Tony Stewart hits and kills another driver

[SonicHawk]

Shouldn't you be sending cease and desist letters instead of on a Seahawks forum?

Good to have a lawyer on my side!

 

[huskylawyer]

Shouldn't you be sending cease and desist letters instead of on a Seahawks forum?

Good to have a lawyer on my side!

Ha!

A lot of folks sound like trial lawyers in this thread. I'm not a litigator (though my biz partner is), and he always says common sense and pragmatism usually sways the juries, as some soccer mom from Bellevue isn't gonna understand (or frankly care) about the legal nuances. So along that vein, here is the "common sense no agenda" take on Stewart situation:

1) Is Stewart a hot head? - Answer - YES
2) Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world, i.e., someone who is constantly aware of his surroundings and understands how to operate his vehicle better than 99% of the rest of the planet? - YES
3) Was the young driver who got out of his car stupid and at fault in part (not ragging on him as his death was tragic; but just being blunt): YES
4) Did Steward intentionally try to kill him? - No, most sane people aren't gonna think that Stewart is a sociopath and murderer.
4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

I think most reasonable people, based on the video and Stewart's history, can come to these conclusions, if they are being honest with themselves and not just in outright denial.

With all the said, a prosecutor in an area that supports car racing isn't going to bring charges unless there is a smoking gun (e.g., Stewart radioing in and saying "I'm gonna teach this kid a lesson"). Also, just from a practical standpoint, finding criminal (or perhaps even civil) liability could kill the sport, as do we really want a criminal investigation every time a race car driver is injured or killed due to aggressive driving techniques on the track? No. The slippery slope would be crazy (e.g., charging a DB in football if he does an illegal hit and seriously injures someone).

Sports is a different breed, thus the reason I think the chances of criminal charges are extremely remote. Now the civil case could get interesting...

BTW - has there been any release of the radio transmissions? I'd assume that the crew would radio in and say, "caution flag up..some driver left his car and there is a crash." IF that happened, that would lend credence to the argument that Stewart knew he was out there. If not, that helps Stewart of course.

 

[Largent80]

If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.

 

[bigtrain21]

4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?

 

[huskylawyer]

If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.

Good point. But answer this question (apologize if you already did)

Do you think Stewart tried to teach the kid a lesson and get close and/or kick up track dirt on him? You don't need to answer whether he is guilty of some crime (completely different issue). Just whether or not Stewart intentionally drove close.

 

[huskylawyer]

4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?

There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possibly come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.

People can answer the question and form an opinion, but some people simply don't want to offer an opinion and simply say, "not enough information" I "get it", but I suspect deep down people are troubled, even with the limited information (but they are afraid to admit it or have an agenda.).

 

[SonicHawk]

If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[bigtrain21]

4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?

There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possible come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.

We don't have the information to answer that key question though. You said it yourself that we have very limited information. What limited information brought you to that conclusion strictly limiting yourself to the watching the video?

 

[huskylawyer]

4) Do you think Stewart tried to "teach the kid a lesson" by getting close or getting dust in his face - YES

I agree with all your other answers but this question in not answerable to the general public given the information that is out there. What information out there brought you to that conclusion?

There is information, albeit VERY LIMITED information (Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video). Just drawing upon common sense argument quite honestly. Is Stewart a hot head? Yes. Is Stewart one of the best drivers in the world and is constantly aware of his surroundings? Yes. Is the video troubling? Yes.

Therefore if I MUST answer the questions, I'd lean towards Stewart knew exactly what he was doing.

Incredibly simplistic, i know. But as I said, I don't have enough information to get bogged down in the analysis. That's how criminal defense lawyers win; they bring in a million different variables (expert witnesses) so that the jury is so confused they can't possible come to a conclusion, let alone render a guilty verdict.

We don't have the information to answer that key question though. You said it yourself that we have very limited information. What limited information brought you to that conclusion strictly limiting yourself to the watching the video?

Ok, let me do this slowly.

Draw upon the answer to the first set of questions (a) hot head, (b) driving abilities, (c) video.

Now based on those answers, if you had to answer, "do you think he drove close on purpose", what do you say. The answer isn't "not enough information." We ALL understand that. But with the logical assumptions (a) & (b) and the video (c), how do you answer the main question. It isn't that difficult. Yes or no answer. If your answer is no, so be it, but I'd question the common sense and logic there...

 

[pinksheets]

If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Anyone who cites that McDonald's case as some sort of pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits never has any idea what they're talking about.

 

[bigtrain21]

Ok, let me do this slowly.

Draw upon the answer to the first set of questions (a) hot head, (b) driving abilities, (c) video.

Now based on those answers, if you had to answer, "do you think he drove close on purpose", what do you say. The answer isn't "not enough information." We ALL understand that. But with the logical assumptions (a) & (b) and the video (c), how do you answer the main question. It isn't that difficult. Yes or no answer. If your answer is no, so be it, but I'd question the common sense and logic there...

I am asking you to look at the video in a vacuum and tell me what you see that makes you think he drove close on purpose. That's all.

In regards to your absolutely condescending for no reason reply. I don't know. The reason I don't know is that Stewart being a hothead and a fantastic driver have absolutely nothing to do with whether Stewart saw Ward or not. Now if more video evidence comes out or we hear on race radio that Stewart knew he was there, then of course that would change my answer from "I don't know" to "Yes".

No need to do this slowly in the future. I am following along quite nicely.

 

[Cartire]

If someone at a McDonalds can sue and win over spilling hot coffee on themselves anything is possible.

However, and this has been pointed out many times. Ward was on the track. He was on the track in violation of sanctioning rules. He did so on his own accord. Even without all the other mitigating circumstances, this simply is not a criminal case, and I would go so far as to say they don't have a chance in civil court either.

Good point. But answer this question (apologize if you already did)

Do you think Stewart tried to teach the kid a lesson and get close and/or kick up track dirt on him? You don't need to answer whether he is guilty of some crime (completely different issue). Just whether or not Stewart intentionally drove close.

Sorry, not good point. The case of Liebeck vs McDonald's Restaurants was not a sham lawsuit. If you did actually know it, and not just the late night comedy and hearsay of what happened, you would completely understand the legitimate lawsuit she had and why she won.

http://plotmistress.com/wp-content/uplo ... 2-Copy.jpg

I put that picture as the link and not into here because its graphic. But thats the result of the coffee spill. 3rd degree burns. The coffee was brewed at a staggering 190 degrees. About 40 degrees above normal restaurant brewing temps.

I get the aspects of Tort Reform, but she had a case. It was just the media's take on it was lopsided and everyone who read about it assumed money grab.

To your point about Tony "teaching the kid a lesson". If they can prove that, its involuntary manslaughter. Plain and simple. If he did something that knowingly increased the chances of Ward getting hurt, then he can easily be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

That being said, you have to prove he intentionally did it. Ward is still at fault for his actions, but if they prove Tony did something on purpose that increased the chance of his demise, well, no good for Tony.

 

[huskylawyer]

Think of it this way. It is like a LSAT logic question where you are given limited information but you MUST provide the most logical answer. Test time!!!!


Driver A has a history of being a hot head on the race track, getting into confrontations with other drivers, and driving aggressively. Driver A is also one of the best drivers in the entire world, capable of maneuvering his vehicle in ways 99% of the population cannot, and constantly aware of his surroundings. Driver B gets out of his car on the track to taunt Driver A because he was mad at Driver A because he thinks Driver A bumped him, causing him to crash, Driver C avoids him, and Driver A hits Driver B after circling the track. Based on this information, what is the most likely answer:

1) Driver B intentionally jumped in front of Driver A to kill himself.
2) Driver A didn't notice Driver B at all and it was an accident.
3) Driver C is completely to blame for not stopping and helping Driver B off the track.
4) Driver A purposely got close to Driver B but accidentally hit him.

Based on the limited information, how do you answer?

The point of the question is that we can all agree that we don't know everything. But if push comes to shove, it is completely reasonable for people to think that Stewart knew what he was doing, just by using some common sense and a little logic. That doesn't mean that the kid wasn't at fault, and frankly, whether Stewart should even be charged with a crime.

 

[bigtrain21]

Your LSAT question is lacking a lot of details.

I am kind of shocked that you think that because he is a hothead and a good driver means he would irresponsible enough to throw dirt with his tires on a guy walking towards him on the track.

You never answered my question though. I can ask it slower for you if it is confusing you.

In a vacuum, what concerns you about that video in regards to the actions of Stewart?

 

[huskylawyer]

Your LSAT question is lacking a lot of details.

I am kind of shocked that you think that because he is a hothead and a good driver means he would irresponsible enough to throw dirt with his tires on a guy walking towards him on the track.

You never answered my question though. I can ask it slower for you if it is confusing you.

In a vacuum, what concerns you about that video in regards to the actions of Stewart?

Umm....that's the point lol, and you should take the LSAT. The point of the LSAT is to see how you draw inferences and conclusions based on limited information. You don't get essays with 10 million facts and and such (though I wish they did that!)

In a vacuum, not much to infer from the video, other than at least two drivers managed to steer clear of the kid, and then Stewart didn't. Based on that information alone, I'd think "the guy who hit him doesn't know how to drive." Now when you add the fact about Stewart's background and competency behind the wheel, much easier to draw negative inferences against Stewart.

Not sure how that is a controversial or even illogical way of reasoning.

 

[bigtrain21]

The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.

 

[huskylawyer]

The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.

I thought we were operating in a vacuum, solely on what you saw in the video? LOL.

But your response is what a good criminal defense lawyer would say. Bring in other issues to minimize or detract from the limited information that goes against your client....

Like I said, a lot of posters sound like trial lawyers here.

 

[huskylawyer]

Vrabel, i.e., Keyzer Soze said it best in The Usual Suspects:

To a cop the explanation is never that complicated. It's always simple. There's no mystery to the street, no arch criminal behind it all. If you got a dead body and you think his brother did it, you're gonna find out you're right.

I'm jaded and tend to let common sense guide my reasoning. Hence my thoughts about the whole, sad, situation.

 

[bigtrain21]

Okay here is my LSAT.

Driver A & Driver B are racing at night with limited visibility. Driver B crashes and blames Driver A. Driver B gets out of his car in a dark driving suit and angrily approaches Driver A who is moving at a high rate of speed and may or may not know Driver B is on the track due to a variety of reasons. Driver A hits driver B.

1) Driver A is responsible for hitting Driver B because he is a hot head and fantastic driver.
2) Driver A is not responsible because Driver B never should have got out of his car.
3) More information is needed to come to any sort of conclusion since we don't know if Driver A saw Driver B.

 

[bigtrain21]

The driver on the track was seeking out Stewart so the fact the other two didn't hit him is totally meaningless.

I thought we were operating in a vacuum, solely on what you saw in the video? LOL.

Um, we are. We saw that he was mad at stewart in the video and attempting to approach Stewarts car. I am including nothing other than what we saw in the video.