It's not like Ken is having the woman pilloried. If a business owner doesn't want to take a shoplifter to court, that should be his/her right.
My dorm lawyer degree expired when I left the Air Force, but I believe the DA retains the right to pick up any case where a person is arrested and charged with a crime so this could be a moot point if Mr. Friedman wants to beat her up in court...again.
Mob justice is alive and well in Paladino Country. Forget the multiplex; Batavia needs a store that sells pitchforks and torches. There is more entertainment value in a good old fashion tar and feathering.
Charlie....whats the difference between carrying a sign as part of the punishment or cleaning up the side of the road ..I see it done all the time along rte.490...I think Ken should have the right to have this done instead of going court..After all it is HER choice to go to court or carry a sign....
Mark, either you believe in the rule of law or you don’t. One is work required by our criminal justice system to satisfy a fair conviction. The other is humiliation forced by a citizen without the authority given to him by our constitution or our body of laws. That person would not be convicted of a crime; they would just carry the sign out of fear that the alternative COULD be worse.
People who commit crimes should be handled by our justice system, not used for a promotional gimmick.
The humiliation is not "forced". No one is making her do anything. It's an offer to her in order to avoid having a criminal record, which would be a felony in this case. If it's so unfair and demeaning then she can decline to carry the sign and go to jail. I would think walking around with a sign for a few hours instead of sitting in jail for how ever long would be a good deal, but I guess I'm an idiot.
Well, with your new private system of justice, what do you do the next time a crime is committed? I guess it would depend on how much fear that person has of being placed into our justice system, right? To answer that question, I guess you would have to ask yourself what would a person of questionable integrity do to stay out of our criminal justice system and how far the vigilante is willing to push their power over that individual.
It was a crime committed inside of someone's business. If he'd like to offer her this instead of pressing charges then he should be allowed to do so. And what do you mean how much fear they have? Who said Corona is scared of being placed in the justice system. This proposed punishment wasn't negotiated. It was offered as an alternative to going to jail. Victims of crimes decline to press charges all the time. Who are they to decide, right? I mean, the crime only happened against them, why should they have a say?
We are not talking about Corona; I don’t see her name on this poll. We are talking about a new private vigilante style justice system outside of our current one, where private individuals determine punishment without a conviction under our laws.
Here’s another scenario, what if that person is afraid of public humiliation because it would cost them their job or marriage? What if they ask for an alternative punishment from the vigilante?
If they are afraid of the public humiliation then they can decline to do it, because that's their option. Although I'm fairly certain being charged with something and going to jail is a little more detrimental to a marriage and/or job, so that scenario isn't a very good one.
Good point, Charlie. What's to stop a shop owner who has leverage over a suspected shoplifter from saying, "Give me $500 and I'll forget the whole thing."
Or even worse, using that leverage against an innocent person? That's why we have a criminal and civil judiciary system and unbiased referees to make sure justice prevails.
Anthony, exactly. If a judge stipulates carrying the sign as part of a legal conviction, that is within our justice system. The problem only comes in if you allow a private citizen to set the terms of punishment for another citizen outside of our legal system.
Michael what if the shoplifter doesn’t want to get arrested and still doesn’t want the public humiliation and instead asks for an alternative? What would be the acceptable alternatives in this private form of justice? Who would decide? Maybe like Dennis Jay says it's $500 bucks,or maybe your dealing with someone with questionable ethics and it's sex? What are you willing to allow in your new private justice system?
If neither of those are appealing to the person who committed the crime then too bad...they shouldn't have done what they did. And comparing holding a sign to bribes and sex is a little extreme. I think our business owners are better than that.
Shoplifter???? What about the Felony for the destruction of the buffet. She is a criminal who just got out of 1 problem with the law, and BAM here she is again. If it was a man, he'd be in jail already. Let the system have her, don't treat her any different than another person.
Wear a sign and beat ur Felony....great message 2 send to other would be criminals....no wonder the radio shows r slamming and laughing at Batavia
I agree Ken with the cameras...It not only protects the owner plus those who might be unjustly accused of a crime if it is all caught on tape...Dennis and Charlie,cases are settled out of court all the time with out the Law envolved.
Michael, you really don’t believe that a cross section of business owners is any different than any other type of people. Priests have been convicted of indecent acts but, candy store owners are above that type of thing? I don’t think so.
You commit a crime, you get your day in court, and then you can go to jail. That’s how it has worked in our country since the beginning and that is exactly how the founding fathers intended.
Charlie, your conviction argument breaks down on this point: If a person agrees to carry the sign, they are admitting guilt. They haven't been denied anything, because they are admitting to the crime.
If a person doesn't feel they're guilty, or can get a better deal through the judicial system, they have a right to say, "Ok, press charges. I'll take my chance in court."
I don't see the problem if she wants to do it in order not to have to pay the approx. $1,000 out of her own pocket and avoid another criminal conviction on her record.
She has not been charged yet with anything, so it's her choice how she wants to handle this.
But once she is charged, then I agree with Charlie, let he courts take over.
A vigilante is somebody who takes the law into their own hand and completely disregards the rights of the accused.
But if a person admits to wrongdoing and agrees to "make good" with the aggrieved party, there's nothing vigilante about it.
Convicted by whom? The word "convicted" is completely immaterial.
Again, the person ADMITS wrong doing. The whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" goes out the window when a person ADMITS to the crime. Whether in court or out of court.
The person doesn't have to admit to the crime, not take the deal. He or she is free to say, "I'd rather go through the judicial system." So there's nothing vigilante about this idea. No rights are being taken away, because the scofflaw is making his or her own decision on whether to take the private deal or go to court.
It's called "freedom." Something I like very much.
Terry; yes, here has to be an impartial judging of the circumstances, a legally trained public servant is best. (Can't believe I said that, but it's true)
Howard: Charlie may stretching the meaning of vigilante, but in fairness, you misused "Scofflaw" completely. Scofflaw is someone who refuses to abide by a lawful order. Can't be a scofflaw unless you are convicted of something.
JoAnne, let's hear some more about your allegation, where'd you get that from?
If by some misfortune, Ms.Corona trips and falls, and injures herself, who will hold the liability, if you want that risk, have at it. It certainly seems to me that anyone so hell bent on asset protection, that 11 + cameras are used to watch employees and patrons, you seem to be taking a huge risk. If she signs any waiver of rights to make claim, it's not worth the paper its written on. Look on the back of a hockey ticket,read what it says, guess what, the disclaimer means nothing.
And if this is done on city sidewalks, aren't you risking taxpayer assets as well, all those in favor of lawsuits say yay. I for one don't want to be held liable for Joe Vigilante's actions, and that is my opinion.
Let those who get paid to enforce, arrest, and prosecute the law do thier jobs, that is after all, their area of expertise.
Or we could go to option B)stone those accussed of sex crimes, cut the hand of a thief off,etc. Look at the money we could save. Wouldn't need the police, no judges, no prosecutors, no courtrooms, no computors, no data bases, just the court of public opinion.An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hello anarchy.
Dave, I'm not in a position to identify the source or circumstances of the information because I have not had an opportunity to speak with the person to see if they mind being identified. I will say that an employee of South Beach was the original source of the information.
I was hoping that Mr. Mistler would either confirm or deny the allegation.
If he is going to offer Ms. Corona an opportunity to settle her debt with him by wearing the sign and suffering public humiliation, then I think that he should be upfront with her in disclosing the full terms of the deal. If he has made an additional deal (with Access Hollywood) that will result in additional humiliation, then she should know that before she agrees to his terms.
I have stayed out of this because everyone is doing a wonderful job of communicating thier opinions.
I couldn't help wondering if the agreement between the parties includes the prohibition of contact with the media during that four hour span.
If not, then this will afford the opportunity for a four hour interview of Ms. Corona; still shots; film; etc. It doesn't matter if Access Hollywood has footage. It's value would be diluted by the mass coverage the networks, newspapers, and online news sites will get for free.
Bea, the footage in question, is not the potential coverage of a woman carrying a sign in Batavia. I would agree with you that it would be covered extensively.
I am referring to the surveillance footage, from inside the restaurant, which Access Hollywood, or any other outlet, would never buy unless they had exclusive rights to it.
My only point is, if she agrees to do this (carry the sign), which would essentially be admitting wrongdoing (stealing from Mr. Mistler),then she should have the option of making part of the deal with Mr. Mistler be that further insult is not made possible by the release of surveillance video.
If he has, in fact, made this deal in advance and in anticipation of her agreeing to wear the sign, then it appears as though his motive is not merely to serve as a deterrent, but to serve as a publicity stunt.
Or, JoAnne, the goal is restitution. The publicity helps cover the cost of all the lost food and business from that day.
If Suzanne were to go to court on the matter, she would face, if convicted, not only jail time but actual monetary restitution payable to South Beach down to the last dime.
Ken may feel that any resulting publicity for this is a suitable alternative to restitution.
Howard, I agree that resitution is the goal. Ken, will never recover the entire monetary loss from that day. Whatever positive publicity he can garner and whatever goodwill he can establish will benefit him greatly. I'm not sure if she has many bargaining chips to throw into this agreement. What he does with his tape is his business.
On the opposite end of that spectrum is what will Ms. Corona gain from this (aside from not being prosecuted) and should she be given the opportunity to be available to the media during that four hours?
Would you have an expectation to interview her during that time?
It would seem, if the media has access then Ken has accomplished nothing but to give her a stage from which she can perform. It can be turned into a side show with Ms. Corona as the star attraction.
The positive publicity that Ken may feel is his due would be turned on her and feed into what I perceive to be her need to be center stage.
I may be wrong, but I'd be interested in your take as someone who has the credentials to be part of that day.
JoAnne, thank you, I had almost given up trying to point out some of the flies in the oinment,if you will, of the intent to turn a profit, now I don't want Mr.Mistler to jump in with both feet, because in his shoes, it is opportunity knocking, and he has every right to exploit the proceeds. In fact, I would suggest other venders to inquire about permits to peddle their wares in the Latino's parking lot during Ms. Corona's "working hours".
It wouldn't put a burden on the local police, cause all of Kens cameras have the area well covered, if some of his recent posts are true. I see money to be made here. A simple win, win, event, Ms.Corona gets all the wrong attention, Ken hopes business increases, and if the city can sell permits to potential vendors, another windfall to the city. There is plenty of time to set this up, as it is my understanding, "the carry that weight show" is still in the production stage. One
of the "stars" is somewhat incapacitated at present.
Ken, you should patent this idea,I think there is potential here for even more profit, beyond episode 1.
Well said, Bea. I can't believe this has riled up Charlie so much! And Dennis, holy cow! Unbiased judicial system?! Come out from under your rock, buddy! Anarchy, Frank? Please! This is simple, do it or don't...and who cares? I for one will be doing my job as usual when Ms Corona wears her sign. I will find out later on the Batavian and probably read some more comments. Maybe even laugh!
Ms Corona would be a fool not to take Mr Mistler's deal. Just as long as it ends there as promised of course...get it in writing! Business owners have every right to put cameras in their establishment for protection against theft. While the whole Access Hollywood thing is a bit tacky, I guess it is Mr Mistler's right to sell his "work product" if he chooses. All I know is I want to dine at the South Beach Buffet without fear of what someone is doing to my food! Hey Ken, I will wear a sign to advertize your business for a decent donation to the charity of my choice!
Michelle,
Please don't get me wrong. I think Charlie has a valid point of view. I have no problem with our judicial system.
That said, an agreement was struck. Whether I think it is right or wrong is of no consequence.
The only sticking point, for me, is the amount of attention that will paid to Ms. Corona. The media crush is certain to be there.
Strutting back and forth in front of cameras, conducting interviews, and posing for pictures would seem to be taking advantage of the situation.
JMHO.
I am still wondering who gets stuck with the bill if Ms. Corona should somehow injure herself, would it be on Mistlers workmans comp.? Or, if she injures herself on a city sidewalk, do the taxpayers pay, and sue Mistler later? I cannot figure this one out, who would be liable. Ken, maybe you can shed some light on this, as a taxpayer, I feel I should know this, as well as all city taxpayers, I would hate to see your kindness cost the taxpayers.
I'm about to place a call, to our leaders at city hall, becuase I don't wanna pay, if Corona should happen to fall. I am wondering if this little stunt is even legal, as it puts taxpayer dollars at risk.
I wasn't even close to being riled up but, I do have a lot of pride in our community. I raised my kids here. Bought my first home here. I also served four of the longest years of my life on council. What I feel is nothing but, disappointment that our little town will once again be the butt of jokes and a media circus.
I hope everyone has their fun with another 15 minutes of undeserved fame. I have a feeling it won't be the last.
Bea, I don't understand how you think this publicity stunt is going to generate positive publicity and goodwill for Mr. Mistler.
What it will do, is put "asses in the seats"; but at the end of the day, the food, service and atmosphere is what will be judged. We already know what the atmosphere is going to be like. This little stunt may very well backfire on Mr. Mistler and cause more damage to his restaurant's reputation than any amount of restitution he hopes to recover. Not to mention what it will do for Batavia's reputation.
The only one who will really benefit from this circus, is Howard. It surely will generate a lot of traffic to The Batavian. I, for one, will not participate. I agree with Charlie. I feel nothing but disappointment.
Joanne,
That is why I wondered if there is something in the agreement that will prevent her from being interviewed by the media during the four hours.
It isn't the Suzanne Corona Show, or is it?
Somehow, I feel it will be a media circus.
Whether Ken receives positive publicity will be determined by the agreement he and she have.
Goodwill?? There's no good will here. This is about Ken Mistler's need for justice as he sees fit, per his own words. If you really want to see good will in action at a restaurant, dine at the D & R Depot. Nancy Nickerson exemplifies it daily, as did Don when he was alive.
It's most certainly a publicity stunt. His restaurant is being mentioned by media outlets all over the region. That's free advertising. As the saying goes; "I don't care what the newspapers say about me, as long as they spell my name right."
I just hope that her kids don't get tortured at school because of all this. With bullying being in the news a lot lately, it just makes me think of them. Kids get bullied for all kinds of things from: being short, having a learning disability, sucking at sports, being a band geek and/or theatre queen, and sadly for stupid things their parents do... I'm sure the bullying from ParkBenchGate has just worn off....Now if this ends up on some national show.......It just makes me shudder to think about what those kids are going to have to deal with...
You can't pick your parents!
Again, i REALLY think she is sick and needs a mental health professional !!
Poor Joe.
I wonder if Mark Burnett will be in town soon to do the next dumb reality show!
Charlie, like I said before, its all about beating up on a person who obviously needs professional help.
Your point is well taken, this is nothing more than an ego trip being furnished courtesy of Batavia's reputation. Maybe you can shed some light on the legal issues I mentioned. Ms.Corona can sign all the documents Ken can draw up, but where does his liability end, and where does the city's begin? I believe these are valid questions that require an official response from city council. I will be making the call tomorrow to my councilperson. We are dealing with a very sick individual, who knows what may be brewing in her pot?But putting anyone as unstable as Ms. Corona in a position to injure herself, or cause injury to others, is just plain and simple negligence, and asking for trouble.
Like I also said, it's all fun and games until it is your loved one who falls on tough times, or mental health issues. So yuck it up bigots, have a ball, but in this case more than any other time, I hope and pray that what comes around, goes around, and you all get your karma.
Shhh, did you hear that?, another for sale sign going up in circusville.
While I'm on the subject, has Ms. Corona been cleared by any mental health officials to carry out this agreement? Has she been cleared by any Doctor to be mentally and physically fit. I know for damn sure, if I had a hand in any of this, those questions would be answered before the show goes on. I'm sure Ken made certain Ms.Corona was in control of all her faculties before entering into any agreement, after all, it would be quite naive to think this part of the agreement can't be litigated, or because someone who may be incompetant signed the document to avoid prosecution, without any input from a professional health care provider.
Just a point I'd like to make. The footage from the security cameras is Ken's property, it his choice to sell it to Acess Hollywood, or whomever. Persoanlly I think it belongs on world's dumbest criminals.
Obviously according to the article there is a contract so I'm sure it probably forbids her from talking to media while walking, cause isnt that what a contract does, stipulate requirements? I know Ken will be getting free publicity and to be honest, all this concern for the reputation of Batavia is the truly silly part, as in a couple of weeks everyone will have forgotten about it.
It's not like Ken is having
It's not like Ken is having the woman pilloried. If a business owner doesn't want to take a shoplifter to court, that should be his/her right.
My dorm lawyer degree expired when I left the Air Force, but I believe the DA retains the right to pick up any case where a person is arrested and charged with a crime so this could be a moot point if Mr. Friedman wants to beat her up in court...again.
Mob justice is alive and well
Mob justice is alive and well in Paladino Country. Forget the multiplex; Batavia needs a store that sells pitchforks and torches. There is more entertainment value in a good old fashion tar and feathering.
Charlie....whats the
Charlie....whats the difference between carrying a sign as part of the punishment or cleaning up the side of the road ..I see it done all the time along rte.490...I think Ken should have the right to have this done instead of going court..After all it is HER choice to go to court or carry a sign....
Mark, either you believe in
Mark, either you believe in the rule of law or you don’t. One is work required by our criminal justice system to satisfy a fair conviction. The other is humiliation forced by a citizen without the authority given to him by our constitution or our body of laws. That person would not be convicted of a crime; they would just carry the sign out of fear that the alternative COULD be worse.
People who commit crimes should be handled by our justice system, not used for a promotional gimmick.
The humiliation is not
The humiliation is not "forced". No one is making her do anything. It's an offer to her in order to avoid having a criminal record, which would be a felony in this case. If it's so unfair and demeaning then she can decline to carry the sign and go to jail. I would think walking around with a sign for a few hours instead of sitting in jail for how ever long would be a good deal, but I guess I'm an idiot.
Well, with your new private
Well, with your new private system of justice, what do you do the next time a crime is committed? I guess it would depend on how much fear that person has of being placed into our justice system, right? To answer that question, I guess you would have to ask yourself what would a person of questionable integrity do to stay out of our criminal justice system and how far the vigilante is willing to push their power over that individual.
It was a crime committed
It was a crime committed inside of someone's business. If he'd like to offer her this instead of pressing charges then he should be allowed to do so. And what do you mean how much fear they have? Who said Corona is scared of being placed in the justice system. This proposed punishment wasn't negotiated. It was offered as an alternative to going to jail. Victims of crimes decline to press charges all the time. Who are they to decide, right? I mean, the crime only happened against them, why should they have a say?
We are not talking about
We are not talking about Corona; I don’t see her name on this poll. We are talking about a new private vigilante style justice system outside of our current one, where private individuals determine punishment without a conviction under our laws.
Here’s another scenario, what if that person is afraid of public humiliation because it would cost them their job or marriage? What if they ask for an alternative punishment from the vigilante?
I think that she should go to
I think that she should go to court and then the judge can punish her to do this anyways! Haa!
If they are afraid of the
If they are afraid of the public humiliation then they can decline to do it, because that's their option. Although I'm fairly certain being charged with something and going to jail is a little more detrimental to a marriage and/or job, so that scenario isn't a very good one.
Good point, Charlie. What's
Good point, Charlie. What's to stop a shop owner who has leverage over a suspected shoplifter from saying, "Give me $500 and I'll forget the whole thing."
Or even worse, using that leverage against an innocent person? That's why we have a criminal and civil judiciary system and unbiased referees to make sure justice prevails.
Anthony, exactly. If a judge
Anthony, exactly. If a judge stipulates carrying the sign as part of a legal conviction, that is within our justice system. The problem only comes in if you allow a private citizen to set the terms of punishment for another citizen outside of our legal system.
Michael what if the shoplifter doesn’t want to get arrested and still doesn’t want the public humiliation and instead asks for an alternative? What would be the acceptable alternatives in this private form of justice? Who would decide? Maybe like Dennis Jay says it's $500 bucks,or maybe your dealing with someone with questionable ethics and it's sex? What are you willing to allow in your new private justice system?
Dennis.... thank goodness for
Dennis.... thank goodness for cameras..
If neither of those are
If neither of those are appealing to the person who committed the crime then too bad...they shouldn't have done what they did. And comparing holding a sign to bribes and sex is a little extreme. I think our business owners are better than that.
Shoplifter???? What about the
Shoplifter???? What about the Felony for the destruction of the buffet. She is a criminal who just got out of 1 problem with the law, and BAM here she is again. If it was a man, he'd be in jail already. Let the system have her, don't treat her any different than another person.
Wear a sign and beat ur Felony....great message 2 send to other would be criminals....no wonder the radio shows r slamming and laughing at Batavia
I agree Ken with the
I agree Ken with the cameras...It not only protects the owner plus those who might be unjustly accused of a crime if it is all caught on tape...Dennis and Charlie,cases are settled out of court all the time with out the Law envolved.
Michael, you really don’t
Michael, you really don’t believe that a cross section of business owners is any different than any other type of people. Priests have been convicted of indecent acts but, candy store owners are above that type of thing? I don’t think so.
You commit a crime, you get your day in court, and then you can go to jail. That’s how it has worked in our country since the beginning and that is exactly how the founding fathers intended.
Mr. Mistler, Is it true that
Mr. Mistler,
Is it true that you are either, in the process of, or have already, sold the surveillance video of Ms. Corona's actions to Access Hollywood?
If so, that tends to detract from your argument that the cameras are intended to protect your business and your patrons.
It also lends some credibility to Frank's concerns about being filmed while dining.
Charlie, your conviction
Charlie, your conviction argument breaks down on this point: If a person agrees to carry the sign, they are admitting guilt. They haven't been denied anything, because they are admitting to the crime.
If a person doesn't feel they're guilty, or can get a better deal through the judicial system, they have a right to say, "Ok, press charges. I'll take my chance in court."
Convicted by whom Howard? Our
Convicted by whom Howard? Our justice system or a vigilante? You can't have guilt without due process.
I don't see the problem if
I don't see the problem if she wants to do it in order not to have to pay the approx. $1,000 out of her own pocket and avoid another criminal conviction on her record.
She has not been charged yet with anything, so it's her choice how she wants to handle this.
But once she is charged, then I agree with Charlie, let he courts take over.
Charlie, you're misusing the
Charlie, you're misusing the word "vigilante."
A vigilante is somebody who takes the law into their own hand and completely disregards the rights of the accused.
But if a person admits to wrongdoing and agrees to "make good" with the aggrieved party, there's nothing vigilante about it.
Convicted by whom? The word "convicted" is completely immaterial.
Again, the person ADMITS wrong doing. The whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" goes out the window when a person ADMITS to the crime. Whether in court or out of court.
The person doesn't have to admit to the crime, not take the deal. He or she is free to say, "I'd rather go through the judicial system." So there's nothing vigilante about this idea. No rights are being taken away, because the scofflaw is making his or her own decision on whether to take the private deal or go to court.
It's called "freedom." Something I like very much.
Charlie, So only a state can
Charlie, So only a state can determine quilt?
Terry; yes, here has to be an
Terry; yes, here has to be an impartial judging of the circumstances, a legally trained public servant is best. (Can't believe I said that, but it's true)
Howard: Charlie may stretching the meaning of vigilante, but in fairness, you misused "Scofflaw" completely. Scofflaw is someone who refuses to abide by a lawful order. Can't be a scofflaw unless you are convicted of something.
JoAnne, let's hear some more about your allegation, where'd you get that from?
oops, double post
oops, double post
triple post, got really
triple post, got really impatient I guess
Since this sign carrying
Since this sign carrying option from Ken was done once already, what's the big deal now?
The only two things that have changed are the location of the incident and that this time the accused person is lot more well known.
I'll wear the sign for 4
I'll wear the sign for 4 hours if you pay me $1000.00!
John, and now people have a
John, and now people have a place to comment on it.
If by some misfortune,
If by some misfortune, Ms.Corona trips and falls, and injures herself, who will hold the liability, if you want that risk, have at it. It certainly seems to me that anyone so hell bent on asset protection, that 11 + cameras are used to watch employees and patrons, you seem to be taking a huge risk. If she signs any waiver of rights to make claim, it's not worth the paper its written on. Look on the back of a hockey ticket,read what it says, guess what, the disclaimer means nothing.
And if this is done on city sidewalks, aren't you risking taxpayer assets as well, all those in favor of lawsuits say yay. I for one don't want to be held liable for Joe Vigilante's actions, and that is my opinion.
Let those who get paid to enforce, arrest, and prosecute the law do thier jobs, that is after all, their area of expertise.
Or we could go to option B)stone those accussed of sex crimes, cut the hand of a thief off,etc. Look at the money we could save. Wouldn't need the police, no judges, no prosecutors, no courtrooms, no computors, no data bases, just the court of public opinion.An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hello anarchy.
Dave, I'm not in a position
Dave, I'm not in a position to identify the source or circumstances of the information because I have not had an opportunity to speak with the person to see if they mind being identified. I will say that an employee of South Beach was the original source of the information.
I was hoping that Mr. Mistler would either confirm or deny the allegation.
If he is going to offer Ms. Corona an opportunity to settle her debt with him by wearing the sign and suffering public humiliation, then I think that he should be upfront with her in disclosing the full terms of the deal. If he has made an additional deal (with Access Hollywood) that will result in additional humiliation, then she should know that before she agrees to his terms.
I have stayed out of this
I have stayed out of this because everyone is doing a wonderful job of communicating thier opinions.
I couldn't help wondering if the agreement between the parties includes the prohibition of contact with the media during that four hour span.
If not, then this will afford the opportunity for a four hour interview of Ms. Corona; still shots; film; etc. It doesn't matter if Access Hollywood has footage. It's value would be diluted by the mass coverage the networks, newspapers, and online news sites will get for free.
Bea, the footage in question,
Bea, the footage in question, is not the potential coverage of a woman carrying a sign in Batavia. I would agree with you that it would be covered extensively.
I am referring to the surveillance footage, from inside the restaurant, which Access Hollywood, or any other outlet, would never buy unless they had exclusive rights to it.
My only point is, if she agrees to do this (carry the sign), which would essentially be admitting wrongdoing (stealing from Mr. Mistler),then she should have the option of making part of the deal with Mr. Mistler be that further insult is not made possible by the release of surveillance video.
If he has, in fact, made this deal in advance and in anticipation of her agreeing to wear the sign, then it appears as though his motive is not merely to serve as a deterrent, but to serve as a publicity stunt.
Or, JoAnne, the goal is
Or, JoAnne, the goal is restitution. The publicity helps cover the cost of all the lost food and business from that day.
If Suzanne were to go to court on the matter, she would face, if convicted, not only jail time but actual monetary restitution payable to South Beach down to the last dime.
Ken may feel that any resulting publicity for this is a suitable alternative to restitution.
Howard, I agree that
Howard, I agree that resitution is the goal. Ken, will never recover the entire monetary loss from that day. Whatever positive publicity he can garner and whatever goodwill he can establish will benefit him greatly. I'm not sure if she has many bargaining chips to throw into this agreement. What he does with his tape is his business.
On the opposite end of that spectrum is what will Ms. Corona gain from this (aside from not being prosecuted) and should she be given the opportunity to be available to the media during that four hours?
Would you have an expectation to interview her during that time?
It would seem, if the media has access then Ken has accomplished nothing but to give her a stage from which she can perform. It can be turned into a side show with Ms. Corona as the star attraction.
The positive publicity that Ken may feel is his due would be turned on her and feed into what I perceive to be her need to be center stage.
I may be wrong, but I'd be interested in your take as someone who has the credentials to be part of that day.
JoAnne, thank you, I had
JoAnne, thank you, I had almost given up trying to point out some of the flies in the oinment,if you will, of the intent to turn a profit, now I don't want Mr.Mistler to jump in with both feet, because in his shoes, it is opportunity knocking, and he has every right to exploit the proceeds. In fact, I would suggest other venders to inquire about permits to peddle their wares in the Latino's parking lot during Ms. Corona's "working hours".
It wouldn't put a burden on the local police, cause all of Kens cameras have the area well covered, if some of his recent posts are true. I see money to be made here. A simple win, win, event, Ms.Corona gets all the wrong attention, Ken hopes business increases, and if the city can sell permits to potential vendors, another windfall to the city. There is plenty of time to set this up, as it is my understanding, "the carry that weight show" is still in the production stage. One
of the "stars" is somewhat incapacitated at present.
Ken, you should patent this idea,I think there is potential here for even more profit, beyond episode 1.
Well said, Bea. I can't
Well said, Bea. I can't believe this has riled up Charlie so much! And Dennis, holy cow! Unbiased judicial system?! Come out from under your rock, buddy! Anarchy, Frank? Please! This is simple, do it or don't...and who cares? I for one will be doing my job as usual when Ms Corona wears her sign. I will find out later on the Batavian and probably read some more comments. Maybe even laugh!
Ms Corona would be a fool not to take Mr Mistler's deal. Just as long as it ends there as promised of course...get it in writing! Business owners have every right to put cameras in their establishment for protection against theft. While the whole Access Hollywood thing is a bit tacky, I guess it is Mr Mistler's right to sell his "work product" if he chooses. All I know is I want to dine at the South Beach Buffet without fear of what someone is doing to my food! Hey Ken, I will wear a sign to advertize your business for a decent donation to the charity of my choice!
Michelle, Please don't get me
Michelle,
Please don't get me wrong. I think Charlie has a valid point of view. I have no problem with our judicial system.
That said, an agreement was struck. Whether I think it is right or wrong is of no consequence.
The only sticking point, for me, is the amount of attention that will paid to Ms. Corona. The media crush is certain to be there.
Strutting back and forth in front of cameras, conducting interviews, and posing for pictures would seem to be taking advantage of the situation.
JMHO.
I am still wondering who gets
I am still wondering who gets stuck with the bill if Ms. Corona should somehow injure herself, would it be on Mistlers workmans comp.? Or, if she injures herself on a city sidewalk, do the taxpayers pay, and sue Mistler later? I cannot figure this one out, who would be liable. Ken, maybe you can shed some light on this, as a taxpayer, I feel I should know this, as well as all city taxpayers, I would hate to see your kindness cost the taxpayers.
I'm about to place a call, to our leaders at city hall, becuase I don't wanna pay, if Corona should happen to fall. I am wondering if this little stunt is even legal, as it puts taxpayer dollars at risk.
I wasn't even close to being
I wasn't even close to being riled up but, I do have a lot of pride in our community. I raised my kids here. Bought my first home here. I also served four of the longest years of my life on council. What I feel is nothing but, disappointment that our little town will once again be the butt of jokes and a media circus.
I hope everyone has their fun with another 15 minutes of undeserved fame. I have a feeling it won't be the last.
Bea, I don't understand how
Bea, I don't understand how you think this publicity stunt is going to generate positive publicity and goodwill for Mr. Mistler.
What it will do, is put "asses in the seats"; but at the end of the day, the food, service and atmosphere is what will be judged. We already know what the atmosphere is going to be like. This little stunt may very well backfire on Mr. Mistler and cause more damage to his restaurant's reputation than any amount of restitution he hopes to recover. Not to mention what it will do for Batavia's reputation.
The only one who will really benefit from this circus, is Howard. It surely will generate a lot of traffic to The Batavian. I, for one, will not participate. I agree with Charlie. I feel nothing but disappointment.
Joanne, That is why I
Joanne,
That is why I wondered if there is something in the agreement that will prevent her from being interviewed by the media during the four hours.
It isn't the Suzanne Corona Show, or is it?
Somehow, I feel it will be a media circus.
Whether Ken receives positive publicity will be determined by the agreement he and she have.
Public perception is what
Public perception is what will determine whether he receives positive or negative publicity...the agreement has no bearing on that.
Goodwill?? There's no good
Goodwill?? There's no good will here. This is about Ken Mistler's need for justice as he sees fit, per his own words. If you really want to see good will in action at a restaurant, dine at the D & R Depot. Nancy Nickerson exemplifies it daily, as did Don when he was alive.
It's most certainly a publicity stunt. His restaurant is being mentioned by media outlets all over the region. That's free advertising. As the saying goes; "I don't care what the newspapers say about me, as long as they spell my name right."
I just hope that her kids
I just hope that her kids don't get tortured at school because of all this. With bullying being in the news a lot lately, it just makes me think of them. Kids get bullied for all kinds of things from: being short, having a learning disability, sucking at sports, being a band geek and/or theatre queen, and sadly for stupid things their parents do... I'm sure the bullying from ParkBenchGate has just worn off....Now if this ends up on some national show.......It just makes me shudder to think about what those kids are going to have to deal with...
You can't pick your parents!
Again, i REALLY think she is sick and needs a mental health professional !!
Poor Joe.
I wonder if Mark Burnett will be in town soon to do the next dumb reality show!
Charlie, like I said before,
Charlie, like I said before, its all about beating up on a person who obviously needs professional help.
Your point is well taken, this is nothing more than an ego trip being furnished courtesy of Batavia's reputation. Maybe you can shed some light on the legal issues I mentioned. Ms.Corona can sign all the documents Ken can draw up, but where does his liability end, and where does the city's begin? I believe these are valid questions that require an official response from city council. I will be making the call tomorrow to my councilperson. We are dealing with a very sick individual, who knows what may be brewing in her pot?But putting anyone as unstable as Ms. Corona in a position to injure herself, or cause injury to others, is just plain and simple negligence, and asking for trouble.
Like I also said, it's all fun and games until it is your loved one who falls on tough times, or mental health issues. So yuck it up bigots, have a ball, but in this case more than any other time, I hope and pray that what comes around, goes around, and you all get your karma.
Shhh, did you hear that?, another for sale sign going up in circusville.
While I'm on the subject, has Ms. Corona been cleared by any mental health officials to carry out this agreement? Has she been cleared by any Doctor to be mentally and physically fit. I know for damn sure, if I had a hand in any of this, those questions would be answered before the show goes on. I'm sure Ken made certain Ms.Corona was in control of all her faculties before entering into any agreement, after all, it would be quite naive to think this part of the agreement can't be litigated, or because someone who may be incompetant signed the document to avoid prosecution, without any input from a professional health care provider.
An excellent, but often
An excellent, but often overlooked point, Julie.
The whole stupid thing is
The whole stupid thing is just plain ridiculous.
Just a point I'd like to
Just a point I'd like to make. The footage from the security cameras is Ken's property, it his choice to sell it to Acess Hollywood, or whomever. Persoanlly I think it belongs on world's dumbest criminals.
Obviously according to the article there is a contract so I'm sure it probably forbids her from talking to media while walking, cause isnt that what a contract does, stipulate requirements? I know Ken will be getting free publicity and to be honest, all this concern for the reputation of Batavia is the truly silly part, as in a couple of weeks everyone will have forgotten about it.
It is interesting reading the opinions though....