Tony Stewart hits and kills another driver

[TXHawk]

No one is suggesting he was angry enough to want to harm the kid, that's the unfortunate part. There's no motivation for murder, that's why it's not murder.

There's is plenty of motivation for him to want to 'buzz' the kid. The kid was trying to show him up, be on the track, pretend like he belongs. Stewart is a competitor at the top of his game, it's not that odd for him to want to say, 'sit down kid'.

So he decided all this in the maybe two seconds (if that) he had that he even knew the kid was on the track? The driver of the 45 car ahead of Stewart that almost hit Ward told his mechanic that he didn't see him at all until the last second and Ward would have been obscured from Stewart's vision by that car. So you're saying that Stewart, who had no reason to be angry at all when the caution came out, became instantly inflamed by some anonymous guy on the track he probably had no idea was angry at him and decided to teach him a lesson?

You're playing a whole lot of "let's read Tony Stewart's mind" here. Are you psychic? If you are how about passing on rhe numbers for the next Powerball!

 

[Anonymous]

I have no quarrel in this fight but as a person who doesn't watch much car racing, from my uninformed view of the video I feel like I can reasonably assume that Stewart intentionally tried to scare the kid a bit when he apparently hit the throttle and tried to get close to him (Stewart is one of the best drivers in the world, so he knows what he is doing). That assumption might be wrong because I simply don't know how one drives in a car like Stewart was driving, but on a first glance, that is what I thought happened.

It happens on regular roads all the time. How many times have you seen some idiot jay walking with oncoming traffic, slowly and almost deliberately, almost rubbing it in and saying to themselves, "I'm a Carter-is-an-idiot...sorry you need to get to work quickly, but this is my world." (I see this crap all the time on Rainier Ave, where intersections seem to occur once ever 10 miles it seems). A lot of cars speed up to subtly say to the idiot, "move your butt." Everytime I see it, I think, someone is gonna get hit (which might explain the "Carter-is-an-idiots have the right of way" sign that was recently put up on Rainier Ave)

Regardless of whether Stewart is charged, there is going to be a big lawsuit. Get your popcorn ready.

Moderator Objection:

huskylawyer, you are new around here, so I'll be easy on you.

Please be advised:
According to paragraph 12, sub-section 43, line 8, of the Seahawks online conversational code, the word "pedestrian" can no longer be utilized on .NET to describe an upright individual moving forward at a slow pace using the legs, and/or to describe an individual that contributes with an average performance characteristic.

According to the new ruling, .NET users must now substitute the multi-word conjunction: "Carter-is-an-idiot" for the word: "Pedestrian" in both thread titles and post content. Further use of the P-word will be dealt with swiftly, and harshly.

Don't worry, Counselor, I fixed it for ya. :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't look like this is fading out at all in the media, as day-3 of discussing it on the Today show occurred.

Been looking for some different camera angles but I can't find anything yet. I'd really like to see the incident from a wider angle, or from a camera further into turn 1, so I can judge how fast Tony was going in relation to the other cars and at what point the yellow flag and yellow track lights actually came on. This guy had his phone zoomed-in too close and we aren't getting enough of it to really break it down. That we all can agree on.

 

[The Radish]

This is an example of the rule to "Stay in your car until the race is stopped, or rescue people get to you".

:les:

 

[Cartire]

The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.

 

[SonicHawk]

No one is suggesting he was angry enough to want to harm the kid, that's the unfortunate part. There's no motivation for murder, that's why it's not murder.

There's is plenty of motivation for him to want to 'buzz' the kid. The kid was trying to show him up, be on the track, pretend like he belongs. Stewart is a competitor at the top of his game, it's not that odd for him to want to say, 'sit down kid'.

So he decided all this in the maybe two seconds (if that) he had that he even knew the kid was on the track? The driver of the 45 car ahead of Stewart that almost hit Ward told his mechanic that he didn't see him at all until the last second and Ward would have been obscured from Stewart's vision by that car. So you're saying that Stewart, who had no reason to be angry at all when the caution came out, became instantly inflamed by some anonymous guy on the track he probably had no idea was angry at him and decided to teach him a lesson?

You're playing a whole lot of "let's read Tony Stewart's mind" here. Are you psychic? If you are how about passing on rhe numbers for the next Powerball!

You're playing a whole lot of "I know everything and you're dumb for having questions" and it's getting tired. I'm sorry that I don't know everything about the situation like you, hopefully I can become as informed as you are on an issue.

The 45 car driver is not Tony Stewart. He's not the one who put the kid into the wall in the first place, I don't really care what the 45 car driver says, his thoughts are meaningless in this situation.

Stewart had no reason to be angry at all? Well, I'm certainly glad you even understand Tony's feelings in the situation.

Man, why aren't you helping with the investigation?

You're asking me for the powerball numbers, well, I got news for you buddy, you already know them.

 

[SonicHawk]

The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.

I don't take much stock into what the other drivers did because they aren't Tony Stewart and are not indicative of the situation. There's absolutely no question that Ward's actions were the majority of the reason we had such a horrifying result.

If Stewart really made no mistake but ignorance of the potential situation then I guess I just think too much of Stewart and Sprint Cup drivers in general.

 

[Largent80]

I think we should turn this forum back to its rightful owners. Summer transfers are way more important than a human life, and since so many are into soccer, it is inevitable.

 

[IndyHawk]

I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

 

[Scottemojo]

I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

Such is the culture of racing.

 

[bigtrain21]

I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

Such is the culture of racing.

I am definitely not ruling what you are saying but everything I have read about those cars that Tony was driving say you have to hit the gas to get better control of the car. That's what makes it so difficult. I hope the other video they have is better and they have some radio traffic to refer back to.

 

[Cartire]

I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

Such is the culture of racing.

But, what you just described is manslaughter. A crime.

I dont know what the intentions were. And I think an easy case can be built that ward endanered himself (which i think is what will end up happening), but I think Tony could at least be charged with manslaughter. Rather the DA thinks that he will succeed will determine if this happens.

 

[Scottemojo]

I really believe Tony Stewart did not do this intentionaly..I'm sure he didn't expect to see the young man in a Dark racing suit pop up in front of his car..Don't forget Tony is over 40..The eyes don't see as good in dim lit areas ..The kid didn't belong out in middle of track..It was a tragic accident...

I don't think Tony should be charged with some crime, but I think it's plain as hell that he was trying to rooster some dirt in the man's face. It was an aggro move that got away from him.

Such is the culture of racing.

But, what you just described is manslaughter. A crime.

I dont know what the intentions were. And I think an easy case can be built that ward endanered himself (which i think is what will end up happening), but I think Tony could at least be charged with manslaughter. Rather the DA thinks that he will succeed will determine if this happens.

Technically, attempted manslaughter is committed on Nascar tracks dozens of times every race. Every time they bump, spin, and try to get a guy loose could result in death. Hell, every retaliatory baseball beaning is an attempt to cause bodily harm and could be prosecuted.

You mentioned intentions. For me, that is where it all lies. And in this case, intentions cannot be known. Only guessed, which is what I did.

And hell yes, Ward endangered himself.

 

[JesterHawk]

Sonic vs everyone? That...like never happens.

 

[HansGruber]

I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.

 

[TXHawk]

The only argument i dont like is "other drivers saw him and avoided him".

Ward wasnt walking out towards any other driver. He purposely targets stewart (for whatever reason) and walks out at his vehicle.

Everything else is speculation. Only Tony knows if tony meant to do it.

I don't take much stock into what the other drivers did because they aren't Tony Stewart and are not indicative of the situation. There's absolutely no question that Ward's actions were the majority of the reason we had such a horrifying result.

If Stewart really made no mistake but ignorance of the potential situation then I guess I just think too much of Stewart and Sprint Cup drivers in general.

NASCAR Sprint Cup drivers race on larger tracks with better lighting. They have a much better field of view from their cockpit and are in constant radio communications with spotters and crew chief who can warn them of trouble.

Sprint car drivers race on very small, dimly lit dirt tracks. They have a much more limited field of view from the cockpit and a wing board which blocks their vision on the right. Their visors get covered with dirt and mud and they only have a limited number of clear tear offs so normally don't tear them off at the beginning of a caution but wait until the race is ready to go green. The cars have no radios or mirrors.

Sprint cars have roughly the same horsepower as the NASCAR cars but are about 2000 lbs lighter and have a power to weight ratio similar to a Formula 1 car. They are simple but brutally powerful beasts. Since dirt tracks are so small the straightaways tend to be short or non-existent so the cars are set up with a right rear tire larger than the other three tires to help push the nose of the car to the left. Drivers have to turn their front wheels to the right when turning left to counter the tendency of the tail to want to come around and they use the throttle as their primary steering control to help them maintain a racing line. The car is in a controlled slide for most of the way around a dirt track. The car is also set up to run at high speeds and is not very maneuverable at lower speeds during cautions.

The bottom line is that there is a world of difference between sprint car racing on dirt tracks and NASCAR's Sprint Cup racing on large paved tracks. It's much more a seat-of-the-pants type racing and its drivers have far less situational awareness no matter how good they are.

 

[huskylawyer]

I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.

Actually, it isn't so simple:

Regarding pedestrians.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

 

[Anonymous]

I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.

Actually, it isn't so simple:

Regarding pedestrians.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

There you go with that P-word again...

:mrgreen:

 

[HansGruber]

I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.

Actually, it isn't so simple:

Regarding pedestrians.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

Stallworth went to jail for the DUI.

I've hit a pedestrian in Pioneer Square, some drunk frat kid that ran in front of my car. SPD showed up while I was treating him and wrote him a ticket and told my insurance he was at fault.

The only automatic right of way streets in Seattle are those weird streets like Pike in front of the market that have been designated primarily as foot traffic only or during events like when they close Leschi to Seward for the bike days, etc.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/walk/laws.htm

 

[huskylawyer]

I'm actually surprised that an attorney isn't aware that Washington law does not at all give pedestrians automatic "right of way." If you Jay walk and get hit in WA, you are at fault.

Actually, it isn't so simple:

Regarding pedestrians.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 11.40 and 11.44, every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or person riding a bicycle upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise all proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. (SMC 11.58.310)

And probably shouldn't be surprising because local jurisdictions and counties have enacted more expansive right of way laws and can designate certain streets as "pedestrian always has the right of way". E.g., "The City Council may by ordinance designate streets upon which pedestrians will be granted right-of-way over vehicles using that street." (SMC 11.40.420)

Now I'm not a traffic lawyer (Business-Intellectual Property) and frankly don't care about the nuances of car/pedestrian law, but it isn't so black and white (I suppose I could have qualified my initial statement, but this is a sports message board, not a Law Review writing contest). But my initial point still applies, if a car intentionally speeds up and hits a jay walker, a jury can find the driver liable. Keep in mind that Donte Stallworth killed a guy illegally jay walking, but he was intoxicated, and though the jay walker was culpable to some extent, Stallworth still went to jail (it was in Florida, which could have more restrictive laws).

Stallworth went to jail for the DUI.

I've hit a pedestrian in Pioneer Square, some drunk frat kid that ran in front of my car. SPD showed up while I was treating him and wrote him a ticket and told my insurance he was at fault.

The only automatic right of way streets in Seattle are those weird streets like Pike in front of the market that have been designated primarily as foot traffic only or during events like when they close Leschi to Seward for the bike days, etc.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/walk/laws.htm

Fair enough. But again, the point is, just because a jay walker is at fault, does not necessarily mean that the driver is blamess. In the civil context, some jurisdictions will apportion liability based on culpability.

Again, if kid is jaywalking, and you intentionally speed up to scare him (which I've seen numerous times), and hit him accidentally, the driver does not necessarily have a free pass. See SMC 11.58.310

And different communities within Washington treat jay walking differently (I'm not getting paid for this, so not going to talk about preemption law and all the nuances, hehe).

And Sallworth was charged with manslaughter...(and he claims he flashed his headlights at the jay walker). He copped a plea however.