(You may need to click twice or if you wish Go Directly to the clip on Google Video)
(You may need to click twice or if you wish Go Directly to the clip on Google Video)
This- is Mississauga.
"Antonio Batista Death-by-Poetry Trial"
CROWN WITNESS -- Neil Lawrence (Monday, May 28, 2007)
(Transcribing from my notes --and request if there's an error that John Stewart or anyone else in Courtroom 105 correct me.)
Neil Lawrence age 42 is a municipal employee with the City of Toronto. He's a parking enforcement officer. During the trial, I turned around and asked if he were a "Municipal Law Enforcement Officer" (MLEO) and he nodded.
What is significant here is that much of Antonio Batista's fate teeters on this Municipal Law Enforcement Officer served up by The Crown as a "reasonable person".
Both Crown and Defense focussed on how Mr. Batista's poem would play in a "Reasonable Person Test".
They defined a Reasonable Person as "not quick to anger or take offence --slow to react."
I GOOGLEd "reasonable person test" and found the following:
"that the average person would consider appropriate, logical and fair in the circumstances."
or, more specific to Antonio Batista, upon discovery of the poem, how an "average person" would interpret the poem and in particular, how an "average person" would react to the words:
"We're going to build a pothole six-foot-long and five-foot-deep and three-foot-wide to hide her body inside, And God will take of her soul. She can keep running at a good pace. We'll make sure she's in heaven and out of the race, so please God take this soul."
Speaking for myself, I would've felt infinitely better had "The Reasonable Person" held up to Light for "The Reasonable Person Test" not been a GTA municipal employee --especially enforcement.
Anyway.
Mr. Lawrence's stats. Grade 12 education with a college course in Math. My notes say that on February 1, 2007, Mr. Lawrence found one of Antonio Batista's poems taped to a community mailbox. Mr. Lawrence stated that he was "very shocked at the wording of it." and that it included a photo of Councillor Pat Saito.
My notes read that Mr.Lawrence "told her (Saito) that they should contact police since he felt her safety was in jeopardy."
Through the Glass: City of Toronto enforcement officer, Neil Lawrence-- "Reasonable Person" (Clayton Ruby background)
Ironic. Readers will recall that throughout all this I keep asking myself, "What would Edward R. Murrow do?" Yet the Fate of Antonio Batista hinges on the question, "What would a Reasonable Person do?"...
I've never considered "What would a Reasonable Person do?"... in my own circumstances. "What would a Reasonable Person do?"... And this morning, after two cups of coffee and almost awake, a new question emerges.
"What would a Reasonable Person do if he/she knew what I know about The Corporation of the City of Mississauga?"... which brings us to --
TWO ENTRIES TODAY
YES BOYS AND GIRLS! ALMOST LIVE from the University of Toronto, Mississauga (UTM) City Manager, Janice Baker will present:
Speakin' of Quality and Excellence, I wonder how long it'll take them to notice that the "T" has been missing for months in The Big Yellow's yellow brick wall...
AFTER "TRUST QUALITY EXCELLENCE" COUNCIL
After sitting through the "Trust, Quality, Excellence" Presentation, I realize it's not practical for me to simply grab the presentation-video in its entirety and simply upload it to YouTube. That would be irresponsible of me.
Instead, I offer these three photos of this morning's historic Mississauga Council meeting at the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus.
My BAD TIMING PHOTO (12 second self-timer):
I love taking selt-timer photos of me sleeping at Council meetings. I press the shutter on the camera, run over to the chair, pull my cap down over my nose and look like I'm in a coma. Bad timing this time around though --and I only discovered that after I looked at this photo. During the 12-seconds that it took for the timed-shutter to go off, Mayor Hazel McCallion walked in!
I love taking pics behind pro photographers just so I 'm sure that I'm not missing a cool photo op. In this case, I wasn't.
Mayor Hazel McCallion presented UTM with a Corporation of the City of Mississauga 6 by 3 foot pole flag. I have two of these flags -- (doesn't everybody?) The other people standing around her are mostly Councillors.
Signed,
The Mississauga Muse
All "Antonio Batista Pothole Poet Trial" Blog entries:
THEIR MISSISSAUGA, yes, and ever increasingly --THEIR MISSISSAUGA (May 27, 2007)
Hypocrisy Democracy (May 28, 2007 7:27 am)
"What would Edward R. Murrow do? What would he want me to do?" (May 28, 2007 11:55 pm)
"We have to send a message to the public" Crown Attorney. (May 29, 2007 2:51 PM)
A pothole never loomed so large (John Stewart's "Random Access") (May 30, 2007)
"The government must not silence its critics by force." ---Clayton Ruby (May 29, 2007) (May 31, 2007)
"she does not think how you feel" Antonio Batista (June 4, 2007)
"Mrs. McCALLION what is wrong with the City of Mississauga?" (Antonio Batista) (June 5, 2007)
"We must employ every possible tactic to dissuade those who try to silence us with fear"
---The Mississauga News Editorial (2007-03-24)
Click here for John Stewart's Blog
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments (3)
Ever since I read reports of the trial this "reasonable person" test has puzzled me.
Why is Mr. Lawrence considered the standard? I think I'm a reasonable person and unlike Lawrence, I did not see those words as threatening to Pat Saito in anything but a metaphorical sense. I've discussed this with other people who I believe to be reasonable, and interestingly enough, not a single one has interpreted the poem as a serious threat to Saito. How is it then that Lawrence stands as the sole example? My point is that you cannot allow a single sample to determine how a reasonable person would respond, but that seems to be the Crown's reasoning.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of reasonable people would agree with me and not with Lawrence. I hope the judge sees it that way too.
Posted by The Bright Snoop | June 6, 2007 8:26 AM
Posted on June 6, 2007 08:26
Least should Jennifer Goulin leave out the 625 Atwater “ Piano Room” scenes timeline 106-116/500 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqTfsUSUf40 )
Whether Justice Keany will serve the position of Conservative Justice Dennis O’Conner , who exonerated Premier Harris and Debbie Hutton’s role in shutting down the water fountains at Walkerton in 2000, or Justice Sidney Linden’s report who described the “Pooling “ of us non-migrants “ environmentally culpable (deserving blame) since 1995.
The closing down of water fountains for pooling purposes appears obtuse for “reasonable persons” to serve out the “ IGNORANCE IS BLITZ “ factors against our Chartered Mobility and Legal Rights before “ Big Yellow” evaded to respond to the disappearance of our T-4 slip and HRDC/ROE’s in association with their same source accounting/consulting arrangements .
Seems odd “The Big Yellow “ would send Caryl Arundel’s report to Deb Mathews with out disclosing the Deb Mathew’s report had been developed in “Piano Room” next to the water fountain at 625 Atwater Ave , Mississauga South.
The Trust, Quality and Excellence issue is always in the same room where our attendance records aren’t ???
Posted by Wayne Nagy | June 6, 2007 11:53 AM
Posted on June 6, 2007 11:53
It could always be worse. If you think the 'reasonable man test' as applied to a poem is bad - see what the London Police did to a local soldier (www.reasonabletoassume.com). They arrested him multiple times over a 6 year period because military service and a firearms licence constitutes "reasonable grounds" to believe a violent offense "might" be committed. The soldier is 32 years old with no criminal history, no one called the police or made any accusations against him and now he is classified as a 'dangerous violent offender' and he never even got up out of a chair.
The 'reasonable man test' or 'reasonable grounds' if you prefer is simply a euphemistic way of justifying the irrational (and often illegal). It is a method of applying (false) objectivity to the subjective; of applying a justification for irrational actions. Without it law enforcement personel would be accountable for their actions and decision making processes. It acts as an absolvement of responsibility.
Rather than claim a law enforcement agent acted foolishly and illegally (which leave them open to lawsuits) all they have to do is claim that they acted on 'reasonable grounds' and they are legally absolved from any disiplinary actions. THIS is why there is no definition of 'reasonable grounds' in any legal document. The 'reasonable man test' is a farce, based on the subjective, that serves only to protect law enforcement agencies from civil liability.
Posted by A Reasonable Man | February 24, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted on February 24, 2008 11:32