Monday, May 18, 2009

Phil Luciano - Bar Fight - 1:15 A.M. Saturday

1:15 A.M. on a Saturday night? Hitting people in the head and tearing shirts? I'd like to believe it isn't so but its reported in the JS so it has to be true. Struck a guy in the head, was escorted from the bar and comes back an strike a woman? Good grief, Phil, you blustering bag of beans. If you don't recall Phil wrote 750 words belittling me for lawfully causing a school bus to stop after I was nearly struck by a flying object ejected from an open window while I was traveling at 65 miles per hour while legally passing this school bus. This bus, driven by an inexperienced driver, carrying a wrestling squad with a belligerent coach who in addition to being belligerent, also was in violation of school policy by allowing food and drink on a public school bus, plus allowing windows to be open and kids tossing out missiles. A felony, by the way, under a law "endangering someones life while traveling on a public freeway".

On 8/15/07, Luciano wrote in his column, "What sets bricks and fireworks apart"? He wrote "one act intended to do no harm and one that is intended to do physical harm"?

Interesting that he should have asked that question back then and now "allegedly" striking someone in the head. On 4/3/07, Luciano wrote a column, "Sometimes its easier to forget" saying "Look, I readily admit I that I don't recall much of college academics: I focused on my energies in activities outside the classroom".

Looks like Phil is still leading a "college kid" life of socializing in bars and throwing "chairs off balconies" and of seeing his college buddies and remembering all of the "impossible irresponsibility under which you once reveled" as he wrote in his column "Rethinking the college culture" on 8/15/07. I agree wholeheartedly with the title and some of its content of the article.

Maybe the JS should review what paid people write in their columns but maybe Phil is just following some sort of tradition with role models of dubious character. While people may read what some write, I doubt if it helps advertising revenues or even circulation for that matter when you have irresponsible column writers.

Maybe Diana Schroer summed it up best in her "Letter to the Editor" dated 4/07/07, titled "Column (Luciano) serves no redeeming purpose".



Anonymous said...

"no redeeming purpose.." Love it, says it straight-up.

Anonymous said...

No offense, but your situation on that bus that you constantly talk about is very, very strange. It truly must have been an inexperienced driver behind the wheel of that bus to pull over and allow some angry motorist time to vent and lecture on the side of a busy interstate. Maybe I'm wrong with that classification, but the whole thing isn't something I'd be constantly talking about.

Merle Widmer said...

"Busy" Interstate out by Goodfield at 2:00 P.M.? Not hardly. Inexperienced driver, yes as admitted by the Morton transportation manager who was worried I was planning to file charges against the school which the sheriffs office in Woodford County said I could. The driver was obligated to stop to see what the problem was and where he stopped was up to him. Both the driver and the kid were disciplined by school administration. Check that out also. Not want to talk about it? You jest, surely. Not only did I get reelected by spending no money and putting up no yard signs over a woman half my age. No, I want to keep talking about it. Likehood is that no kid on that bus will ever litter again without being sure no one is watching.

The big plus was that it started a litter campaign by the JSEB and the Mayor of Peoria. Seems to be working fairly well, too so I accept your "thanks".

I care about my community and how it looks. Unfortunately, we have lost our way and do not understand our priorities. What are they? Read by blogs starting in August 2004, and all listed on my archives.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Widmer,
As I understand it, Mr. Luciano was picked up a short time later in the 1900 block of West Alice Avenue. The owl's Nest is slightly more than 5 blocks from that location. Mr. Luciano is quite the drinker, as we all well know. He himself often discusses this quite openly over the air waves. Mr. Luciano also isn't exactly the smallest man or the best physically fit person. Note the beer gut. If he indeed was picked up a "short" time later, what are the odds that he had walked or ran to the 1900 block of West Alice Avenue? I have not been able to substantiate this but, more than likely, he was driving. Now, being the drinker that he admits to being, the time of morning that it was, and the situation he had just caused which required the police to be called in the first place, did the police give him a sobriety test? If he had indeed walked or ran to his current arrest location, all of the above circumstances should have still warranted a public intoxication charge if not more. If he was pulled over in his vehicle, all of the above circumstances should have required definately required a field sobriety test as well as a possible breathalyzer. It was also noted that he refused to speak to the police. Does this mean that he also refused the field sobriety test or the breathalyzer? It is my understanding that refusal is an automatic loss of ones license in the state for a minimum of 6 months.
So, where is the rest of the story Peoria? Was Mr. Luciano treated differently that evening from the rest, simply due to his status in Peoria? Did the officer not do his job appropriately or with a turned cheek once again due to who it was he was arresting? Did others get involved once that 1 phone call was given in order to release him quickly and without other charges?
Let's hope that our publicly elected states attorney isn't a friend or drinking companion. I am not a Mr. Luciano basher or hater, as a matter of fact, he's had some columns I've liked. I simply believe that everyone should be treated the same, no matter who you are, who you know, where you teach, what you write, or what air waves you speak on.