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?
= new reply since forum marked as read