All Forums | General Discussion

Tony Stewart accidentally runs over fellow competitor

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3657
Posts: 81
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54293
Posted: #51

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

i agree that this won't likely result in anything criminal but you don't need to prove intent to charge him with a crime.  you need intent to prove murder in a situation like this but stewart could be guilty of manslaughter even if everyone agreed he didn't intend to hit the guy.  if it could be proven that stewart did something reckless and a death resulted, that very well could be manslaughter. 

for instance, if you could prove the stewart was driving fast and intended to scare the guy but fucked up and hit him instead, that's probably manslaughter., 

Ah, yeah. It happened on a RACEtrack. Notice how that circle of road doesnt have any crosswalks?

 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 18138
Posted: #52
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #53
Quote Originally Posted by spocsstocks:

I wasn't going to post on here anymore but I saw a nascar driver murder someone. 

I understand the kid shouldn't of got out of his car but Tony hit the throttle when he got up close to him.  An accident maybe because I think like what others have said he was trying to scare him or throw dirt in his face and it went bad. 

Even if it was we still have to pay the consequences for are actions and Tony should be no different.  Other cars in front of stewart missed the guy if Stewart is this "professional" driver like the likes to think he should of had no problems going around the guy like the other amature dirt track drivers did that night especially with caution out and cars going 25 to 30 mph.  There is no excuse he hit that man. 

The idea he was going to race the next day also shows he has no regard or conscious that he just killed someone.  Clearly his lawyers and team talked him out of it after they said it was "business as usual".  Someone with a brain said to him a you just killed someone going out and racing and saying business as usual after you just killed someone probably isn't a good idea.  You should show the guy at least a little compassion.  It makes smoke look like the prick he is. 

Say what you will but some kind of criminal charges should be brought against him.

 

You can't bring charges against him.

Here is why...

In general, if you jaywalk in a public street (moreso, highways/main roads etc., local roads are a bit more of a gray area) and get mowed down, the driver who hit you can technically sue YOU and your family (if you are deceased) for the damage to HIS/HER car!

Now that is the standard on public roads.

This guy essentially 'jaywalked' onto a racetrack!

End of story...

While Stewart did gun it, you can't charge him IMO.

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:

 

You can't bring charges against him.

Here is why...

In general, if you jaywalk in a public street (moreso, highways/main roads etc., local roads are a bit more of a gray area) and get mowed down, the driver who hit you can technically sue YOU and your family (if you are deceased) for the damage to HIS/HER car!

Now that is the standard on public roads.

This guy essentially 'jaywalked' onto a racetrack!

End of story...

While Stewart did gun it, you can't charge him IMO.

Not true Scal.

It can be a defense, not a bar.

The issue always is what happened under the circumstances.

Club is right.

I know nothing about racing so I can't speak to the norms of yellow flags, etc.

The phrase you will be hearing a lot in this matter is "reasonable under the circumstances" and that will apply to both Stewart and Ward.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 8485
Posted: #55
The odd thing is if you look at the expression on Tony's face, right afterward and then in the photos published afterwards I didn't see anger but just a look of a guy who just realized in the snap of a finger his career just went down the toilet.I find it strange  he is doing so little to silence the outcry that it was in anger that he drifted out while accelerating. I think he will never be the same taking a life stays with a man for a long time regardless of intention.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 23931
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Not true Scal.

It can be a defense, not a bar.

The issue always is what happened under the circumstances.

Club is right.

I know nothing about racing so I can't speak to the norms of yellow flags, etc.

The phrase you will be hearing a lot in this matter is "reasonable under the circumstances" and that will apply to both Stewart and Ward.

Can you think of another example that might be close to this? Not sports, really, just anything close?

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #57
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Can you think of another example that might be close to this? Not sports, really, just anything close?

Sure, plenty of cases where people were horsing around and one died. The investigation will look at both people's actions to determine if how they acted as reasonable and how those actions contributed to what happened.

Same here.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 23931
Posted: #58
 Thanks---know of some of those---just couldn't think of any famous-type ones I guess. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by mafioso:


Once again the mind that doesnt allow PC to influences what is said calls it almost like it is.
No accident here whatsoever
He thought the kid would move
He didnt
He nailed him
killed him
No accident at all
from the youtube clip I saw he had no intention of manuevering away from the kid or slowing down
Kid was murdered, no Tony knows what its like to kill someone and get away with it, congrats Tony

I thought that too and then I realized you shouldn't run out on the race track people might not notice because that is stupid. he came around and probly tried to spray him with mud, not murder him, and he's wearing the same colors as his car, standing (in stewarts view) blending in. he swerves but buddy dies. next time pick UFC where u don't get hit by a car when you try and fight someone

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #60

*Spray him with mud= spray his car with mud, with him in it

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #61
those cars are all about the behind end, if you watch he really tries to swing his behind end away from him, his front tires turn right directly after going by him
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 71023
Posted: #62

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes may apply here. Both drivers.

Scully and Hutch have it exactly right imo.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 28221
Posted: #63
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:





 
You can't bring charges against him.
Here is why...
In general, if you jaywalk in a public street (moreso, highways/main roads etc., local roads are a bit more of a gray area) and get mowed down, the driver who hit you can technically sue YOU and your family (if you are deceased) for the damage to HIS/HER car!
Now that is the standard on public roads.
This guy essentially 'jaywalked' onto a racetrack!
End of story...
While Stewart did gun it, you can't charge him IMO.

Not true Scal.
It can be a defense, not a bar.
The issue always is what happened under the circumstances.
Club is right.
I know nothing about racing so I can't speak to the norms of yellow flags, etc.
The phrase you will be hearing a lot in this matter is "reasonable under the circumstances" and that will apply to both Stewart and Ward.



I didn't want to make posters interpret my statement as a universal.

You are correct. There are circumstances surrounding every case.

I just think, based on the video evidence, unless you have a confession from Stewart he intentionally tried to dust the kid with that last rev (not kill him or hit him though), you simply can't bring charges of any kind agaisnt him given the deceased actions up until that point.

If you do get a confession (near impossible if you ask me) you can find him criminally negligent.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2005
Posts: 14427
Posted: #64
I think he meant to hit him personally
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #65

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:




I didn't want to make posters interpret my statement as a universal.

You are correct. There are circumstances surrounding every case.

I just think, based on the video evidence, unless you have a confession from Stewart he intentionally tried to dust the kid with that last rev (not kill him or hit him though), you simply can't bring charges of any kind agaisnt him given the deceased actions up until that point.

If you do get a confession (near impossible if you ask me) you can find him criminally negligent.

I actually think you are mostly right here.

Manslaughter is out. Just impossible to prove any intent to cause a deprivation of life.

If he is charged, it will be criminal negligence and the basis will be that reenactment will show that Stewart had to have seen him and did not take steps to avoid injury. Both will be difficult to show but it is a negligence standard so they need only show the actions, not the intent.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2597
Posted: #66
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

I actually think you are mostly right here.

Manslaughter is out. Just impossible to prove any intent to cause a deprivation of life.

If he is charged, it will be criminal negligence and the basis will be that reenactment will show that Stewart had to have seen him and did not take steps to avoid injury. Both will be difficult to show but it is a negligence standard so they need only show the actions, not the intent.



I disagree. In New York, you can prove manslaughter without showing any proof of " intent to cause a deprivation of life ". A conviction for manslaughter is appropriate upon proof of a showing of reckless disregard for life. They are very different standards.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 3158
Posted: #67
One thing to take into account is how fast everything was happening...

I know, I know they all have lightning reflexes, but when you are dealing with an irate Einstein running around on the track in the middle of a race, you don't always know before hand what stupidity he is going to try... I would have to find the driver not guilty of any charges... For me the guy that got out of his car and ran into the middle of the race is as much, if not more so, to blame for his death.

Benefit of the doubt...


 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2597
Posted: #68
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:

One thing to take into account is how fast everything was happening...

I know, I know they all have lightning reflexes, but when you are dealing with an irate Einstein running around on the track in the middle of a race, you don't always know before hand what stupidity he is going to try... I would have to find the driver not guilty of any charges... For me the guy that got out of his car and ran into the middle of the race is as much, if not more so, to blame for his death.

Benefit of the doubt...



I probably agree with the ultimate conclusion that Stewart walks based on the benefit of the doubt. However, make no mistake about it--he has to be nervous about a manslaughter charge. Just because you do something as stupid as walking onto the track does not mean you forfeit your right to live. Nor does it mean Stewart can now act recklessly. The tape shows other drivers slowing down and turning away to avoid hitting the man. The tape also seems to show Stewart doing the opposite. He probably walks, but it is not a slam dunk, in my opinion.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 19156
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by Bluefin:

The odd thing is if you look at the expression on Tony's face, right afterward and then in the photos published afterwards I didn't see anger but just a look of a guy who just realized in the snap of a finger his career just went down the toilet.I find it strange  he is doing so little to silence the outcry that it was in anger that he drifted out while accelerating. I think he will never be the same taking a life stays with a man for a long time regardless of intention.


Totally agree. 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 19156
Posted: #70
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:


I probably agree with the ultimate conclusion that Stewart walks based on the benefit of the doubt. However, make no mistake about it--he has to be nervous about a manslaughter charge. Just because you do something as stupid as walking onto the track does not mean you forfeit your right to live. Nor does it mean Stewart can now act recklessly. The tape shows other drivers slowing down and turning away to avoid hitting the man. The tape also seems to show Stewart doing the opposite. He probably walks, but it is not a slam dunk, in my opinion.



I have only seen the one angle and it seemed to me Stewart was right behind another race car. I am not sure what Tony has said but under all the circumstances I am sure Stewart could say that he did not see him and when he did he swerved. Yes he is a pro race care driver but have any of you been driving at 60+ mph and a deer or another animal is in your head lights. You have about a second to respond and that's when your reflexes make your decision. You don't have time to think swerve left or right. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 7830
Posted: #71

All well and good, Kurshka, but if Tony is shown (or heard) to accelerate just before striking the guy... he is going to be shown to be reckless in this whole act..  This is why law enforcement is taking their time.  

Look at it this way.    The more time law enforcement give this, the more time Tony has to be nervous. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 3158
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:


I probably agree with the ultimate conclusion that Stewart walks based on the benefit of the doubt. However, make no mistake about it--he has to be nervous about a manslaughter charge. Just because you do something as stupid as walking onto the track does not mean you forfeit your right to live. Nor does it mean Stewart can now act recklessly. The tape shows other drivers slowing down and turning away to avoid hitting the man. The tape also seems to show Stewart doing the opposite. He probably walks, but it is not a slam dunk, in my opinion.



 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 535
Posted: #73
I'm still a little surprised that NASCAR hasn't (since this incident) created a rule that says once out of your car under any circumstances you must immediately proceed to a safe area off the racing surface. Failure to do so will result in suspensions and fines. 

As far as Stewart is concerned I think all he has to say is I never saw the guy (in black) until I was a few feet away, gassed the car to move the back end (which would travel by closer to the pedestrian) which is why the car moved to the right AFTER contact. 

Part of the car moving right was the guys body causing a lack of traction on the right rear tire meaning the left rear was doing the driving. 

Further, this kicking dirt up on the kid theory is nonsense. The dirt in the groove area is compacted and would be unlikely to "kick up" as assumed. The only loose dirt is kicked up under maximum power and resides along the retaining wall. 

This year is a bust for Stewart anyway, he'll take the year off and be back next year after this blows over. Sponsors won't be so anxious to abandon him after the police announce that Stewart didn't do anything wrong.    They still might, but the chances are diminished. 


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 23931
Posted: #74
Quote Originally Posted by Raisethis2:

I'm still a little surprised that NASCAR hasn't (since this incident) created a rule that says once out of your car under any circumstances you must immediately proceed to a safe area off the racing surface. Failure to do so will result in suspensions and fines. 

As far as Stewart is concerned I think all he has to say is I never saw the guy (in black) until I was a few feet away, gassed the car to move the back end (which would travel by closer to the pedestrian) which is why the car moved to the right AFTER contact. 

Part of the car moving right was the guys body causing a lack of traction on the right rear tire meaning the left rear was doing the driving. 

Further, this kicking dirt up on the kid theory is nonsense. The dirt in the groove area is compacted and would be unlikely to "kick up" as assumed. The only loose dirt is kicked up under maximum power and resides along the retaining wall. 

This year is a bust for Stewart anyway, he'll take the year off and be back next year after this blows over. Sponsors won't be so anxious to abandon him after the police announce that Stewart didn't do anything wrong.    They still might, but the chances are diminished. 


Limited knowledge of this.  But sounds good. My question is everyone says he gassed it.  When they say this they imply he did it to scare the guy or throw dirt, etc.  My question is could he have gassed it to just get on by the guy not knowing if he was gonna throw something or whatever?  Kind of to speed up to actually get on by?  It isn't like he hit with with the front of the car.  Then, yes, the car swerved to the right after the guy hit the back end, etc.  People say he knew exactly what he was doing with the car.  Sure, while racing, but when someone walks straight into your car you might do something out of the normal racing mode because you aren't expecting that.  Maybe I am confused on the whole deal because I do not understand the racing details?

 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2597
Posted: #75
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:







All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.