Not your typical post...

I always thought that I'd remember Josh Hancock as the guy who the Red Sox traded to the Phillies for Jeremy Giambi.

Then, it seemed that he would remembered as the good (well, acceptably mediocre) middle reliever for the Cardinals who died too young. The fact that this occurred only a few years after Daryl Kile - a generally accepted "good guy" - had passed away, this seemed too much tragedy for one team to bear.

Of course, it didn't take long for the revelations to start cropping up - that Hancock was driving over 20 mph over the speed limit, that his BAC was over twice the legal limit, that he had pot and a glass pipe in his car, that he was talking on his cell phone and not wearing his seatbelt when the accident happened.

This made the accident sound more stupid than tragic, and now his family is striking back.

Hancock's father has decided to sue the restaurant that the pitcher had visited prior to his death - blaming the proprieters for the fact that his son (who had already become intoxicated on beer from the postgame clubhouse spread earlier that day), was "never without a drink" during his time there.

Hancock died as a result of slamming into a tow truck stopped in the road - the tow truck was busy assissting the driver of a disabled vehicle. The family is also charging the driver of the disabled vehicle with negligence for allowing his car to be stopped in the road in the first place. Apparently, he stalled out when another driver cut him off.

If the Hancocks win this aspect of the lawsuit, I for one will be ecastatic - this means that any time I get stuck in traffic on the Mark Clark Expressway on my way to work and end up running late, I get to sue the driver.

There is some dispute as to how long the tow truck stayed on the road, blocking traffic - anywhere from five to fifteen minutes. The Hancock family has asked why the police weren't contacted, and why no road flares were placed to warn oncoming drivers.

Of course, this makes perfect sense - I know that if I was completely blitzed, driving well over the speed limit, and talking on a cell phone, the sight of road flares would make me stop and consider what incredibly stupid behavior I was currently engaging in.

If they're going to sue the restaurant and the other driver, why not sue the Red Sox, Phillies, and Reds organizations for trading/releasing Hancock - had they not done so, he never would have been in St. Louis in the first place.

(I'm also concerned that by posting this, I will be sued for "aggravated insensitivity" and "libelous commentary persuant to a civil action".

I feel for Hancock's family - I can't imagine what his parents are going through, and I'm sure that his father wishes his son had just been picked up on a DUI and he had the opportunity to chw him out for his idiocy. I imagine his father is angry, and just wants to be able to do something in the light of all this - and a lawsuit seems to be the only outlet.

Had the revelations regarding the circumstances around Hancock's death (the drunkeness, the drug possession) not surfaced, certainly there would have not been any legal action taken by the family.

Look, if I had died under the same circumstances as Hancock (drunk, speeding, no seatbelt), I wouldn't want my parents to sue anybody - I'd prefer that they started a website with a catchy url such as www.oursonwasadumbass.org to encourage other people to avoid making the same mistakes I have.

Right now, it seems like blaming everyone else (the restaurant, the other driver) for the accident is a poorly engineered attempt to redeem their son's good name.

Of course, there are questions the family has to answer:

Why was he drunk?

The family actually has a fairly easy answer for this. Hancock drank all the available booze in the clubhouse and on his subsequent visit to the restaurant so that there wouldn't be any alcohol left for Tony LaRussa to drink - thus avoiding an unfortunate repeat of the Manager's spring training incident.

Why was there marijuana an marijuana paraphenillia in Hancock's car?

Hancock, like Michael Irvin before him, was only taking these items to a public dumpster to throw them away for a friend, thus removing his friend's reputation to continue smoking the pot.

Why was he speeding?

Hancock was speeding so that he could dispose of the whacky tabaccy as quickly as possible so as to return to his friend's side.

Why was he talking on the phone?

Hancock was speaking with the aforementioned friend, assuring him that he would return soon.

Why wasn't Hancock wearing a seatbelt?

Hancock had removed the seatbelt from his car and used it to bind his drug-addled friend to a chair. Hancock was worried about the onset of "reefer madness" that his friend was no doubt soon to experience.

You see? Josh Hancock was an American hero who was undone by the negligence of others.

Of course, it doesn't appear to have occurred to the Hancock family that it's a lucky thing that he was the only one who died. His behavior was unbelievably reckless, and could have cost a number of other people their lives.

This whole incident makes me remember the widow Clemente - her husband died in a plane crash involving a pilot with a revoked license, and a plane that wasn't in flying shape. There was no vengeance lawsuit there - just stoicism in the face of tragedy. If Hancock's family was in the same position, I believe they would have sued the tectonic plates under Nicaragua for shifting and causing their son to be on a relief mission in the first place.

A man is dead. By all accounts, he was a likable man and a good teammate. His death involved circumstances that cast doubt on his character - and it sounds as though there is nothing that is undeserved about this. What his family is doing now robs his life of dignity, makes his death less tragic, and saps his survivors of sympathy.