Tony Stewart reportedly runs over fellow driver
- Thread starter ThePrideofShiner
- Start date
Comfortably Lomb said:
QFT. I would bet a large number of commentors in the web-o-world have no clue what a sprint car is, or how it is operated.
Average Reds said:
You have to admit, isn't it a little bit ironic that you are reading into my "intent"?
We'll agree to disagree on this one, Red. Not the first time, and probably not the last ; )
No, he doesn't. I thought the quotes were from the same person too. It's bullshit that you didn't differentiate between the two, because why am I supposed to believe that Becker knows anything about driving these cars?Bone Chips said:
Yeah yeah yeah, I screwed up. Chill out for cying out loud. It wasn't done to intentionally deceive anyone. I fixed it.MakMan44 said:
The irony of the "intent" part still stands, for those inclined to see the humorous side of it.
Here's Stewart's train of thought for the "buzz" scenario which all ocurred in a time period that could be as small as a fraction of a second:
There's somebody in the middle of the track.
He's wearing a helmet so he must be a driver.
It must be the driver of the car I spun out.
He's dissing me and I can't let that happen(even though the race is not televised, there are probably about 100 people in the stands and I don't know him from Adam).
I'm going to buzz the rat bastard.
If his his split-second reaction to seeing a human being in, or near, the path of his car is to buzz him, let's hope that when Stewart is driving to the mall a kid never runs out from behind a car while chasing a ball.
There's somebody in the middle of the track.
He's wearing a helmet so he must be a driver.
It must be the driver of the car I spun out.
He's dissing me and I can't let that happen(even though the race is not televised, there are probably about 100 people in the stands and I don't know him from Adam).
I'm going to buzz the rat bastard.
If his his split-second reaction to seeing a human being in, or near, the path of his car is to buzz him, let's hope that when Stewart is driving to the mall a kid never runs out from behind a car while chasing a ball.
Bosoxen said:
I don't think he's looking to crucify Stewart. I just disagree with the way he (and others) are going about the process of drawing conclusions.
This is exactly my thoughts. My first impression when I saw the video is that he was clearly trying to dust him. That was mostly due to the car moving hard to the right. After seeing a better video, that doesn't look to be the case. He is clearly cutting the wheel hard to the right at time of impact. It's been noted in a lot of posts why they do that on a dirt track. It's also pretty established why in that case you would goose the throttle. It seems more than reasonable that he was trying to swing the rear towards the bottom of the track and just didn't have the time. The car moving right was after impact, due to Ward being stuck under the car. I can't imagine the visibility combined with the expectation that there wouldn't actually be someone walking on the track gives more than enough plausibility that this was a tragic accident. The only one who knows for sure is Stewart. Outside of some elected DA wanting to make a name for himself, I can't see any chance charges getting brought. Reasonable doubt should make this impossible to get a conviction.C4CRVT said:
Comfortably Lomb said:
Right? I watched the video Sunday morning and since I was headed to a BBQ with my brother-in-law (a dirt track racing guy) Igot his take.
"the only thing that matters is what they teach on the first day of racing school: do not get out of your car on the track. Period. Everything that happened after Ward got out of his car could have been avoided if he just stayed in his fucking car."
Not looking to crucify or vilify. Tony Stewart was my favorite Nascar driver. Just rendering my opinion on what I saw in the video, coupled with my knowledge of Tony's history of hot-headed behavior.Bosoxen said:
But it is interesting how people all bring different biases into this thread, whether it be about Tony Stewart's intent or my intent. A good lesson, which for me seems to need constant reinforcement, is that none of us really "knows" anything.
Let me direction your attention to the 1:00 mark of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwc8obMmv7o
This is the man we are talking about. Anything there lead you to believe this is the type of man that wouldn't 'buzz' another driver?
The silly logic tree above... is just that. Stewart knew he had just been in a caution inducing crash... he'd surely have an idea where that happened on the track... he's driving under caution now, so he's going to be keeping an even sharper lookout for unusual 'stuff' on the track... yes, I'd consider a pointing, finger wagging man, to fit that qualification. He also knows the type of reaction that someone (himself) might have when he feels wronged.
People make irrational angry split-second decisions all the time. The idea that one can't... c'mon.
* And for a bigger bonus... I didn't even realize... just listen to the commentary from 1:34 on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwc8obMmv7o
This is the man we are talking about. Anything there lead you to believe this is the type of man that wouldn't 'buzz' another driver?
The silly logic tree above... is just that. Stewart knew he had just been in a caution inducing crash... he'd surely have an idea where that happened on the track... he's driving under caution now, so he's going to be keeping an even sharper lookout for unusual 'stuff' on the track... yes, I'd consider a pointing, finger wagging man, to fit that qualification. He also knows the type of reaction that someone (himself) might have when he feels wronged.
People make irrational angry split-second decisions all the time. The idea that one can't... c'mon.
* And for a bigger bonus... I didn't even realize... just listen to the commentary from 1:34 on...
Bone Chips - What do you make of J.J. Yaley's assessment of turning a sprint car on a dirt track? It's the reply to Average Reds' post that immediately followed the post by rembrat that included an article with Yaley's assessment of turning sprint cars on dirt. His description contradicts yours, i.e., he claims one must accelerate to turn.
[
[
BoredViewer said:
No one is arguing that there is no chance he didn't intend to "buzz" the dead kid. Or that Stewart is not a hothead. What some people are saying is that there currently appears to be no evidence that he did intend to buzz the kid in this particular instance.
And really, are you suggesting because he once threw a helmet at a car in a situation where it was unlikely there would be any serious physical repercussions, he is the kind of person who would make an insanely reckless decision about someone's life in a split second? Sorry, I can't make that logical leap.
BoredViewer said:
Do you know what "run him over" means in the context of racing? I'm afraid you don't.
In actual news, investigators have acquired a 2nd video of the incident and it's said to be of a different angle.
EDIT: It seems they got the 2nd video on Monday so apologies if this has been posted already.
You know what? This might shock a few people's in here, but after doing a lot of reading on this today, and after watching the video about 20 more times, I have to concede that my original statements on this were probably a little too severe. It is possible that Stewart accelerated in order to avoid Ward, though I have to say that in the video it doesn't look to me like the kid was ever directly in front of Stewart's path. Another thing to consider is that during a caution these cars are not going 100 mph. They are going 35-40 tops. If you are coasting at that rate of speed, would the fish tail really be that dramatic by not accelerating through the turn? What I do know is this - Stewart's act of accelerating there didn't turn out so well. I don't think he ever intended on hitting the kid, but I do still believe that he intended to buzz him.Fred in Lynn said:
Yeah, I noticed that as well today. The 2nd video apparently has not been made available to the public. Additional video angles are going to be key in deciphering Stewart's intent. There did seem to be a lot of rumblings out there today about lower level criminal charges still being possible (manslaughter 2, reckless endangerment, etc). Not sure if this is just pointless speculation or if there is perhaps something in the 2nd video or the investigation.rembrat said:
Interesting poll on "Should Tony Stewart be held responsile for Kevin Ward's death?" - http://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/08/11/tonystewartpoll/
39% - No, he's not responsible at all.
14% - Yes, he is completely responsible, and he meant to hit Ward Jr.
47% - Yes, he should be held somewhat responsible. He was reckless
TYT Network - 5,300 votes. Not a Gallop Poll by any stretch, but it's surprising that the majority of people think he should be held responsible. Based on the forum responses I have seen here and on other websites, I expected a sizeable majority to say No.
39% - No, he's not responsible at all.
14% - Yes, he is completely responsible, and he meant to hit Ward Jr.
47% - Yes, he should be held somewhat responsible. He was reckless
TYT Network - 5,300 votes. Not a Gallop Poll by any stretch, but it's surprising that the majority of people think he should be held responsible. Based on the forum responses I have seen here and on other websites, I expected a sizeable majority to say No.
Comfortably Lomb said:
Yes. Yes, I really am suggesting Stewart is the type of guy that would make a reckless decision without much thought that could have severe consequences far beyond what he intended.
Him throwing the helmet is just one instance.
This article details more incidents. I'd say intentionally wrecking other cars in an Indy race qualifies as reckless and potentially putting multiple lives at risk.
http://nypost.com/2014/08/11/tony-stewarts-temper-has-stained-his-rise-to-top-of-nascar/
I dont think TS is at fault or not at fault enough to bare the blunt of blame here. Ward owes at minimum, MINIMUM more than 50% of the blame for putting himself there. So lets say TS, at worst, tried to buzz him because that's the worst I could believe he would be doing. Again worst case scenario here. There no way you'll convince me he hit him on purpose (actually with evidence shown I am not buying he buzzed him). So with that said he still doesn't take more than half the blame. Ward still owns 50% blame at minimum. Probably more. Even if that is the case I dont think TS deserves jail time. And what do the people blaming TS expect him to do. Or what do you expect him to have done from day one.
If I were TS i'm not sure I could drive anymore this season. I think I might hang it up for the season as a PR saving move, possibly a career saving move, or even mental saving move. Just dump the season, reach out to the family away from the press, show them sympathy, and even consider funding funeral costs and whatever I could to show them some respect.
If I were TS i'm not sure I could drive anymore this season. I think I might hang it up for the season as a PR saving move, possibly a career saving move, or even mental saving move. Just dump the season, reach out to the family away from the press, show them sympathy, and even consider funding funeral costs and whatever I could to show them some respect.
garlan5 said:
I find this "he shouldn't have been there" argument interesting.
What if a confused old man or a child had wandered onto the track? Is it OK to buzz them because they might slow you down in some way and need to be taught a lesson? Obviously not. We value human life more than the rules of a sporting event.
Yet somehow the idea that Kevin had agency (that is, made the conscious choice to be there) makes it OK for another party to buzz them? Or makes Kevin "mostly" at fault?
Perhaps we should rename this the "running people down is OK as long as I think they ought to know better" argument.
A similar video was posted up thread but isn't viewable any more. It appears that Ward moved closer to Stewart's car and reached out possible to hit his car. Stewart doesn't look to be any higher on the track than the prior car. I'm not sure how you really can look at this and not feel that Ward's actions didn't play more if a role in his death than any action Stewart may have taken.
Edit: on the phone, YouTube embed didn't work
Edit: on the phone, YouTube embed didn't work
Rovin Romine said:
Please point us to a single post where people were suggesting that it was OK for Stewart to have buzzed Kevin Ward before this accident.
If any evidence emerges to indicate that this is what Stewart was doing, he needs to face criminal charges.
I have a friend who owns and drives a sprint car. He was there pitting for a friend of his who was competing-but not in that race.
He did not see Ward get hit, but says track scuttlebutt that night was ...Tony was trying to toss dirt at Ward. When the wind is right, I live close enough to sometimes hear the track. The Ontario county sheriff is up for re-election.
He did not see Ward get hit, but says track scuttlebutt that night was ...Tony was trying to toss dirt at Ward. When the wind is right, I live close enough to sometimes hear the track. The Ontario county sheriff is up for re-election.
Rovin Romine said:
I love you but this is a shitty post.
I realize stupidity is not a crime and that you approach everything as a law problem but this is pretty simple. Being out of your car on an active race track is rock stupid. The cars are moving fast, even under a caution, and being out of your car endangers yourself and the other drivers (who may need to swerve to avoid you, putting other racers in harm's way). Nothing good can come of a guy on an active race track and nothing good did happen.
Presumed or divined motives, Stewart's history of being a hothead, the physics of these cars on this track - entirely irrelevant to establishing that BEING ON THE TRACK WITHOUT A CAR IS DANGEROUS. Intentionally being on the track, without a car to protect you, is stupid. And it absolutely, positively set up this tragedy.
Had Ward stayed in his car, stayed BEHIND another car, been shouting and throwing his helmet at Stewart from behind the wall...and he's alive today.
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
Just to build on the spot on post above, if Stewart had pulled a gun and shot Ward from this car, no one would be arguing that Stewart was justified because Ward did something mindnumbingly stupid by going on the track. RR is essentially arguing that Stewart used a car instead of a gun.
Here, though, only Stewart will ever truly know his motives and I just do not believe there will ever be sufficient evidence to show that Stewart intended to hit Ward or otherwise acted in reckless disregard of Ward's life.
I'm not saying its alright if he actually buzzed him. I'm just saying they would share the blame even though neither intended for such a tragedy to occur.Rovin Romine said:
Edit for clarity: again I don't think he buzzed him and don't think TS is at fault.
Edit 2: my intent was to discuss what TS can do or should do to get out of the mess even if he did or didn't help create it.
My first thought when I saw the video was that the kid was practically on the racing line. You shouldn't get out of your car, but it's one thing to stand beside it and wave your first. It's even another thing to do what TS has done in the past and run up to a car when it's on a straight. But running down to the racing line in a corner in any form of racing is suicidal. I'm not a dirt track guy - my interests are F1, Indy and sportscars - and I've got no doubt all three series would throw the book at a driver who ran down to the racing line to remonstrate with another driver.
Once you acknowledge that, there's a huge hurdle to prove TS intended to do what happened. Maybe he did regardless of all the things I mentioned, but there's too much reasonable doubt.
Once you acknowledge that, there's a huge hurdle to prove TS intended to do what happened. Maybe he did regardless of all the things I mentioned, but there's too much reasonable doubt.
While the toxicology report seems to hurt the Ward family in a potential civil case (at least those are the reviews I've heard), I'm not seeing how Ward's condition at the time should help or harm Stewart criminally. You can't run someone down then claim it's not a crime because the person was high. Did the DA really cite Ward's condition as a reason for not charging Stewart? That seems weak. I hope I misinterpreted that part. I think the justifiable reason for not charging him is that there's not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart acted intentionally or negligently.
New York is a "pure" comparative negligence state, which means Ward's family can recover damages from Stewart if they can prove he was negligent, even if the jury finds that Ward was more than 50% responsible. And Stewart still has the same incentives as before to reach a quiet, out-of-court settlement with the family.
Maybe the evidence of drug use will decrease the settlement the family ultimately receives, but I still think the family will sue (unless a settlement is reached before a suit is even filed).
Maybe the evidence of drug use will decrease the settlement the family ultimately receives, but I still think the family will sue (unless a settlement is reached before a suit is even filed).
maufman said:
Based on what we learned yesterday, I think Stewart's willingness to settle before trial is much lower than we all assumed.
There's no doubt Ward's family will sue - they said as much yesterday - but unless they accept a token settlement from Stewart, I will be shocked if they ever recover a cent.
Average Reds said:
Making this story go away is worth more to Stewart than Ward's family could rationally expect to recover in court. Assuming that Ward's family isn't on a crusade and is willing to settle, I think Stewart's sponsors will talk sense into him at the appropriate time.
maufman said:
I just don't get the sense from Ward's family that they will ever settle. But perhaps that will change over time if/when they realize that they won't win a trial.
You are probably right in the end.