# Tony Stewart Ran Down Driver on Purpose !



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...............I've watched the video several times and I believe Tony Stewart ran down the exposed driver , on Purpose ! I believe he correctly positioned his right side wheels to catch the exposed driver while at the same time , not , aiming his car straight at him . If , you watch the video you can see his front wheels turned slightly to the right . , fordy


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

Gonna post the video?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

fordy said:


> ...............I've watched the video several times and I believe Tony Stewart ran down the exposed driver , on Purpose ! I believe he correctly positioned his right side wheels to catch the exposed driver while at the same time , not , aiming his car straight at him . If , you watch the video you can see his front wheels turned slightly to the right . , fordy


I watched several videos. Why was Ward on the track? Why did Ward move towards Stewart as he was coming by? If his wheels were turning to the right on a sprint car, the rear end would go to the left, opposite of the steering input, if he gassed it like some have said, especially with the banking angle of the track. Sad day for all involved! That's why they call it racing, and not winning!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm not sure about that but I wonder what made the guy get out of a car where he had some protection when he didn't have to? That was just asking for it IMO.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

poppy said:


> I'm not sure about that but I wonder what made the guy get out of a car where he had some protection when he didn't have to? That was just asking for it IMO.


Stewart took him out and Ward was pissed. He wanted to voice his anger towards Stewart. Seems he came down the track to far! Stewart has done this as well as many others. Defies common sense, but it's racing and tempers run hot! Should have figured it out behind the garage!


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

poppy said:


> I'm not sure about that but I wonder what made the guy get out of a car where he had some protection when he didn't have to? That was just asking for it IMO.


 .............Because Stewart has a history of very aggressive driving and he collided with the dead driver on the previous lap and caused him to wreck . That is why the driver got out of his car and was confronting Stewart on the next lap ! Obviously , not a very smart action to take . 
..............I hope they indict(sp) Stewart and atleast give the dead driver his day in court . , fordy


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

my take is that Ward was wrong for being on the track. but Stewart killed him if you listen closely to the video you can hear Stewart blip the gas and cause the rear end to slide out, I think he was trying to tap Ward with the rear tire and miscalculated and ran him over. he should be charged with Manslaughter.


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

I'm not a big race car fan but I saw the clip earlier and it looked to me like it was intentional. I doubt he intended to kill the kid but it appears he swerved towards him. That said - who the heck gets out of their car, stands in the middle if the track and wags their finger as race cars fly by ????


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

I don't doubt that Tony burped the gas a bit as he went by but I'd bet that Tony didn't realize Ward was out there quite as far as he was and then again the way a lot of drivers do when they get on the track like that, just as the car comes past they'll dart another half step or so as they shack their finger. 
I'm not a fan of Tony's at all. 
As a matter of fact, I don't really even like him but I don't think he'd even have tried to just bump Ward with the car. He is tough on the track but he isn't that kind of guy on or off the track. 
It was just the two tempers got a little too close and they were both there, or it never would have happened to start with.
I know Tony is hurting inside because of it bad.
The boy is dead and nothing will change that but throwing blame around like that isn't helping anything. 


Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

The car turned to the right because he hit Ward, and that force on his rear tire caused the swerve. The throttle blip I don't believe came from Stewarts car. These cars have no transmissions, only an in/out box, they stall very easily, bliping the throttle helps keep the motor running and cleaned out. The in car cameras should explain things much better. To me, it looks like the guy right in front of Stewart had just dropped down to the bottom part of the track to miss Ward, who then made a poor decision to move further down the track to confront Stewart. Folks are saying that Stewart had great visibility, that's just not the case. Hans device limits side to side and front to back movement, the seats are designed to support the drivers head and also limits visibility, not to mention the helmet itself limiting peripheral vision. Most of the time drivers can't even see a car that's right next to them. Watch F1 or Indy cars or any open wheel classes, their always wrecking because they didn't see the guy trying to pass.

No, I'm not a Stewart fan, but appreciate what he's done for the sport. And if you think these guys get mad when racing, come on out to a radio controlled car race......WOW!! And their just "toys"!!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Stewart took him out and Ward was pissed.
> One thing, *Tony did NOT cause that wreck*, the kid did.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Ok, class, raise your hand if you have ever raced on a dirt track....
Anyone? Anyone? Fordy?? 
Ok, am I the only one?

Tony didn't cause the wreck, two cars going into a turn at the same time, side by side, that's racing.
Second the throttle blipps you hear in the video, that's how drivers keep their cars running. (Sprint cars)
That kid walk right out in front of the car in front of Stewart, and then down further in front of Stewart.

The original wreck was dirt track racing, that's all there is to it.
The guy getting out of his car, especially just out of a curve, was stupidity.
The guy getting hit was a tragic accident.
I feel for not just his family, but Tony as well. I'm sure he is in bad shape mentally right now.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

fordy said:


> ...............I've watched the video several times and I believe Tony Stewart ran down the exposed driver , on Purpose ! I believe he correctly positioned his right side wheels to catch the exposed driver while at the same time , not , aiming his car straight at him . If , you watch the video you can see his front wheels turned slightly to the right . , fordy


Whether or not be did it on purpose doesn't strictly matter in n regards to what we should learn. He should never have left the car and walked on to the track. It was a stupid and suicidal act. Rules need to be in place to prevent future deaths. Stay in the car.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Its sad that the kid lost his life but for some reason he chose to put himself in competition for the Darwin Award and won it. IMO putting himself in the traffic flow of the track put more of the blame of the outcome on him.

As others have mentioned , dirt track racing is as aggressive as asphalt track but a condition all its own.

In any racing the only reason for a driver to exit their disabled car is if its on fire and then they should be heading to the outside of the track, not down into the track and traffic flow.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Like Dixie, I wonder how many of those who pontificate have done anything involved with racing other than buying a shirt and watching it.

Growing up with a dad who owned and raced (DIRT modified and sprints), I won't even offer an opinion other than it's a tragedy. A ---- tragedy based upon too much testosterone and not enough sense--common or otherwise. Those sprints are dangerous cars, not easy to control either. Safety is why dad got rid of it. He liked his driver too much to see him die in it.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

Tommyice said:


> Like Dixie, I wonder how many of those who pontificate have done anything involved with racing other than buying a shirt and watching it.
> 
> Growing up with a dad who owned and raced (DIRT modified and sprints), I won't even offer an opinion other than it's a tragedy. A ---- tragedy based upon too much testosterone and not enough sense--common or otherwise. Those sprints are dangerous cars, not easy to control either. Safety is why dad got rid of it. He liked his driver too much to see him die in it.


Not talking about it or "placing blame" just allows it to happen again. This wasn't a freak accident this was avoidable death. We need to discuss this and learn from it. So with the it's just a tragedy cop out.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sorry those who think that Stewart did this on purpose need to actually do something competitively.. 

Tempers always flare up when competing. It's part of the mindset Sadly this young 20 yo had a temper also and he apparently tried to beat a car with his body.. Foolish choice on his part! 

I too have watched the videos read the reports from the other drivers.
Who stated that Ward was difficult to see because he was wearing a black helmet and a black racing suit. The driver in front of Stewart stated that he swerved to miss Ward, because he only saw him at the last moment. Unfortunately it appears that Stewart didn't see him either, or at least not in time. 

My condolences to the Ward Family in their time of loss.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

iti_oj said:


> Not talking about it or "placing blame" just allows it to happen again. This wasn't a freak accident this was avoidable death. We need to discuss this and learn from it. So with the it's just a tragedy cop out.


I guarantee you that the DIRT organization and the track is discussing it. They are the ones who will effect change--not some folks on a homesteading forum without experience or expertise.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

iti_oj said:


> Not talking about it or "placing blame" just allows it to happen again. This wasn't a freak accident this was avoidable death. We need to discuss this and learn from it. So with the it's just a tragedy cop out.



In all the drivers meetings, They always state to stay in your car unless you need to get out because of fire or something..

The reason is because it is the safest place for you till emergency crews get there. 
Unfortunately this young man chose to do otherwise.. We all know the result of this..


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

Tommyice said:


> I guarantee you that the DIRT organization and the track is discussing it. They are the ones who will effect change--not some folks on a homesteading forum without experience or expertise.


That's a fair point.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I will add something that I didn't think to mention in my previous post with regards to the throttle blipping.
My experience isn't with sprints, but with street stocks, but it doesn't change anything. On a dirt track, traction is everything. Drivers will do anything and everything to increase traction. Siping tires with a razor blade, using different lengths and weights of springs in different corners of the car, etc. When your rear tires lose traction, you are no longer in control of your car. 
Another thing that is done, and evident in the videos of this accident, under caution, cars will allow extra space between themselves and the car in front of them going into a curve, then they will blip the throttle into the curve, doing this allows the rear tires to spin, which heats them up and expands the traction grooves. 
Watch any dirt track race, be it street stocks, sprints, modifieds, super streets, late models, etc, they all do it. 
This accident happened on the exit of a turn, that's likely why you can hear multiple throttle blips. It's unfortunate, but, there is only one person responsible for this young kid getting killed, and that is himself.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry those who think that Stewart did this on purpose need to actually do something competitively..
> 
> Tempers always flare up when competing. It's part of the mindset Sadly this young 20 yo had a temper also and he apparently tried to beat a car with his body.. Foolish choice on his part!
> 
> ...


 I just watched a interview with some Legal Beagle that was on Fox Sports, and IF they find ANY evidence that Tony REALLY did hit the gas as MOST everyone that drives these types of cars KNOWS they will Swing Right on putting your foot on the gas.
IF they DO find this is what Tony did, not to Kill him, but to scare the you know what out of Ward.
He COULD be Charged with 2nd Degree manslaughter. 1 to 15 years with the sentence more going to the high side toward 15. 
They will have to get ALL the film and footage possible to get all angles in the investigation But Right Now IMO it Does NOT look good for Tony S.


> *Legal ramifications for Tony Stewart*
> AUG 10 2014 11:13PM ET
> Rob Becker discusses the possible legal ramifications for Tony Stewart following the tragic passing of Kevin Ward Jr.


http://www.foxsports.com/nascar/video?vid=317063747578


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

How is it the guy walking couldn't get his angry self out of the way, but you expect a driver to get his car out of the way during a race?
Even a Raven can hop out of traffic from the middle of the road. Never a need to swerve around a Raven. Same for a person standing in the road. If you can see a car coming, you can get out of the way. EXCEPT when you think you can stop a race car with your finger. Pedestrian right away on a race track? I think not.
Just watch:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE7nJHSZNxI[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> How is it the guy walking couldn't get his angry self out of the way, but you expect a driver to get his car out of the way during a race?
> Even a Raven can hop out of traffic from the middle of the road. Never a need to swerve around a Raven. Same for a person standing in the road. If you can see a car coming, you can get out of the way. EXCEPT when you think you can stop a race car with your finger. Pedestrian right away on a race track? I think not.
> Just watch:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE7nJHSZNxI


Dirt track is a bit of a misnomer. Most of these tracks have a heavy clay base which provides the slippery yet grippy surface that allows for sliding through corners. Combine that slipperiness with a banked corner and driver shoes that have no traction and there is no manueverabilty for anyone standing where Ward was.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

No way do I belive Tony did this deliberatly. The hothead has been told a million times stay in your car, only if car is burning get out, then stay WITH your car. I bet Tony was shocked to see him standing there.
Ofcourse car will swing right, the cars are set up to make lefthand turns all day. Trying to hit the peddle gently in a panic is another thing.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I know squat about car racing, zero interest..but I'm curious why so many refer to the one guy driving buy his first name and the dead guy by his last name?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> I know squat about car racing, zero interest..but I'm curious why so many refer to the one guy driving buy his first name and the dead guy by his last name?


Probably because Tony is so popular, just familarity. Some of the guys are known mostly by firsts and some by last. Dale Jr. is just known as Jr. arround here.Then there is Crybaby Bush, Tony Stewart is also known by "smoke"...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes even in WI you ask "how did Jr. do?" And everyone into Nascar Knows you are talking about Dale Earnhardt Jr.
And even the announcers are using first names. Danica was running in the top twenty. Not using her last name Patrick.
And then like not so high up drivers they use the last name. As in this "Menard had trouble with his brakes". They didn't say Paul had trouble.
So YES it is how popular that driver is as to how people use their name.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

back in the 70's I raced a home made sportsman class stock car at Keen NH. It was on hot top and it was the only track I was ever on. I made my own frame from 2 x 4 .080 wall steel tubing. all the other uses car frames. I do understand what happened even though it was a dirt track.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

As huge race fans, we've been to every type of track you can imagine. Something to consider in this whole thing is that those sprint dirt tracks are not as lit up as bright as that video looks. Plus, Ward had on a dark firesuit and there is no way that Stewart would have ever expected him to even be on the track, let alone see him coming at him to see him quick enough to avoid hitting him. 

As far as if Smoke intentionally spun him out, absolutely not. There's not the control on either a sprint car nor a dirt track like you see on the Sunday Nascar races. Sprint is as distant from Sunday Nascar as a lawn mower is to a 4 wheel drive tractor. What you see in the video is just racing and what happens when two cars get close together when they are approaching a turn. Remember that cars don't "turn" going around the curves (turns), they literally "slide" around the turns so it's not like you have a whole lot of control when it comes to someone coming in beside you.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I've never been involved in track racing but I knew quite a few people who did the demo derbys. One rule that was never to be disobeyed was "if your car is disabled STAY IN IT", unless it's on fire.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Dirt track is a bit of a misnomer. Most of these tracks have a heavy clay base which provides the slippery yet grippy surface that allows for sliding through corners. Combine that slipperiness with a banked corner and driver shoes that have no traction and there is no manueverabilty for anyone standing where Ward was.


So the surface is so slick an angry pedestrian couldn't have gotten out of traffic, but a man driving a race car could have maneuvered around him? I see.:yuck:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The tires are slicks, that is why they can SLIDE around corners. There is no tread so if they can go into a slide.
Here is a picture of the Nascar Truck Race on Dirt. Ya dirt. Hard Hard Packed CLAY.
Look how Shiny that surface is.

And oh BTW this track that these Nascar trucks are racing on, is in Ohio and is OWNED by Tony Stewart~!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

[YOUTUBE] ?v=-fTtwdQNtU8[/YOUTUBE]

And Sprint type cars look and drive a WHOLE LOT Different then this truck race a whole lot different as they Slide a bunch more around the corners. Almost a Difting as those who know what that is. LOL


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I haven't watched the video more than once, quickly. I would hope it was all a tragic set of mistakes that went terribly wrong.
I would never defend anyone who did that on purpose, but all the calls for criminal charges are going to be outside the scope here.
This didn't happen on a public street. Those weren't street legal cars driving posted speed limits. What was going on is illegal anywhere outside of a track, and all the drivers sign tons of paperwork before they get behind the wheel.
I don't know the outcome, but I doubt it will end in a criminal trial.


----------



## snowlady (Aug 1, 2011)

Stay in the car! Then there would be no story today. It is pretty harsh to say, but when you have a dangerous job or hobby, things happen.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If he would have turned the front wheels to the left, the car would have swung out and hit the pedestrian broadside. Keeping the car in the same slide as the rest of the cars, still might have clipped the pedestrian. To avoid hitting the pedestrian, the only thing he could do is straighten the car out, in this case by turning to the right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> So the surface is so slick an angry pedestrian couldn't have gotten out of traffic, but a man driving a race car could have maneuvered around him? I see.:yuck:


You asked why a man standing on the track might have trouble maneuvering out of the way. I answered. I said nothing about Tony Stewart's actions. For the record I don't think he did anything with malice or could have done much to avoid hitting Ward. The same track conditions that make standing on them safely limit the responses of the cars. See now?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The tires are slicks, that is why they can SLIDE around corners. There is no tread so if they can go into a slide.
> Here is a picture of the Nascar Truck Race on Dirt. Ya dirt. Hard Hard Packed CLAY.
> Look how Shiny that surface is.
> 
> And oh BTW this track that these Nascar trucks are racing on, is in Ohio and is OWNED by Tony Stewart~!



If that picture is from this years race, then if I remember correctly Darrell "Bubba" Wallace Jr. won the race.

The track name is Eldora if I remember correctly. It was good to see Bubba win even though I don't like his team owner. Let me rephrase that I "love" to hate Kyle Bush.:nana:


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Another driver reported he saw Ward as clear as day. But the cover up has been going on since it happened. Obama says he likes Stewart Just fooling. I think Stewart will walk. And no matter what people say about him, in the heat of battle I believe he would try to clip someone. Not meaning to kill them just scare them.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Not sure what kind of dirt track but the tires are usually hand groved, for each track. Not slicks


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

not sure what motors they use now, but we used to make a slant 4 from a 283 Chevy V8 engine. I never did the work but have seen one. And they would run slow enough to get around the track at 40 mph. I guess I am dating myself.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

They have another video and the police are supposed to get some racing experts to help study it. And a driver said he had no trouble seeing Ward and avoiding him. they weren't running that hard. when it happened. I think the yellow was out.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

sweep sweep sweep under the carpet


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

davel745 said:


> sweep sweep sweep under the carpet


 Now why in the world would you say such a thing?
This is still under investigation. And even IF Tony does not see the state going after him the PARENTS sure as heck WILL.
The father has already come out and said he was very angry at what Tony did.
And the FAMILY can and I bet WILL go after Tony themselves for a charge of Negligent Homicide.
This is Far far far from over, and it will NOT be sweep sweep sweep under the carpet.~
Tony has already said he is not competing in ANY racing for the time being. This is too high of a profile case. It will NOT be just a slap on the hand like you maybe are thinking. it will. And NASCAR will NOT let any bad press for the good of racing. And it may even take actions themselves against Tony WHEN THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> ow why in the world would you say such a thing?


Uneducated minds....


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I still don't understand why Tony would be blamed for anything except an accident-he wasen't the one that was MAD. He had no reason to run down anyone.


----------



## JDPugh (Mar 10, 2014)

First I am not a Tony Stewart fan, I am a 30 years racing fan however. Couple of points here.

From what I see the original crash where Stewart and he got together looks like normal racing incident for sprint cars. Ward tried to pass on the high side as they both were power sliding thru the turn...they touched and he hit the wall. Happens several times every night in sprint car racing. This crash was quite minor compared to others I have seen. I really doubt Stewart "took him out". I do not see that it was nearly bad enough or flagrant enough for the reaction he had maybe he was showboating a bit since it was Tony Stewart.

These cars are not made to stop on a dime, the track is slick with little braking grip. I have seen many racing incidents where the driver stands on the track and gestures, throws his helmet etc. I do not recall ever seeing one come down into the racing groove with the cars still moving on the track. Granted he was mad...but that was a serious mistake...in this case a fatal mistake. The blue and white car ahead of Stewart had to take fairly evasive action to miss him...yet Ward then came further down the track almost directly in front of Stewart. Had the blue and white car hit him we would heard very little of this incident at all, but because its Tony Stewart who hit him its big news.

The microphone in the recording seems to be completely across the track at the point where this accident took place, so the sound you hear could be Stewart's or could be another car closer to the microphone but out of view.

It's easy to point fingers here, I know Stewart has a temper but its pretty clear that the other guy did as well and as as far as I can tell he was at least as negligent as Tony Stewart.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't bring your pointy finger to a race in progress.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

I feel badly for the kid's family and loved ones...but it sure seems like he lost his temper and "accidentally committed suicide".


----------



## JDPugh (Mar 10, 2014)

I think one of the best things that can come of this is for NASCAR (this was not NASCAR) as well as all the other race sanctioning organizations put some teeth to the rules about leaving your car. Also, the racers who have made it to this elite level remember that they just like NBA, NFL & MLB Players are "role models" to younger drivers as well as future drivers and act accordingly in these type situations.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tony Stewart is retiring for good and selling all his race teams and assets!

NOT TRUE!!!


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Huh????


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya really that was not even funny.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't bring your pointy finger to a race in progress.


+++++++++
Don't stand in the middle of a track with a race in progress!:sob:


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Tony didn't do it on purpose. He give it gas to get on by.

I raced dirt track many years ago and seen it many times. Someone mad running on the track and the one their mad at gases it to get by them.

big rockpile


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Huh????


Someone sent me a link to a racing site and also a news outlet that said he was. I can't post links from my phone.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ya really that was not even funny.


News outlets are reporting this! No, it's not funny. That's why I said NOT TRUE!


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

it's so sad but he shouldn't have gotten out of his car. I don't think Tony saw him, with his dark clothes and all, or if he did it was too late. jmo. ~Georgia.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The whole thing is a mess. It's very sad when one reads comments that seem to indicate that a young person deserved to die because if an impulsive mistake. It's sad that A senior driver has such a reputation for being a hothead that it is assumed he would harm another person deliberately. 

It is even more sad that the lives of both are being publicly judged in the media rather than simply waiting for the police to complete their investigation.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nascar put in new driver rules from this. 
No one can Leave their car unless it is on fire, or filled with smoke. Period~! TheyMUST stay in the car until the safety crews are in place.
And no driver can step out on the racing surface when the rest of the cars are going by. They have at times done this many shaking their hands at the so called driver that caused something to happen, some have even thrown their helmet at the driver they THINK cause them to wreck. And so on. No more of these kind of things will be tolerated.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

All proving once again, safety rules must be made to protect idiots from themselves.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> All proving once again, safety rules must be made to protect idiots from themselves.


I disagree. Rules like this are put in place to make people feel like they have sufficient power to prevent something that's likely not going to happen again, from happening again.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

wr said:


> I disagree. Rules like this are put in place to make people feel like they have sufficient power to prevent something that's likely not going to happen again, from happening again.


You think so?
When people lack common sense and do absolutely stupid things, rules and warnings have to be issued, otherwise, due to our fine legal system, people can, and likely will sue someone else over their own stupidity.
Case and point, I once bought a set of micro precision screw drivers, on the label inside the box was a warning, " do not insert into penis"
Now, do you honestly think they would have thought to put that warning on the label if simeone hadnt already been stupid enough to do it?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> You think so?
> 
> When people lack common sense and do absolutely stupid things, rules and warnings have to be issued, otherwise, due to our fine legal system, people can, and likely will sue someone else over their own stupidity.
> 
> ...



My point exactly. If it wasn't a translation problem, I'm pretty sure it's not a problem that's significant enough to event warrant a warning but it made somebody in an office feel better for including it.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

............I'm a firm believer in publishing 100% of all pics and info such as the video showing Stewart hitting the other driver(I can't remember his name!) . Anytime any information is withheld from the public , it almost always revolves around the entity or organization , formulating their presentation designed by a PR firm to minimize their culpability relative to the damage done to innocent bystanders . 
............When Unedited video's are available for immediate public consumption , it follows that there will be all kinds of idiotic interpretations pushing the envelope of logical consequences . I can live with that because the longer information is withheld from public viewing the greater the damage that the public suffered because some fool made a bad decision OR the glaring realization that a 'RULE' should have been in Place to prevent such accidents . Police departments , the military , etc. will always try and hide their malfeasance behind a veil of official BS to prevent the public from holding them accountable for their actions. , fordy


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

There again, due to our legal system, the ding dong with a screw driver in his ding dong could have sued
The company who made the screw drivers stating he didn't know it could hurt him. Obviously shows lack of sense, but with the right lawyers, he could have won. The company issues a warning to protect themselves against frivolous law suits.
Just as NASCAR, they issue that warning to protect themselves. If not, later down the road, some hot head driver could pull a stupid stunt, run in front of another car, get hit and killed.
If that happened, his family could sue NASCAR, stating they should have issued rules forbidding drivers from doing that.
They could state, it has happened before, and might not have happened this time if nascar would have warned drivers against it.
It's common sense, man, use your noodle, this has nothing to do with a big wig on a power trip trying to puff up his own ego, its all about protecting themselves from frivolous law suits by people who aren't smart enough to protect themselves from themselves.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> There again, due to our legal system, the ding dong with a screw driver in his ding dong could have sued
> The company who made the screw drivers stating he didn't know it could hurt him. Obviously shows lack of sense, but with the right lawyers, he could have won. The company issues a warning to protect themselves against frivolous law suits.
> Just as NASCAR, they issue that warning to protect themselves. If not, later down the road, some hot head driver could pull a stupid stunt, run in front of another car, get hit and killed.
> If that happened, his family could sue NASCAR, stating they should have issued rules forbidding drivers from doing that.
> ...



I'm not a man and my noodle works just fine. 

I did forget that your country is big on suing at the drop of a hat.

Ironically, if you weren't so determined to win a debate, you might have caught a touch of humour in my words.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Sorry, wr, no disrespect intended, I guess I assumed you were a guy. And yes, people in the USA can and many will, sue over anything and everything.
And there was not so much a determination to "win", only to be blatantly clear about FACTS. That said, please point out what was supposed to be interpretted as humor in your post...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Sorry, wr, no disrespect intended, I guess I assumed you were a guy. And yes, people in the USA can and many will, sue over anything and everything.
> And there was not so much a determination to "win", only to be blatantly clear about FACTS. That said, please point out what was supposed to be interpretted as humor in your post...



The facts are simply that it's happened once in how many years. You can make a rule every time something odd happens but it doesn't make anything safer. 

I may mistaken but I would assume that racers sign a liability waiver before they compete so more rules lead to more loopholes for litigation.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

You are absolutely correct, making rules doesn't make anything safer, but by making the rules, an entity does more to protect themselves from liability.

And yes, racers do have to sign a liability waiver, I use to have to sign one every week upon entering the track. But, prime example here, I'm sure NASCAR drivers sign a waiver with a hold harmless clause between the driver, his team owner, and NASCAR, but NASCAR still enforces new rules to protect drivers. Think the HANS device that was suggested previously, but not enforced until Dale Earnhardt was killed.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

W/the warnings they have on some things, you really have to wonder. I got a set of solar lights, the kind you just stick in the ground. Included in the warnings was to wear safety goggles when installing, keep bystanders out of the area, and not to assemble when tiered or under the influence of drugs or medication. Since the only "assembly" and set up is to remove the top, turn on the light, replace top and shove the end into the ground, I wonder why they had to have all these warnings.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The drivers must of gotten the message during yesterdays Michigan race a driver hit the wall and his car caught on fire. The spotter had to tell him to get out of the car. He was in no hurry to leave the car, even when it was burning.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

7thswan said:


> I still don't understand why Tony would be blamed for anything except an accident-he wasen't the one that was MAD. He had no reason to run down anyone.


You do not know that he was not MAD. TS has a long and well documented history of being mad on the track. Watch his interviews and you'll see all the accidents he has ever been involved with were the result of the stupid, reckless actions of someone else. I've never once seen him say, my bad, I did whatever wrong. If TS saw someone angrily wagging a finger at him, TS would most likely be mad. 

That is not to say I believe TS deliberately hit the guy. I don't think we will ever know that for sure. Do I believe TS would try to scare Ward or just throw mud on him by spinning the tires, absolutely. 

Not that this has anything to do with TS's guilt or not, but I've seen small track drivers deliberately crash their car head on into a competitor parked in the pits in a fit of post race anger. Crazy stuff happens on those small tracks all the time that never makes it to the national press. This one went national only because of Tony Stewart. If it had been Home Town Joe driving the killer car, it might have been a 5 second news spot and already forgotten by most everyone outside of that community.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Tony Stewart will NOT face charges.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...........Justice for Ward has been served even though TS got let off the hook ! You can bet TS has had the crap scared out of him waiting on the Grand Jury to make up their minds on his culpability in this matter . 
...........I'll bet he is a Changed man , and has been truly humbled by the whole process ...........Now he has to face a Civil Damages trial which may end up costing him his racing business and lots of cash besides . , fordy


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"NASCAR champion Tony Stewart will reportedly not face charges in the death of fellow driver driver Kevin Ward Jr.
Ward was hit and killed in a horrifying crash that was caught on film last month, but a grand jury decided today that they will not bring up charges against Stewart,TMZ reports. 
At an afternoon press conference announcing the decision, Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo made the startling revelation that Ward was under the influence of marijuana the night he was hit and that there was enough of the drug in his system 'to impair judgement'. "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...charges-crash-killed-drier.html#ixzz3EGTa9cMt 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

fordy said:


> ...........Justice for Ward has been served even though TS got let off the hook ! You can bet TS has had the crap scared out of him waiting on the Grand Jury to make up their minds on his culpability in this matter .
> ...........I'll bet he is a Changed man , and has been truly humbled by the whole process ...........Now he has to face a Civil Damages trial which may end up costing him his racing business and lots of cash besides . , fordy


Or he might be a bigger jerk than ever now...I don't know much about him and I'm not saying he was a jerk before, but often times that happens after something like this even if the person did nothing wrong. His business is probably structured in a way that they can't take it for a judgment against him.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Gonna be hard to sue Stewart in civil court, when the victim was high and not in control of his faculties.

Sounds more like a Darwin Award...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Gonna be hard to sue Stewart in civil court, when the victim was high and not in control of his faculties.
> 
> Sounds more like a Darwin Award...


A. You don't know the victim was high, only that he had some residual amount of THC. Ward had gotten thru a pre-race inspection, time trials, and driven some high speed laps so he obviously had some control of his faculties.
B. Even if the victim was stoned out of his mind, that doesn't given TS a pass to kill him. 

But regardless, I don't think any of that matters. I don't know how anyone can prove TS was negligent or malicious in this matter or how Ward going out on the track was not a significant contributing factor in his death. And I don't think TS is the sort of person to settle a suit if there is one because he is stubborn and how it would make him look to race fans.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> Or he might be a bigger jerk than ever now...I don't know much about him and I'm not saying he was a jerk before, but often times that happens after something like this even if the person did nothing wrong. His business is probably structured in a way that they can't take it for a judgment against him.


He has frequently been a major jerk, but he has also been a very kind, caring, and giving person. And I suspect noneof that will change. Like most of us, he is not a one dimensional caricature of a man, as we so often see portrayed on TV. He's a very good driver and businessman, but I've never cared for him because he is a big time whiner whenever things don't go his way. 

And none of this proves anything about his guilt or innocence.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> A. You don't know the victim was high, only that he had some residual amount of THC. Ward had gotten thru a pre-race inspection, time trials, and driven some high speed laps so he obviously had some control of his faculties..





painterswife said:


> , Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo made the startling revelation that Ward was under the influence of marijuana the night he was hit and that there was enough of the drug in his system *'to impair judgement'. "
> *



:buds:

Seems like a fairly good assumption.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> [/U][/B]
> :buds:
> 
> Seems like a fairly good assumption.


Regardless, if you are stoned and I shoot you because I'm negligently playing with a gun or had intentionally fired with the intent to miss but scare you, I'm still guilty of a crime. Your mental impairment is not relevant. 

If I accidentally shoot you because stoned or not, you ran into the middle of a well marked shooting range, then I haven't committed a crime. I think that is a bit of a stretch, but it is apparently how the grand jury saw it. 

One thing to note is that double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries. If the DA finds new evidence, a new grand jury can be convened and possibly bring charges against TS.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> A. You don't know the victim was high, only that he had some residual amount of THC. Ward had gotten thru a pre-race inspection, time trials, and driven some high speed laps so he obviously had some control of his faculties.
> B. Even if the victim was stoned out of his mind, that doesn't given TS a pass to kill him.
> 
> But regardless, I don't think any of that matters. I don't know how anyone can prove TS was negligent or malicious in this matter or how Ward going out on the track was not a significant contributing factor in his death. And I don't think TS is the sort of person to settle a suit if there is one because he is stubborn and how it would make him look to race fans.


Fact, not conjecture: The facts show that the victim had enough THC in his system to impair judgement.

Fact, not conjecture: The Grand Jury did not indict Stewart, because there was not enough evidence to prove that this was anything but an accident.

Fact, not conjecture : If the young man had stayed in his car, instead of acting like a brain damaged idiot, he would still be alive today.

Opinion: If you are going to drive large pieces of metal at extremely high speed, you have to be an absolute idiot to have enough chemical in your blood stream to effect judgement.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Fact, not conjecture: The facts show that the victim had enough THC in his system to impair judgement.
> 
> Fact, not conjecture: The Grand Jury did not indict Stewart, because there was not enough evidence to prove that this was anything but an accident.
> 
> ...


Agreed, and as I have pointed out, most of it is irrelevant. Unless new video showed something we have not seen or TS made a really stupid statement, we will never know what was in his head. I think the grand jury was done just for show because without knowing TS's intent, we can't know if he did anything intentional.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Big difference between enough to impair judgment and "not in control of his faculties."


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Big difference between enough to impair judgment and "not in control of his faculties."


In the middle of a racetrack, I think you are arguing a distinction without much difference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

One does not have to be staggering drunk to get a DUI.
Just Enough to cause IMPAIRED Driving and you get a DUI change same thing here. Was JUST ENOUGH to have a probable cause to impure his driving. Period. End OF story, end of trial.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Jolly said:


> In the middle of a racetrack, I think you are arguing a distinction without much difference.


Not really arguing...just saying big difference. The wording of the official was not precise enough to draw any conclusions.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

So the lesson to be learned here folks......
If ya get high and try to get in to a fight with a race car, chances are good that the race car will win.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Regardless, if you are stoned and I shoot you because I'm negligently playing with a gun or had intentionally fired with the intent to miss but scare you, I'm still guilty of a crime. Your mental impairment is not relevant.
> 
> If I accidentally shoot you because stoned or not, you ran into the middle of a well marked shooting range, then I haven't committed a crime. I think that is a bit of a stretch, but it is apparently how the grand jury saw it.
> 
> One thing to note is that double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries. If the DA finds new evidence, a new grand jury can be convened and possibly bring charges against TS.



If you are stoned and walk on to an active Rifle range, who is at fault if you get shot?

I suspect you will blame the shooters, while neglecting your own actions of walking onto an active rifle range.

Ward walked onto an active race track and approached a vehicle/Sprint car from the right side where the view is limited.. 

Yet you want to blame the driver and not the hothead who walked into race traffic..


I can only assume that we can now blame the sober driver in drunk driver accidents. Or at least according to your standards of guilt/responsibility.

Forget the fact that Ward walked into an active racing lane were vehicles were running. 
Forget the fact that he had THC in his system.
Forget the fact that visibility is limited on that side of the vehicle.
Forget the fact that Ward was acting like a hothead..

Amazing!!!!! Personal responsibility is dead.. It's always someone else fault.
Never the person perpetuating the action's fault..

Wow, just wow.. (shaking head in disbelief)


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I belive there is something else that must be considered in these kinds of sports, Adrenaline. It makes people do/say/act in ways many "normal" people don't.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

You have completely misinterpreted my words or not read the message to which you are responding. 




beowoulf90 said:


> If you are stoned and walk on to an active Rifle range, who is at fault if you get shot?
> 
> *I have already answered that Q. It is the stoned guy's fault.
> *
> ...


You should shake your head in disbelief because if you've got it all wrong, at least in regard to my comments. 

THC in his system is a boogy man phrase. Without knowing how much, you have no idea what his mental state was. Other drivers have done far more hot headed and dangerous things on race tracks, but they weren't killed. I don't know the specific procedures at that track, but at the short track I am very familiar with, a driver could not get thru all the prerace check in, driver's meeting, and car weigh in if he was acting like Cheech and Chong.

I have consistently not blamed TS, who is also a well known hot head. I've merely commented on the merits of the DA's case against TS and the possibility of a law suit by Ward's family. Several folks here have made erroneous or merit-less assumptions based on faulty logic, assumptions that they knew Tony's thoughts at the time, or how a criminal or civil case would play out. 

Where others have commented on TS's anger or lack of anger, I said we can't know either way and that we will never know if he intended to scare Ward, sling mud on Ward, or was simply driving his car in a normal manner under yellow flag conditions and did not see Ward soon enough to swerve away. 

If there is a civil suit, even if Ward played a major role in causing his own death, depending on the law's of that state TS can still lose the suit. As I understand it, and IANAL, in some state's you have to prove TS was more than 50% at fault but in some state's it does not have to be that high. I'm fairly sure that in any state, TS does not have to be 100% at fault to lose a civil suit. If there are any lawyers out there that want to give a more educated comment on this, I would love to hear it. 

Lastly, I am big time into personal responsibility. However, the court system doesn't really care what I think.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> You have completely misinterpreted my words or not read the message to which you are responding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thing in your post that caught my attention was where you said everyone else missed him. That could be because he didn't approach anyone else's car. After all it was Tony he was upset at.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> The thing in your post that caught my attention was where you said everyone else missed him. That could be because he didn't approach anyone else's car. After all it was Tony he was upset at.


a valid point.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

The coroner's findings were that the THC level caused impairment. Not residual levels, but impairment. That's going to be a serum level, not a urine level, since THC hangs around a long time in the fat cells and subsequently a person's urine, where serum THC does not.

I suspect the average juror, when he hears the word "impaired", thinks drunk or stoned. In this case, stoned.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> The coroner's findings were that the THC level caused impairment. Not residual levels, but impairment. That's going to be a serum level, not a urine level, since THC hangs around a long time in the fat cells and subsequently a person's urine, where serum THC does not.
> 
> I suspect the average juror, when he hears the word "impaired", thinks drunk or stoned. In this case, stoned.


That's all true, but nothing Ward did, running out on the track, smoking dope, being stupid, etc absolves TS of all guilt in a criminal or civil case *IF* it can be shown that TS intentionally targeted Ward. Presenting the evidence of the THC levels is not a Perry Mason moment that ends the trial like it appears some of you think. It is merely one piece of data that blurs the chances of success for Ward's family in a civil trial. And I'll say again, I don't think we'll ever see convincing evidence of TS targeting Ward unless new vid or something like a friend of Tony steps up and admits that Tony admitted it was intentional. 

And I'm not saying TS intentionally ran him down, he might have, but we don't have evidence to prove it. 

The reason why I usually avoid these threads on legal cases is most folks pick a favorite side and twist every little fact to "prove" their position, ignoring the law, legal process, and other evidence. I don't have a side in this one, I'm merely interested in racing and TS missing three races caused me to lose a bet. It is also a pet peeve of mine when I see people touting a position with faulty logic.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

If you run out onto the highway and get run over who's fault is it?

Yours or the driver, who some will say had road rage?

It seems that some here will blame the driver.

They will absolve the person on foot of any responsibility, even when it is shown that they were the one "raging"..

Oh and as far as the drug testing goes. I understand it and know how it works. In fact in 1982 I received and ARCOM (Army Commendation) for the work I did in that area. While I may not be "up to date" on all the procedures, I understand the techniques. 

Also at one point there was a video out (SUPPOSEDLY) showing Ward jumping onto Stewart's car holding on to the wing and then slipping off while trying to kick Stewart. It was only up for about an hour. The video wasn't up long enough to verify it and I haven't seen it since.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> That's all true, but nothing Ward did, running out on the track, smoking dope, being stupid, etc absolves TS of all guilt in a criminal or civil case *IF* it can be shown that TS intentionally targeted Ward. Presenting the evidence of the THC levels is not a Perry Mason moment that ends the trial like it appears some of you think. It is merely one piece of data that blurs the chances of success for Ward's family in a civil trial. And I'll say again, I don't think we'll ever see convincing evidence of TS targeting Ward unless new vid or something like a friend of Tony steps up and admits that Tony admitted it was intentional.
> 
> And I'm not saying TS intentionally ran him down, he might have, but we don't have evidence to prove it.
> 
> The reason why I usually avoid these threads on legal cases is most folks pick a favorite side and twist every little fact to "prove" their position, ignoring the law, legal process, and other evidence. I don't have a side in this one, I'm merely interested in racing and TS missing three races caused me to lose a bet. It is also a pet peeve of mine when I see people touting a position with faulty logic.


Since the Grand Jury returned a No Bill on Stewart, the question of whether he criminally targeted Ward has been rendered.

The only remaining legal action will take place in a wrongful death civil suit. Since Ward's THC levels will be admissable, I think it's a very tall hill to climb, to prove negligence on Stewart's part.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Since the Grand Jury returned a No Bill on Stewart, the question of whether he criminally targeted Ward has been rendered.


It's not necessarily that final. If more evidence somehow comes to light, a grand jury can still indict him. Very unlikely, but it could happen.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he hopped.

I'd say the chance of revisiting Stewart's indictment is approaching null.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Since the Grand Jury returned a No Bill on Stewart, the question of whether he criminally targeted Ward has been rendered.
> 
> The only remaining legal action will take place in a wrongful death civil suit. Since Ward's THC levels will be admissable, I think it's a very tall hill to climb, to prove negligence on Stewart's part.


See, this is the type of uninformed nonsense I was trying to correct. You have it wrong but since you didn't pay attention to the first explanation, I won't bother a second time.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

beowoulf90 said:


> If you run out onto the highway and get run over who's fault is it?
> 
> Yours or the driver, who some will say had road rage?
> 
> ...


Who is it that you think absolve Ward of all responsibility? Use a name. Otherwise, you're just creating a strawman to argue against a position I don't see anyone taking. 

It would be interesting to see that vid you're talking about. If it is real, it is hard to believe it wouldn 't be on the net.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he hopped.
> 
> I'd say the chance of revisiting Stewart's indictment is approaching null.


And on what basis to you create these odds of another grand jury? I think you are most likely correct that on a criminal basis we have seen the end of it, but by your prior statement, I don't believe you understand what a grand jury is all about.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Since the Grand Jury returned a No Bill on Stewart, the question of whether he criminally targeted Ward has been rendered.
> 
> The only remaining legal action will take place in a wrongful death civil suit. Since Ward's THC levels will be admissable, I think it's a very tall hill to climb, to prove negligence on Stewart's part.


Yes that civil suit now if it does go forward is weaken substantially. Which isa a good thing as TS has come out now and said it was a 100% Accident, and not intentional at all. And with the GJ verdict mow stating TS as not being at fault the Civil Suit will have a hard time proving other wise.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> The reason why I usually avoid these threads on legal cases is most folks pick a favorite side and twist every little fact to "prove" their position, ignoring the law, legal process, and other evidence. I don't have a side in this one, I'm merely interested in racing and TS missing three races caused me to lose a bet. It is also a pet peeve of mine when I see people touting a position with faulty logic.


:hijacked:

Usually most people don't have a clue how the law actually works.
More than once Ive seen a jury totally mystified when the judge issues the jury instructions. You can literally see them shift gears and think to themselves "Huh? we are deliberating THAT I thought it was something else!"
My pet peeve in arguments is when people accept feelings as Fact and cannot separate the two.:facepalm:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> And on what basis to you create these odds of another grand jury? I think you are most likely correct that on a criminal basis we have seen the end of it, but by your prior statement, I don't believe you understand what a grand jury is all about.


Could you give me an example or two of when a grand jury has been created a second time to look at such a high profile case as this, when this much evidence has been available?

I understand what a grand jury is about. I also understand a bit about human nature. I even understand how money can buy a vigorous defense in court, be it criminal or civil. I also understand DA's are elected and politics can certainly filter who gets charged with what.

Absent a smoking gun, which is highly, highly unlikely, the criminal side of this case is done.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> And on what basis to you create these odds of another grand jury? I think you are most likely correct that on a criminal basis we have seen the end of it, but by your prior statement, I don't believe you understand what a grand jury is all about.


I would base it on the fact that cases almost never go before a second grand jury. When they do its only after some huge new evidence is found or there's political pressure.

I can not recall a single case which was taken before a second jury much less where a second jury returned a true bill after the first refused to do so.

FYI, I do know a little how they work because I've been on two of them. And from what I've seen from the inside there has to be almost NO evidence to support the case for the DA not to get a true bill.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> And with the GJ verdict mow stating TS as not being at fault the Civil Suit will have a hard time proving other wise.


See, this is what gets my panties in a bunch. The GJ has not said that TS is not at fault. They do not get to make that call. But I don't blame you for saying that because many of the headlines read something along the lines of "TS cleared by GJ". All the GJ can do is authorize an indictment or not. Depending on the state, there may not be any judge or defense present, it is simply a tool to help the DA decide if there is sufficient evidence to take the case to trial. 

As I have said, without TS saying something stupid to indicate his guilt or new video, I just can't imagine how they would ever get enough evidence to show it was a road rage type incident.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> Could you give me an example or two of when a grand jury has been created a second time to look at such a high profile case as this, when this much evidence has been available?
> 
> I understand what a grand jury is about. I also understand a bit about human nature. I even understand how money can buy a vigorous defense in court, be it criminal or civil. I also understand DA's are elected and politics can certainly filter who gets charged with what.
> 
> Absent a smoking gun, which is highly, highly unlikely, the criminal side of this case is done.


Google "second grand jury" and you'll see lots of cases. As high profile? You be the judge. 

And I agree, no smoking gun, no further criminal action.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Was pretty clear from the beginning that a couple minutes of blind rage took over Ward and he got himself killed.

Due process has to take its course, and of course someone died, they have to investigate it which the grand jury is part of.

TS has been a hothead in his past and has a lot of fans and a lot of detractors. Of course the die hard fans and detractors will take their sides on this based on their beliefs, not the facts. It won't pay to talk or debate with anyone that has their mind made up based on their love or hate for TS.......

I feel bad for the Ward family, they lost their guy. That is a lot of pain and soreness and misery. I can't imagine, and feel bad for them.

I hope they get the start of the healing process and get some good counciling to move on with their lives, and honor their lost man. And not chase after clearly uncalled for lawsuits and dollar bills.

This was a pretty easy deal to figure out from right away, but due process needs to be followed and takes time.

End of story.

Paul


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> See, this is what gets my panties in a bunch. The GJ has not said that TS is not at fault. They do not get to make that call. But I don't blame you for saying that because many of the headlines read something along the lines of "TS cleared by GJ". All the GJ can do is authorize an indictment or not. Depending on the state, there may not be any judge or defense present, it is simply a tool to help the DA decide if there is sufficient evidence to take the case to trial.
> 
> As I have said, without TS saying something stupid to indicate his guilt or new video, I just can't imagine how they would ever get enough evidence to show it was a road rage type incident.


Most lawyers will look at it this way: If there's not enough evidence for a DA to even convince a grand jury to return a true bill there's probably not enough to convince an appeal judge if I manage to convince a jury at trial

The best they could hope for is Stewart would settle out of court just to make it go away.


----------

