July 12, 2006
Beals and his broken jaw
The 36th District Stuff post below includes an off and on discussion about James Beals and his broken jaw. Would have been a lot more comments but my toleration for anonymous smear artists is wearing pretty thin.
Anyway ... the jawbreaking incident occured Dec. 28, 2005, at Hollars Bar & Grill, 4050 27th St. in Moline. Beals played a game of darts with a stranger. He won. As he was telling a friend about the game, the loser "came up on side and hit him," then left.
The friend later told police that Beals "was acting cocky over winning."
Witnesses jotted down the license plate number of the pickup in which the loser left the bar, and a few hours later police arrested James M. Bray, 26, of 125 5th St. Silvis. He was "highly intoxicated" at the time of his arrest at the Torchlight in Silvis.
On Feb. 1, Bray pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery/causing bodily harm and was fined $100 and court costs.
After being struck, Beals was taken to Illini Hospital. A missing lower tooth was "imposted in the lower lip." His jaw was broken as well.
Beals has filed a damage against the bar's owners and Bray. The claim against the bar is based on the Dram Shop Act, which holds that bar owners can be held responsible for the acts of intoxicated patrons. Beals asks for "a sum not to exceed the statutory limits..."
The count against Bray says he "...without legal justification battered" Beals, who requests damages "in excess of $50,000 plus costs." A status hearing is scheduled later this month.
Sources for all the above are Beals lawsuit and documents in Bray's court file.
Posted by jcb at July 12, 2006 06:32 PM
John, I am sorry Mr. Beals was punched.
However, when you are a candidate, or positioning yourself to be a candidate for elected office, you have to be aware of incidence/situations like this, and how to avoid them, and if you can't avoid them, what consequences they will have. I don't think every candidate in the world should not go to his/her favorite pub, saloon or watering hole, but the simple fact that we are having a conversation about a candidate for the State Senate involved in an incident like this, is well, rather embarrassing.
Posted by: stayoutofbars at July 13, 2006 06:59 AM
Good work finding this stuff.
But what a joke. Aside from getting his medical expenses covered, it's ridiculous to try to extort more money out of people and I find it pretty distasteful to learn that Beals is resorting to lawsuits over this.
The perpetrator likely doesn't have much money, and trying to cause financial harm to the bar because someone was stupid while they were there just seems petty and greedy.
And, there's always the fact that it appears that if Beals hadn't been running his mouth, his mouth wouldn't have gotten rearranged.
Posted by: TID at July 13, 2006 10:35 AM
I don't feel like it's an embarrassing event. Heck, he didn't even get in a 'fight' from what it sounds like. He got punched. So what? Thats like blaming a president for getting shot. If I really wanted to I could go punch whatever politician/candidate I wanted to. Would that make them an ebarrassment? I don't think so.
We need to realize that politicians are regular people. And while they need to be held to a higher standard because of their position, I really think that this incident is a very superfluous one.
Posted by: Robbie at July 13, 2006 10:38 AM
Listen, I don't want to pre-judge what happened between Mr. Beals and his pool player opponent in the bar. I guess that's now for the legal community to figure out in terms of the lawsuit.
I'm just not sure this enhances the candidacy of Mr. Beals, since this is now just about the only thing I know about him. I'm not sure they advise potential candidates to engage in this type of activity, but what do I know.
Posted by: values matter at July 14, 2006 04:41 PM
Thank Gaia TID has come out against Dram Shop laws for Republicans. Only Democrats have the moral standing to drink until they do something stupid, then sue the hell out of the bar that was ignorant enough to give them more booze.
And as for "stayoutofbars", I couldn't agree more. You know, Jack Kennedy had it coming to him when he was clueless enough to ride around Texas in a convertible----didn't he know that Texans had guns? Serves him right!
Posted by: paladin at July 14, 2006 04:46 PM
Your comment about John Kennedy is in unbelievably poor taste. Crass. Below the belt.
Any relation to Anne Coulter?
Posted by: values matter at July 14, 2006 11:28 PM
Values matter -- Paladin may have employed overstatement and heavy irony, but the point simply is that you can't blame the victim.
Surely, that's not enough to drag Anne Coulter's name into this. God, can't think would be...
Posted by: jcb at July 15, 2006 12:26 AM
JCB - Paladin could have chosen any number of ways to illustrate that point, but chose to use the murder of a President. I agree with Values that it was in extremely poor taste, especially coming from someone who, on numerous occasions, has expressed outrage over public criticism of a sitting war time president.
Maybe a better illustration of the irony would have been to blame the target of Dick Cheney's hunting rifle.
Posted by: Roads Collar at July 15, 2006 09:18 AM
Put up or shut up, Roads Collar. Please provide links to posts where I have on "numerous occasions" "expressed outrage over public criticism of a sitting war time president". I double dog dare you to find "numerous" quotes by me, or even one, that is even close to what you allege.
I'm sorry that you are so clueless that you do not get the sarcasm in my Kennedy comment, but since you bring up Ann Coulter, it should be noted that she makes a very nice living by pulling the chains of humourless people like you and VM.
I also want to mention the Roads Collar double standard: jokes about Cheney shooting his hunting companion---A-OK; hyperbolic example using JFK assassination to make a point about blaming the victim---"crass", "poor taste", "below the belt".
You can't have it both ways RC----at least if you want to be taken seriously.
Oh, and I'm seriously looking forward to those links you'll be providing---real soon.
Posted by: paladin at July 15, 2006 03:00 PM
Just check your own posts on this blog that had anything to do with Jeff Terronez, (speaking at last year's picnic at Illiniwek Park, for starters). There are plenty of others if you're bored enough to keep checking. You know I'm right, so I won't bother to refer to article names/dates.
And sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder. Yours would have been better if it was on the same order of magnitude as someone getting punched in the jaw. Surely you're intelligent enough to realize that some would find sarcasm about a president's assassination to be in poor taste?
And my comment about Dick Cheney's incident was meant more as a subtle hint that the subject of your sarcasm could just as well have been someone from the "Righteous" party.
Finally, don't confuse who you're responding to; I never mentioned anything about Ann Coulter - don't give a fart in a hurricane about her.
Posted by: Roads Collar at July 15, 2006 03:57 PM
Jeez Collar, "...check your own posts"..."you know I'm right" is all you've got? I knew you had no proof for your assertions when I issued my challenge. I don't believe POTUS or anyone else, including local sacred cows like Lane Evans, are above or beyond criticism, whether there's a war on or not. That's how I knew you were blowing smoke.
All you gave me was Terronez, but Jeff Terronez ranting about impeachment at a political rally does not reach the level of legitimate, honest or reasonable "criticism". What Jeff was doing was indulging in some cheap political pandering and grandstanding in order to get The Faithful whipped up into a frothing frenzy. This hardly counts as "criticism". But what's really interesting to me about Jeff's little foray into political theatre is that subsequent events prove that it is Terronez who should be impeached for incompetence. Poor Jeff----hoist on his own petard!
So the next time you attempt to mischaracterize my views or in any way attempt to smear me, expect to be called to account----and provide links and facts, not just your fantasies and crapola like "you know I'm right".
Nice try, but no cigar Collar.
Posted by: paladin at July 17, 2006 01:18 PM
OK Paladin, here you go (I apologize for not knowing how to insert a link):
The Inside Dope, 3/30/06 "Evans Resignation Fallout"
The Passing Parade, 11/05/05 "A Senatorial Primary"
The Passing Parade, 11/04/05 "Senator Needs Sense of Priority"
Three examples; your opinion of Terronez notwithstanding (and also irrelevant). Although I find it amusing that his comments got your panties in a bunch for a while!
Posted by: Roads Collar at July 17, 2006 07:31 PM
OK, we're done here, Collar. My initial challenge to you was to prove what you said about me, which is that I am "someone who, on numerous occasions, has expressed outrage over public criticism of a sitting war time president."
I checked out your first "link" and had some trouble finding it, since you provided no direct link and the post in question was on 3/29 and not 3/30. When I finally found my comment, I found it was about Lane Evans endorsing his toady and had nothing to do with my alleged "outrage over public criticism of a sitting war time president." I didn't bother to look up the other two "links", I figure they are as lame as the first.
Did you really think I wouldn't notice that you had moved the goalposts?
Posted by: paladin at July 18, 2006 01:30 PM
I agree, we're done, since you're being purposely obtuse. Here is your comment verbatim as posted on TID. Note the phrase "sitting wartime president". Yes, the subject was posted by the Dope on 3/29, your response was on 3/30, but the title of the original subject is what I listed above - your post was about number 30 of 60. And yes, I admit it's a pain to find but here it is...(again, sorry about lack of link)
Oh please, anon@21:49, you say Jeff Terronez is a "great person, humble, hard working, not blinded by ambition, has a kind spirit, etc. yet at the Labor Day confab at Illiniwik Park, said "humble" Jeff was calling for the impeachment of a sitting war-time president. This from a recently elected Rock Island State's Attorney. Do County State's Attorneys usually bloviate about impeaching sitting presidents? Please drop the "not blinded by ambition" bit---you'll be more credible.
Rest assured the other two are similar. The only thing pathetic is your attempt to sidestep the issue, but I shouldn't be surprised. This combined with your history of tiresome, predictable blather about the RICO Dem party just confirms that your posts should be enjoyed for Entertainment Purposes Only, rather than for anything insightful or intelligent. Keep up the great "work"!
Posted by: Roads Collar at July 18, 2006 04:17 PM
Whatever happened to Mr. Beals lawsuit? Did he get the $50,000?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 25, 2006 01:03 PM
Maybe Lois Lane could track this information down!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2006 08:31 AM