Tony Stewart will not face charges in deadly crash

[KamaAina]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Grand-jury-to-weigh-case-of-NASCAR-s-Tony-Stewart-5759404.php

Three-time NASCAR champion Tony Stewart will not be charged with the death of a fellow driver at a sprint car race in upstate New York, prosecutors said Wednesday in disclosing for the first time that the victim had enough marijuana in his system the night he died to impair his judgment.

Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo said a grand jury decided against charging Stewart with either second-degree manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide in the Aug. 9 death of Kevin Ward Jr., who was struck and killed as he walked down the track in an apparent attempt to confront the NASCAR veteran after their cars got tangled up one lap earlier.

"There is toxicology evidence in the case relating to Kevin Ward that indicates that at the time of operation he was under the influence of marijuana," Tantillo said. "The levels determined were enough to impair judgment."

Tantillo also said two videos — one from a fan, the other from the tiny track in this New York hamlet, had been examined and enhanced. Both showed Stewart did not do anything wrong and that there was no "aberrational driving."

WEED KILLS!!1!1!!

One wonders if Stewart will face any disciplinary action from NASCAR, a la Ray Rice.

[hollysmom]

1. I wonder why anyone considered charging him - the other man was

walking on a race track. I would say impaired!

[KamaAina]

2. Kevin Ward Jr.'s family issues statement saying 'the matter is not at rest'

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-from-the-marbles/ward-family-issues-statement-saying--the-matter-is-not-at-rest-215917279.html

The family of Kevin Ward Jr. issued a statement Wednesday afternoon that strongly hinted at a civil lawsuit after an Ontario County (N.Y.) grand jury said that it would not indict Tony Stewart in Ward's death on Aug. 9....

Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo announced the grand jury's decision and said video evidence showed Stewart drove in a straight line, that toxicology reports determined that Ward was under the influence of marijuana at the time and it was an amount enough to "impair his judgment."

The marijuana revelation, previously unreported, provided new evidence that transferred the focus of responsibility from Stewart back to Ward, something his family took issue with.

Here's the family's statement.

"Our son got out of his car during caution when the race was suspended. All the other vehicles were reducing speed and not accelerating except for Stewart, who intentionally tried to intimidate Kevin by accelerating and sliding his car toward him, causing the tragedy. The focus should be on the actions of Mr. Stewart. This matter is not at rest and we will pursue all remedies in fairness to Kevin.”

Good luck with that, Wards.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Toxicology Report Says Ward Was High

Enough in the system to impair judgment. A guy blazes one and then drives a racecar? Yikes.

[rocktivity]

11. I'm supposed to believe that he wasn't too impaired to drive a race car

Last edited Sun Sep 28, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

but he WAS too impaired to realize that getting out of his car and walking into the center of a racetrack in hopes of confronting one of the drivers was not a smart idea? Male cattle droppings -- the DA went for the daily double by getting the race track off the hook and setting back marijuana legalization. Or did Ward and the guy the cop killed in Ferguson have the same dealer?


rocktivity

[JonLP24]

4. I wonder how they determined he was high during the race?

Considering how long it stays in your system.

Once I failed a drug test with a LOL - exceeds limits of lineraty but I was probably sober at the time.

One time after coming back from an adventure which was both positive and negative I was close to 200 but sober at the time. A week goes by (usually all I need is a week) without using and I dropped a little over 100 nanograms but still failed.

Point is you can register significant amounts of THC in your system and still be sober (hard to prove whether you are or not even if you are high). A high usually wears of in 45 minutes if you use occassionally but no more than 3 hours.

If I go years (I usually go at-least several months between use at-least) the beginning high scares the shit out of me but the medium and wear off isn't bad but then when I start using occasionally again I need more to even feel a high and it wears out pretty quick. Even weed in Washington was the color purple the high knocked me on my ass but wore off no longer than an hour and a half.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. The Metabolic Rate Is Quite Well Understood, Jon

And, the autopsy, per what i heard yesterday, took place only a few hours after death.

It probably, (although i don't know for sure) included cannabinoid levels in the blood, which would remain unchanged nearly immediately upon death.

I think you might be a bit unusual if the effect completely wore off in an hour and a half.

I don't do it anymore, but when i did, it lasted longer than that for me.
GAC

[JonLP24]

6. I'm just trying to learn more

It is well enough understood to know there are complications when it comes to determining impairment. It seems the legalized states are going for some sort of 5 nanograms per milliliter rule which on not sure what that means as far as how 5 nanograms make you feel (like 3 beers (or roughly .08) feels like a good buzz). I'm not sure what my numbers meant when my positive tests came back a gas chromatography – mass spectrometry -- only info I remembered was the number of nanograms. I can't remember the details around the LOL (it was almost 8 years ago) but the one that was almost 200 I was sober a good (the 4 or 5 days before that--a different story) 2 days and of course that one after that, over a week. Don't know what it means but can tell you it doesn't mean I was high. I realize blood tests are different.

Even then, the limit used is unreliable. There are so many studies on the issues and they all pretty much come back the same way.

NY Times Article

THC levels must be measured from blood or urine samples, which are typically taken hours after an arrest. Urine tests, which look for a metabolite of THC rather than the drug itself, return a positive result days or weeks after someone has actually smoked. Yet most states have laws that equate any detectable level of THC metabolite in urine with detectable levels of actual THC in blood, and criminalize both. Only six states have set legal limits for THC concentration in the blood. In Colorado and Washington, where recreational use has been legalized, that limit is five nanograms per milliliter of blood, or five parts per billion.

The problem, Dr. Huestis said, was that studies from Europe suggested that this limit was far too high. Ninety percent of impaired-driving cases in Sweden would be missed at that level, she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/health/driving-under-the-influence-of-marijuana.html?_r=0

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/now-recreational-marijuana-now-legal-two-states-how-will-police-regulate-stoned-driving?page=0%2C1

The issue is actual impairment. Someone who uses regularly isn't as impaired as a new smoker at the same levels, also depends on the person's mind & body -- could cause panic attacks for instance and not a good drug if you have schizophrenia or history of or a predisposition. Also indica would probably cause more impairment than sativa.

In may case, I agree you're still technically high more than a few hours after but the initial "awareness" has faded and you're basically sober. In a first timers case it is likely different, if you expect and learn the effects it doesn't get as high as much anymore which is why I touch it once in a blue moon these days.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Fair Enough

One other thought:
The Ward family is still pursing civil action because they say Stewart sped up and swerved to intimidate Ward.

With at least three different camera angles looked at by the forensic investigators, if that's true, either the DA is completely incompetent or the investigation was botched.

It would be so easy to convince the majority of jurors that at the very least a negligent homicide or vehicular manslaughter occurred if there was evidence that someone in a car intentional swerved toward a person while the car was moving >60mph. It doesn't take a PhD in physics to know that a car at 60 hitting a person can do, at the very least, terrible damage to a person. Anybody driving a car knows that.

I know the Ward family is grieving, but it seems like this would be a slam dunk to indict if someone did what they're saying Stewart did. And, apparently they're the only ones who saw that despite video evidence.

[JonLP24]

8. As far as the case goes

Only Tony Stewart knows if he intentionally killed him or not. Wouldn't know how to argue negligence or even what the state law defines it as. What is interesting very little details are known which is the secretive nature of grand juries. One thing I consider is probably half of decisions made by higher ranks (in any organization--The Wire is probably the most accurate fictional show) are politically motivated. I don't know what the relevance to Ward's toxicology is to the incident, Stewart didn't know he was high when he hit him. Also interesting is the DA wouldn't elaborate how much was in his system. If it was 1 per mil then you can say "He probably was" but if it was the 5 threshold then it's "maybe or maybe not". Also New York could be a state that convicts on less for THC DUI then what forward looking states Washington or Colorado. On a hunch I looked for it.

This link--http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/dui/new-york.htm--points to this law--http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/VII/31/1192 saying any amount will establish "intoxication" so Tony Ward was "intoxicated" according to state law no matter how much was actually there.

I though grand juries were supposed to be unfair to potential defendants--I may seem like I'm rambling but what I'm getting at in response to the case is The Truth.

I knew right away that nothing was going to come of it simply because it would rely on Tony Stewart implicating himself and chances are he wouldn't even if he did mean to hit him. Also they guy did step out onto the track and I imagine there are not going to hold up something that happens on a track the same they would on public thoroughfares. I'm guessing here but w/ what I imagine pretty much no evidence I'd rather let him walk even if he did intentionally do it but didn't admit to because I'd rather not go down that road of charges or convictions based on unprovable assumptions.

Something his dad said right away did interest me, he did say Stewart is one of the best drivers out there and could have avoided if he wanted to. He pointed out the driver before him managed to. I wouldn't convict him based on that but here is one scenario that could possibly the The Truth. I don't know what went on in that race but I think he ran him into the wall, not sure why that happened but possibly tempers were flared on both sides. I'm a novice car racing expert but I do know drivers have to be very precise, the best know how to maneuver. Also NASCAR is known to have dirty drivers and Ward presented an opportunity to be downright dirty. Stewart could have seen him up ahead and said to himself, "I'll hit him, how could they say it was on purpose?" or more likely (if he did do it) he reacted on impulse and regrets it terribly but won't snitch on himself (who would?).

His dad also mentioned that he was accelerating while everyone else was slowing down (due to the caution). I'm curious what facts were presented to the grand jury (as far as accident investigators) but we'll likely never know. Tony knows what The Truth is and it may very well be what it is he is telling us. Ward did walk into the middle of a track, there was poor lighting and it was dark. I'm curious though the history, all I know is the wall, the caution, then the hit. Often when it comes to The Truth we'll never know but as far as the little facts I'm aware of Tony Stewart shouldn't be penalized whether by the state or NASCAR unless someone comes up with some evidence.

on edit - the marijuana thing really bothers me because what if none was in his system? Why would that matter in regards to Stewart's actions?

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I'm With You Jon

We're discussing two different points, but i think we're in general agreement.

As to Grand Juries being hard on potential defendants, yes i think you're right. That's why the old saying says "you can indict a ham sandwich". That's the part that sticks with me.

Either the prosecutor is a buffoon, the investigation was botched, or there is no evidence that Stewart did anything reckless, aggressive or negligent. I just don't see a fourth option if a grand jury can't even agree to indict.

[rocktivity]

10. Forget the civil suit -- the court will rule that for "but his actions"

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:13 AM - Edit history (2)

Ward would probably still be alive, and/or that it's "more likely than not" that Stewart couldn't have seen him in time -- if at all.

He got out of his car, which he shouldn't have, moved toward the middle of the track, which he shouldn't have, and moved toward Stewart's car, which he shouldn't have. The sound of an engine revving in the video came from the Number 45 car that nearly hit him beforehand. And Stewart's car slid as the result of Ward being pulled under the back tire, not by steering toward him.

Ward's judgement was impaired by his anger -- had it been impaired by pot, he wouldn't have been able to drive the car the first place.


rocktivity