See, there you go again. I've been a lawyer since I was five, so I know that reasonable doubt will work just fine in murder court. Because you have to be a lawyer to know that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Ty3fggeBA

https://31.media.tumblr.com/853c972ace95f36d86638c8011b3acca/tumblr_mzfubqvZmM1sker0zo1_500.gif

Putin33 How can you justify the high level of certainty you have, unless you are secretly a race car expert? I agree your position is plausible but you're arguing it like it's a lock.

I'm arguing with the same amount of certainty as anybody else.

From all I've seen (which isn't much), this will be a tough case to figure out. If they choose to bring it, you can certainly imagine an acquittal on reasonable doubt, but you could also imagine a conviction, depending what expert witnesses are able to bring to light. At the moment I don't feel that I know, myself, what happened, and I'm dubious that most others do. Claims of clarity seem premature on either side I think.

"I'm arguing with the same amount of certainty as anybody else."

Yeah but you're arguing the less likely case. Most people aren't murderers, which kinda influences which way ambiguity gets interpreted.

Less likely according to you. So your real problem is not 'certainty' but that you don't agree.

At least be honest about it.

I think the point that Putin is proving is that there's no way they could convict him of murder, and even if there's a case, it's not good enough.

Are you guys just hiding behind legalese or do you really think this ahole wouldn't try to drive near somebody in order to splash dirt on him? Because that's beyond the realm of Stewart's personality?

I've hated Tony for a long time and I openly criticize his every move. But no, I don't think he's that hotheaded.

No, I believe it. That's my interpretation too. But still, I could be wrong.

I think he is that hot-headed, and he probably did try to "buzz" the pedestrian, but I would not bet my (or his) life on it.

You all's faith in humanity is almost inspiring.

@Putin33 I have little faith in humanity, but I also have modest faith in my own judgment. I think he probably ran the guy over in a moment of rage, but I'm not certain enough to punish him for it.

At *best*, he is an incompetent driver who should no longer be on the race track, and a cold-hearted human being who didn't even bother expressing remorse or regret in the immediate aftermath of the incident. "Business as usual".

I simply have too high regard for his driving abilities to believe he is that bad at driving. It's like believing Stephen Hawking would mess up an arithmetic problem.

I also, quite frankly don't buy the modest faith in your own judgment. You're perfectly willing to convict people of much graver crimes on the flimsiest of evidence.

@Putin33

"You're perfectly willing to convict people of much graver crimes on the flimsiest of evidence."

Like who? If you're referring to condemnations of political and military figures, that's a totally different story than condemning an ordinary person. And it's for the same reason that libel laws are different for public figures than for ordinary people - you give up certain protections when you seek higher status. Less modesty is required of my judgment when the person being judged has taken on a position of power.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120402225423/random-ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jackson_popcorn.gif

@Putin: I want to address your list of "things we know" because I am not persuaded that we can be certain of all those things. In some cases you're presenting things as facts that are, in fact, merely your interpretation.

So:

"1 - Tony Stewart has had clashes with Ward in the past"

Accepted.

"2 - Tony Stewart has threatened to run over people, and has a history of violent/intimidating behavior against other drivers"

Accepted.

"3 - Tony Stewart is a world class driver, but yet was the only one who had trouble avoiding Ward"

I've pointed out that Ward was deliberately trying to get close to Stewart, which makes the scenario for Stewart different than for every other driver except, perhaps, the driver of the white and blue car. All the other drivers were at much less risk of hitting Ward for the reasons I've already mentioned.

"4 - The caution was up, and Stewart was going faster than the caution"

Prove this. At what speed do you claim was he travelling? What is your source for that claim?

"5 - Other drivers at the race said that acceleration causes fishtailing."

Which drivers? Source? I have seen an eyewitness make this statement, but not a fellow driver.

"6 - The engine was heard to be revving up prior to the contact with Ward"

This is a claim, not a fact. I've questioned this claim already and you haven't adequately responded. The video was being shot from the other side of the track and at any point, several of the cars are out of the camera's view. You have not demonstrated how you can be certain that it is Stewart's car that can be heard revving, and not another car, out of the camera shot at the time.

"7 - The driver in front of Stewart managed to successfully avoid contact with Ward, and was in the same pathway as Stewart."

This proves nothing. If you're watching the 200m hurdles at the Olympics, and one of the runners trips on a hurdle and falls, you wouldn't say "all the other hurdlers reached the end of the race without falling, so that guy obviously fell on purpose".

"8 - Ward did not move from his position after the Blue car swerved, yet he was hit by Stewart"

You keep saying this as if Ward stood in the same place for 10 minutes. Ward was standing still for a maximum of 1.5 seconds.

"9 - Eyewitnesses state that they believe Stewart ran down Ward on purpose"

I accept that this is what some eyewitnesses have claimed. I don't see how they can be in any way certain.

I guess we're done here. End of thread.