So long, Tony Stewart

Looking at if from a legal prespective, someone might think it would "boost" their career much like the Duke Lacrosse player case and charge him. Jury of public opinion is more evident these days where people buckle under the pressure. (Maybe not so much the case here)

That said, it is going to be hard to prove that he "intended" to run the guy over goosing the throttle or not. Perhaps the "goosing" was to blow by him or avoid him at the last second. Perhaps he slipped. Tony could argue poor visiblity. What if the guy died from hitting the wall after being bumped? Is that manslaughter/murder? I am sure everone signs awaiver which stated in part not to exit their cars in said conditions. We all know bumping and pushing goes on in these races. My dad used to take me to that track ever since I was a young kid. I saw many Hot Heads do this or that but it does not change anything at the end of the day. The track is not responsible for what driver's do or not not do.

Again, if you are sitting on the guard rails at Niagara Falls and fall over; who is at fault? If you lay on train tracks and get run over; who's at fault? If you jump in front of a roller coaster, who's at fault?

NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW:

15.05 Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states.
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter:
1. "Intentionally." A person acts intentionally with respect to a
result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his
conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such
conduct.
2. "Knowingly." A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to
a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance
exists.
3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.
4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Do you think any of these fit this situation?