.

Darien Husband Charged with Domestic Violence

A Darien man was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct after police responded to a report of an altercation at their home.

A 43-year-old Darien husband who struck his wife during an argument was arrested Saturday, police said.

No medical treatment was required, according to Darien police.

said they received a call about an altercation at 1:27 a.m. Police arrested the husband on a charge of disorderly conduct.

The husband posted a $2,500 bond and appeared in state Superior Court in Stamford on Monday. His lawyer is Eugene Riccio of Bridgeport. The husband is next scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 26.

Shredder January 18, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Please release the name of the man. This lawyer is the same as in the MS banker (William Bryan Jennings) taxi-stabbing case. You have no problem releasing the names of kids making foolish mistakes; not sure why you want to protect real criminals. I understand that for some innane reason, you prioritize this stuff as "sensitive," but I'm hoping you make an exception to either preserve the dignity of William Bryan Jennings if he is not involved, or give notice to the community regarding a perhaps truly erratic man.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 04:11 PM
Also, in an act of pre-martyrdom, I'd like to highlight the hypocrisy of the "do we have a problem with our youths" arguments when it is quite evident that our community, just like many others, is infected with miscreants of all ages.
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 05:18 PM
@ Shredder: I must disagree with you. The purpose of not reporting the names of the perpetrators of domestic violence is to protect the privacy of the victims. How many spouses (and other family members of violent individuals) would not report such events if their names were splashed all over the media? Better to allow a victim to go right to the police without any concern about how this would play on Patch the next day....
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 05:31 PM
That doesn't make any sense. The guy's name is going to be released eventually. If somebody thinks that the cost of shame exceeds the benefits derived from locking up/punishing their abusive partner, perhaps they shouldn't involve the justice system to begin with. But we don't live in Iran and the victim here has no reason to fear retaliation/retribution for reporting domestic violence to the police. And more importantly, Mr. Jennings' reputation is being constructively tarnished, for perhaps no reason.
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 05:39 PM
@ Shredder: we'll agree to disagree. We want to encourage victims to speak out and report incidents when they happen. Publishing the perpetrator's name and making the victim the "talk of the neighborhood" isn't going to help that cause.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 05:51 PM
I could understand that if she basically wanted to get the cops to come over give this guy a stern talking to so that they could proceed with their lives appropriately. Now that he's been arrested, it's only a matter of time until his name becomes public, and I do not see the purpose of withholding the information.
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 06:02 PM
@ Shredder: even if the perpetrator's name becomes "public" in the court records, that doesn't mean that Patch, the Stamford Advocate, the Darien Times or any other media outlet will actually publish the same. It is my hope that, for the reasons articulated above, they never will.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 06:14 PM
Fair enough point; however, what exactly do you suppose the victim is looking to achieve? If the reason she wants to remain anonymous is that she doesn't want this to be a monumental "bridge burning" event in her relationship, what type of punishment is most appropriate? Actual prison-time would certainly not be good for that. Are we as a society really OK to accept then a simple warning or probationary period for a man who strikes his wife? If so, is that enough of a deterrence? I would think not, and that public humiliation could at least elevate it.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 06:24 PM
Also, do you really think the calculus of a victim choosing to report domestic violence is affected by the odds that the darien newspapers can choose to withhold information? I would think that if I were truly worried about my reputation, I would choose to avoid creating public records.
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 06:36 PM
@ Shredder: what I think most domestic abuse victims want to achieve is to have the perpetrator stop beating them up. It's that simple. The criminal justice system is really the last resort for most....
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 06:38 PM
Exactly. So now that she's resorted to the justice system, what can she hope to achieve?
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 07:16 PM
@ Shredder: perhaps, just perhaps, dealing with the criminal justice system will cause the husband to think before he strikes his wife. THAT is what she hopes to achieve.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 08:14 PM
I fail to see how that goal can be consistent with your theory regarding her desire to remain anonymous.
Joe Pankowski January 18, 2013 at 08:29 PM
@ Shredder: assume you're a woman being beaten by your husband. You'd prefer that he stop, but you can't make him stop. You'd also rather not have your entire town know that you're the victim of domestic violence. A call to the cops is your best bet, especially given the media's decision not to publish the names of individuals involved in domestic violence. Yes, you do run the risk of being "outed", but it's better than simply taking it from your spouse.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 09:09 PM
The only reason I can understand as to why you'd not want the town to know is if you don't want the relationship to end. So in that case, what is the criminal justice system to do? I asked this question earlier and you simply said, "make him stop." I want to buy into your argument but it'd be more helpful if you would close the loop. I think that you're unable to because you recognize that the logic doesn't hold up, but if it does, I would truly love to hear it. You can disagree with my answer, but at least it a represents a complete model: She had him arrested him because she wants him to be punished (i.e. jail), doesn't want the relationship to continue, and therefore is unlikely to care about anonymity.
sebastian dangerfield January 18, 2013 at 09:58 PM
I agree to some extent with Shredder. It was within the last couple of weeks that the editors of patch, explained with determination that one of the reasons for publishing the names of various arrested people , was to help in the deterrent factor. I think David said, 'maybe by publishing these guys names, they will think before doing this stuff." So , if the defense/rationale of publishing names is to participate in stopping crime, then it stands to follow that Patch should want to stop domestic abuse. Shredder is correct. If a woman is robbed and beaten by a thug-her victim status is not protected. If the thug is related to her, she is then "protected?" What is difference in protection? The equation is clear--you are actually only protecting the wife beater from humiliation. Not exactly protection.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM
I changed my min. I think the better thought experiment would be to think about what you would do if your wife was beating you up. The social repercussions of being a man beaten up by his wife are likely to be quite large. You may in fact want to put her in jail -- but you still wouldn't want anyone to ever know that you got your ass kicked by a woman. If I can feel this way, it figures that someone else could have similar reservations. But still, since Patch chooses the crimes that they view as worthy of disclosure, I think it is only fair to probe the merits of anonymity further. For me, it's quite clear that the identities of abused men should be protected, but I don't think the same stigma exists for the modern Darien woman. If anything, she may be revered as a hero for standing up to her tormentor. Since Darien Patch has recognized the benefits of disclosing identities, it must follow that they've calculated the costs to the victim here outweigh those benefits. I'd love to know the standard that this upstanding newspaper uses to evaluate this problem.
Shredder January 18, 2013 at 10:54 PM
For what it's worth, Bryan Jennings is 46, so it appears to not be him.
zarathustra January 19, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Two words once the cops are called: Mandatory Arrest. There is no such thing as a stern talking to.
Ali Abdulah January 19, 2013 at 01:22 AM
I suppose his defense will be that his wife was attempting to kidnap him and take him to the Bronx. It will help if his wife is a foreigner.
David Gurliacci (Editor) January 19, 2013 at 06:12 AM
My reasoning is that this is seldom a public matter and often enough doesn't involve serious harm. In this case, no medical treatment was wanted and the charge was disorderly conduct. If this took place in public or if the matter seemed to be more dangerous, I'd reconsider. The name is out there. Basically, I'm putting a finger in a dyke that's already been breached elsewhere. So be it. I won't be a part of making it public.
David Gurliacci (Editor) January 19, 2013 at 06:14 AM
Darien Patch also doesn't name children who are arrested (and police don't give out those names). Kids who are 18 and over shouldn't be kids any more.
Cath January 19, 2013 at 03:33 PM
This is ridiculous. Being arrested is NOT the same thing as being convicted. That's why you go to court and have a judge hear your case. He's a criminal? We don't really even know what he did. If he is convicted, maybe they will tell us his name. But in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty-not guilty until proven innocent like in other countries. Proud to be an American....
Abused January 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM
I'm not discussing this case, but just in general, when it comes to domestic abuse cases, I think we and the courts overlook the obvious. Why did one partner feel the need to physically hit the other? Do we think a husband came home from work and just decided to hit his wife? Or does the wife sometimes throw fuel on the fire? I've seen wives beliitle their husbands. I've seen wives verbally torment their husbands. I've seen wives intentionally try to embarrass their husbands in front of others. Why? Maybe it's because the wife is feeling older and unpretty. Maybe the wife is jealous her friend bought a new BMW and she puts down her husband for not making more money. Maybe the wife is bored sitting around all day having lunch with the other ladies, so she intentionally tries to stir up trouble. I don't know the answer. Maybe it's all of the above. But I feel this needs to be said and remembered and considered when passing judgment on only the husbands.
BerMat March 24, 2013 at 04:45 AM
Are you really this oblivious and blindly patriotic to think that in this country we are innocent until proven guilty.... Seriously? How many hundreds, if not thousands of people, have been issued a summons, charged with a crime, had the crime itself dismissed and the facts of the case expunged so that there is no evidence of the incident even happening... And yet articles stay up on blogs and on Internet sites of newspapers forever basically incriminating that person and making them guilty in the eyes of the public.... They end up having to wear a Scarlett Letter, much like a guilty person would do if convicted of a crime... Innocent until proven guilty... I wish that were the case.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something