Tony Stewart hits and kills another driver

[huskylawyer]

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.

THREE!!!!

Woot, Harvard Law here I come (I had to settle for Michigan Law; yes, unsolicited information. Sue me 8) ).

I at least answered your question, whereas you did not...

 

[bigtrain21]

I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.

 

[huskylawyer]

I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.

I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Doesn't quite work that way, but whatevs.

You're just missing the point. The point is a defense to people who are making REASONABLE assumptions based on limited information. Just because you "need more information" is immaterial. We're trying to determine if one can draw a reasonable conclusions based on limited facts. Just because you don't like the facts, or feel that it is missing other elements, doesn't mean you CAN'T answer the question.

Juries everyday draw conclusions without knowing all the fact (e.g. no murder weapon, no motive, etc.). But they still render decisions...

 

[bigtrain21]

I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.

I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Does quite work that way, but whatevs.

Your LSAT question doesn't prove anything anyway. Mine doesn't either.

Answer this question. Did Stewart see Ward? If the answer is yes then I think Stewart should be charged and I have said that all along. If it is no then he is not at fault. I personally don't believe we know whether he saw him or not.

 

[huskylawyer]

I couldn't answer your question because we didn't have enough facts plus you didn't give any sort of option for not having enough facts. Add we don't have enough facts to your LSAT question and I will answer it.

I wish when i was taking the LSAT I could of hand written into the test manual, "sorry, not enough information so I won't answer it...." :roll: Does quite work that way, but whatevs.

Your LSAT question doesn't prove anything anyway. Mine doesn't either.

Answer this question. Did Stewart see Ward? If the answer is yes then I think Stewart should be charged and I have said that all along. If it is no then he is not at fault. I personally don't believe we know whether he saw him or not.

1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.

 

[TXHawk]

Is Tony Stewart a hothead?

Yes, but in previous cases where he lost his temper it always involved a wreck or heavy damage to his car. In this case he did not wreck and there was no damage to his car. Ward did hit the wall but there doesn't appear to have been any contact between the two cars. Since sprint cars don't have mirrors and Ward's car was behind him it's very possible that Stewart wasn't even aware it happened.

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, but as I've explained before the ability to maintain situational awareness in sprint cars is far more difficult than racing in NASCAR's highest series. The cars have no mirrors, no radios, no spotters relaying information, right side visibilty is blocked by the wing board, visors get covered with dirt and mud, and the tracks tend to be dimly lit.

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

It's impossible to tell from the brief instance that Stewart's car appeared in the video prior to hitting Ward. The previous car nearly hit him as well and the driver told his mechanic he didn't see him until the last second. Stewart was running several feet higher on the track than that car and had less margin of error to avoid Ward. There is no way of knowing when Stewart saw Ward on the track and how much time he had to avoid him.

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."

The cars have no radios. The only information that Stewart would have had was the yellow lights on the track indicating that the caution was out. He would have had no advance warning of a driver in the middle of the track.

 

[huskylawyer]

Is Tony Stewart a hothead?

Yes, but in previous cases where he lost his temper it always involved a wreck or heavy damage to his car. In this case he did not wreck and there was no damage to his car. Ward did hit the wall but there doesn't appear to have been any contact between the two cars. Since sprint cars don't have mirrors and Ward's car was behind him it's very possible that Stewart wasn't even aware it happened.

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, but as I've explained before the ability to maintain situational awareness in sprint cars is far more difficult than racing in NASCAR's highest series. The cars have no mirrors, no radios, no spotters relaying information, right side visibilty is blocked by the wing board, visors get covered with dirt and mud, and the tracks tend to be dimly lit.

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

It's impossible to tell from the brief instance that Stewart's car appeared in the video prior to hitting Ward. The previous car nearly hit him as well and the driver told his mechanic he didn't see him until the last second. Stewart was running several feet higher on the track than that car and had less margin of error to avoid Ward. There is no way of knowing when Stewart saw Ward on the track and how much time he had to avoid him.

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."

The cars have no radios. The only information that Stewart would have had was the yellow lights on the track indicating that the caution was out. He would have had no advance warning of a driver in the middle of the track.

These are all fair and good arguments.

The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you.

 

[bigtrain21]

1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.

So you have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him but you are willing to believe he went after this kid because he is a good driver and has got into confrontations in his past. I am not sure how much you follow NASCAR but there are quite a few confrontations on a weekly basis. Every driver gets into confrontations. Stewart gets into significantly less confrontations than a lot of drivers.

I really don't know why you have a problem with my position. You seemingly feel like I should have enough information to say that stewart ran down this kid with his car while trying to teach him a lesson when none of that has been proven.

 

[bigtrain21]

These are all fair and good arguments.

The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you.

Let me say this slowly so you understand. People can view Stewart with skepticism. I have no problem with that. You aren't viewing him with skepticism you are rushing to judgement.

 

[huskylawyer]

1) I have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him
2) Based on the limited facts I know (e.g., Stewart's history, his driving capabilities, and the video), I can make a logical and reasonable inference that he did see him.

Is that enough to convict? Probably not. Is that enough to sway public opinion? Most definitely.

So you have no way of knowing if Stewart saw him but you are willing to believe he went after this kid because he is a good driver and has got into confrontations in his past. I am not sure how much you follow NASCAR but there are quite a few confrontations on a weekly basis. Every driver gets into confrontations. Stewart gets into significantly less confrontations than a lot of drivers.

I really don't know why you have a problem with my position. You seemingly feel like I should have enough information to say that stewart ran down this kid with his car while trying to teach him a lesson when none of that has been proven.

I never suggested that Stewart "ran down this kid with his car." I suggested that Stewart wanted to kick dirt up the kid's face or do a close drive-by, and an ACCIDENT happened. That is a HUGE and important distinction....

Ok, for real, back to work.

 

[huskylawyer]

These are all fair and good arguments.

The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you.

Let me say this slowly so you understand. People can view Stewart with skepticism. I have no problem with that. You aren't viewing him with skepticism you are rushing to judgement.

Oh God, did you just pull a Johnny Cochran?

(as an aside, I increased my post count; WOOT!)

 

[SonicHawk]

Everyone who has responded with 'you are rushing to judgement' has rushed to releasing Stewart from any fault.

 

[SonicHawk]

These are all fair and good arguments.

The only thing that bothers me with this thread is people calling out people for viewing Stewart with skepticism. It is completely reasonable for people to think Stewart was partially in the wrong, but it is Stewart's defense's job to make the above points to create reasonable doubt.

Ok, i gotta get working. Was fun debating with all of you.

Let me say this slowly so you understand. People can view Stewart with skepticism. I have no problem with that. You aren't viewing him with skepticism you are rushing to judgement.

Let me say this slowly...

you... have... no... idea... what... you... are... talking... about.

No one has rushed to judgement, there is a short video seen from a distance, normal humans tend to look at evidence and then build upon that the best they can. Only an idiot would have trouble seeing that there's a chance (no matter how great) that Stewart put himself in a poor position intentionally.

 

[Brahn]

Everyone who has responded with 'you are rushing to judgement' has rushed to releasing Stewart from any fault.

Innocent until proven guilty, that is unless SonicHawks is the Judge. Everyone goes to jail til we figure it out! How quick Americans turn there back on the American process.

 

[SonicHawk]

Everyone who has responded with 'you are rushing to judgement' has rushed to releasing Stewart from any fault.

Innocent until proven guilty, that is unless SonicHawks is the Judge. Everyone goes to jail til we figure it out! How quick Americans turn there back on the American process.

Another person who has yet to read anything I wrote!

I only said based off the basic evidence and my understanding of the situation I believe that Tony Stewart should/would be charged, not convicted. There's an enormous difference and if you can't see that I can't help you.

We're all working on assumptions right now, but I'd rather have an investigation to get to bottom of this then just say "it's racing, and Ward is an idiot so he deserved to die."

 

[Scottemojo]

Everyone who has responded with 'you are rushing to judgement' has rushed to releasing Stewart from any fault.

Innocent until proven guilty, that is unless SonicHawks is the Judge. Everyone goes to jail til we figure it out! How quick Americans turn there back on the American process.

Another person who has yet to read anything I wrote!

I only said based off the basic evidence and my understanding of the situation I believe that Tony Stewart should/would be charged, not convicted. There's an enormous difference and if you can't see that I can't help you.

We're all working on assumptions right now, but I'd rather have an investigation to get to bottom of this then just say "it's racing, and Ward is an idiot so he deserved to die."

It's racing. Machismo and adrenaline are tough to just turn off in a split second. Ward was an idiot who helped create the circumstances of his own demise. Few deserve to die, yet all do, and punishing idiocy on the track, field, diamond, or rink seems to be one of the more slippery slopes there is in jurisprudence.

If no charges are ever filed, but a wrongful death suit costs Tony millions, will justice be served?

 

[Largent80]

Justice was already served.

 

[SonicHawk]

It's racing. Machismo and adrenaline are tough to just turn off in a split second. Ward was an idiot who helped create the circumstances of his own demise. Few deserve to die, yet all do, and punishing idiocy on the track, field, diamond, or rink seems to be one of the more slippery slopes there is in jurisprudence.

If no charges are ever filed, but a wrongful death suit costs Tony millions, will justice be served?

That is absolutely ridiculous. You excuse Stewart's actions for machismo and adrenaline but fault Ward for doing the same thing?

This discussion is pathetic, too many people excusing Stewart because he was on a playing field. The playing field isn't anarchy. It's not a law-free sanctuary. Negligent actions that directly lead to the death of another competitor should be investigated, charged and if proven, justify a prison sentence.

 

[Largent80]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tracks-cha ... --spt.html

 

[Cartire]

It's racing. Machismo and adrenaline are tough to just turn off in a split second. Ward was an idiot who helped create the circumstances of his own demise. Few deserve to die, yet all do, and punishing idiocy on the track, field, diamond, or rink seems to be one of the more slippery slopes there is in jurisprudence.

If no charges are ever filed, but a wrongful death suit costs Tony millions, will justice be served?

That is absolutely ridiculous. You excuse Stewart's actions for machismo and adrenaline but fault Ward for doing the same thing?

This discussion is pathetic, too many people excusing Stewart because he was on a playing field. The playing field isn't anarchy. It's not a law-free sanctuary. Negligent actions that directly lead to the death of another competitor should be investigated, charged and if proven, justify a prison sentence.

Im with you on this one Sonic. And like you mention, no one is saying he needs/should/will be convicted. But you are correct that he should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Whether or not he is convicted will be what the evidence and judicial system decide. Wards not absolved of his responsibility of this btw but Tonys actions (accelerating the sprint car and drifting the backend into Ward, WHILE under a caution) is suspect at the very least and needs to be handled appropriately. Sports/Racing whatever does not give way to illegality.

And once again, involuntary manslaughter is not Tony purposely trying to kill Ward. But if they prove Tony knowingly did something that would increase the danger of Ward, he has to be held accountable as well.