inkman Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Ward made a poor decision. Unless he confesses, no one will know what Stewart was thinking and if he was trying brush back Ward. If he was shame on him for being that reckless. That said, unless he incriminates himself, I don't see how it's criminal. Based on history, this level of shadiness doesn't seem too far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Ward made a poor decision. Unless he confesses, no one will know what Stewart was thinking and if he was trying brush back Ward. If he was shame on him for being that reckless. That said, unless he incriminates himself, I don't see how it's criminal. Based on history, this level of shadiness doesn't seem too far fetched. Agree all the way around... How can anyone say what he was or wasn't doing... Had Tony driven up the track and smashed the kids car, that's one thing, but this is crazy... Sucks the kid died, but that was a stupid ass move!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) It is truly ridiculous that people that have never driven one of those cars and don't even claim to know a blessed thing about how they are driven get on the internet and say they heard a sound on a video so Stewart was trying to scare the kid. We know the kid did a stupid thing and paid far too high a price. His family did nothing wrong and lost him forever. Local kid right? Maybe a bunch of his relatives are Bills fans. Maybe they even come here. The Darwin Award stuff is garbage IMO. Have some respect. He should have stayed in the car and made a mistake. Which one of us didn't do something at 20 that could have ended badly? As for the junior detectives on here claiming to be able to infer Stewart's intent, please offer some factual data about how those cars are driven or shut it. So far most of what has been said can be refuted by a game of Mario Kart for Pete's sake. It is worse than all the stupid stuff that was written about the Sean Taylor murder. Edited August 11, 2014 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Our legal system is a joke if his family gets a penny in any wrongful death suit (yes, I realize it's already a joke). Some day we will stop paying out for people being idiots. This^^^ It was in the course of a race where death is always present. I wonder what kind of precedent this will set if they allow a wrongful death suit to move forward AND TS loses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) This^^^ It was in the course of a race where death is always present. I wonder what kind of precedent this will set if they allow a wrongful death suit to move forward AND TS loses But that doesn't give someone the right to intentionally run someone else over. I'd imagine that is what this case -- and I do think there will be one - will boil down. Was it an accident in the normal course of events, or was there intent on Stewart's part to intentionally drive toward Ward. If there was intent, was it to get near and scare him or to run him over and cause bodily harm. If the former, then a manslaughter conviction, the latter could be murder. Stewart has an estimated net worth of $70 million, no doubt lawyers are all over the family to launch a wrongful death suit. Edited August 11, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 But that doesn't give someone the right to intentionally run someone else over. I'd imagine that is what this case -- and I do think there will be one - will boil down. Was it an accident in the normal course of events, or was there intent on Stewart's part to intentionally drive toward Ward. If there was intent, was it to get near and scare him or to run him over and cause bodily harm. If the former, then a manslaughter conviction, the latter could be murder. Stewart has an estimated net worth of $70 million, no doubt lawyers are all over the family to launch a wrongful death suit. Wait a second. We all know that Ward's intent was to seek out Stewart. Just because TS is a hothead doesn't make him guilty. Why is the burden on Stewart? This a car race... Sporting event. I am going to argue that Stewart has no obligation to avoid a person actively seeking him out. Besides, how the heck is Stewart even supposed to do that in the course of a race! My God this debate is insane! Ward went to Stewart and got hit, simple as that. When did Defensive Driving 101 become mandatory during the course of a car race? Just maybe he gunned it to AVOID him. Oh, BTW... Side note. I took the side of Roger Clemons in the Mike Piazza debate. ;-P ;-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 That is a completely baseless assumption by everyone. How can you discern what Stewart attempted to do from a single video on the internet? Just like people telling me I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon, because the video clearly doesn't show a plane...everyone's an expert in photo-analysis on the internet, to the point of being able to to discern an individual's state of mind and exact thoughts from a video on youtube. Can't piss off the sponsors. From what I heard, while lots of people were saying he'd race...he was taking the sensible approach of "sleeping on it" (though were I in his situation, I'd be awake all night) and deciding in the morning. That's actually the very first thing I heard about the accident, when I woke up this morning. If he wasn't seen to be accelerating into this kid, there would be no discussion---and no ongoing investigation. The kid made a poor decision, but he didn't jump into Stewart's car... He did sleep on it. And when he woke up, his team spokesman announced that they were going to race---"business as usual". Only after a predictable public outcry was Stewart shamed into skipping the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Wait a second. We all know that Ward's intent was to seek out Stewart. Just because TS is a hothead doesn't make him guilty. Why is the burden on Stewart? This a car race... Sporting event. I am going to argue that Stewart has no obligation to avoid a person actively seeking him out. Besides, how the heck is Stewart even supposed to do that in the course of a race! My God this debate is insane! Ward went to Stewart and got hit, simple as that. When did Defensive Driving 101 become mandatory during the course of a car race? Just maybe he gunned it to AVOID him. Oh, BTW... Side note. I took the side of Roger Clemons in the Mike Piazza debate. ;-P ;-P I would have thought it impossible for anyone to respond to Joe's moronic and unfounded waste of bytes post with anything even approaching the level of stupidity he displayed but congrats. Stewart was not obliged to avoid hitting the kid with his car? Because it was a sporting event? How about because he was human? Is that enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Wait a second. We all know that Ward's intent was to seek out Stewart. Just because TS is a hothead doesn't make him guilty. Why is the burden on Stewart? This a car race... Sporting event. I am going to argue that Stewart has no obligation to avoid a person actively seeking him out. Besides, how the heck is Stewart even supposed to do that in the course of a race! My God this debate is insane! Ward went to Stewart and got hit, simple as that. When did Defensive Driving 101 become mandatory during the course of a car race? Just maybe he gunned it to AVOID him. Oh, BTW... Side note. I took the side of Roger Clemons in the Mike Piazza debate. ;-P ;-P Im not making a case for either side, just a projection that there will be a case (if not many). What you're doing is trying to make the defense case. My best guess is that there will at least be a civil case (criminal is harder to project because it's the DA's decision). And I think a civil case will be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount because the plaintiffs won't want to take the chance of losing given the vagaries, and stewart will want to put it behind him ASAP and save face by not admitting to anything or being found guilty. Edited August 11, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 If he wasn't seen to be accelerating into this kid, there would be no discussion---and no ongoing investigation. The kid made a poor decision, but he didn't jump into Stewart's car... He did sleep on it. And when he woke up, his team spokesman announced that they were going to race---"business as usual". Only after a predictable public outcry was Stewart shamed into skipping the race. I agree with the part you wrote about him sleeping on it and the stupid comments about business as usual and probably even the shaming but the crap you keep writing about acceleration is stupid. It makes you look like an idiot . You are clueless about how the cars are driven. So am I. That is why I haven't attempted to infer Stewarts intent. Most people in this thread realize that this inference is at a height of ignorance reachable to only to very few so they have avoided doing it. You should join that crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Im not making a case for either side, just a projection that there will be a case (if not many). What you're doing is trying to make the defense case. My best guess is that there will at least be a civil case (criminal is harder to project because it's the DA's decision). And I think a civil case will be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount because the plaintiffs won't want to take the chance of losing given the vagaries, and stewart will want to put it behind him ASAP and save face by not admitting to anything or being found guilty. Just hypothetically, if a player gets killed during the course of say a hockey game or football game, do you believe aa wrongful death suit should go forward. Say a pitcher is brushing off a batter and accidently kills him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Just hypothetically, if a player gets killed during the course of say a hockey game or football game, do you believe aa wrongful death suit should go forward. Say a pitcher is brushing off a batter and accidently kills him. If Im the plaintiff and I think I have a chance to win the case or least get a settlement, why not? Also, cars and baseballs are not exactly comparable as an auto has much greater capacity to cause serious injury or death. I would think the standard of care is much greater for someone operating a motor vehicle Edited August 11, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I would have thought it impossible for anyone to respond to Joe's moronic and unfounded waste of bytes post with anything even approaching the level of stupidity he displayed but congrats. Stewart was not obliged to avoid hitting the kid with his car? Because it was a sporting event? How about because he was human? Is that enough? No. Not because it is a sporting event, but because Ward was actively seeking out TS' car. I believe if TS could, he would have avoided Ward. IMO, I think he tried to avoid him by accelerating aggressively around the situation and seeing how Ward was going to TS, the stars aligned he was hit. IMO, the best defense is the best offense... That's what TS was doing... That's what makes him great driver. You don't get wins driving defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Just hypothetically, if a player gets killed during the course of say a hockey game or football game, do you believe aa wrongful death suit should go forward. Say a pitcher is brushing off a batter and accidently kills him. A "brush off" goes to intent--it's not an accident if he is aiming at the head. If the batter dies, it's a manslaughter charge. The pitcher should have known that his 95 mph pitch towards the head could cause serious harm or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Also, cars and baseballs are not exactly comparable as an auto has much greater capacity to cause serious injury or death Step into a 103 mph fastball with your head. You may change your opinion. That's basically what Ward did. A "brush off" goes to intent--it's not an accident if he is aiming at the head. If the batter dies, it's a manslaughter charge. The pitcher should have known that his 95 mph pitch towards the head could cause serious harm or death. Now, if the batter steps into it? That's what Ward was doing when he decided to hoof it on the track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 A "brush off" goes to intent--it's not an accident if he is aiming at the head. If the batter dies, it's a manslaughter charge. The pitcher should have known that his 95 mph pitch towards the head could cause serious harm or death. Stupid, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Step into a 103 mph fastball with your head. You may change your opinion. That's basically what Ward did. again, you're trying to make the defense case. But how many people are convicted of vehicular homicide every year vs convicted of killing someone with a baseball? Im not going to even bother googling it. Also there are laws against DUI and not pitching while under influence; i.e. auto drivers have a much greater standard of care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) No; not because it is a sporting event, but because Ward was actively seeking out TS' car. I believe if TS could, he would have avoided Ward. IMO, I think he tried to avoid him by accelerating aggressively around the situation and seeing how Ward was going to TS, the stars aligned he was hit. IMO, the best defense is the best offense... That's what TS was doing... That's what makes him great driver. You don't get wins driving defensively. All I am saying is that if Stewart had an opportunity to avoid the kid, he was obligated to try, even if the kid was chasing him. I don't disagree with the first paragraph of your post above other than the first sentence. I don't understand the second paragraph, Edited August 11, 2014 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) again, you're trying to make the defense case. But how many people are convicted of vehicular homicide every year vs convicted of killing someone with a baseball? Im not going to even bother googling it. Also there are laws against DUI and not pitching while under influence; i.e. auto drivers have a much greater standard of care We aren't talking about the streets here. This was a car race! One iota of defensive driving creeps into your style and you don't get far. Okay, maybe you get somewhat far, but you will never enjoy a victory lap. Maybe Tony should have watched the movie: Cars, Doc Hudson may have helped him with the dirt track thing? J/K... Pretty stupid joke. All I am saying is that if Stewart had an opportunity to avoid the kid, he was obligated to try, even if the kid was chasing him. IMO, that he did! You can avoid somebody by gunning it around them. It just went horribly wrong with the fishtail... Edited August 11, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) We aren't talking about the streets here. This was a car race! One iota of defensive driving creeps into your style and you don't get far. Okay, maybe you get somewhat far, but you will never enjoy a victory lap. Maybe Tony should have watched the movie: Cars, Doc Hudson may have helped him with the dirt track thing? J/K... Pretty stupid joke. IMO, that he did! You can avoid somebody by gunning it around them. It just went horribly wrong with the fishtail... there is precedent for successful battery litigation in sports: Marty McSorley and Bill Romanowski are two that come to mind. Just because someone is in a sporting event does not absolve them from any wrongdoing Edited August 11, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts