Dan Irving picks up high-profile endorsements

Dan IrvingCity Council candidate Dan Irving held a press conference today to announce several endorsements of his campaign. Announcing their endorsements in person were Congressman Ray LaHood, Mayor Jim Ardis, and fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting. Also announcing endorsements but unable to attend the news conference were third-district councilman Bob Manning and fourth-district councilman Bill Spears.

Congressman LaHood took advantage of early voting and cast his ballot this morning at 9:30. He said he was giving his support because of Irving’s business experience, involvement in the community, and his perspective as part of the “younger generation.” Ray said he was endorsing candidates for city council because he lives in Peoria, pays taxes in Peoria, and thus he cares about what happens in Peoria. LaHood disclosed that he also voted for George Jacob, Ryan Spain, Gale Thetford, and Eric Turner. LaHood voted early because he will be returning to Washington this weekend.

Mayor Ardis feels that Dan has a good background on the issues the city is facing and that he will be a good addition to the “team.” Ardis specifically mentioned that he agreed with Irving’s platform on the issues of crime (supports saturation patrols, surveillance cameras), strengthening neighborhoods, and promoting economic development. Ardis also endorses George Jacob, Ryan Spain, and Eric Turner.

Councilman Nichting believes that Irving has strong leadership skills that will “progress Peoria forward,” and generally agreed with the mayor’s reasons for endorsing him. Nichting also endorses George Jacob and Eric Turner.

Settingsgaard supports officer in Beachler incident

ChiefPeoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard held a press conference yesterday to address the controversy surrounding Terry Beachler.

I didn’t know about the press conference, so I didn’t get to hear all of the Chief’s comments in person. But it’s a hot topic in the local media, so I saw many quotes on the news. Here’s a compilation of all the Chief’s comments I could find:

“Terry [Beachler] had every intention of delaying and stalling this officer and, I believe, goading the officer into anger. There’s no question in my mind he knew it was the police.”

“In this case, I’ll give the station credit. They didn’t sell the juvenile cigarettes.”

“Terry, I believe had a mindset to play games, which he did. And I think that’s evidenced by the fact he walked in with a recording device pre-set.”

“The story that appears to be out there. The angle and the spin on it I believe is very inaccurate.”

“[Officer] Scott Jordan held his professionalism. He did raise his voice and he was clearly agitated but I think he had a good reason in this case and I think he acted with great restraint.”

“When it becomes clear it’s part of a police operation, you get the property back and you return it.”

On the one hand, I think it’s commendable that the police chief would defend his officers. If you’re in law enforcement, you want to have a chief that’s going to back you up. I think in general we want a police chief that defends the actions of his officers when he feels they were in the right.

On the other hand, I don’t think the officer was in the right in this case. Before I go into why, I think we have to recognize that the audio recording catches a moment in time, and we can’t draw conclusions about this officer’s overall conduct nor the police department’s conduct from this one episode. So, I would have to part ways with several commenters who, I believe, are making some rather hasty generalizations about the police in this city. I just want to speak about this singular incident.

And in this incident, I think the officer was clearly angry from the beginning of the exchange. Did you look at the time on that recording? From the time Beachler walked in the station to the time he handed over the I.D. card, it was about four minutes. Granted, the officer had been waiting for twenty minutes for Terry to drive in from Mossville, but one could hardly characterize that as “playing games” or “stalling.” It takes 20 minutes to drive in from Mossville. There’s nothing Terry or the officer can do about that.

On the recording, Terry asked for identification from the officer. Whether or not Terry knew Officer Jordan is immaterial. He was completely within his legal rights to ask this officer for identification. Consider the fact that this officer was not in uniform and driving an unmarked vehicle, and the police had just finished trying to trick Terry’s employee into committing a crime. I’m not going to criticize Terry for wanting identification from the officer before handing over evidence of a crime.

Immediately, the officer escalated the confrontation and started threatening Terry.

The officer demands the I.D. back, Terry says it will be just a second while he gets some information, and the officer immediately responds with a raised voice, “In another second, I’m calling a marked car and making an arrest….” That escalation transpired within twenty seconds. Twenty seconds, people. How do you “goad” an officer into anger in twenty seconds by saying, “I need to get some information”?

From there it was nothing but yelling and threatening, all the while Terry is trying to open the safe and get the I.D. back for the officer. And again, it only took him four minutes total. I hardly consider four minutes “delaying” or “stalling.” As far as “goading” someone to anger, I think it’s clear who was goading whom, and it wasn’t Terry goading the police officer. The police officer was already angry.

Beachler gave the I.D. back within four minutes, and all he asked for was the officer’s badge/I.D. before he would return it. The rest of the time was spent opening the safe. What exactly was the sense of urgency here? Why was four minutes not fast enough? How was asking for the officer’s badge number considered “obstruction”? If you’re not moving as fast the officer thinks you should be moving, you’re obstructing him?

Even if we accept the premise that Terry was being a jerk and “playing games,” that is still no justification for the officer’s actions. Twenty seconds is too short of a fuse for an officer to lose his temper when no physical or verbal aggression has been displayed.

I like the chief, and I mean no disrespect to him or the officers under him, but I must disagree with his assessment of this incident. Officer Jordan did not act professionally, he did not act with restraint, he was not goaded into anger. He was angry from the beginning, he escalated the situation without warrant, he was impatient, he abused his authority, and he made an arrest just to take out his frustration on Terry.

I don’t believe the officer should be fired just because of this one incident, but he should be reprimanded.