re: So Tony Stewart ran over and killed another driver at a race last night

I could easily see that. I also could see Stewart's lawyer playing up the evils of marijuana and somehow finding a way to use that as a variable Stewart couldn't possibly have expected, blah blah blah.

Idk. I figure they go to court, Stewart has some success, gets the family's number down and they settle. But I also don't know diddly shite about our legal system.

I have no problem with it but it also isn't my generation who's terrified of it

Marijuana should be a non-issue. Cannabis and race car drivers have always worked well together. Consider the racing success of John Paul, Jr. and John Paul, Sr. They were dominant before the law got them. Consider Bill and Don Whittington.

Around 1974 Car & Driver magazine decided to quantify the effect of the two most popular recreational drugs on driver performance. The magazine staff assembled a group of pro race drivers with identical Porsche race cars at a California track. On the first day of the test each driver went out on the track and established base lap times while not under the influence. Then the drivers toked up and got stoned before going out again and recording lap times. Some drivers got a little slower and some got a little faster but there was no statistical difference in lap times. The following day the same procedure was followed but instead of pot each driver had two alcoholic drinks. Every driver was slower after imbibing and many were either running off the track or spinning out.

I'm 65 and I've smoked and driven for over forty years and never had an accident or a DUI.

Some observations:

Criminal case

I don't think that it came as a surprise to most of us that no formal criminal charges would be brought unless something earth shattering was revealed by the investigation. Obviously nothing earth shattering was there.

In one of the stories I read the DA's comments were unsettling to me because he referenced Ward having marijuana in his system to the level enough to impair judgment and I think it's a bit of stretch to jump to that conclusion. LINK

An autopsy was done and some of the results have been released. I doubt the autopsy report itself will be released because NY law probably does not permit it. So I would have to guess that Ward's blood was what was tested and it revealed the presence of marijuana which, as a general rule, will remain in the blood for some hours following use before it can no longer be detected. It can also be quantified but the literature shows that you cannot to any degree of scientific certainty conclude that an individual is impaired or intoxicated based on the presence of marijuana in the blood at some level, i.e., it is totally different than the tests which measure for alcohol in the human system. LINK LINK LINK. Of course I guess it depends on the context you place on the DA's statement--maybe he was not insinuating Ward was impaired but that it was theoretically possible he could have been, but then why make an issue of it if it's really a non-issue?

That issue aside it makes no real difference to prosecution of the criminal case because contributory negligence would not be a defense to the array of criminal charges Stewart might have faced. It is doubtful the marijuana evidence would pass the test of legal relevancy although if a criminal case had been filed I'm sure the defense would have sought to have such evidence admitted, the prosecution would have sought to have such evidence excluded, and the judge would have been required to have made a ruling on the admissibility of that evidence.

Bottom line is if the prosecution would have had a solid case to prosecute they would have done so, marijuana evidence or not. They just didn't have the case.

Civil case

There will still be a civil case IMO and it is more likely that the marijuana evidence will be admitted in that case IF it proceeds to trial because Ward's own conduct in terms of his own negligence is relevant in a civil case. In my earlier posts I noted that NY has a very favorable plaintiff's law in that in civil cases they apply the doctrine of pure comparative fault. What that means is that even if Ward was found to be 95% negligent and Stewart 5% Ward's estate still gets a recovery. So if the damages were $10M in that context Ward's estate gets $500,000. The damages will be substantial because he was a young person who was killed so you throw in loss of potential earnings over a lifetime along with the other elements of damages it will amount to a case of substantial damages.

My guess is as is true with most cases it will end up being settled, probably for some undisclosed amount that will not be made public.

quote:

---

This is exactly why you're beyond intellectually dishonest. You make a statement like this, but then you have absolutely no problem continuing to pass judgment and condemn Stewart at the exact same time.

And you wonder why I call it a "witch hunt"? Because you're a two-faced phony talking out of two sides of your mouth with shite like this.

You don't know what happened, and yet you're passing judgment. Stop being that kind of douche-nozzle and maybe you won't get called out as one.

---

You're welcome to have whatever opinion you want. I'm not interested in it though.......You're too emotional.

All I've done is try to objectively look at the evidence and come up with some theories on what might have taken place. While saying all along, every step of the way, that I didn't think Stewart should be charged.

But, i guess, since you can't refute any of the theories, it's easier instead, to just smear me as a "witch hunter" etc so that you can feel like you won some e-argument. As if questioning evidence in a bizarre tragedy is bad or wrong.


That's weak..............

Marijuana for president!

quote:

---

You're welcome to have whatever opinion you want. I'm not interested in it though....

---

Yeah, you're soooo not interested, you just can't help but reply to every single rebuttal to you. Just more drivel coming out of both sides of your mouth... again.

quote:

---

All I've done is try to objectively look at the evidence and come up with some theories on what might have taken place. While saying all along, every step of the way, that I didn't think Stewart should be charged.

---

Objectively? LOL, that's priceless.

And saying Stewart "shouldn't be charged" has absolutely nothing to do with you continually claiming he's at fault for killing someone. I think you even called it "murder" in an earlier post. You continue to contend that he purposely drove "up and to the right" and slant every bit of your "objective theories" towards Stewart having done something wrong on purpose.

So who gives one shite if you keep saying, "I didn't think Stewart should be charged." All it looks like is you're adding one of those "plausible deniability" clauses to your contentions, so if you end up ultimately being wrong, you think you can just go, "But I said I didn't think Stewart should be charged!", and you think this grants you the moniker of "objective".

Like I said, that's being intellectually dishonest and phony. You are no where close to objective. You can't call the guy a murderer and then claim objectivity.

quote:

---

But, i guess, since you can't refute any of the theories,

---

LOLWUT??

I posted printscreen stills of the video proving Tony turned the wheel away from Ward and you only attempted to refute it with opinion and biased assumption. I've probably posted more evidence refuting your theories than anybody else in this thread for Christ sakes.

And if I'm not mistaken, a debate, or "e-argument" can only possibly happen between more than one persons, and you've contributed to this debate easily as much, if not more, than anyone else in this entire long arse thread. I'd bet dollars to donuts if news had come out that Stewart was charged and the evidence was against him enough that he was found guilty of a crime, that you would have been the first person to bump this thread and say, "I told you so!".

I like a good debate. It's entertainment. It's overwhelmingly obvious that you do too. But what's also obvious, is you REALLY don't like losing and can't take it when you do.

Look, I love your football acumen and football related contributions to this forum. I can't wait to read your UGA koolaid threads, and absolutely dig your passion and love you exude for this team, so don't think I dislike you over some silly thread about frickin jackwagon car racers. But my advice is learn when to fold your cards and move on to the next hand. This thread isn't going well for you and your stubbornness is making you look foolish.