Cardinals Pitcher Josh Hancock Dies in Car Crash

[abuck1220]

Less Ambulance Chasers would be a start.

 

before i started this argument i didn't really realize i was dealing with a real life legislator. had i known that, i probably wouldn't have gotten in this deep.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Personally, I think Dean Hancock should sue the stripper Josh was on the phone with as well. If she hadn't promised him that hummer, he would never have been in such a hurry to get there.

[Soriano12]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

[davearm]

Personally, I think Dean Hancock should sue the stripper Josh was on the phone with as well. If she hadn't promised him that hummer, he would never have been in such a hurry to get there.

I can't help but wonder how folks would be viewing the tow truck guy and the stalled vehicle guy if Hancock had been stone cold sober and not talking on his cellphone at the time of the accident.

 

I also wonder how folks would be viewing Shannon's bar if someone other than Hancock has been the one killed.

 

If those parties' actions (or inactions) were negligent under those hypothetical circumstances (and I'm not saying that they for sure were, but it'd be easy to argue that they were), then they're negligent under the actual circumstances, too.

 

The fact that Hancock was drunk doesn't automatically shift everyone else's role from wrong to right.

[The Voice of Reason]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

 

Anheuser Busch - for producing the product that contributed to his death

The Cardinals - for serving beer in the clubhouse

Teammates - For not stopping him from drinking

Tony La Russa - For the great example he set

Patrons at Shannons - For not stopping him from drinking

Nancy Reagan - because "Just Say No" didn't work work with him

Himself - For wasting the courts time with a lawsuit when he should be out lecturing high school students on the evils of drunk driving.

[davearm]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

Let me ask you this.

 

If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing?

 

Just Josh Hancock?

 

Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident?

 

Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course).

[Soriano12]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

Let me ask you this.

 

If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing?

 

Just Josh Hancock?

 

Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident?

 

Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course).

 

ummm, I have answered this question before in this thread. A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, and no we did not sue.

[davearm]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

 

Anheuser Busch - for producing the product that contributed to his death

The Cardinals - for serving beer in the clubhouse

Teammates - For not stopping him from drinking

Tony La Russa - For the great example he set

Patrons at Shannons - For not stopping him from drinking

Nancy Reagan - because "Just Say No" didn't work work with him

Himself - For wasting the courts time with a lawsuit when he should be out lecturing high school students on the evils of drunk driving.

I've got the same question for you as I had for Soriano12.

[davearm]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

Let me ask you this.

 

If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing?

 

Just Josh Hancock?

 

Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident?

 

Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course).

 

ummm, I have answered this question before in this thread. A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, and no we did not sue.

Well it's certainly your right not to sue, and decline to hold the party(ies) responsible for your loss liable.

 

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to use the judicial system as it's intended to be used.

[Soriano12]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

[jjgman21]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

[Soriano12]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

 

I suggest you stop talking about my family

[jjgman21]

Updated list of people Dean Hancock can sue:

 

Cell Phone Provider

Drug Dealer

Stripper

Whoever built the road

Let me ask you this.

 

If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing?

 

Just Josh Hancock?

 

Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident?

 

Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course).

 

ummm, I have answered this question before in this thread. A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, and no we did not sue.

 

of course there could have been a dozen reasons you didn't sue. one is that the drunk drivers insurance company just cut a check. another could be that the drunk driver was judgement proof (ie. had no insurance and no assets). another could be that the relative had noone to support, and therefore noone had standing to bring the claim.

 

now if your family just decided that the decision not to sue was because they felt it would be an abuse of the system, well hat's off. but that's not how the vast majority of our society feels, so again, stop imposing your values on others.

 

you're real big on people 'accepting responsiblity' for their actions. part of the way society holds people responsible for their actions is by creating liability when those actions harm another. why not sue, and thus hold the drunk driver accountable for the loss he caused? why let him off the hook? are you just such forgiving people it never entered into your minds, or is something else at play here? was your relative somehow just as responsible for the accident, and therefore your family felt it necessary to forego your rights because you guys also needed to accept responsibility for your actions?

[jjgman21]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

 

I suggest you stop talking about my family

 

no, you brought them up. I suggest you stop baselessly attacking something you know nothing about and using your families tragedy to do so if you don't want your family brought into this.

[moorecg]

Somewhere...likely about 20 pages ago...this thread should have been moved to rants.

[abuck1220]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

 

I suggest you stop talking about my family

 

you brought it up like ten times.

 

i guess you don't like people talking about stuff they know nothing about. now you know how everyone feels when you post.

[jjgman21]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

 

I suggest you stop talking about my family

 

you brought it up like ten times.

 

i guess you don't like people talking about stuff they know nothing about. now you know how everyone feels when you post.

 

I probably stepped over the line, but I've seen the effects of injury on dozens of families. good, hardworking people, who get abosolutely screwed by a system that heavily favors the insurance industry, up to the point of having insult added to injury with investigators taking pictures through their windows. forced to forego any sort of future and settle for pennies on the dollar, because they need their medical treatment, medicine, food, school clothes right fricken now, not when the insurance company is through with their petty, baseless motions.

 

then this guy comes along, and not only implies (states?) that these people shouldn't have the right to make their lives whole, but further, that this is an abuse of the justice system? he argues that I am moralling wrong for trying to help people who's lives have been ruined? he uses his family to prove his moral authority, then gets sanctimonious about his family when trying to induce him to where another man's shoes? no freaking way.

[Pushfrog98]

Just don't project that choice on everyone else, and scorn the folks that would choose to abuse the judicial system

 

Point taken.

 

if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family.

 

I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

 

I suggest you stop talking about my family

 

no, you brought them up. I suggest you stop baselessly attacking something you know nothing about and using your families tragedy to do so if you don't want your family brought into this.

and

you brought it up like ten times.

 

He brought up a situation involving his family that pertained to his view point. That's his place to talk about, not ours.

[The Voice of Reason]

People have a right to sue anyone they want. People also have a right to criticize lawsuits they feel are without merit.

 

It's called Freedom of Speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[jjgman21]

People have a right to sue anyone they want. People also have a right to criticize lawsuits they feel are without merit.

 

It's called Freedom of Speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

it's gone well beyond criticizing lawsuits they feel are without merit and he seems to be claiming people shouldn't have a right to bring a lawsuit. Article 3 is just as much a part of the United States Constitution as Amendment 1. Article 6 is just as much a part of the Illinois Constitution as Article 1.

[The Voice of Reason]

These developments can't be helpful to Dean's lawsuit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2888691

 

ST. LOUIS -- A state investigation found no evidence that workers at Mike Shannon's restaurant knew Josh Hancock was drunk when they served the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher alcohol in the hours prior to his fatal accident.

 

Peter Lobdell, supervisor of the state Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, said at a news conference Thursday that investigators interviewed four employees of the restaurant and two of Hancock's teammates who were with him that night.

 

"The investigators determined Hancock was drinking in moderation, socializing with teammates and friends and employees of Shannon's," Lobdell said. "He did not appear to be intoxicated to any patrons or employees who came forward to be interviewed."

 

The suit claims Mike Shannon's workers kept providing drinks to Hancock long after it was clear he was intoxicated.

[seanimal]

These developments can't be helpful to Dean's lawsuit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2888691

 

ST. LOUIS -- A state investigation found no evidence that workers at Mike Shannon's restaurant knew Josh Hancock was drunk when they served the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher alcohol in the hours prior to his fatal accident.

 

Peter Lobdell, supervisor of the state Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, said at a news conference Thursday that investigators interviewed four employees of the restaurant and two of Hancock's teammates who were with him that night.

 

"The investigators determined Hancock was drinking in moderation, socializing with teammates and friends and employees of Shannon's," Lobdell said. "He did not appear to be intoxicated to any patrons or employees who came forward to be interviewed."

 

The suit claims Mike Shannon's workers kept providing drinks to Hancock long after it was clear he was intoxicated.

 

Doh!

[Tracer Bullet]

These developments can't be helpful to Dean's lawsuit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2888691

 

ST. LOUIS -- A state investigation found no evidence that workers at Mike Shannon's restaurant knew Josh Hancock was drunk when they served the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher alcohol in the hours prior to his fatal accident.

 

Peter Lobdell, supervisor of the state Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, said at a news conference Thursday that investigators interviewed four employees of the restaurant and two of Hancock's teammates who were with him that night.

 

"The investigators determined Hancock was drinking in moderation, socializing with teammates and friends and employees of Shannon's," Lobdell said. "He did not appear to be intoxicated to any patrons or employees who came forward to be interviewed."

 

The suit claims Mike Shannon's workers kept providing drinks to Hancock long after it was clear he was intoxicated.

 

I'm not disputing whether or not he was visibly drunk, but I wonder what the people who didn't come forward to be interviewed thought. I mean, if you were a regular at Shannon's and you thought the suit was BS, and it wasn't obvious that Hancock was plastered, wouldn't you come forward to tell the police that?

[davearm]

These developments can't be helpful to Dean's lawsuit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2888691

 

ST. LOUIS -- A state investigation found no evidence that workers at Mike Shannon's restaurant knew Josh Hancock was drunk when they served the St. Louis Cardinals pitcher alcohol in the hours prior to his fatal accident.

 

Peter Lobdell, supervisor of the state Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, said at a news conference Thursday that investigators interviewed four employees of the restaurant and two of Hancock's teammates who were with him that night.

 

"The investigators determined Hancock was drinking in moderation, socializing with teammates and friends and employees of Shannon's," Lobdell said. "He did not appear to be intoxicated to any patrons or employees who came forward to be interviewed."

 

The suit claims Mike Shannon's workers kept providing drinks to Hancock long after it was clear he was intoxicated.

 

I'm not disputing whether or not he was visibly drunk, but I wonder what the people who didn't come forward to be interviewed thought. I mean, if you were a regular at Shannon's and you thought the suit was BS, and it wasn't obvious that Hancock was plastered, wouldn't you come forward to tell the police that?

Great catch.

 

I agree that this is a major setback for the plaintiffs, but the whole "who came forward to be interviewed" part puts a huge asterisk on the whole deal.

[Guest]

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Sports/Headlines/sptCUB01060107.htm

 

At least it looks like some of the Cubs minor leaguers get it.