RIP Josh Hancock

edney2polynice_ · Post #61 » by **edney2polynice_** » Tue May 8, 2007 10:52 pm

lpsevier wrote:This thread reeks of self righteousness.

why, because we didn't shed a tear or have a moment of silence?

treyZz · Post #62 » by **treyZz** » Wed May 9, 2007 12:30 am

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

why, because we didn't shed a tear or have a moment of silence?

Post #63 » by **Three34** » Wed May 9, 2007 1:32 am

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

why, because we didn't shed a tear or have a moment of silence?

Maybe you should. A man died and people are sad.

SportsWorld · Post #64 » by **SportsWorld** » Wed May 9, 2007 1:46 am

I remember when Lidle died people from NY were making fun of it (not from here)

edney2polynice_ · Post #65 » by **edney2polynice_** » Wed May 9, 2007 3:00 am

Sham wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Maybe you should. A man died and people are sad.

Give me an innocent victim and I will.

edney2polynice_ · Post #66 » by **edney2polynice_** » Wed May 9, 2007 3:08 am

SportsWorld wrote:I remember when Lidle died people from NY were making fun of it (not from here)

Two totally different situations.

You know what makes me sick? Leonard Little -- the DE from ST. Louis Rams -- kills a women, while driving with a similar BA level of John Hancock, receives a slap on the wrist and 4 years probation and subsequently got his criminal record cleared, and while that woman rest in her grave, Little is making millions of dollars and being cheered by thousands. And 6 years after he killed that woman, he was arrested for another DUI, and again, walked away. That is disgusting.

Post #67 » by **Three34** » Wed May 9, 2007 3:27 am

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Give me an innocent victim and I will.

What is Josh Hancock guilty of? Making a mistake? Yes.

Is that mistake justifiably punishable by death? Sweet sh*t no.

So what the freak are you on about? Would this only be a sad story had his car hit someone else?

Would you prefer that so that you had some more basis for your venting? I think you would.

Just the impression I get, you know.

edney2polynice_ · Post #68 » by **edney2polynice_** » Wed May 9, 2007 3:45 am

Sham wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

What is Josh Hancock guilty of? Making a mistake? Yes.

Is that mistake justifiably punishable by death? Sweet sh*t no.

So what the freak are you on about? Would this only be a sad story had his car hit someone else?

Would you prefer that so that you had some more basis for your venting? I think you would.

Just the impression I get, you know.

A deadly mistake at that.

I've seen things you'll never see in your lifetime, therefore I have a much different perspective on this situation.

Read my prior post clearly, and you would've known I was thankful that no one else was hurt.

HeelSox · Post #69 » by **HeelSox** » Wed May 9, 2007 3:46 am

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You know what makes me sick? Leonard Little -- the DE from ST. Louis Rams -- kills a women, while driving with a similar BA level of John Hancock, receives a slap on the wrist and 4 years probation and subsequently got his criminal record cleared, and while that woman rest in her grave, Little is making millions of dollars and being cheered by thousands. And 6 years after he killed that woman, he was arrested for another DUI, and again, walked away. That is disgusting.

This is why Josh Hancock received rightful justice...because he wasn't innocent, he was guilty, and in his criminal acts, he put many many lives in danger. I will never shed a tear or even feel remotely sorry for what happened to Josh Hancock

Post #70 » by **Three34** » Wed May 9, 2007 4:04 am

edney2polynice wrote:
I've seen things you'll never see in your lifetime

Keep going with the prejudice sweetie. It's really stood you in good stead.

Also, the "my opinion cannot be questioned by you because you haven't had the same formulaic experiences of it that I have" defense really doesn't cut it.

Post #71 » by **FNQ** » Wed May 9, 2007 4:17 am

A little late to the party....

DUI's are awful, terrible, and inexcusable... but the punishment isnt death for committing it. Its a mistake, and the results in this particular incident are awful.

Do I have sympathy? Absolutely - for his family, his team, his friends, and everyone associated with him. For Hancock himself? I'm not so sure. As someone who worked as an EMT for a while, I've seen way too much of the destruction a drunk driver can cause. It's morally reprehensible, to be honest.

I think, if this were an isolated incident, I'd feel more pity for Hancock the person. But this is an incident directly following other drinking and driving violations (I'm not 100% on this, but I heard a rumor, if someone could confirm truth or not, that'd be great). It seems he didn't learn from his 1st time, and either didn't care about the consequences, which can sometimes lead to an innocent person's death or severe injury.

Its still a sad day, and by all means, RIP Josh Hancock. But you cannot blame either side for having their own opinions - his last moments on Earth he was making a terrible mistake, and that unfortunately, might be his legacy. At the same time, for people like Cards fans who saw him night in, night out, its a different type of feeling...

Overall, there's no 'correct' way to feel about it. The only certainties here are:

- Josh Hancock died while drinking and possibly under the influence of marijuana

- He didn't hurt or injure anyone else (though could have)

And just react to it - you can't be wrong.

sideshowking24 · Post #72 » by **sideshowking24** » Wed May 9, 2007 11:18 am

^ thats probably the most rational thing that has been said in this entire thread.

edney2polynice_ · Post #73 » by **edney2polynice_** » Wed May 9, 2007 2:29 pm

Sham wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Keep going with the prejudice sweetie. It's really stood you in good stead.

Also, the "my opinion cannot be questioned by you because you haven't had the same formulaic experiences of it that I have" defense really doesn't cut it.

I'm definitely prejudiced towards drunk drivers, I loathe them.

My experience of scraping dead bodies off the ground that have been killed by a drunk driver does give me a different perspective than you on this situation.

I never once said your opinion doesn't matter -- IT'S YOUR OPINION -- but I don't know why all you guys are offended when you hear my opinion that I have no sympathy towards J.H.?

Post #74 » by **studcrackers** » Wed May 9, 2007 2:41 pm

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Two totally different situations.

You know what makes me sick? Leonard Little -- the DE from ST. Louis Rams -- kills a women, while driving with a similar BA level of John Hancock, receives a slap on the wrist and 4 years probation and subsequently got his criminal record cleared, and while that woman rest in her grave, Little is making millions of dollars and being cheered by thousands. And 6 years after he killed that woman, he was arrested for another DUI, and again, walked away. That is disgusting.

well theres 3 things st. louis is known for, the arch, the cardinals and d.u.i's.

why do you think tony larussa still manages there?

but in all honesty yea thats what i hate seeing a man walk away b/c he's famous and has money, thats a reason to hate celebrities/big time athletes they can get away with murder (little, oj) among other things and get away with it.

Post #75 » by **lpsevier** » Wed May 9, 2007 4:26 pm

edney2polynice_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

why, because we didn't shed a tear or have a moment of silence?

No, because you seem to be an ****.

treyZz · Post #76 » by **treyZz** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:02 pm

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

The suit, filed late Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court on behalf of Noel Hancock, the player's father, does not specify the amount sought except to characterize it as "over $25,000."

How ridiculous..

edney2polynice_ · Post #77 » by **edney2polynice_** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:17 pm

treyZz wrote:http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B30B1CD42616DCDC862572E5005F04FC?OpenDocument

The suit, filed late Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court on behalf of Noel Hancock, the player's father, does not specify the amount sought except to characterize it as "over $25,000."

How ridiculous..

The premise of this "lawsuit" is completely indefensible; by way of analogy, allowing this to go forward would be like allowing the United States to sue IRAQ for war reparations, because their country ran into our cruise missiles and tanks. It's shameful, and ludicrous, and faith-shaking...but most of all, it's terribly, terribly sad. Twisting and manipulating a father's grief to capitalize financially and professionally as a "lawyer" is an act of unconscionable cynicism and misanthropy.

I hope the driver of the car files a countersuit suing for emotional duress.

I wonder if the father will sue John Hancock's drug dealer too?

Post #78 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:56 pm

The stuff about suing the towing company and the guy with the stalled car seems pretty ludicrous to me, but I'm not so sure the charges against the restaurant are as frivolous. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you hold a liquor license in Missouri, you are under legal constraint not to sell or serve alcohol to someone who is already clearly intoxicated. Did Shannon's Restaurant do that? I don't know, but that is what legal proceedings would examine.

Post #79 » by **FNQ** » Fri May 25, 2007 1:29 am

mizzoupacers wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if you hold a liquor license in Missouri, you are under legal constraint not to sell or serve alcohol to someone who is already clearly intoxicated. Did Shannon's Restaurant do that? I don't know, but that is what legal proceedings would examine.

Exactly...

If you serve someone who's already intoxicated, you are committing a crime and are then liable for the results.

Determining whether a person is intoxicated or not is the gray area... if the prosecution gets their hands on a stumbling Hancock mumbling for drinks, there's a case there... if Hancock looked like he was just a little tipsy or something, then it will be dismissed. There's nothing unusual or ridiculous about this.

EDIT: Nothing except suing the person who got pulled over. The tow truck guy might be a bit responsible for not putting out the proper flares, as they are supposed to do w/any towing. But the guy who's car broke down? What the :censored:

is he supposed to do, lift his car to the side of the road?

edney2polynice_ · Post #80 » by **edney2polynice_** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:00 am

510Reggae wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Exactly...

If you serve someone who's already intoxicated, you are committing a crime and are then liable for the results.

Determining whether a person is intoxicated or not is the gray area... if the prosecution gets their hands on a stumbling Hancock mumbling for drinks, there's a case there... if Hancock looked like he was just a little tipsy or something, then it will be dismissed. There's nothing unusual or ridiculous about this.

Like you said, it's a gray area and extremely difficult to prove. They'd have to have video footage at the very least to prove this. Everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. I may be able to walk a straight line with a 2.8 BA level (I've seen it!), but you may not be able to walk a straight line with a BA level of 1.2.

I could've sworn I read a report that the manager offered to call a cab?

EDIT: Nothing except suing the person who got pulled over. The tow truck guy might be a bit responsible for not putting out the proper flares, as they are supposed to do w/any towing. But the guy who's car broke down? What the is he supposed to do, lift his car to the side of the road?

This is where it's gets ridiculous, pointing fingers at everyone else rather than the main factor of this accident -- Mr. Hancock.