Discussion in 'NASCAR' started by Andrew8468, Aug 10, 2014.
No, that it's dumb. Lol. I was honestly just kidding.
If we ban all of the dumb stuff people will go mad.
He's guilty as hell. It's manslaughter. He may not have meant to kill Kevin Ward (I don't think Tony Stewart is a murderer) but he sure as hell meant to scare and/or hit him (Tony Stewart is a moron).
IndyCar's Ed Carpenter: Vilifying Tony Stewart isn't fair
Stewart-Ward investigation 'finishing up' but no timetable for completion | FOX Sports
Tony Stewart will be back in his car this weekend at Atlanta. Personally, I think he should stay home until the investigation is completed.
I didn't see anything in that video that would call for manslaughter. I saw no evidence of him wanting to scare him or hit him. In my view it was a tragic accident.
We all see things different. Our legal system isn't perfect but thank God for jury trials.
Sent from my Galaxy S4
Fair enough and agreed!
Stewart-Ward investigation complete, D.A. to make statement next week | FOX Sports
They're not going to charge him. You don't wait until after the weekend, when Stewart would be back in a race car, to charge him with a race car-related crime.
Tony Stewart not charged in death of Kevin Ward Jr.
NASCAR champion Tony Stewart cleared of charges in crash that killed another driver | Daily Mail Online
the headline says the guy was hit was high at the time but its the daily mail and they are basically a tabloid so who knows.
what i really want to know is how do these drug tests work with an autopsy? to say he had thc in his system just means he could have smoked a week ago. do they have ways to test to tell right about the time u use pot? cause i dont think so but dont know. the guy could have smoked like 4 hours before the race. pot would be fresh in his system i suppose but he def would not have been high.
Ward was high when he was killed. That's reasonable doubt right there. The grand jury made the right call, even though I still think Stewart meant to clip the kid.
Due process my good man!
Sent from my iPad Mini
I agree. It's the right decision. It would be the Zapruder film all over again, the shooter on the grassy knoll and all that. Did Stewart swerve to hit the stoned kid or not? Due process, and I'm cool with that. Stewart ain't innocent, but the pot changes everything. It's a frickin' shit ton of reasonable doubt.
The case went from "Does the video show that Stewart may have intentionally hit the kid?" (possibly--it's enough to go to trial, and that's all a grand jury determines) to "Did the kid on weed act irrationally and jump in front of Stewart?" They weren't going to get a grand jury to take this to trial once the victim lacking complete control of his faculties came into play.
I agree. I bet there will be no civil suit either. I know the whole pot thing has been normalized now a days but come on. Don't drive on it and don't race on it.
I agree. I don't see how a civil suit could succeed. It goes beyond the weed--a jury is going to think, "If he's racing on weed, how good is this kid's judgement? Maybe he was just a dumbass and jumped in front of Stewart's car."
Duuuude process, man.......dude process.