The Poojer Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Dude...don't even joke about that kind of stuff Ugh.... I agree... If I fly off the handle a few times and my wife ends up dead, does that mean I did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The argument that Stewarts temper played a huge role in this has been very strange to me. What was he even supposed to be mad about here? He came through that corner in one piece and was still going in the race. And now your bit of info that there may very well have not been any contact at all, he's not the list bit angry. The only thing that happens that would cause a reaction is if/when he sees Ward on the track. I can't picture that being something that would cause a racer to get angry. I think the wonder is - did he see him screaming and waving his arms and just punch the gas as a "screw you" a little without thinking he was that close or the back end would kick that far.... Not that he was in a blind rage or anything terribly crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Dude...don't even joke about that kind of stuff I certainly don't want anything to happen to her, but it's just as crazy as using Tony's temper against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ugh.... I agree... If I fly off the handle a few times and my wife ends up dead, does that mean I did it? that stuff is used in court against defendants all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ugh.... I agree... If I fly off the handle a few times and my wife ends up dead, does that mean I did it? It does on the internet. In the real world, it means you get a SERIOUSLY hard look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 It does on the internet. In the real world, it means you get a SERIOUSLY hard look. I guess you are right... Maybe I took a few posts on here the wrong way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 that stuff is used in court against defendants all the time. My sources tell me that investigators confiscated a bag of skittles and a can of Arizona Ice Tea near the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 This is the most damming thing against all the so called people (idiots) that are bellyaching Stewart gunned it. Comments like this are the biggest reason why I, and a lot of others, choose to spend our time elsewhere these days. In this thread alone there have been quite a few comments that involved name calling and/or complete disrespect for other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Comments like this are the biggest reason why I, and a lot of others, choose to spend our time elsewhere these days. In this thread alone there have been quite a few comments that involved name calling and/or complete disrespect for other people. Hey... I am sorry man. I by no means want to chase you off. I will delete the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Really, you guys do not get it. If he was able to pass the whole time why didn't he? It's just as much both parties being guilty! Pulling out your cell phone and recording it instead of changing lanes? Come on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Really, you guys do not get it. If he was able to pass the whole time why didn't he? It's just as much both parties being guilty! Pulling out your cell phone and recording it instead of changing lanes? Come on! LoL... Go back in the thread, I already made a comment about FLA and dude dumping his rig. Beat you too it... JUST KIDDING... ;-P ;-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ugh.... I agree... If I fly off the handle a few times and my wife ends up dead, does that mean I did it? no, because we know there is no chance of that happening. You'd get your little hick arse kicked by your woman. Mrs. Cletus would be suspect numbero unero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 no, because we know there is no chance of that happening. You'd get your little hick arse kicked by your woman. Mrs. Cletus would be suspect numbero unero. And to boot, it would be right out of a Roald Dahl short story... She would be off the hook. The cops would eat the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Get back on topic or this thread will be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Get back on topic or this thread will be locked. Hey Jack, I guess I will/should be the one to right this thread back up above the water line. On topic about the agreement these drivers sign saying that they WILL stay with their vehicles, I wonder how that legal instrument will have an effect on a civil case (if a civil case is even started)? If it is true Ward signed some kind of waiver that he was supposed to stay with the vehicle (unless on fire), wouldn't it be a slam dunk win for Tony Stewart in any civil legal proceeding? Or is he still liable for harming somebody even when the person harmed was breaking a signed agreement? Any legal experts out there? Edited August 12, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Hey Jack, I guess I will/should be the one to right this thread back up above the water line. On topic about the agreement these drivers sign saying that they WILL stay with their vehicles, I wonder how that legal instrument will have an effect on a civil case (if a civil case is even started)? If it is true Ward signed some kind of waiver that he was supposed to stay with the vehicle (unless on fire), wouldn't it be a slam dunk win for Tony Stewart in any civil legal proceeding? Or is he still liable for harming somebody even when the person harmed was breaking a signed agreement? Any legal experts out there? It may help TS if there were a wrongful death type of lawsuit filed.... But I can't see any other reason that would come into play... Seems more like a rule or suggestion (to protect the track) than anything else... Jack, is this a poor time to mention my love of cinnamon/sugar poptarts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Another note my friend just told me about, watch and LISTEN to the video. You do not hear any noise from the crash, only the cars that are in front of the stands where the video was shot. So the accelerating people are hearing on the video is the cars in front of the stands, not the cars on the other side of the track. The sound of accleration coincides exactly with....the acceleration/swerving of Stewart's car. The rest of the cars are visibly slowing down as they are under caution. Why would they be accelerating (in front of the stands or anywhere else) in the second lap of a caution flag? No offense to your friend or disrespect to his expertise, but I'm pretty comfortable with interpretting what I see and hear on that video. And as NoSaint says, even if one believes your friend's distinction about the sound, it isn't rlelvant to the fact that Stewart's car speed up before contact with Ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM57 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The sound of accleration coincides exactly with....the acceleration/swerving of Stewart's car. The rest of the cars are visibly slowing down as they are under caution. Why would they be accelerating (in front of the stands or anywhere else) in the second lap of a caution flag? No offense to your friend or disrespect to his expertise, but I'm pretty comfortable with interpretting what I see and hear on that video. And as NoSaint says, even if one believes your friend's distinction about the sound, it isn't rlelvant to the fact that Stewart's car speed up before contact with Ward. Touching only on your question asked... Because these cars need to maintain a minimum speed and the drivers attempt to keep the tires hot, they do goose the throttle at different intervals around the track under caution. Especially in these cars, which do not have a transmission and need go get push started out of the pits. I just want to remind everyone that the #45 who almost hit Kevin Ward is a veteran sprint car driver and just a second earlier also had a near miss. Would you all feel the same way about this if it was him who hit the kid? Or better yet, take the auto racing perspective out of this all together. Would YOU be able to react if someone showed up in your blind spot 12 inches from your car while you were driving down a city street at 30-35 MPH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The sound of accleration coincides exactly with....the acceleration/swerving of Stewart's car. The rest of the cars are visibly slowing down as they are under caution. Why would they be accelerating (in front of the stands or anywhere else) in the second lap of a caution flag? No offense to your friend or disrespect to his expertise, but I'm pretty comfortable with interpretting what I see and hear on that video. And as NoSaint says, even if one believes your friend's distinction about the sound, it isn't rlelvant to the fact that Stewart's car speed up before contact with Ward. Honest question.... Do you watch any type of racing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Gotta go in with WEO.It seems the posters on the "innocent" of "innocent until proven guilty" are going out of their way to explain away the obvious actions caught on film. 3 time Nascar great known for rough driving pinches young upstart into wall. Young upstart - recklessly and yes could have prevented the whole thing - storms onto track TS - known for attitude and a whole history of mixing things up with other drivers on and off the track comes around where he KNOWS the car he just pinched is. TS definitely taking a higher line on the track than other passing vehicles - sees driver and blips the throttle to - well - be Tony Stewart. Sorry - you are not going to hit the throttle to avoid the kid. The kid was on the right of TS car and blipping the throttle is going to do nothing but swing the end of the car right. The above seems VERY plausible - if not the MOST plausible to that explains everything that happened adequately. I would say that those in the camp of saying TS was not a participant in the fault have a harder time explaining what happened in accordance with what is on film. Can TS be be criminally prosecuted? - doubtful. Will there be a civil trial - probably. I also think there is an element of simple un-comprehensiveness (if that is a word) to the whole thing. It is very hard to even think that something like a typical dirt track dust up ends up as it did - and even more hard to think that TS might have completed the second half of the mistakes with a simple blip of the throttle "message"....... Whatever happened -TS has to wake up every morning.... Edited August 12, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts