More Jackassery from Burress
 

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP)—Add this to the growing list of Plaxico Burress’ problems: getting in a car crash and not having insurance on his nearly $140,000 Mercedes-Benz.

The suspended New York Giants wide receiver was sued last week in Florida’s Broward County Circuit Court for rear-ending a woman in May.

Compounding the Super Bowl star’s defense, according to a document provided by the woman’s attorney, is the fact his car insurance lapsed three days before the crash. A letter from Allstate says Burress neglected to pay his premiums.

Burress’ attorney, Adam Swickle, declined comment.

Burress is still serving a team suspension for shooting himself Nov. 29 in a nightclub with an illegally carried handgun. Burress shot himself at the Latin Quarter when he accidentally pulled the trigger on the .40-caliber Glock that was in his pants after fumbling a drink.

Teammate Antonio Pierce took the 31-year-old who caught the winning pass in the Super Bowl to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center for treatment.

Burress pleaded not guilty and was released on $100,000 bail. He is due back in court March 31.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns


Anyone thinks he is in a hurry to end his otherwise good career?

I don't know about the car insurance issue (but I have a hard time condemning someone for forgetting to make an insurance payment), but the gun charges, IMHO are over the top. I think the area's gun control schemes are utterly ridiculous.

I come from a state where just about anyone can pay a fee, take a class, and get a license to carry a concealed weapon. To my knowledge, we've never had an illegal shooting by one of these licensees, so gun ownership, in itself, isn't a problem.

I think a lot of these NFL players rightly see themselves as being particularly attractive targets for criminals. I think they don't want to end up like Sean Taylor. I understand that quite a few of them carry weapons with them for that reason. Now, Burress probably knew the law and he probably broke it anyway. In his situation, I can actually understand the rationale -- protecting one's life and health at the expense of possibly getting caught breaking the law.

I'm not sure that excuses his criminal conduct, but my understanding is that it's a lot harder to get a conceal and carry permit where he was as compared to Oklahoma. I do think that, if this was part of his thinking, that it should weigh heavily as a mitigating factor and that I sincerly hope he doesn't have to go to jail for this.

As for the insurance issue, I probably have a little less sympathy there in that it's idiotic to be wealthy, drive a pricey car, and let your insurance lapse because you make an awfully attractive prospect for a lawsuit. That said, I'm sure he has the money to cover whatever the damages were in this accident, so just as before, Burress will be the only real victim of his crime.

Are you kidding me? He makes millions of dollars! You can't tell me that he can't afford to pay an assistant to take care of all of this?! When you make that much money, you can't afford not to have insurance! He'll get taken for quite a bit of money by this woman whether or not he deserves it. In his position, all of his insurance policies should be up to date (not to mention car insurance is mandatory by law!) and he should have an umbrella policy to protect his assets. This is DUMB!

I didn't say it wasn't a bad idea to let his insurance lapse -- I did say that since he's going to likely end up paying for that mistake in a big way that this, like his other crime, he is the only real victim.

I would only dispute this in the car accident case, because any car accident (even a rear-end collision) can be a traumatic experience. I haven't read anything about the seriousness of the accident, but the woman he hit may be dealing with some psychological (and possibly physical issues) if the collision was violent enough.

Of course, because of my job I'm usually someone who immediately sides with the defense-side of the argument, so take my statement for what you will...

As long as we're talking about negligence here, she's theoretically going to be made whole by the massive wad of cash she's going to extract from Mr. Burress before this is all over with, leaving him as the only remaining injured party... or at least that's my theory of the case, counselor :)

Fair enough, my future brother counsel. Again, I usually come at this stuff from the defense side anyway (and especially since I work for an insurance company's legal department), so my natural inclination is along the lines of what you're saying. My experience as a car accident victim, however, has colored my perception on these things.