The convergence of a whole bunch of contributing factors.

Except the THC.

No way that being mellow could have had any contribution to making a stroll out on to a track problematic. I know because the movie Reefer Madness was over the top. :rolleyes: --yeah, solid logic thar speedy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The video evidence shows that Tony's car held the line of the car in front of Tony, meaning Ward came down the track with no warning.

Ignoring the facts, and trying to keep an argument going by throwing away THE FACTS is not trolling?

Ignore list updated with his name, I probably cleared it since the last thread on this.

No need to post further, the video has pretty clear evidence if you aren't blinded.

You haven't been following this thread as I've been on topic from post one, hence the troll label is way off base. My theory that Tony meant to scare the kid is a well known theory that's been widely distributed across a multitude of media since the incident occurred. Do I believe it's within the realm of possibility? Yes, as his behavior before the incident proved he's capable of it, and his behavior after has as well. Can anyone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what Tony was thinking? Of course not. Only he knows.

By the way, I've pulled the definition of a troll for you. And your view of the video as being indisputable is complete nonsense. The "expert" investigators might have cleared Tony so of course public opinion should accept it as indisputable "fact?" Preposterous. We, Joe Public, get to make up our own minds with the facts presented, and I saw the video a dozen times. Again, no way can I imagine Tony meant to hurt the kid but he was certainly going fast under caution and I can imagine was angry at the "young punk" trying to make a name for himself by showing him up. To think that this is beyond the realm of possibility is simply only a die hard fan would believe. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. And in this case, the facts are as murky and blurry as that very awful night on that race track.

BTW, I'm shattered I'm on your ignore list. SmileWavy

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

The thing is, all you have is the video, and your dislike of Stewart. The investigators had a better copy of the video, statements and interviews with Stewart, other drivers, spectators and track officials, and other stuff, not the least of which was an examination of the kid's body and Stewart's car. Plus, they are trained to investigate things, don't carry a personal bias into the investigation, etc. Investigating accidents is their full time job.

I don't care how many times you watch the video, you don't have 10% of the information they do. They concluded he did nothing wrong. You're welcome to your opinion. It's mostly speculation and infers facts that are not in evidence. I don't see that you're in much of a position to dispute the conclusion they came to. Not that that will stop you.

If you want to argue that Stewart had a temper, or was agressive, so be it. That requires reading his mind, since I'm sure he hasn't talked to you about it.

On the other hand, it's clear that Ward was acting in the same manner as you claim Stewart was. We can see his anger in the video, we can hear him yell at Stewart, we can see his agressive (and quite stupid) actions. If you're going to point fingers, it's a lot easier to point them at Ward.

JR

So now it's a "well known theory". That's right EMG, don't let those known facts ever become known facts, as studied by experts. No, no, lets just troll on, and on, and on. Yep, ignore list for sure.

On a hot track you stay in car unless it's on fire, or instructed by flaggers it is safe.

Suicide by auto. Don't care if TS steered towards him and hit him dead center on the front bumper, He would be alive if he didn't go out on the track.

Gees.... Ward got himself killed. Is anyone disputing this? Stays in car, not dead. That's a fact, yes.

100% yes.

Recuse yourself, Strup. You're a friend of his. I realize this is real-life unpleasant for you. Sorry about that. I'm out.

yes we all know but clearly you know little about roundy round and Friday and Saturday night at the dirt track.

BTW, the "well known theory" I describe is so wrought with foolishness that it's the basis for the wrongful death suit:

"The suit claims that Stewart caused the accident that crashed Ward Jr.’s car initially, and citing his “unique race car and driving skills” and “extreme skill and control over his car” acted recklessly in revving his engine and not steering clear of Ward Jr. in the aftermath as other cars had. Ward Jr. died of blunt force trauma."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nascar/2015/08/07/tony-stewart-kevin-ward-jr-wrongful-death-civil-lawsuit/31303007/

The fact that an actual investigation can clear him of wrongdoing and they can still persue civil action at all just points to a broken legal system. Money hungry lawyers will file suit on anything they think they can make money at, that is hardly relevant to the accident and subsequent investigation and really does little to bolster your argument EMJ.

wish sniper was still around to get in on this convo

True, but mostly moot since they will probably get compensated in an out of court settlement anyway. The wrongful death suit is the catch all these days. Pay with prison time or pay with cash. My point with the post was that the "theory" on what occurred is known, though some here react as if it's "my" ridiculous theory. The details of the theory are right there in the suit summary. Wrong or right it is known - ridiculous or not.

Pretty sure that amphetamine is a metabolite(breakdown product) of meth, or visa versa. So it might not be the same thing, but if you see one, the other is going to be there too.

Gordo, the investigation used the standard of proof for a criminal case. Lower bar in a civil case.


Pretty obvious that Mr Stewart did not do it on purpose, if you are objective.

BS. Every post I made last year was salient, it's just that your mind is so completely made up, your only response is to mischaracterize them. You're transparently desperate to hold on to your preconceived notions of what happened.

That's synonymous with sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "Lalalalalalalala!"

Yeah, that's real intelligent. You keep proving how unwilling you are to consider any evidence that challenges what you believe happened.

If you would like to show that you're willing to consider and discuss all sides of this like a rational, intelligent person, you'd read what that Sprint car driver said, especially about the source of the sound of the throttle blip in the article I quoted and make a few reasonable comments on it.

BTW, attempting to mischaracterize that driver's comments and citing TS's history as a "hothead" is not an intelligent and reasonable response.

Show us what you've got. Show us something new from you instead of the same old recycled highly biased BS you've been spewing so far.

:cool:

Well, Heel, I'm disappointed you're back to the green crayon colored text. I was impressed with your last post - thought you'd grown. But alas, we can only hope. How are you?

I didn't need to grow.

You did.

I see you're incapable of it... but thanks for playing... your dodging and dancing is what I expected.

That's why you get no respect here in this thread.

He could describe a scenario in words and pictures wherein a simple monkey roll would have been the difference between life and death.