Stewart

[bob.p...@gmail.com]

So what's everyone's thought on the latest Tony Stewart incident?

So far they say there's no evidence of criminal intent and of course it's
nuts to think Tony intended to kill the kid who was confronting him.

Still, if I correctly understand the lawyer they had on Race Hub tonight,
Tony could be looking at manslaughter. He said that if you do something to
someone not intending to hurt them, but it goes horribly wrong and results in
death, that's manslaughter.

The video I saw clearly shows that Tony gunned his car as he drove by the kid.
To me it looked like he was just trying to scare him a bit, or perhaps throw
some dirt on him, but we all know the result.

My prediction is that he'll have good enough lawyers to beat any criminal rap,
but the family is going to sue him BIG and probably win.

Thoughts?

[leonard hofstatder]

I think he didn't see him until the last nano-second and gunned it to
try and get away from him and the car lurched the wrong way.

[John McCoy]

leonard hofstatder <len...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lsct45$1mq$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/11/2014 10:44 PM, bob.p...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Still, if I correctly understand the lawyer they had on Race Hub
>> tonight, Tony could be looking at manslaughter. He said that if you
>> do something to someone not intending to hurt them, but it goes
>> horribly wrong and results in death, that's manslaughter.

I don't think that's quite right. I think to be manslaughter
you have do something which a reasonable person would know
might cause harm (or, conversely, if you fail to do something
which a reasonable person would do to avoid possible harm).

So if you were to hit a pedestrian with your car going 60mph
down a neighborhood street, that could be manslaughter, but
if you hit a pedestrian going 60mph down the interstate, it
would not be.

> I think he didn't see him until the last nano-second and gunned it to
> try and get away from him and the car lurched the wrong way.

That seems to be a likely possibility.

John

[bob.p...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:30:02 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:

> > On 8/11/2014 10:44 PM, bob.paxton wrote:
>
> >> Still, if I correctly understand the lawyer they had on Race Hub
> >> tonight, Tony could be looking at manslaughter. He said that if you
> >> do something to someone not intending to hurt them, but it goes
> >> horribly wrong and results in death, that's manslaughter.
>
>
> I don't think that's quite right. I think to be manslaughter
> you have do something which a reasonable person would know
> might cause harm (or, conversely, if you fail to do something
> which a reasonable person would do to avoid possible harm).

Well, the AP story I read in today's paper (and which is quoted on Jayski)
says that second degree manslaughter is still in play if the investigation
determines that Tony "recklessly caused the death of another person".

First degree manslaughter would be applicable if Tony had admitted to police
that he was trying to throw dirt on Ward or otherwise send him a message.

It also mentioned that any civil proceeding would also have to consider Ward's
own negligence in putting himself in harm's way. We'll just have to wait a
couple weeks to see how it plays out.

My money still says if there's a criminal rap, Tony beats it, but he's dinged
big in a civil suit.

[John McCoy]

bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in
news:9b5a596d-7812-4ddf...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:30:02 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>
>> I don't think that's quite right. I think to be manslaughter
>> you have do something which a reasonable person would know
>> might cause harm (or, conversely, if you fail to do something
>> which a reasonable person would do to avoid possible harm).
>
> Well, the AP story I read in today's paper (and which is quoted on
> Jayski) says that second degree manslaughter is still in play if the
> investigation determines that Tony "recklessly caused the death of
> another person".

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say - "recklessly" = doing

something which a reasonable person would know might cause

harm.

> It also mentioned that any civil proceeding would also have to
> consider Ward's own negligence in putting himself in harm's way.

That's the opposite side of the same coin - a person's actions
might not be reckless if they could reasonably assume there
wouldn't be someone in a position to be harmed.

> My money still says if there's a criminal rap, Tony beats it, but he's
> dinged big in a civil suit.

With civil suits you never know. If there's a jury they're rarely
decided on the evidence, and mostly decided on sympathy and the
ability of the defendant to pay.

John

[Pete Zahria]

In article John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>bob.p...@gmail.com wrote in

>> My money still says if there's a criminal rap, Tony beats it, but he's
>> dinged big in a civil suit.

>With civil suits you never know. If there's a jury they're rarely
>decided on the evidence, and mostly decided on sympathy and the
>ability of the defendant to pay.
>
>John

No, you never do know.

But IIRC, in a civil suit the verdict is decided on a percentage of blame.
In this case, and I'm only guessing,
one could say that they are both at fault,
BUT Ward may have been slightly more at fault, for getting out of the car?
Like you say.. who knows..

When you come down to it, no matter what Tony did,
the kid was wrong first.. Some places you get penalized/fined for it..



--
Dan

Confuscious say:
Man who run behind car get exhausted.

[John McCoy]

petez...@nospam.com (Pete Zahria) wrote in
news:lsibd1$p68$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> But IIRC, in a civil suit the verdict is decided on a percentage of
> blame.

I sorta think that only applies to the damages, not the verdict.
So a verdict of wrongful death could be handed down, and damages
of $1million, and Stewart found 45% at fault, so he'd owe $450,000.

John

[Pete Zahria]

I knew it was something like that.... thanks..