Jump to content

Josh Hancock dies in auto accident


floydnimrod

Recommended Posts

All I'm gonna say since this came back up is that while he clearly wasn't stellar and made some really dumb really bad choices, he also wasn't a bad person, certainly not one beyond redemption. It's sad that he has no chance at that redemption, and it's not wrong to feel for bad for Josh as well as he's family and friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All I'm gonna say since this came back up is that while he clearly wasn't stellar and made some really dumb really bad choices, he also wasn't a bad person, certainly not one beyond redemption. It's sad that he has no chance at that redemption, and it's not wrong to feel for bad for Josh as well as he's family and friends.

It's not wrong for NOT feeling bad for this moron either. If one doesn't feel for his family and friends (and maybe even teammates), then I think that's wrong. I will not apologize for my criticism of his moronic behavior. Remember when Pacman Jones was "counseled" by a convicted felon saying dude really needed to slow his ass down? Well, if a drunk who fell asleep at the wheel two months ago tells you that you have a drinking problem and you don't wake the :censored: up, that's a "your problem" and you get no sympathy from me.

Speaking of Pacman Jones, people love to beat up on these "thug" NFL players when they act a fool (just look at the "Batman" Carroll thread). So Joshua Morgan Hancock (1978-2007) does not deserve to be spared from his deserved bashing just because he took himself out of the gene pool.

I don't give a damn what cap he wears or what team's name is across his chest. You shouldn't either.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't care Jigga. You won't find me with anything bashing Pacman or Carroll. They like anybody make mistakes. Some people keep making them. I still won't bash 'em.

I don't care if you call his actions moronic. Doesn't even bother me to much to see him called a moron.

All of those are fitting of someone who made a really stupid decision, and maybe more than once.

Just don't like when I hear these people called genuinely bad people. Way more often than not they're good people who just keep making the stupid decisions in certain situations.

Although, just rereading your post, you call TLR a drunk. That's reserved for someone with a chronic problem. That may have been Hancock. La Russa had to much one night. Doesn't make your point less valid, it's just ignorant wording. Call him an idiot for what happened that one night if you want, don't lie and say a guy who drinks a glass or two of wine at dinner is a drunk.

Oh well. It's not just in this situation, I had a conversation with someone last night...it's just becoming clear to me that few find hate as unjustifiable as me in nearly any situation and few are willing to forgive as I am. (And if you view that as high and mighty, it's not. Certainly, I believe that it's right to forgive, but I'm not talking down to anyone.)

PS: That cat's hypnotizing. Took me an extra couple minutes just to stop watching the thing to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hancock's dad is now suing the restaurant for "over-serving" his son drinks. Yeah, they were forcefeeding him liquor, sir, one shot at a time.

:wacko:

God help us all. Whatever happened to personal accountability?

As bad as I feel for his dad, and I do a great bit, he'll have no case. Witnesses were even saying he didn't necessarily appear all that drunk. Which could mean he was either great at looking like he was fine, or else he just doesn't show well. And if he wasn't showing any signs, they may have served him again because they might not have thought he was already intoxicated.

It does bug me when people try and sue because of a lack of personal accountability. But out of respect for his family, I'll refrain from passing judgement, for now. But if he seriously tries and tries to pursue this over and over, then he'll fall right into that catergory of stupid people. I hope he realizes that and decides instead to accept that his son made a fatal mistake, and left his family to suffer through it. They need to work on dealing with that rather than trying to blame someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The artical that I read also stated that the tow truck company, the tow truck driver, and the driver of the car that was being helped are also being sued.

So, the father is blaming everyone but his son.

I hope I post the link right.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6846710?MSNHPHMA

...He's getting some bad legal advice... and he's taking it, which is on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True enough. All on him.

Sad, really. The whole mess is sordid, from the repeatedly bad behavior of Hancock to his father's insistence that everybody else is to blame.

It really makes me mad, that ballclubs are limiting alcohol in locker rooms because of this one irresponsible clown's actions, which have nothing to do with that. Why should he ruin it for the rest of the players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most ballplayers don't drink that alcohol anyways Gothamite. They go out to other places after the games--nobody really sticks around the clubhouse anymore. Plus, some teams had banned it long before this anyways. It's all symbolic trying to minimize the attachment the teams have to alcohol, but between the major sponsorships and whatnot it's rather hollow. I don't think it's a bad move, but it's not one that's going to have much impact.

As for the lawsuit, it's really stupid. Dean Hancock needs to let things be. Now if a complete trial has to gone on, we may see Josh's memory absolutely dragged through the mud.

Technically, he does have a legal claim against the bar, but it's not a claim they'll necessarily be able to prove. It's why bars are rarely ever found guilty of serving drunk patrons even though we all know it happens plenty.

But even if there's a legal claim, it just rings of not holding his son accountable for his actions. You all know I'm the forgiving type who doesn't believe these actions means Josh deserved to die or was a person deserving of hate, but I certainly wouldn't blame anyone but Josh for what happened.

And suing the tow truck driver and the man who was in another accident is absolutely stupid and I don't think he has a claim. The one guys car was stalled, there was nothing he could do, and it's the tow truck drivers responsibility to stop behind him and protect the stalled car from oncoming traffic. With his lights flashing and his rooftype light on, he was doing everything right. Flares or whatever may have been helpful, but that doesn't mean anything wrong was dumb.

He has no case against those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STL, if you truly feel that we shouldn't condemn an individual because of one (or two) mistakes, why didn't you defend Gustavo Chacin?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=47510

Oh yeah, he didn't play for the Cardinals.

Your defence of Little, La Russa, and now Hancock reeks of homerism.

I feel for his family and friends. They lost a loved one, someone who was close to them. That's never easy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to them.

I would say something similar about Josh Hancock, if he wasn't driving under the influence. That isn't the case though. He was driving drunk. He couldn't control himself, and he put his own personal enjoyment over his own life and the lives of every motorist on the road that night.

He did indeed get was coming to him. While I feel for his friends and family, I feel nothing for him.

Thank G-d he didn't taken any innocent people with him.

Guess I'm wrong though. My friend deserved to die. No...sorry...that still doesn't sound right.

I understand I run the risk of being labelled a heartless bastard, but yes, he did get what deserved. There's no excuse for drinking and driving. Your friend, like Josh Hancock, placed his own selfish wants over his own life and the lives of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STL, if you truly feel that we shouldn't condemn an individual because of one (or two) mistakes, why didn't you defend Gustavo Chacin?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=47510

Oh yeah, he didn't play for the Cardinals.

Your defence of Little, La Russa, and now Hancock reeks of homerism.

I feel for his family and friends. They lost a loved one, someone who was close to them. That's never easy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to them.

I would say something similar about Josh Hancock, if he wasn't driving under the influence. That isn't the case though. He was driving drunk. He couldn't control himself, and he put his own personal enjoyment over his own life and the lives of every motorist on the road that night.

He did indeed get was coming to him. While I feel for his friends and family, I feel nothing for him.

Thank G-d he didn't taken any innocent people with him.

Did I condemn Chacin? I never opened the the topic and don't honestly even remember seeing it. And I've defended more than those three, defended more than athletes, whether you see that on this message board or not. But I'm not going to repeat these same things over and over again. You're saying I'm lieing about who am I as a person. You're wrong, but I'm not gonna change your mind, and it's not worth trying.

But I'm also pretty well done with this topic, I was only chiming in on the stupidity of the lawsuit at this point.

Guess I'm wrong though. My friend deserved to die. No...sorry...that still doesn't sound right.

I understand I run the risk of being labelled a heartless bastard, but yes, he did get what deserved. There's no excuse for drinking and driving. Your friend, like Josh Hancock, placed his own selfish wants over his own life and the lives of others.

As long as you understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshua Morgan Hancock (1979-2007) died because of his own stupidity. With his dad filing this suit, it's not hard to see from where the young man got his sense of "judgement."

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I'll be a heartless b*stard along with Icecap, but I think that Dean Hancock is suing because he won't be able to cash in on his son's big league baseball contracts anymore. Money talks and bull----, well everything else walks.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshua Morgan Hancock (1979-2007) died because of his own stupidity. With his dad filing this suit, it's not hard to see from where the young man got his sense of "judgement."

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I'll be a heartless b*stard along with Icecap, but I think that Dean Hancock is suing because he won't be able to cash in on his son's big league baseball contracts anymore. Money talks and bull----, well everything else walks.

True, true. But irrespective of his motives, Mr. Hancock would do well do just abandon this quest. As has been said at great length and with great eloquence, the last time I checked, Josh Hancock was over 21 years of age and free to do whatever he wanted to. If that included getting intoxicated to the point where driving was illegal and dangerous, and still got behind the wheel, that's 100% on him. If the bartender at Bar #1 cut him off, he would have gone to a bar where they would have served him; such is being young and rich and privileged.

All a lawsuit is going to is heap dirt on his dead son. Instead of leaving his memory (relatively) unsoiled, a lawsuit will dredge up EVERYTHING - the drinking, the marijuana in the car, and God knows what other signs of poor decision making. He's not going to get a penny out of the defendants, and he's only going to embarrass himself and the memory of his son in the process. Let the healing go; don't reopen the old wounds day after day in court, pouring alcohol on it with every new discovery of Josh's private life.

At any given time in this country, millions of people are consuming alcohol, and those who overindulge, fight, drive, or make asses of themselves are only a small fraction of that group. So why can millions of people enjoy the same thing responsibly and a few can't? If the bartender should be blamed for Josh choosing to drink too much, should my bartender and waitress be praised for me NOT getting :censored:faced last night because I chose to have only a couple beers?

If this puts me in the same category of heartless bastards with 'Cap and Jigga, then so be it. I will enjoy my company, and we can all sit there and be happy together, knowing that we all were taught to take responsibility for our own actions and failures rather than seek out people to blame when we :censored: up.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should sue his father for wasting everyone's time. What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? This should get laughed right out of court.

Let me get this straight, the guy gets drunk, drives, gets in an accident and dies. There are only about...I don't know...a million commercials and PSAs that warn against drinking and driving and, as far as I know, it's illegal everywhere. Basically if you have any awareness at all you know that drinking and driving is bad. So my question to Hancock's father is this...How on Earth can you blame someone else for your son's death, and better yet, manage to do it with a straight face? Sorry but his Dad gets no sympathy from me. They should sue his Dad for being a :censored:ing moron...unfortunately being stupid beyond description isn't against the law.

I'll be watching the mail for my Heartless Bastard membership card and T-Shirt.

 

BB52Big.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should sue his father for wasting everyone's time. What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? This should get laughed right out of court.

Let me get this straight, the guy gets drunk, drives, gets in an accident and dies. There are only about...I don't know...a million commercials and PSAs that warn against drinking and driving and, as far as I know, it's illegal everywhere. Basically if you have any awareness at all you know that drinking and driving is bad. So my question to Hancock's father is this...How on Earth can you blame someone else for your son's death, and better yet, manage to do it with a straight face? Sorry but his Dad gets no sympathy from me. They should sue his Dad for being a :censored:ing moron...unfortunately being stupid beyond description isn't against the law.

I'll be watching the mail for my Heartless Bastard membership card and T-Shirt.

While I may not share the intense anger that you guys have, I still mostly agree with you... actually I completely agree, I'm just trying to be a little respectful of the situation (though I don't blame you for not. Huh, imagine, me, going against the "grain" on a Cardinals issue. go figure). I agree, it's a waste of time, resources, what's left of his son's memory. With all the crap surrounding his death now, he should just leave it be, where everyone knows he did something stupid, that unfortunately millions do everyday but manage to not get someone killed themselves included. Yet, they were trying to be respectful about it. It's not worth tarnishing your son's already shady image after his death, especially when you have no shot at winning. This is not the kind of exposure you want for your son's legacy. He should just talk about the good things about his son to try and help move past some of the bad. This is just bringing the bad to the front of the line to stay. Think about it, Mr. Hancock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through the article, I'm sorry, but this is right up there with that dentist suing Cory Lidle's estate.

It's the whle pot meet kettle deal. The towtruck driver and car driver are at fault for not being safe, uh, hi, Josh was drunk twice the legal limit. Maybe if dip :censored: wasn't drinking and driving he wouldn't have died. Maybe it's a lucky thing that the tow truck driver, (who was doing a good deed as far as we can tell from what we've heard) and the other car driver. God forbit that his actions could have killed someone other than himself.

In this instance, I would have imagined that the lawsuits would go in the opposite direction, Hancock's estate gets sued because his actions endangered the lives of others.

IMO, if you're drinking and driving, and something happens to you, it's deserved. God help you if someone is hurt because you're :censored:ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Louis is fortunate to have 2 of the very best sportswriters in the country working for the local paper. This links to Bryan Burwell's outstanding opinion on why Hancock's family is in the wrong on this. It's good to know that great minds think alike, as I said many of the same things.

For anyone still drinking the Kool-Aid on this, here's more to consider if you still think the Hancocks should proceed with this:

1. The family is suing the tow truck operator for not making himself easier to see... even though his flashers were on, and he was one of the few cars on an interstate highway in the middle of the night.

2. The family is suing the operator of the car that had crashed and was being attended to by the tow truck driver... simply for crashing his car and being in the way of their drunk, distracted son's speeding SUV.

3. The suit alleges that Hancock was intoxicated "involuntarily"... which implies either the drinks were spiked or they tied him to his stool and forced the booze down his throat. It fails to mention that any point, Hancock could've acted like a rational, responsible adult, and said to the bartender, "Ya know, I think I'm good - thanks, though."

4. The suit blames the staff and management at the bar... even though bar management is on record as having tried to get Hancock a cab, which he refused. He then lied and said he was only going about 3 blocks down the street to a hotel, and didn't need a cab.

5. The suit doesn't blame Hancock himself... even though he got himself drunk, was speeding while intoxicated, was distracted by talking on his cellphone while speeding and intoxicated, and was not wearing his seatbelt while speeding, intoxicated and distracted.

McCall, it's not anger as much as it is insulting. It's insulting to everyone's sense of fairness. This kid had the world in his hands, and died because of his own irresponsibility. Now the father is seeking to punish others because of his son's irresponsibility, and make money in the process. Given how the community has supported the team and the family in the wake of this self-inflicted casualty, it's a slap in the face to everyone that he has the gall to try this. Moreover, this does not let his son rest in peace, and it all but guarantees that his son's reputation will be torn to shreds. We'll hear stories of alcohol and drug abuse and all kinds of irresponsible behavior; is that really what he wants to do to his son?

Karma's a bitch, Mr. Hancock.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting sick of this Hancock family.

Suing the bar is one thing, there is a precedent that states bars and restaurant are responsible if they allow someone to drive drunk. I disagree with it, but in many cases this is a winnable case.

Personally Josh Hancock is at fault because he didn't know when to say when and didn't three days after another accident get in a cab. Also he didn't wear his seatbelt, and was on his Cellphone.

However he is also suing the tow truck and the guy who broke down WTF.

The lights were flashing dozens of other people passed the tow truck and dint hit it, but a drunk stoned pitcher without his seatbelt who was too blitzed to know what he was doping and was on a cellphone possibly even texting slammed into the back of a big ass tow truck with flashing lights, what a friggen joke.

Any last sympathy I had for his family is now gone.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.