Quote from: taxed on August 10, 2014, 09:48:06 PM
Ron and Nicole didn't jump in front of a knife.  This guy jumped in front of a race car on a race track, and you're considering Stewart is guilty of murder.  Even if he did step on the gas, that isn't enough for me.

If you don't see someone, isn't that not what race car driver do. 

Quote from: walkstall on August 10, 2014, 10:00:26 PM
If you don't see someone, isn't that not what race car driver do.

Last time I checked...

Quote from: taxed on August 10, 2014, 09:48:06 PM
Ron and Nicole didn't jump in front of a knife.  This guy jumped in front of a race car on a race track, and you're considering Stewart is guilty of murder.  Even if he did step on the gas, that isn't enough for me.

I see. So if someone walks out into a highway, the other cars can intentionally hit that person because, hey, he shouldn't be on the highway?

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 11, 2014, 12:44:57 AM
I see. So if someone walks out into a highway, the other cars can intentionally hit that person because, hey, he shouldn't be on the highway?

No, it's for the same reason pedestrians get hit on a daily basis, people don't expect to see an individual in an area they aren't supposed to be.
For the same reason city dwellers constantly hit deer in the mountains, it's not something they see in the city.

I'm certain there's a technical term that applies to this in your field, though it may be a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

The same applies to a racetrack, of all places, this one is definitely not where you'd expect to see someone standing.

If you see a stalled car along the road, where do your eyes immediately focus?
The driver saw the same, a car on the side of the track, do you really think he was looking for the driver in the middle of the track?

Just another open and shut case...The victim did it.

Quote from: actionblock on August 11, 2014, 08:30:05 AM
Just another open and shut case...The victim did it.

Both are victims sadly enough, by the stupid actions of one individual.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 11, 2014, 12:44:57 AM
I see. So if someone walks out into a highway, the other cars can intentionally hit that person because, hey, he shouldn't be on the highway?

No, but if they get hit, I wouldn't jump to calling the driver a homicidal maniac.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2014, 07:20:24 AM
No, it's for the same reason pedestrians get hit on a daily basis, people don't expect to see an individual in an area they aren't supposed to be.
For the same reason city dwellers constantly hit deer in the mountains, it's not something they see in the city.

I'm certain there's a technical term that applies to this in your field, though it may be a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

The same applies to a racetrack, of all places, this one is definitely not where you'd expect to see someone standing.

If you see a stalled car along the road, where do your eyes immediately focus?
The driver saw the same, a car on the side of the track, do you really think he was looking for the driver in the middle of the track?

I have no idea if he did it intentionally or not but I certainly wouldn't put it past him especially since he threatened to run someone over a couple years ago. Regardless, people can get involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter charges for hitting pedestrians even if it was just an accident. Given the engine rev, his history of threats, and his temper, I can see him facing charges.

However, one factor in his favor is that this was during a race with a certain level of danger and responsibilty assumed. Let's say he had a fender bender on the highway with some guy and that guy got out and challenged him to a fight. If he ran him over under those circumstances, he would be in prison already. But since this was a different environment, it seems he may be given a bit more slack.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 11, 2014, 04:19:48 PM
I have no idea if he did it intentionally or not but I certainly wouldn't put it past him especially since he threatened to run someone over a couple years ago. Regardless, people can get involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter charges for hitting pedestrians even if it was just an accident. Given the engine rev, his history of threats, and his temper, I can see him facing charges.

However, one factor in his favor is that this was during a race with a certain level of danger and responsibilty assumed. Let's say he had a fender bender on the highway with some guy and that guy got out and challenged him to a fight. If he ran him over under those circumstances, he would be in prison already. But since this was a different environment, it seems he may be given a bit more slack.

No, and no. You cannot be charged for accidentally running someone over, that requires extenuating circumstances, such as distracted driving, texting, or DUI, but not if you are doing nothing wrong.

Also, if someone was threatening you, and you felt your life in danger, the worst you could get would be man slaughter.
If a 250 lb man came at a teenage girl threatening her and she runs his ass over, not a jury in the country would convict and the DA knows this, so charges would be dropped.
Again, unless there are extenuating issues.

Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2014, 06:27:17 PM
No, and no. You cannot be charged for accidentally running someone over, that requires extenuating circumstances, such as distracted driving, texting, or DUI, but not if you are doing nothing wrong.

Also, if someone was threatening you, and you felt your life in danger, the worst you could get would be man slaughter.
If a 250 lb man came at a teenage girl threatening her and she runs his ass over, not a jury in the country would convict and the DA knows this, so charges would be dropped.
Again, unless there are extenuating issues.

You're wrong. If you hit and kill someone, you can face charges. I think the only exception is if someone jumps in front of you to commit suicide. Key word is could. The "circumstances" you speak of can be found if the DA really wants to (i.e. going 5 mph too fast).

As to the second part, you're wrong again. If a girl is in the car and a large man (not sure what his size has to do with it) threatens her, she can, I don't know, drive away? That certainly is no excuse to kill someone.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 11, 2014, 09:37:10 PM
You're wrong. If you hit and kill someone, you can face charges. I think the only exception is if someone jumps in front of you to commit suicide. Key word is could. The "circumstances" you speak of can be found if the DA really wants to (i.e. going 5 mph too fast).

You can face charges for anything, I know, I used to arrest people for SIP, (Stupid in Public), which covered just about anything annoying, and no it wasn't a real charge, just a code to alert the WC in charge that someone needed off the street for everyone's safety.
So yes, you can face charges for anything, but a charge means absolutely nothing unless a DA wants to follow through, and believe me, no DA wants to try a case he can't win.

I know about this one from personal experience, my brother hit and killed someone and we were forced to understand the law.
He hit a woman in a crosswalk, she stepped right out in front of him, killed her on the spot, no charges were ever brought, because witnesses said she never stopped, just walked right out in the street in front of him.
So tell me why he should be in jail for killing someone.
Learn the term "Intent".

QuoteAs to the second part, you're wrong again. If a girl is in the car and a large man (not sure what his size has to do with it) threatens her, she can, I don't know, drive away? That certainly is no excuse to kill someone.

As former law enforcement, incidents similar to this came up all the time, again, it all falls under intent.
You have to consider her frame of mind, as well as his intent, and yes, juries do take into account ones ability to defend against their attacker, eg. frail old person vs 20 yro 250lb man.
Who could sustain the most damage/death, who is more capable of inflicting more damage.

Who determines ones ability to escape? Too many variables involved, so intent carries the burden. Was the situation avoidable, did the suspect instigate the situation, was escalation avoidable, (time frame of sequence), was there time for a judgement call?
As in this case, did the driver even see him in time to avoid hitting him? The DA would have to prove intent, and I guarantee you, him running out on the track puts all the burden on the assailant.

Am I getting through here?
Sometimes, people are responsible for their own actions, and sometimes they die from them, and no one is to blame for the actions of an idiot. Sometimes shit just happens.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2014, 04:43:43 AM
You can face charges for anything, I know, I used to arrest people for SIP, (Stupid in Public), which covered just about anything annoying, and no it wasn't a real charge, just a code to alert the WC in charge that someone needed off the street for everyone's safety.
So yes, you can face charges for anything, but a charge means absolutely nothing unless a DA wants to follow through, and believe me, no DA wants to try a case he can't win.

I know about this one from personal experience, my brother hit and killed someone and we were forced to understand the law.
He hit a woman in a crosswalk, she stepped right out in front of him, killed her on the spot, no charges were ever brought, because witnesses said she never stopped, just walked right out in the street in front of him.
So tell me why he should be in jail for killing someone.
Learn the term "Intent".

As former law enforcement, incidents similar to this came up all the time, again, it all falls under intent.
You have to consider her frame of mind, as well as his intent, and yes, juries do take into account ones ability to defend against their attacker, eg. frail old person vs 20 yro 250lb man.
Who could sustain the most damage/death, who is more capable of inflicting more damage.

Who determines ones ability to escape? Too many variables involved, so intent carries the burden. Was the situation avoidable, did the suspect instigate the situation, was escalation avoidable, (time frame of sequence), was there time for a judgement call?
As in this case, did the driver even see him in time to avoid hitting him? The DA would have to prove intent, and I guarantee you, him running out on the track puts all the burden on the assailant.

Am I getting through here?
Sometimes, people are responsible for their own actions, and sometimes they die from them, and no one is to blame for the actions of an idiot. Sometimes shit just happens.

I'm quite familiar with intent, thanks. Try learning the phrase quick to judge. As in, you guys making fun of the dead guy sure are quick to judge Stewart's intent. How do you know it was an accident? I suspect if your brother had gunned his engine when he hit that woman, the witnesses would certainly be singing a different tune.

So as I said, yes, the victim was acting like an idiot. If Stewart did it on accident, that really sucks. If he did it on puropose (i.e. it was his INTENT), he should be held accountable. I don't really see how you or anyone can argue with that. The fact is you don't know his intent and neither do I. So rather than assuming it was an accident and cowardly insulting some dead 20 year-old, I'm choosing to remain neutral.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 12, 2014, 09:00:53 PM
I'm quite familiar with intent, thanks. Try learning the phrase quick to judge. As in, you guys making fun of the dead guy sure are quick to judge Stewart's intent. How do you know it was an accident?

, Oh Jeezes, yeah, it was planned by both of them, or maybe he knew the kid was a hot head and would jump out on the track.

QuoteI suspect if your brother had gunned his engine when he hit that woman, the witnesses would certainly be singing a different tune.

Why would they? He had no expectation of someone deliberately walking out in front of him. So revving an engine is what you're basing this nonsense on?
Show me proof, I keep hearing this shit, even watched the video and never saw it. If you have evidence they have missed, you need to call the Sheriff.
When you say "Gunned" are you actually trying to tell me, just because the camera was on his car, and you heard an engine rev, that you're certain, that out of all the cars around, that it was his?
Keep in mind where the camera is located.

Quote
The fact is you don't know his intent and neither do I.

HELLO!!! What in the Hell do think I've been saying?

QuoteSo rather than assuming it was an accident and cowardly insulting some dead 20 year-old, I'm choosing to remain neutral.

Did he force that idiot hot head out on the track? NO! That completely exonerates the driver, yet you claim you want to remain neutral?
Neutral would be, "Not Jumping To Conclusions" the way you are.
I'm the one remaining neutral till evidence comes out showing anything other than a dumb ass hot headed kid causing his own death through a stupid act.

I had a friend that used to race professionally years ago. We were watching a race when a car flipped and rolled several times, I said "Oh, he must be dead", he said "nope," one thing every driver learns, is to stay seated and let them get you out, you never know if another car is coming.

Well that was a "Duh moment" for me, one this dumb ass ignored, instead, threw all caution to the wind and acted emotionally, just like a teenage girl in a mans sport.

Do I ridicule? You damn right, he was having a moment of road rage and got his dumb ass ran over.
Nothing justifies putting the lives of others in danger, and that's exactly what this idiot kid did by stepping out on the track.
You'd be singing a different tune had the driver swerved to miss and flew into the stands, killing people, then who would you be blaming, well?

I'm sorry for his family's loss, and the poor guy that hit him, but not for his dumb ass, I freakin despise people that can't control their emotions and by consequence, endanger other innocent people.

Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2014, 06:18:57 AM
, Oh Jeezes, yeah, it was planned by both of them, or maybe he knew the kid was a hot head and would jump out on the track.
Why would they? He had no expectation of someone deliberately walking out in front of him. So revving an engine is what you're basing this nonsense on?
Show me proof, I keep hearing this shit, even watched the video and never saw it. If you have evidence they have missed, you need to call the Sheriff.
When you say "Gunned" are you actually trying to tell me, just because the camera was on his car, and you heard an engine rev, that you're certain, that out of all the cars around, that it was his?
Keep in mind where the camera is located.

HELLO!!! What in the Hell do think I've been saying?Did he force that idiot hot head out on the track? NO! That completely exonerates the driver, yet you claim you want to remain neutral?
Neutral would be, "Not Jumping To Conclusions" the way you are.
I'm the one remaining neutral till evidence comes out showing anything other than a dumb ass hot headed kid causing his own death through a stupid act.

I had a friend that used to race professionally years ago. We were watching a race when a car flipped and rolled several times, I said "Oh, he must be dead", he said "nope," one thing every driver learns, is to stay seated and let them get you out, you never know if another car is coming.

Well that was a "Duh moment" for me, one this dumb ass ignored, instead, threw all caution to the wind and acted emotionally, just like a teenage girl in a mans sport.

Do I ridicule? You damn right, he was having a moment of road rage and got his dumb ass ran over.
Nothing justifies putting the lives of others in danger, and that's exactly what this idiot kid did by stepping out on the track.
You'd be singing a different tune had the driver swerved to miss and flew into the stands, killing people, then who would you be blaming, well?

I'm sorry for his family's loss, and the poor guy that hit him, but not for his dumb ass, I freakin despise people that can't control their emotions and by consequence, endanger other innocent people.

It's clear from this post that you don't understand the difference between intent and pre-meditation. To have intent doesn't mean you "planned" it that way. It means you INTENTially did an act rather than accidentally. You don't have to have it planned out and the intent can happen at that exact moment. So with your brother, if upon seeing that woman he intentially hit her, even though he didn't conspire with her nor did he pre-meditate hitting someone that night, his intent would still be to hit her if he did it INTENTially.
Listen to the video and it's pretty clear what is heard. You don't hear other engines rev as they go by but once Stewart does, you can hear it. That's the main piece of evidence as to why they investigated. Now, if you're some sort of camera sound expert and understand where that engine rev came from better than the investigators, give them a call amd help them out.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 13, 2014, 07:13:02 AM
It's clear from this post that you don't understand the difference between intent and pre-meditation. To have intent doesn't mean you "planned" it that way. It means you INTENTially did an act rather than accidentally. You don't have to have it planned out and the intent can happen at that exact moment. So with your brother, if upon seeing that woman he intentially hit her, even though he didn't conspire with her nor did he pre-meditate hitting someone that night, his intent would still be to hit her if he did it INTENTially.

No, you're confusing intent with premeditated, the law distinguishes the difference, as does the dictionary.

Quote"An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions."

Note the word "Planned"

Take this same situation and place it on a busy freeway, some idiot gets road rage, jumps out of his car to confront someone, steps out in traffic and gets his ass plowed.
Who's at fault?

QuoteListen to the video and it's pretty clear what is heard. You don't hear other engines rev as they go by but once Stewart does, you can hear it. That's the main piece of evidence as to why they investigated. Now, if you're some sort of camera sound expert and understand where that engine rev came from better than the investigators, give them a call amd help them out.

What gives you evidence that the camera was picking up the sound of his car from nearly a 1/4 mile away, is it not possible another car was closer and that's what you're hearing?
These cameras have zoom, it's possible the only camera on the scene was the furthest away.

You're ready to hang someone on circumstantial evidence. "Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute".
You see, you're inferring, without proof, and this is why the law never allows circumstantial evidence into court.
It's also why no charges were filed, there simply isn't enough evidence, though, the evidence we do have, is an idiot putting the lives of other in danger.