armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Josh Hancock: A Fitting Tribute

12
Vote

by user Aok2102

Josh Hancock's death was not a tragedy. That's not to say that it wasn't a sad day for his family, friends, and fans; it's just that the death of a completely unsympathetic character does not resemble a tragedy in any conventional sense of the word. Remember reading the Shakespearean tragedy in which the protagonist put back a few pints, went into battle with no armor, then ran directly into a blade because he was too blitzed to see straight? Me neither. Hancock is not worthy of our sympathy, and his story is only worthy of our time at this point if we are to hold him up as a negative example of what happens when a somewhat talented kid (a kid mentally, if not physically) is allowed to get out of control.


If you want to find a tragedy anywhere in the Hancock story, look no further than the lawsuit filed yesterday by Dean Hancock, the father of the deceased St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. The elder Hancock seemingly just filed suit against absolutely everyone at all involved with Josh on the night of his death. The owner of the restaurant where Josh got sloshed is named in the lawsuit, the manager of the restaurant is named in the suit, the owner of the tow truck that Josh hit is named in the suit, and even the driver of the vehicle being towed gets a legal shoutout. Are you kidding me? Dean Hancock wants everyone to give him money because his son never learned when to say no to a drink or his keys? Anything but an embarassing defeat in this suit would be a tragedy, and really, it's tragic that such suits are even allowed in our legal system.


I'm not saying that the restaurant shouldn't be held responsible for serving drinks to someone who was obviously already intoxicated. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that the restaurant should be fined heavily, if not shut down. But why in the world should Dean Hancock receive any money from anyone? The state should take action against the restaurant, but Dean Hancock should in no way be able to profit from his son's idiocy. This is nothing more than wasteful litigation filed by a father who can't accept that his son was responsible for his own death. At least wasteful litigation makes a fitting tribute to a wasted life.


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
KelsdadAll-Star
949 days ago
Score 1+-
Maybe someone should sue Mr. Hancock for being an idiot.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
948 days ago
Score 0+-
He should sue himself for not teaching his son the proper respect of alcohol...
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
949 days ago
Score 0+-
No vote...look into the facts before you rip a dead guy...

I've talked about this before on this site.... a .157 BAC is like 3 beers for the average person...IMO, that's not enough to make you so drunk that you can't drive...ever think that maybe the cell phone he was on at the time...maybe just maybe took his attention from the road and the truck driver, who tried to wave him down, just wasn't seen...

That's like the 3rd article I've seen like this...please wait until you look at the whole picture...
Permalink | Reply
The sharkDraft Pick
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Talking on a cell phone while driving after having a few beers is even stupider than driving after having a few beers.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 1+-
So then the dad shouldn't be suing anyone then, right?
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
No, the dad's lawsuit is frivilous, you're right about that... I guarantee it gets thrown out...the precedence is there...maybe not in st. louis, but in general...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 1+-
And, by the way, it's illegal to drink and drive. You can be stopped for sipping a Starbucks, so the BAC is of no consequence. Hancock killed himself, possibly more due to ignorance than drinking, but the end result is the same.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Its by state law (is it illegal to drink and drive in MO?)...but I don't believe he was drinking at the time of his death (literally)...
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
and by drink and drive, i mean what you describe above...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 0+-
I used to part own a restaurant/bar and had a liquor license in my name and was sued more times than I could count. And never lost. Why? Because you can't prove negligence. If Hancock had killed the tow truck driver, then there may have been liability, but when the only injured or killed is the "drinker", that's tough.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Yeah, i'm not disagree w/ you...i highly doubt he wins the that lawsuit...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 2+-
There were empty beer cans in his SUV, and scattered around the scene, so if I'm a betting man I would say yes, he was drinking in the car.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
I can't find any proof of that...not that I don't believe you, but, i don't see any report or news suggesting that...if you do find it, i'll just probably just stop talking...
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
948 days ago
Score 1+-
Mr. Hancock is sad that Little Johnny Paycheck won't be subsidizing him anymore...
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Police report.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Yeah, i found the accident report...but it doesn't mention much...i can't find the police report...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 0+-
A local sports radio guy here in Phoenix read parts of the police report on the air, that's how I heard about the beer cans, I never saw the report either.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Fair enough, i haven't heard much about that particular fact...i feel like more would have been made of it though...oh well
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
948 days ago
Score 1+-
George Tasker (AKA SouthSideSlim)

Here's why the suit is frivilous. Not only was Hancock drunk at the time of the accident, but reports indicate that at the time he was talking on his cell phone. So anyone sued after he left the restaurant has no liability.

I also agree that the restaurant(s) shouldn't be held accountable either. This isn't just one place. Reports also indicate that he had been bar hopping.

While I, as a parent, can relate to his father grief, what I cannot relate to is his father trying to hold someone other than his son accountable.

It's plain and simple that this suit is about nothing other than money. That may sound unfeeling, but, given the facts, it's hard to reach any other conclusion.
Permalink | Reply
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 1+-
I don't think anyone disagrees with you slim...(btw, you can go by george tasker or SSS and feel free to make an acct and opinion is a good one)...But I'm glad to hear you see the cell phone as a major factor...this IMO is truly the cause of his death...then again, alcohol effects people differently, but i don't believe a .157 BAC is enough to seriously impair someone like that...
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
948 days ago
Score 1+-
I'll get an account one of these days.

The BAC amount is nearly twice what I recall allowable limit is (I think it's 0.08). It might not be enough to keep someone from getting served, but I believe it is in excess of the legal limit.

As you might guess or know, I'm a regular over at www.jaythejoke.com. We've had a very good discussion regarding this very topic over there, and some of the material I posted here came from various members there.

I hate to post what might seem a shameless plug, but JTJ isn't all about Mariotti. There are a number of subjects that are not related to him there, like this one. There may be a "How would Jay react in a column*" post but by and large it's simply a sports blog and forum focused mostly on Chicago teams.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Oh, i figured...mariotti ripping can only go so far...plus you need something good to talk about... But yeah...Here's the thing with BAC, a .08 is about 1.5 beers for the average man...so you're talking 3 to 4 for hancock...I'm not saying its right, but I don't think thats the cause we're looking at...was it ok...no...is it the reason...no
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
948 days ago
Score 0+-
George Tasker (AKA SouthSideSlim)

Just to add to the facts...There was a tin of marijuana in the car, opened beer cans, he wasn't wearing his seatbelf and the tow truck he ran into was parked with its hazard lights flashing.

I'd guess his father has a lot of remor$e.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
Well yeah...the marijuana's a push because he wasn't high though...and I'm fairly confident the MLB drug policy would prevent him from smoking it... Your the second person to mention the open beer cans. I remember hearing about beer in the car, but i have yet to see a legitmate report indicating so...just word of mouth, not even a news brief, etc...slim if you've got it, i'd be interested...
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
948 days ago
Score 0+-
George Tasker (AKA SouthSideSlim)

I think the link below might fill the bill

http://sport...y?id=2860122
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
948 days ago
Score 1+-
While I remorse for Hancock and his family, I don't think it is right for the father to try and earn some money off a terrible tragedy. Something doesn't seem right here.
Permalink | Reply
False ProphetAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 1+-
I don't know a lot about the story, but if there's any amount of blame that falls on someone else, it's his right to collect the money
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 2+-
Tort law is a double edged sword FP...allocation of blame is a tough one and one would suggest that hancock is, at the very least, partially responsible for himself, whether that be booze or cell phones... However, if it turns out the cell phone was wholly responsible (i.e. booze had nothing to do w/ it), would you suggest his dad sue nokia, or motorola, etc...even though hancock was using the product poorly?
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 1+-
I wouldn't blame the cell phone company, nor would I blame the beer provider. I'd blame, at least partially, whoever kept serving him beer, and possibly the repair guy and the one being assisted if they were close to the road because they shouldn't be on the road when doing a repair. I'm not saying that his dad should collect that much, but I doubt that Josh was entirely to blame, or the booze, or the cell phone combined
Permalink
The BeastAAA-er
948 days ago
Score 0+-
I think its clear that Josh Hancock wasn't 100% at fault. Yes, he made a mistake, but it wasn't entirly his fault. However, the papa shouldn't benefit from this situation and sew. Throw this case out. The dad should show respect for his son.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
948 days ago
Score 0+-
I agree beast, i don't see where the type of fault for the responsibility of your own life somehow lies on someone else, at least for the majority...but in all honesty...just stop and think...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
948 days ago
Score 1+-
It was 100% Hancock's fault. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to drink, no one forced him to drive. On the contrary, the bar manager offered twice to call Hancock a cab, and was refused. The reason Hancock left the bar is because he was told he would no longer be served, so as any self respecting drunk would do, he got up and left so he could go somewhere else and drink.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #2
947 days ago
Score 1+-
Some very good comments here. The bottomline is that the young man is dead because he made a series of bad decisions that night. His dad needs to see a shrink and get a grip on the situation before blaming others for his son's stupidity.
Permalink
Behbigben15All-Star
947 days ago
Score 0+-
Yes, it was all Hancock's fault, everyone here knows that, but we don't know all the details, the media doesn't always tell the whole story. So you can say whatever you want, but there could be more to this than just drunk driving. If there was no details that the media missed, then I totally agree that it was from stupidity.
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Josh_Hancock:_A_Fitting_Tribute"

This page was last modified 01:54, 26 May 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise