Josh Hancock family to sue

Well played! Standing O!

 

It is a joke.

 

Utes?

 

I don't know why, but when I was watching the Vin Diesel movie "Find Me Guilty (good flick, btw)", I keep thinking of Pesci.

 

What's a yoot?

 

From Bryan Burwell's column in the Post-Dispatch.

When you cut right down to the most dispassionate, unvarnished and disturbing truths about this lawsuit, all his family has done is commission a fool's errand. There is no true retribution here, only the constant reminder of how Hancock's death was senseless.

Why can't Hancock's family see the disturbing irony in blaming the two people (tow truck driver Jacob Hargrove, and Justin Tolar, the man whose car Hargrove was towing) who could have been killed by their intoxicated son? Are they incapable of understanding the madness in blaming Shannon's daughter, the one person we know of who vainly attempted to make him take a taxi?

So why are the Shannons being portrayed as the ultimate bad guys in this sad story? Why is the lawsuit claiming that his intoxication was "involuntary," as if they were force-feeding him?

There was nothing "involuntary" about what happened on that fateful night. It was a 29-year-old man who just didn't know how to say he had had enough. I don't care if the bartender was comping every drink that came his way. At any point during the night, Hancock could have said "No."

It's called free will. No one other than Josh Hancock is to blame for the disturbing mix of circumstances that led to his inevitable death ride.

In their own misguided way, maybe the Hancocks think this is doing some good. But now, instead of preserving the image everyone meticulously crafted immediately after Hancock's death, they've accomplished the opposite. Do you think all the people being sued won't defend themselves? Do you think they won't dig up any scrap of dirt, every unsavory whisper or damaging toxicology report?

And who will the Hancocks blame then, the people who made the leather witness chairs?

 

I'm sorry ... two youth-th-ths.

 

everything burwell writes makes sense but it's also kind of dumb.

the family lost a son.

they want someone to pay and they don't give a shit who pays.

until burwell has lost a son and is drowning in grief he should recognize that decisions like this are not based on reason. i know only one person who has lost a son but i think we can all say that generally people suffering from this kind of grief don't sit down and say stuff like 'well, it's [son's] own fault that he's dead'.

if anything burwell should be ripping the legal system that allows these kinds of lawsuits, although 95 or more percent of lawsuits settle out of court so it's not quite the legal system's doing either.

 

Unfortunately, Hancock's family will somehow use this as proof that everyone is against them and their lawyers will ry to use this to their advantage.

 

how or why would the lawyer use this to the hancock's advantage. it's a newspaper column. the opinions of bryan burwell don't carry any weight in a trial. rightfully so.