But how to prove that he intended to fishtail it to hit Ward? That is going to be difficult seeing as how Ward purposely put himself in the line of traffic. As I said, if he was clearly off track and Stewart swerved to hit him, no contest. Could he have controlled the fishtail to hit Ward? Possible. Could it be argued that he fishtailed in a surprise to Ward's action? Possible.

That said, we did have a silly notion concerning "beyond reasonable doubt" so how to say that there is no reasonable doubt to a person's reaction to an unreasonable action by another (walking on the track during a race)? Short of Stewart confessing, I'm not sure how to determine the reason for the fishtail.

First off, this isn't NASCAR but what all the animosity towards NASCAR? It's just another sport like any other. Could be NFL, NBA, NHRA, whatever. Just a sport as far as I can see. I admit I don't watch it myself but I can't understand all the animosity towards it.

Event malfeasance? Who talks like that? Look at the guy who passed him before Stewart hit him. He was coasting well inside and away from the young fool. The goosing of the engine was just too weird. Add to that, I think Stewart looks like a blowhard dick. Unscientific as hell but oh well.

And once more, yes the young guy was a fool squared. It is his folly that will give Stewart a break for his own over-reaction, IMHO.

I agree you think that as you wrote it.

You can look at what happened or what you want to think happened. The difference directs the conclusion.

Not only unscientific but highly subject to opinion and guessing. Regardless, what has it got to do with deliberately running someone over? You can't pin everything on a guy because he behaves like a jerk or even looks like one.

We don't know there was over reaction yet. Not even the investigation has revealed that. Not saying he is guilty since we don't know what the investigation found or that he has a trial yet and can't read that from his face.

Tony wears his heart on his sleeve. Of course he has a big ego, he is a race driver. If he did not believe he can run faster than everybody else he could not.

As for his appearance, I don't see him as a blowhard, which is someone who does a lot of talking and not much action, or a dick who is just not nice when they could easily be.

And someone stated that he was sort of tubby and insinuated that the younger fellow could have cleaned his clock. Tony is not the slimmist driver out there but I bet he is very strong and fears nobody in or out of the car.

Yesterday evening at Homer's happy hour we discussed this incident over a beer or two. The question came up as to Tony's intent. The consensus was it would have proved that Tony intended to hit Ward if he had backed up and hit him again.

Now that is some dark humor there but really, short of that I think it is pretty hard to prove intent to harm.

Maybe, maybe not. Wife has a friend that looks tubby too but has been invited to train with some Karate masters so I assume she has some skills..

Tony Stewart "The Best of Smoke" Angry and Funny Updated 8-2014 - YouTube
After watching this the police may want to rethink an investigation .I cant see any sponsers willing to work with THE GREAT TONY STEWART and his side show.

Think all they want but the question is how to prove it. You got one shot at charging him and you need to make it stick beyond reasonable doubt. If he pulls an OK and he can admit it later but you can't do squat.

I read this morning there may be a civil suit over this matter. It stated that the standard of proof is much lower. Sound familiar? I am thinking there will be a settlement, a nice memorial scholarship fund or the like and the rest of us can go back to life as usual.

One thing is fairly certain: if Mr. Ward had not gotten out of the car until the rescue crew got there, or had just continued across the track onto the infield, he would most likely be alive to race another day. His actions were stupid.

Nobody can dispute that. The question is whether Steward deliberately ran him down or not. I can't say for sure in this case. With this level of information, I have reasonable doubt so if it were up to me, I'd say "Not Guilty". If I was reasonably sure "Hang him".

NY is a pure comparative negligence state, so if the deceased was 99% at fault and Mr. Stewart was 1%, the deceased's estate would get 1%.

1% of what? What they ask for in a civil suit? Or does the jury decide what the damages were, and then they get 1% of that?

MV