and then puts words in my mouth to try and prove their point.




YR

 

[Sarge]

Any law enforcement figure is going to use a video over a witness statement. With video law enforcement can replay the video and gather more evidence that is UNBIASED.

There is a stunningly low rate of accuracy of people picking the correct perpetrator in police lineups. Even people that have been raped have often times pick out the wrong person in a lineup. Eyewitness accounts are very inaccurate because often times events occur so quickly that it is hard to really recall what actually happened. And there are going to be biases on those eyewitness accounts. Especially when it is race car fans who just watched a world famous race car driver get into an accident.

Believe that law enforcement would rather use eye witness accounts over a video is a prime example of somebody that doesn't know how the law and law enforcement officials work, yet acts like they do and then puts words in my mouth to try and prove their point.




YR

One of the points that I was trying to make is that the video in the question is inconclusive either way. The only thing that you can absolutely see with 100% certainty is some angry kid getting out of his car walking down in the middle of a busy race track avoiding other race cars as they passed by.

After that, nothing is clear.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

One of the points that I was trying to make is that the video in the question is inconclusive either way. The only thing that you can absolutely see with 100% certainty is some angry kid getting out of his car walking down in the middle of a busy race track avoiding other race cars as they passed by.

After that, nothing is clear.

I agree.

I've said from the beginning in this thread that the reason why Stewart was not indicted was due to the bad camera angle and you can't get a good conclusion from that camera angle.

The marijuana in Ward's system doesn't help any cause to indict Stewart. But, it still doesn't matter when it comes to the law and there's some precedent towards that. The facts are that the only real evidence is the video and the video is too inconclusive to get an indictment.

I tend to think Stewart did try to scare Ward. I just got Stewart fanboys making up stuff about how the law works because they don't like the fact that if your favorite driver tries to scare somebody with their car accidentally spins out and strikes and kills that person with the car, they should be indicted of manslaughter if there is evidence that is what Stewart's intent was.

I'm certain that the first thing Stewart was told by his camp and his legal team is to not say anything and do not mention that you tried to intimidate Ward in any manner.

Even if the intent was not to even strike Ward, the behavior would be considered reckless and that recklessness caused Ward to get struck and killed.

I don't think Stewart is a murderer, but I think what he did was reckless and it accidentally ended up killing Ward. We just don't have conclusive proof to go ahead with an indictment.






YR

 

[Sarge]

I agree.

I've said from the beginning in this thread that the reason why Stewart was not indicted was due to the bad camera angle and you can't get a good conclusion from that camera angle.

The marijuana in Ward's system doesn't help any cause to indict Stewart. But, it still doesn't matter when it comes to the law and there's some precedent towards that. The facts are that the only real evidence is the video and the video is too inconclusive to get an indictment.

I tend to think Stewart did try to scare Ward. I just got Stewart fanboys making up stuff about how the law works because they don't like the fact that if your favorite driver tries to scare somebody with their car accidentally spins out and strikes and kills that person with the car, they should be indicted of manslaughter if there is evidence that is what Stewart's intent was.

I'm certain that the first thing Stewart was told by his camp and his legal team is to not say anything and do not mention that you tried to intimidate Ward in any manner.

Even if the intent was not to even strike Ward, the behavior would be considered reckless and that recklessness caused Ward to get struck and killed.

I don't think Stewart is a murderer, but I think what he did was reckless and it accidentally ended up killing Ward. We just don't have conclusive proof to go ahead with an indictment.






YR

I have a problem with your assessment in this whole thing in that you are convinced Stewart did something intentional and that just because the camera angle wasn't quite right, he is saved from some kind of criminal proceeding.

My point is, you can't tell anything from that camera and/or video and one should not make any judgment one way or the other. You are opining that Stewart was reckless and I have no idea how you come to that conclusion based on this video.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I have a problem with your assessment in this whole thing in that you are convinced Stewart did something intentional and that just because the camera angle wasn't quite right, he is saved from some kind of criminal proceeding.

My point is, you can't tell anything from that camera and/or video and one should not make any judgment one way or the other. You are opining that Stewart was reckless and I have no idea how you come to that conclusion based on this video.

Its what he wants it to be. What he wants to see. What he wants to believe. And its all based on some perception that he has devoid of any evidence or fact.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Kid gets out of car.
I believe Stewart was gonna show him before the kid could show him.
Car Slipped.
Killed kid
End of story.

Kid was wrong for getting out of car.
But he put Stewart in a bad position.

Let's say Stewart could stop, the kid reaches in. Hits Stewart or pulls Stewart from car.

Stewart wasn't having any of that.
He wasn't going to be embarrassed.

The price was high.

 

[Rogah]

Yeah, Tony Stewart would never, ever behave in a reckless manner on the racing track, deliberately creating an dangerous (potentially life threatening) situation by hitting someone who disrespected him. No he would never do that. Not in a million years.