Fifth District Councilman Dan Irving is in Peoria County jail, charged with domestic battery against his wife Amy. The most comprehensive coverage at the moment comes from WEEK-TV:
The Journal Star has a stub posted; they’ll likely have a longer report up later this morning.
This is a very nice family. I know them very well. I hope everyone reserves judgement and treats them with compassion. There are children involved.
You are right Anonymous they are a nice family with the exception of Dan Irving [portion of comment removed by blog owner]. But on the outside he acts like a model citizen who wants only to only serve the people of Peoria. Don’t be fooled. THIS MAN HAS NO BUSINESS ON CITY COUNCIL!!!! As far as his wife and beautiful kids, jail is the best place for him.
So who on the council has not been in trouble with the law at some point in their career?
I can think of a few current and past council people that have had major or minor run in’s with the police. Anyone care to start a list?
Is this a trend?
peoriafan, any list starts with Gary Sandburg.
Anonymous 2 said: You are right Anonymous they are a nice family with the exception of Dan Irving [portion of comment removed by blog owner]. But on the outside he acts like a model citizen who wants only to only serve the people of Peoria. Don’t be fooled. THIS MAN HAS NO BUSINESS ON CITY COUNCIL!!!! As far as his wife and beautiful kids, jail is the best place for him.
Thanks for coming to this site Mrs. Irving.
Ryan Spain. So clean he squeaks.
Even if it is Mrs. Irving, no one should have to live with the kind of abuse Dan Irving has allegedly doled out.
Please remember the Terms of Use. Dan has only been accused, not convicted. The rules against libel still stand.
well said, CJ.
Are anonymous insults libel because they are written or are they slander because they are “vocalized” in a crowd?
Gosh, I kinda hope he IS guilty so we can have some real juicy scandal rather than the petty financial ones rampant in our City Council.
Slander is verbal. Libel is written. Since this appears in written form, it’s libel, provided it is a provably false statement of fact. Remember, Dan Irving is a public figure, so he would have to prove malice to have a libel case. That means, he would have to prove the untrue statement was printed knowing it was untrue or with reckless disregard.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
The question of whether blog owners can be SUCCESSFULLY sued for libelous comments is kinda up in the air. Of course, anybody can be sued for anything. There was a court decision that said a owner of a forum was a common carrier, like the phone company or an ISP and should be protected. But that’s not completely clear. Ironically, there are those who say the act of trying to moderate or remove libel opens one up for libel suits if one happens to slip past long enough to get noticed and for a screen capture to me made.
http://bloggingwithoutablog.com/comments-can-get-you-sued/
Thanks for the input and sources, Billy. Does that mean a blog owner can be sued if they misquote or mistate a person’s previous comments? I suppose if they refuse to correct the “mistake”, that might help the case? Anyway, CJ is a very responsible and respectable blog owner and sets a good example for others to follow (IMO).
Domestic abuse whether it is wife, children or siblings is uncalled for and puts a black eye on a person’s public career, even if they are found not guilty.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m no lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and although I don’t have the qualifications of Mr. Dennis I do believe that in America you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In this case, the other party can be a liar and the police tend to side with the woman. That’s how it is. I’ll wait until I see the outcome but if it’s anything like the Chief of Police in Chillicothe’s case, Kevin Lyons won’t prosecute it and will probably dismiss the charges so nobody will ever know. That’s how two tier justice works. The rest of us would need a lawyer and would sit in jail.
Emtronics, here is how it works:
1. “Ordinary citizen Jim Smith is a wifebeater.” That’s libelous if it’s not true.
2. “Elected official Jim Smith is a wifebeater.” That’s libelous, of Jim Smith can prove you wrote that without with a reckless disregard for the truth.
3. “A police report stated that Jim Smith was arrested on suspicious of beating his wife.” If there is a police report that backs up this statement, you are protected from libel, even if Jim Smith never really beat his wife.
I think people need to stay out of this familys bussiness. If I was in that family, I wouldnt want everyone knowing about this. Its noones bussiniess but their familys. People need to learn to back off for once.
>>> I think people need to stay out of this familys bussiness
Mr. Irving gave up privacy when he became a public figure. Unfortunately, it takes the actions of someone in the public eye to draw attention to matters such as this. Unfortunately, the true individual has finally shown through if the allegations are correct. It took extreme strength for Mrs. Irving to call the police I’m sure, especially if this is something that has been ongoing for a long time. People in abusive relationships (women and men) are trained that the abuse is acceptable and normal so it perpetuates. It is not until the abused get the strength to get out from under their abuser that they start to recover. (I’m assuming that Mrs. Irving is separated from Mr. Irving as reference to ‘estrange wife’ were made in the press)
Unfortunately, there are kids involved. If boys, Mr. Irving (if the allegations are true) is simply reinforcing the behavior as acceptable on his son. If girls, the same falls true and they will also be subject to ‘normal’ relationships that are abusive by definition as this is what they were ‘taught’ in the household – hence the circle of abuse continues.
are leaders have to be beyond reproach in my opinion, he needs to leave
This is between husband and wife, apparently, and has nothing to do with anyone else.
I have to disagree. Crimes are never just between two people. Crime is a societal problem. That is why they are listed in the paper and why it is the state that prosecutes them. You guys are thinking of lawsuits. If she had sued him, then I would be more inclined to “mind my own business.” Now, I believe it is my civic duty to stay informed.
P.S. I just ate major crow and should not be this snide, but I just can’t help my self.
“I do believe that in America you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”
Stay over another night.
There is a presumption of innocence for purposes of the law and the trial.
No one is innocent… not ever. You are found guilty or you are not found guilty.
A) “Im not gulity of this” B) “I’m innocent of this”
What’s the diff?
everyone just leave this family alone. They obviously dont want people to know or they would have it all over the news. Yesterday Amy turned down a newspaper interivew.
A) Means I was not convicted of it by a court of law.
B) Means my actions (or lack of any particular action) prior to the event assign me no responsibility for what happened. I can in no way be associated with or pointed to as a cause for what occurred. (Notice there is nothing about intentions in this definition)
There is little or no reference to “innocence” in Law. Guilt, in Law, is a determination by a judge or jury based upon, evidence, testimony and/or legal precedent (and of course, prejudice and bias). Different standards of proof are required depending upon the type of violation.
OJ Simpson is not guilty of murder. He is not innocent of murder (at least twice).
Prego: You are ignorant of the law.
A crime is an offense against the public.
No, Billy, a crime is a violation of some written law, regardless of whether it is an offense against the public or not. For example, smoking pot, sodomy, marrying outside your race…
As far as the law is concerned a crime is a crime against the rest of society.
“No one is innocent… not ever. You are found guilty or you are not found guilty.”
While it’s true that not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent, the statement is not entirely true. Many a judge and jury in many jurisdictions have found defendants not only “not guilty” but fully “innocent” of the charges laid against them. This is true for a lot of financial, some rape and drug crimes where charges were falsely or mistakenly brought up against the person.
i’ll leave the law stuff to those who have never paracticed law…but like to do so here…theory and practice are so very different…mostly i am sad that this is news…that we still think our leaders, city, state or national, have or should have some some moral high ground…that we relinquish any control over our lives to someone we think is worthy of judging the rest of us…Live your lives. The rest will come.
Aaron — I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have some standards for elected officials… like, “not a criminal,” for instance. But maybe that’s just me.
Cj
Remeber this is Illinois.
Our elected officals residences sometimes is a prison.
“. Many a judge and jury in many jurisdictions have found defendants not only “not guilty” but fully “innocent” of the charges laid against them.”
Citation, please.
J.Duhaime defines crime as:
“An act or omission which is prohibited by criminal law and punished, usually by fine or imprisonment. ”
“A crime is a wrongful act of such a kind that the State deems it necessary, in the interests of the public, to repress it; for its repitition would be harmful to the community as a whole.”
The above is a 1911 definition.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Crime.aspx
Here is the more modern, current definition:
A crime is an offence against a public law.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c330.htm
Peter Berger: The fundamental problem in society is not crime. It is The Law.
This is a bad situation and my thoughts go out to them. I hope they can find some solution. Dan is a good councilman.
>>> Dan is a good councilman.
A good councilman (politician/leader/etc.) has integrity. Mr. Irving seriously lacks integrity. There is a public face that Mr. Irving wants everyone to know and love, then there is his real side – ruthlesss, reckless, controlling, demeaning, abusive, etc. He makes a good public play, but in reality, he’s just another cheap, transparent voicebox that wants all to believe he’s something he’s not. He would definitely make a good used car salesman.
There is more to this story that will come out in time. Mr. Irving is NOT the real person he proports to be.
@Charlie – I guess your comment seemed to slip past everyone else so I have to ask, can you cite the Peoria, or state of Illinois, or federal law that says it is illegal to marry outside your race. I won’t respond to your answer. I was just curious as to where it is located.
@Emtronics – Ordinarily you would be correct to assume that a person is supposedly “presumed innocent until proven guilty”. Not so when it comes to Domestic Violence (DV) charges. The “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA) turns the Constitution and your normal rights on its head.
Police do not need probable cause to arrest you. They only need a statement from the purported victim that they “fear” or “are afraid” for their safety. You are then put out of your house without a hearing. This is all done by the victim receiving an ex-parte “Order of Protection”, normally called a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order).
You are deprived of your liberty and property interest (rights) such as children, and you haven’t even had a hearing yet. You are not allowed to contact your spouse, paramour or family member, including the children if they are listed on the order of protection or they will be awarded a permanent (two year) order.
Don’t get wrong, Domestic Violence is a serious issue and true victims of dv need the assistance and need to be protected. The problems are:
1. Constitutional rights to Due Process, Equal Protection and the right to face your accuser are violated.
2. Too often, this so-called shield to protect women and children is used as a weapon in divorce and custody battles to gain a tactical advantage by false allegations of abuse.
3. It Discriminates against Men.
4. It breaks up families.
5. True victims don’t get the services they truly need.
6. It does very little to nothing to actually prevent abuse to true victims as VAWA takes on a role to penalize alleged perpetrators after a claim is made and doesn’t work on prevention of abuse.
The Domestic Violence industry receives over a billion dollars a year to deal with domestic violence. They received an extra 325 million in the stimulus package and still dv is an issue. More money is definitely not the answer yet they keep pouring more into it. In fact a Harvard Study shows that mandatory arrest (No longer a federal aspect of VAWA but certain states retained it) was responsible for creating more homicides and injury to victims of abuse.
This is a big business and there is a lot of push back to reform VAWA because there is plenty of money to go around. Police departments receive money as does the state attorney for the number of arrest for domestic violence they make. Judges receive money as well as shelters and state domestic violence coalitions. There is no incentive to reform it because it would cut into the money pool. They also don’t have to give an accountability as to where or how they spend the money. That’s the reason California Governor Schwarzenegger again slashed/vetoed funding for dv shelters (http://fwix.com/sfbay/share/147036dd1e/governor_vetoes_domestic_violence_shelter_funding)
For more info on this issue go to, http://www.saveservices.org, http://www.mediaradar.org . These organizations are SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) and RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting). Being that this is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I thought I needed to share.
Sorry Em but I had to give you the short answer.
Billy, you’re even more ignorant of the law.
She has the choice not to press charges. End of case.
There was another witness who could “press charges.” That just means pushing the issue. Usually when it is domestic violence, then there are no other witnesses and when the spouse decides to not press charges, there is very little case. That does not mean the crime did not happen, just that they can not prove it in court, so they don’t bother proceeding.
And the Peoria County State’s Attorney can formally charge someone whether the victim “presses charges” or not. The Grand Jury can also indict whether someone “presses charges” or not.
Let me just say what should go without saying. Irving is ACCUSED or something. I have no idea whether or not he is guilty.
And I have no strong opinion of him as a member of the Peoria City Council. He casts many votes I do not like, but that describes the majority of the council.
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html
“Laws prohibiting miscegenation in the United States date back as early as 1661 and were common in many states until 1967. That year, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue in Loving v. Virginia, concluding that Virginia’s miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.”
There are no Constitutional laws on the books today about race. Race is a concept that doesn’t exist legally. It is a social category that is purely self identified. There is no definition, characterization or description of what “race” is in the law.
Prego Man, that’s just not the case.
The filing of a criminal case is SOLELY in the discretion of the Office of the State’s Attorney. Typically included in their consideration of whether to charge something is the attitude of the purported victim. In the domestic violence arena, many times people are charged notwithstanding the victim’s wishes. If the victim made a statement to the original police investigator that the offender had committed a battery and thereafter seeks to recant it and stop a prosecution, ofttimes the victim is confronted with the unhappy choice of going forward with a prosecution that is unwanted or being charged criminally themselves for filing a false police report.
Well, I guess I’ll just have to wait for the re-enactment of this on Law & Order: Peoria to know exactly how the courts will handle it.
Prego man, don’t you just hate it when real facts are contrary to one’s preconceived notions?
If he was unfaithful or “infidel” in the marriage then why did he need to go to her shop to find out….. That’s the real question.
If he wasn’t “unfaithful or “infidel” in the marriage” he is still out of line.
I love how the newspaper and the news have the wrong information. The family doesnt want this to be public. Back off!
Yeah my brother knows this kid from work that seems to always know everything and he was saying that he had heard that that Amy lady wasn’t even texting him, it was like someone in her shop who was. Plus I agree with Mr. Anonymous- If he is a sleezeball he deserved it, If he was strong and true in his marriage then why does he need to make a fool of himself at her shop all over something that, if it isn’t true, he knows isn’t.
No one ever looks their best in a mug shot but the one on pjstar.com makes him look like “Gary” (Jon Lovitz) from the Seinfeld episode about the Hair Club For Men. “Good for you, JACK!!”