Why is it so diffucult for so many folks to understand that *both* of the following can be true, simultaneously: * Josh Hancock was incredibly stupid, foolish, reckless, and blameworthy; * Other people besides Josh Hancock contributed to the accident, and might bear a portion of the blame. Why are these concepts viewed as mutually exclusive? They're not. I think a lot of people just don't believe point number two is true. he said that they both could be true. if point number two isn't true, then hancock will lose. but that determination has to be made by a judge/jury, not message board majority.