Can people stop getting out of their vehicles to try and confront people on race tracks?

[Art Vandelay]

Could Tony not rev his engine at a human being and kill them?

He should be fucking arrested and banned from Nascar, his actions are no justification for the kid going on the track, even if he wasn't supposed to.

Because revving your engine means it's murder?

 

Looks like he was trying to swerve around the guy, judging by the fact that the guy got hit by his back tire and was sucked under. 

 

 

After something like this, I think we will see governing bodies come down on aggressive behavior hard. Drivers do need to get out and away from their cars on occasion, but they should be clear of the track as well. The kid was livid after Stewart put him into a wall. Should he have gone out on the track? No, but it's easy to say this in hindsight with a cool head. Is that behavior rare? No. Did he deserve to die over it? No. Did Stewart try to hit him with maliciously? I hope not. It looked like he was just trying to give the kid a rooster tail, but ended up adding injury to insult.

 

That Stewart was planning to continue racing today is troubling. An incident as it played out is at least manslaughter, and he should be banned from all racing in my opinion.

I love all of these analyses done by people who have probably never raced on a dirt track, and how they claim that they can tell by a narrow camera angle exactly what the guy was trying to do there.

 

Whatever happened, you can't claim this was intentional based off that footage, and I'm not sure you could even claim negligence with the tiny amount of footage that was there, yet everyone wants to go destroy this guy's life over some idiot kid running into the middle of the track.

[TheSLSAMG]

Because revving your engine means it's murder?

 

Looks like he was trying to swerve around the guy, judging by the fact that the guy got hit by his back tire and was sucked under. 

 

 

 

I love all of these analyses done by people who have probably never raced on a dirt track, and how they claim that they can tell by a narrow camera angle exactly what the guy was trying to do there.

 

Whatever happened, you can't claim this was intentional based off that footage, and I'm not sure you could even claim negligence with the tiny amount of footage that was there, yet everyone wants to go destroy this guy's life over some idiot kid running into the middle of the track.

I didn't finish that statement. Revving your engine and darting your car at someone. I don't give a fuck if he was being intimidating and trying to start a fight. He is on foot, you are in a car. Have more responsibility than that.

[Art Vandelay]

I didn't finish that statement. Revving your engine and darting your car at someone. I don't give a fuck if he was being intimidating and trying to start a fight. He is on foot, you are in a car. Have more responsibility than that.

Usually when you dart your car at someone, the front end doesn't completely miss the person.

 

The guy got stuck under the back wheel. It was obvious the driver wasn't just going DIRECTLY at him.

 

You're making the assumption, based off of a narrow camera view of what happened that: 1. The driver saw the guy on the track early enough to make the decision to go after him. 2. It was possible to avoid the guy on the track by the time the driver saw him. 3. revving the engine was an attempt to kill the guy on the track and not to avoid him

 

Based off of 2 seconds of footage, you somehow have enough evidence to prove all of those things? Cars can't just rapidly turn on a dirt road. For all you know, he tried to swerve around that guy, started to skid and revved the engine to try and avoid that guy, and it backfired.

[Misanthrope]

You know locally we have a law in which a person can be found innocent of vehicular manslaughter if you hit a person on foot in the road within 50 yards of a footbridge the person decided not to use.

 

There is no law however, that says that you can accelerate into the person and mow him the fuck down just because he made a poor choice and tried to cross a highway without the proper bridge since real life is not fucking GTA and you're expected to make every effort to avoid a person even if he's being negligent. This should be of particular interests in a race when everybody was telling you to slow the fuck down to a crawl cause there was an accident you were involved in not a few seconds ago.

But of course who gives a shit about that right let's all make fun of the guy who made the stupid decision to get out of the car not the guy who consciously made the decision that directly or indirectly killed him by accelerating and/or going to fast when he was told NOT TO already.

[jbr]

Question: In which direction did the car fishtail?

 

Answer: Right

 

Question: Which side of the car was the guy who was hit on?

 

Answer: Right.

 

Question: How the F$%^, does a car deliberately steer right to hit someone and fishtail right?

 

 

Can't wait to hear the MORONIC answers for the last question.

[Mooshi]

We can argue this topic for days, but the fact still remains. Had Ward stayed off the track, what would have most likely happened is he would have confronted Stewart after the race was over, the two might have had a scuffle and at the very most someone might have a black eye and a bruised ego. We do some fine here and there, both men live to race against each other another day. There is absolutely zero way to sugar coat this.

[Misanthrope]

Question: In which direction did the car fishtail?

 

Question to your question: Does it matters if he at any point was going fast enough to spin out when he was told not to do so because of the accident? 

[Snickerzz]

The fuck

[Misanthrope]

We can argue this topic for days, but the fact still remains. Had Ward stayed off the track, what would have most likely happened is he would have confronted Stewart after the race was over, the two might have had a scuffle and at the very most someone might have a black eye and a bruised ego. We do some fine here and there, both men live to race against each other another day. There is absolutely zero way to sugar coat this.

 

We can argue this on many threads but the fact still remains: You're more interesting in mocking and blaming the guy who got out of the car and completely exonerate the guy who actually took his fucking life.

[Mooshi]

We can argue this on many threads but the fact still remains: You're more interesting in mocking and blaming the guy who got out of the car and completely exonerate the guy who actually took his fucking life.

 

Wrong, I think Tony Stewart is guilty as fuck in this. However, had Ward not have wandered onto the track like a hot blooded lunatic, Stewart wouldn't have had a man right in front of his vehicle to run into in the first place. This is not arguable, it's fact. Both men are at fault here.

[jbr]

I didn't finish that statement. Revving your engine and darting your car at someone. I don't give a fuck if he was being intimidating and trying to start a fight. He is on foot, you are in a car. Have more responsibility than that.

 

Physics lesson 1:  Those cars need to be gassed to maintain steering and traction on the track, especially when making an sharp turn to AVOID some MORON walking ON the track.

[Misanthrope]

Wrong, I think Tony Stewart is guilty as fuck in this.

Is that why you posted this?

Hypocrite.

[Misanthrope]

Physics lesson 1:  Those cars need to be gassed to maintain steering and traction on the track, especially when making an sharp turn to AVOID some MORON walking ON the track.

Question to your question: Does it matters if he at any point was going fast enough to spin out when he was told not to do so because of the accident?

[jbr]

Question to your question: Does it matters if he at any point was going fast enough to spin out when he was told not to do so because of the accident? 

 

Simple physics, it matters because it's IMPOSSIBLE

 

Turning the car right in the direction of the guy he hit does not result in the rear of the car fishtailing right.

[Misanthrope]

Simple physics kiddo.

 

Turning the cart right in the direction of the guy he hit does not result in the rear of the car fishtailing right.

Again this is irrelevant, he shouldn't have been driving fast enough for that to matter at all if he was told and knew not to because of the accident. This is akin to drunk driving, it doesn't matters if the accident was hard to avoid to begin with or caused by someone else's negligence as well, you shouldn't have been fucking drunk at the wheel.

He shouldn't have been driving that fast during an accident, period.

[Art Vandelay]

You know locally we have a law in which a person can be found innocent of vehicular manslaughter if you hit a person on foot in the road within 50 yards of a footbridge the person decided not to use.

 

There is no law however, that says that you can accelerate into the person and mow him the fuck down just because he made a poor choice and tried to cross a highway without the proper bridge since real life is not fucking GTA and you're expected to make every effort to avoid a person even if he's being negligent. This should be of particular interests in a race when everybody was telling you to slow the fuck down to a crawl cause there was an accident you were involved in not a few seconds ago.

But of course who gives a shit about that right let's all make fun of the guy who made the stupid decision to get out of the car not the guy who consciously made the decision that directly or indirectly killed him by accelerating and/or going to fast when he was told NOT TO already.

Why can't you people tell that the guy didn't mow him down. The car fishtailed and hit him. He tapped the accelerator last minute. It's really obviously not clear what the driver was trying to do there. It's not even clear the driver realized he hit the guy, since the guy just got sucked under the back wheel.

[jbr]

I didn't finish that statement. Revving your engine and darting your car at someone. I don't give a fuck if he was being intimidating and trying to start a fight. He is on foot, you are in a car. Have more responsibility than that.

 

Care to explain how his car defied the law of physics and fishtailed RIGHT when he supposedly tried to run him over by steering right?

 

 

I

[Misanthrope]

Why can't you people tell that the guy didn't mow him down. The car fishtailed and hit him. He tapped the accelerator last minute. It's really obviously not clear what the driver was trying to do there. It's not even clear the driver realized he hit the guy, since the guy just got sucked under the back wheel.

I'm not quoting it anymore, go back and ready the previous fucking posts: He shouldn't have been driving fast enough for any of this to matter, he knew there was an accident.

[jbr]

Again this is irrelevant,

 

LOL!!!!

 

Physics is irrelevant??

 

 

Lemme guess, 9-11 was an inside job, the moon landing was made on a sound stage and the gubermint is seeding the clouds with mind control chemicals using passenger jets right?

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not quoting it anymore, go back and ready the previous fucking posts: He shouldn't have been driving fast enough for any of this to matter, he knew there was an accident.

Is that an actual rule in NASCAR? Every other car seemed to be going the same speed.

[Misanthrope]

LOL!!!!

 

Physics is irrelevant??

 

 

Lemme guess, 9-11 was an inside job and the moon landing was made on a sound stage right?

Alright physics professor: a car wouldn't spin out at all if it's not going fast enough, there's just not enough force applied at lower speeds to overcome the friction even at adverse conditions like mudd, driving slow enough means you will not spin out.

Now that we completed the physics requirement of the argument can you drop the ad hominem stupidity from your posts? Thanks in advance.

[Misanthrope]

Is that an actual rule in NASCAR? Every other car seemed to be going the same speed.

Fine let's say that there is no rule and no yellow flags, radio communication or people to warn you there was an accident. You guys conveniently forget that he knew about the accident because of the little fact that he was directly involved in it seconds ago.

[jbr]

Alright physics professor:

 

Dude, that's like grade 4 science.....

 

If he was steering to the right to hit him the car would not, COULD NOT have fishtailed and hit with with the right side.

 

The fact that the car reacted the way it did is 1000% proof he was steering LEFT to avoid hitting him.

[Misanthrope]

Dude, that's like grade 4 science.....

 

If he was steering to the right to hit him the car would not, COULD NOT have fishtailed and hit with with the right side.

 

The fact that the car reacted the way it did is 1000% proof he was steering LEFT to avoid hitting him.

And if I'm driving at 100mph near an accident with police officers signaling me to slow down, the skid marks of me trying to dodge the irresponsible pedestrian looking at the wreck won't matter at all, because you know, I was speeding when I knew not to and hence makes this a foreseeable consequence of my recklessness.

[Art Vandelay]

Fine let's say that there is no rule and no yellow flags, radio communication or people to warn you there was an accident. You guys conveniently forget that he knew about the accident because of the little fact that he was directly involved in it seconds ago.

You also have to consider that he's following the cars in front of him. He sees the blue car going full speed, so he'd probably assume that the path he's taking doesn't have a person on it. 

 

If there was a rule, all of those cars were being negligent by not slowing, weren't they?