The case for reinstating Mirkarimi - Page 2

Three points that the Mayor would do well to heed 

|
(113)

Ross Mirkarimi was elected in November, 2011, with a clear majority in a contested race. The state Constitution provides an excellent remedy for replacing an elected official who has lost the confidence of the voting public; it's called the recall. With a fraction of the effort that's been spent on this case, people who feel Mirkarimi should no longer serve as sheriff could have collected signatures and forced an election.

The City Charter gives the mayor extraordinary authority — we would say too much authority — to unilaterally suspend an elected official and seek removal. That's a power that should be wielded only in the most extreme cases, with great deference to the will of the voters.

Lee did no investigation before filing official misconduct charges. He based those charges on unsubstantiated claims, most of which were proven false. There's a dangerous precedent here: If Mayor Ed Lee can suspend without pay Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi on such limited evidence, the ability of future mayors to misuse this power could be alarming. And remember: There is nothing in the Charter that allows anyone to suspend or seek removal of the mayor.

3. This case mangles "official misconduct."

There's another dangerous element to this case, and it's not just a legal technicality. The New Year's Eve incident occurred before Mirkarimi took the oath of office; on that day, he wasn't the sheriff of San Francisco. He was a supervisor.

It's hard to claim he was guilty of "official misconduct" on a day when he had no official duties. A fascinating, but unsigned analysis by somebody who clearly has a strong legal background is posted on the web (rjemirkarimi.blogspot.com). It notes:

"If the Supervisors approve what the Ethics Commission did on August 16, they will be handing a powerful new political weapon to all mayors, present and future. Good mayors may never misuse it, but other mayors might. No longer will such a mayor be limited to examining an opponent's conduct while in office. He will have carte blanche and a strong motive to look farther back in time for personal misconduct that occurred before his opponent took office, and to use what he finds to suspend his opponent without pay and remove him from office — all while claiming (as undoubtedly he will) to be engaged in a noble pursuit of truth and justice."

Let's be serious: There have been San Francisco mayors with a long record of vindictive politics, or seeking any method possible to punish their enemies. There may well be again. Do we really want to have this case — this weak case driven more by politics than reason and evidence — set the precedent for the grave step of overriding the voters and removing an elected official?

Any of these three reasons ought to be grounds to vote against the mayor's charges. Together, they make a sound enough case that it's hard to imagine how the supervisors, sitting as a fair and impartial jury, could come to any conclusion other than returning Mirkarimi to office. We recognize that there are political implications, that Mirkarimi's foes will target anyone who votes to support him. And just as it's hard for some politicians to appear "soft on crime," it's nearly impossible to survive in San Francisco if you're considered "soft on domestic violence." But anyone who doesn't want tough choices shouldn't run for public office. It will take courage to do the right thing here — and in the end, that's what should matter.

Comments

George Washington warned against "factions," but I'd be curious to see evidence of what the other founders thought. It's been a while since I read The Federalist Papers. Since lilli must sleep with a copy next to his bedside, I'm sure he'll be happy to enlighten us. Of course, one gets the idea that "progressives" would like to go from a multi-party system to a single-party state in which epistemic closure is a given.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:29 am

Hmmm... Ivory?

Are you still hoping to create a new normative metanarrative?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 11:13 am

How am I a troll? Anyway, neither Ivory Madison nor I made up the term. I notice you're not interested in refuting the charge, though.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

Hortencia, you are a troll because you write short, obnoxious, poorly thought-out rubbish, pompous in nature, and intended to be irritating.

Witness your aimless blather about how you'd "be curious to see evidence of what the other founders thought."

You are, after all, *on* *the* *internet* and could easily discover for yourself that my statement -- again, not of my central premise! -- was founded on easily discoverable facts.

You trolls basically have nothing intelligent to say so you blather on aimlessly in order to distract from that to which you object.

If this was SFGate, you'd be logging on under multiple identities to thumb down intelligent comments, but here you can only lard the board with your grisly inanity.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 3:09 pm

Truly, lilli, I don't. I have opinions that differ from yours and, from what I can tell, the editorial board of the Bay Guardian (but only sometimes). Am I sometimes snarky in delivering them? Sure, but so are you and the people who agree with you. Erika seems to be an exception, as much as I disagree with her. I don't come on here to irritate, but to state my opinions and, I hope, disagree intelligently with those whose opinions I don't share.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

It is pretty clear that this post that you replied to was an inadvertent one, and that my actual reply is below. I do in fact fully admit that I cannot find a single instance of a Sheriff being ousted for an arm grab. Pretty small haystack to look in. But, if you will notice, Lilli has yet to find me a single ELECTED LEO that kept his job after a misdemeanor conviction and DV counseling.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 7:42 am

I asked you to provide a case of *anyone* *anywhere* *any time* being charged with domestic violence for an arm grab.

The closest anyone has come to it is a story of a man who grabbed his pregnant GF's arm and threw her into some bookcases; where police were called by someone in the household, either the woman herself or her live-in father; which I mention because you'll no doubt be tempted to similarly and boldly lie and mischaracterize an inapplicable example as meeting those criteria.

And you couldn't produce an example so you asked me to repeat my prior proofs of sheriffs, sheriff's deputies and other law men continuing to serve even after crimes far more serious than a momentary arm grab.

And you'll continue to mendaciously insinuate that Ross Mirkarimi was found guilty of domestic violence through your slimy abuses of the English language.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:33 am
Posted by D. Native on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:46 am

for a momentary arm grab. That the case was brought at all speaks clearly of the political nature of the current DA's office. That the case resulted in a plea agreement stems also from this nakedly political attack which spared no trick to wear down and abuse its target: depriving Ross Mirkarimi of the support and companionship of his family by judicial fiat; spreading salacious and scurrilous innuendo and accusation through the media; abusing and violating the attorney-client priviledge of privacy by first seizing, and then disseminating the contents of the infamous video; turning historical allies of the DV prevention and prosecution against the sheriff perhaps through cunning, duplicity or maybe even clandestine promises; threats to overturn the election through a recall fueled by hearsay comments which would have later become allowable due to quirks in our flawed DV law.

Again: nobody has *ever* been charged with DV for a momentary arm grab. You mischaracterize my challenge for you to prove otherwise in order to (straw man) pretend it is an unreasonable request; and you ask me to repeat proofs I've provided in the past similarly in order to evade my challenge. Again, D'Native: show *one* case where a simple arm grab was prosecuted.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Simple fact- that VAST majority of DV prosecutions are not put into the press. Could I go down to 850 Bryant and go over hundreds of DV prosecutions and find a case where the suspect grabbed an arm and caused a bruise- ? almost certainly.

Do I have the time/inclination to spend a day or more at 850 Bryant going over court records etc, or even have the access to do such a thing - nope. sure don't. I would point to several defense lawyers who were not involved in the case stating for news reports that the case was not unusual and appeared to be proceeding by the book. Peter Keane, a former public defender and well known liberal even stated Ross got a good deal.

Now your challenge, which you continue to ignore- is to find me an Elected LEO that kept his/her job after a dv related conviction and probation. Yours should be much easier.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 11:35 am

That's progress, but then you regressed by making claims about Peter Keane.

References to a statement he made to AP are available but I couldn't find the AP story itself -- not that AP is what I'd call an impeccable source, by the way.

In these references to the AP story, Keane is reported to have said something to the effect that it was a good deal which Ross got, but he also was reported to have said: "Generally, domestic violence cases include much more physical and mental abuse that usually requires something more dramatic than a bruise."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/SF-sheriff-in-political-thicket-a...

And from whence did you pull that "fact" that Keane is a "well known" liberal?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

Sorry- Keane is a well known liberal. Is there a specific website that I can point to- i.e. www.liberals.com that has him listed and notes all his positions. Nope.

Do you have any information to challenge my statement that Keane is not in fact a well known liberal. While you are looking for that nugget- how about a sheriff or other elected LEO that kept his/her job after a dv conviction or even a non dv conviction, and got probation. Waiting.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

Rory Little, Professor of Law, Hastings:

"The DA was given a videotape of a victim in tears saying here's the bruise and I'm frightened. If you're a prosecutor in a domestic violence unit and you are given that kind of evidence, this is not a close case."

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/03/09/ross-mirkarimi-art-agnos-rory-l...

He basically makes the case that if the accused is showing proper remorse that he/she might get off with a consent order for anger management or other counseling. But when you start going the 'family matter' route then anything can happen.

Anyway, lillipublican, he keeps asking you for an example of an elected official who pleads guilty and keeps his/her job. And you can't seem to do it, despite the fact that it would get much more press coverage than a routine DV case.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

-- D'Native, I guess I haven't gotten through to you on this, but your repeating claims does not make them any more so true. For someone who has a track record of making things up as you do, you need to err on the side of keeping quiet unless you can back up your claims.

If Keane was a "well known liberal" as you claim, you'd have little trouble coming up with some citation suggesting it was true, so I think everybody can simply assume you pulled that out of your ass, like usual.

Now guest brings up an interesting interview with Rory Little. Somewhat compelling... and somewhat not. Saying the Gascon could just put the case into one of his deputies hands and say "treat this like you would any other case" might seem to give him cover if were to have done so... but could it really be believed that his deputy would not suspect the intent was exactly that? And that the underlying command would be "get him for me?"

I also question the phrasing of "being given a video" -- this is a video which was made for the purpose of a possible future custody battle, and it was made upon the advice of Ivory Madison who was acting as Lopez attorney. It was not simply a video of Lopez -- say, appearing at a police station -- and making these statements. She never sought police involvement in the case.

Did Phil Bronstein have some active part in arranging the video and its being transferred into prosecutor's hands against the will of Eliana Lopez?

I'm not legal expert by any stretch, but I also question Little's claim that the case would "not be close": it seems to me that a recent Supreme Court ruling -- was that Crawford? -- renders any such hearsay evidence as Lopez' video meaningless. More likely the case was always about getting the "testimony" of Mirkarimi's jilted former girlfriend before the public.

The whole program was about besmirching the name and character of one of the most selfless and honorable public servants to hold elected office in San Francisco for a generation.

And what of Little's bizarrely incorrect statement that the stay away order only remained in effect for "a couple of weeks?"

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

Thank you for the analysis. I noticed that you ignored this part of my post so here it is again:

"Anyway, lillipublican, he keeps asking you for an example of an elected official who pleads guilty and keeps his/her job. And you can't seem to do it, despite the fact that it would get much more press coverage than a routine DV case."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

And Mirkarimi probably wouldn't have been charged if Lopez hadn't made the video and the cops came after it with a search warrant.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:43 pm
One

First- I object to the idea that the Charter is being misused. So apparently does the Ethics Commission. Secondly, I admit I cannot find a single Sheriff who resigned due to "an arm grab". however, I do know one who should have resigned :=).

Now my challenge to you. Please find me an elected law enforcement officer, i.e Sheriff or DA, or even Attorney General, who has remained in office after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence related crime, and was placed on probation.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:34 pm
One

"First- I object to the idea that the Charter is being misused. So apparently does the Ethics Commission. Secondly, I admit I cannot find a single Sheriff who resigned due to "an arm grab". however, I do know one who should have resigned :=).

Now my challenge to you. Please find me an elected law enforcement officer, i.e Sheriff or DA, or even Attorney General, who has remained in office after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence related crime, and was placed on probation."

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/09/19/supervisors-set-oct-9-decide-mir...

On page 2

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

Bit ironic that my post was titled "one" and it got posted 3 times.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

used to pretend I haven't answered your bogus charge.

D. Native, I wrote a thorough response to your post but then it got lost due to a intermittent internet connection. The heart of the respons was that there is *no* *such* *thing* as "domestic-violence-related" charges.

Ross Mirkarimi plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment which is a charge that explicitly contains the requirement that there was *no* intent to cause injury. Got it?

And, by the way, your asking *me* to post an example is out of order. I've already posted examples of sherrifs, sheriff's deputies, policemen, and police captains who were convicted of crimes and remained on their jobs, or were suspended *with* pay.

And you only asked me to come up with another example because *you* *couldn't* come up with an example I asked *you* to come up with: name an example of somebody being prosecuted for domestic violence based on an arm grab.

You couldn't do that because *it* *doesn't* *exist* -- proving that this whole sideshow has been a nakedly political power grab and has *nothing* to do with protecting women.

Hypocrite indeed!

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

Um, no, @lilli.

First, D.Native said:

"Now my challenge to you. Please find me an elected law enforcement officer, i.e Sheriff or DA, or even Attorney General, who has remained in office after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence related crime, and was placed on probation."

and you tried answering:

"I've already posted examples of sherrifs, sheriff's deputies, policemen, and police captains who were convicted of crimes and remained on their jobs, or were suspended *with* pay"

He said 'elected' which is significant because they are held to higher standards as the face of their departments. You blithered as usual but never did provide an example.

Also, you totally fabricated something here:

"Ross Mirkarimi plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment which is a charge that explicitly contains the requirement that there was *no* intent to cause injury. Got it?"

You just made this part up. Here is the penal code which specifically includes violence as a factor in Paragraph (d) (1).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01...

Okay. this is the part where you try to change the subject to Mason Mayer or a push poll or something because you made a fool out of yourself again.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

You quoted from penal code 236.1 and think it refers to what Ross Mirkarimi plead guilty to. I'm sure you really believe that.

But if you read a bit further in your link:

"237. (a) False imprisonment is punishable by a fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If
the false imprisonment be effected by violence, menace, fraud, or
deceit, it shall be punishable by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170."

Any halfwit would understand what I've already pointed out with citations; that false imprisonment is what's known as a "wobbler" which can be charged as either a felony *or* a misdemeanor. Ross plead guilty to *misdemeanor* false imprisonment which means there was no intent to injure; otherwise he would have been punished pusuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

I don't expect you to "get" it; either for real or pretend, just like I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that the question D.Native supposedly "first asked me" was actually *him* ducking a question I'd asked him previously. You are all useless repetitive halfwit trolls as far as I can tell.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

Um....Lilli, when you say:

"Ross plead guilty to *misdemeanor* false imprisonment which means there was no intent to injure; otherwise he would have been punished pusuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170."

Aren't you forgetting something? He WAS punished pursuant to the guidelines of 1170. Remember his day in jail? They let him off for time served but he was sentenced.

Look, at this point I just feel sorry for you. Have a good day.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 12:38 am

Is that it?

Are you saying the Ross Mirkarimi committed "felony false imprisonment?"

Because I think if you'll check, you'll find that no reputable news outlet or internet commenter has made that claim.

And if Ross had actually been compelled to plead to a felony for an arm grab, while being otherwise faced with a trial in a courthouse shaded by billboards proclaiming his guilt, and a DA willfully spreading every bit of salacious and scurrilous innuendo through a compliant press -- essentially pre-trying the case in the media without benefit of judicial oversight for his tactics -- that'd make DA Gascon's permitting Mason Mayer to plead down to misdemeanor false imprisonment for the younger man's two-fisted bloody beat-down and death threat on his girlfriend all the more absurd. Exquisitely so, really.

Remember: Eliana Lopez never called the police, and has obviously never been afraid of Ross Mirkarimi.

In fact, a momentary arm grab, though clearly wrong, does not make Ross Mirkarimi a bad man or make his impressive record of public service in California disappear.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 5:52 am

Couldnt find one could you? Sure there are actual cops etc that managed to hold on to their jobs despite a misdemeanor conviction. If it was something like Ross did, they would most likely be damaged goods in their department, relegated to desk duty with little public contact. Essentially they get to wait it out until their retirement. now the higher up one goes, the higher the responsibility and the higher the accountability. As the highest official in the SFSD Ross needs to set the example and have the highest standards. He needs to be someone the line deputies and staff can respect and emulate. Not really able to happen if he is on probation and in DV counseling.

As to the silly argument that the conviction is not DV related. True it was not an actual conviction for DV, 273.5 of the penal code. But since the incident in question stems from an argument with his spouse and as part of his probation he is doing 52 weeks of DV counseling, I think it's very fair to say that the conviction is domestic violence related.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

Well, that's just one way of looking at it, which I think is absolutely valid.

Another way of looking at it, though, is that Ross Mirkarimi admitted to grabbing his wife's arm, and knows that was wrong.

His brief arm grab gives the impression to some that he might be capable of more serious acts of domestic violence.

It is not to say -- as the more single-minded anti-DV advocates claim, along with the lying Edwin Lee -- that such an act positively establishes him as a "wife beater" and future perpetrator of more serious crimes; but since he is to be sheriff, it makes some sense to undergo counseling to make people more certain that he is not at risk for such behavior.

Ross was elected to be sheriff. Ross is qualified to be sheriff. Part of his duties will be to administer these programs. His undergoing such training will make him a better sheriff.

That's my take on why Ross accepted the plea deal; that and the fact that he was facing trial in a courthouse shaded by billboards proclaiming his guilt and by a DA fixated on exacting punishment for a personal vendetta; willing to use leaks of scurrilous and salacious innuendo to the press to further his goal.

See? Ross, being a good man, undertook to cooperate in doing the right thing even though the process he was cooperating with was corrupt and being perpetrated on him for nefarious reasons.

It is another example of why this man so very much deserves our support.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 6:12 am

That kept his job after conviction could you?

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 7:07 am

Cunnie was an opponent of Mirarimi in the Sheriff's race. Contrasting them on issues and character is highly relevant to me as a voter.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

Lost fair and square and his loss is not even relevant to the issue at hand-? If you feel that it is please explain.

Thanks

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

You have your answer, Erika.

It's a debate which dates back to the founding of this country.

Some of the founders didn't take the high-faluting idealism of Jean Jacques Rousseau to heart; they only wanted to displace King George III in favor of a more localized autocracy which would better serve their interests.

The reactionaries of today -- whether going under the term Republicans, or "moderates" -- want to revisit the debate won back in the day by men such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

and Rod Blagojevich too.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

Oh, please. You're really going to equate George W. Bush, say, and the city's moderate Democrats, aren't you?

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:27 am

That to me is the problem with the far left, so called progressives. They are very open minded and tolerant of anyone except someone with differing political views. They then lump anyone that is not in complete lockstep with them with Hitler, GW Bush, Mussolini, Willie Brown and anyone else who even mildly disagrees with them. Not the most tolerant bunch when it comes to politics. Like stalin without the gulags.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

1) A brief disputed video of Eliana Lopez which she claims misrepresents the situation is used as the basis for action against her husband.
2) An undisputed video of apparent violations of campaign law during the Mayor's campaign provides 'insufficient evidence'. No action taken.
3) Sworn testimony regarding possible perjury by the Mayor. No action taken-so far.
Something is rotten in the Hall of the Mountebank Mayor.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

I agree with the editorial. This is should handled by a marriage counselor with the couple, not a political sideshow put on by the "virtuous" Ed Lee. I hope Mirkarimi gets his job back especially because I elected him and there is nobody else I would have liked for Sheriff. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!"

Posted by CL on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

She bruises simply from walking down the street.

Posted by Dootise on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

Soap opera stars are prone to histrionics. I know, having seen Days of Our Lives on TV a few times.

Lesson for Ross:

When you go to a convention, especially in Brazil, stay clear of telenovela stars looking to get impregnated by 'testosterone-packaged' (those are Ross's words, folks) men.

Posted by Barton on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 8:00 am

I wonder if the Guardian will print an opposing-viewpoint editorial.

Just kidding.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

San Francisco's #1 advocate for Domestic Violence Esta Soler said it best, ".once he had pled guilty to the crime of false imprisonment and is serving three years' probation and one year of batterer's treatment, we said he should not be sheriff."

http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Esta-Soler-fights-domestic-violence...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

I've got absolutely no quibble with her joining other like-minded people and circulating a petition for his recall.

That said, I'd make clear that her opinions are not mine; I don't believe an arm grab is the same as a two-fisted beating, or a murder.

And Esta's opinion should not be thought to carry any more weight than any other San Franciscan.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 10:38 pm

I checked in on this site after being away for like two months, and hot damn people are still talking about the *same shit*!

And nobody, and I mean nobody, has come close to racking up more posts on this tired ass subject than Lilli. Oh girl.... You have spent maybe 100, 150 hours on this site defending Ross? And has anything gotten better for the man? I mean, anything?

You've wasted an obscene amount of time. It's actually a little nuts. We're talking like four 40-hour work weeks spent here... talking to yourself. That sucks, really bad. Get a productive hobby, this ain't it.

Posted by Scram on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Why shouldn't an expert on domestic violence's opinion count for more that you, a random, anonymous commenter who might not even live in San Francisco?

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

domestic violence advocate? really? Why would Esta support domestic violence?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

because if she could easily go all bananas and say you didn't drive her where she really wanted to go..and thus you should be charged with False Imprisonment. Really, these women have utterly no sense of proportionality..perhaps that's why they are perennially unhappy and ready to kill for an perceived slight. yikes!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

Sexist comments like this really remind me of old-school Republican white men telling "little ladies" to pipe down.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 8:00 am

Good point. Ladies should do what their men-folk say. Yikes!

Posted by Bluerays on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 8:20 am

So the guardian is saying that only "serious assaults" are domestic violence? Wow! Please educate yourselves before publishing views like this that can cost people their lives with perpetrators going to jail and victims experiencing physical, emotional and psychological scars. What a horrible message to send out. How does the Guardian editorial board NOT know that the most dangerous time for events like these to occur is precisely when the partner is seeking to leave the relationship and take the child with them, as you outlined in your own article?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

that a slight bruise on the inside of Eliana's arm *is* *not* a sign of a serious assault.

Those willing to engage their minds a bit over this matter might also see that not all "domestic" (among those in the household) "violence" (an arm grabbing) should be treated like a two-fisted beat down -- or even any number of lesser acts which demonstrate an intent to injure.

That's what *I* mean when I write that an arm grab does not make Ross a "wife beater."

My understanding of the rationale behind the draconian DV laws is that when a perpetrator first identifies their capacity to intend injury to their partners, it is important for law enforcement to have the strongest tools possible to prevent further criminality.

The problem lies in the potential for such power to result in injustice when the required judgement on the part of the police and prosecuting powers is tossed out due the political ramifications present.

I've asked for an example of an arm grab being charged with domestic violence and the closest anyone has ever come to providing an example of it is a story about a man who grabbed his pregnant wife by the arm and threw her into some objects.

Again, I think Ross was correct to acknowledge the error in his action. Now I'd like to see Ed Lee apologize for calling him a "wife beater"; though I don't expect it. I believe Ross Mirkarimi has *far* more integrity than the mayor.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

Along the same logical line, some people think that there are blue martians as well as little green martians. But when I've asked people to produce pictures of blue martians they can't do it.

Which proves my point that all martians are green.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 1:53 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

Related articles

  • Full circle

    After months of discussion and faulty charges, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to the initial act — and how broadly to define 'official misconduct'

  • Guardian editorial: The real Mirkarimi question

    Do you believe Eliana, or not?

  • Perspective and proportion

    As the Ethics Commission finishes taking testimony in Mirkarimi inquiry, the evidence on most charges seems increasingly thin

  • Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths