SFBG › Bruce Blog ›

Guardian editorial: The real Mirkarimi question

08.01.12 - 12:42 pm |
(74)
Share

Do you believe Eliana?

After more than five months of legal and political wrangling, after criminal prosecution and a guilty plea, misconduct charges that are costing both sides hundreds of thousands of dollars, and lengthy hearings at the Ethics Commission, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to a simple question: Do you believe Eliana?

Because if you believe Eliana Lopez, and, tangentially, Linette Peralta Haynes, and take the testimony the two women have given under oath as credible, then the entire prosecution turns into something between a misguided disaster and a mean-spirited political vendetta.

Read more here http://www.sfbg.com/2012/07/31/guardian-editorial-real-mirkarimi-question

Comments

Oh please, Bruce's whole piece was troll feed, lol

We've dealt with this endless saga for what, 7 months now?

We really need *another* Bay Guardian article on it? There's not even anything new to talk about, so Bruce just poses a lazy question so the cyberwarriors can fight it out, the SFBG site will get an additional 14 hits for its dying newspaper, and in the end nothing changes.

The public tuned out long ago.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 10:16 am
Well, who are you then, if

Well, who are you then, if not the "public?" Why don't you tune out, go about your business and STFU?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 1:32 pm
There needs to be a federal investigation...

...of the bomb threat incident on June 29. I was there. I asked for an explanation on why the meeting was suddenly "adjourned." No explanation was given.

The SFPD claims it wasn't their decision. I don't know what is worse: that they may be lying or are admitting to a dangerous level of incompetence.

Of course, the SFPD has long been brutal at worst and ineffective at best. They are paid big salaries no matter what. They retire at 50 with 90% of their salary for life.

I took a self-defense class years ago. I was told being aware of my surroundings would help prevent me from being an easy target. Of course, being aware of your surroundings only helps if police do their jobs.

They don't.

When I was attacked, neighbors in the area tried to help me, but were too late. The SFPD never interviewed those neighbors.

I had multiple arm bruises and a badly bruised abdomen. Laura Gardner of the SFPD didn't care.

Some day soon we will get our elected Sheriff back.

But I'll never be afforded my day in court to confront my attacker. The SFPD made sure of that.

Officer Gregory Breslin shot and killed a 17 year-old girl in SF. He never lost a single day's pay.

How many of the troll's on this site are cops? I'll never know for sure, but I have my suspicions.

The case against Mirkarimi has sent a clear message to criminals in this town: you will never be prosecuted unless you become an elected official who dares to demand that police do their jobs.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 11:31 am
Erika, sorry, but you're whacked

There was a bomb threat. Get over it.

Mirk abused his wife and paid the price he knew he was taking from day one. The fact that his victim is a self-serving dragon who has lied and clearly only has alimony on her mind doesn't change that.

Mirk is a busted flush and needs to move on.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
Yes, I believe Eliana.

Yes, I believe Eliana.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 1:04 pm
Of course she lied - the

Of course she lied - the question is when. I don't understand how anyone can say she didn't. I saw the video and read her testimony in front of the ethics committee - two different stories.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 2:30 pm
Ross

As always, a well-written, thoughtful editorial about the sheriff who never should have been removed from office. He could have accomplished so much in the time he would have been working. To remove him was harsh -- cruel and unusual punishment with absolutely no precedent.

Posted by Guest Vivian on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 6:43 pm
But Vivian, 76% of SF'ers poll as wanting Ross gone and

support Lee's firing of him on the grounds that a convicted violent criminal should not be our sheriff.

Or doesn't that matter to you?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 11:56 pm
How positively lame the anti-Mirkarimi blather has gotten.

Ever since the ethics commission hearings and Eliana Lopez' case-shattering testimony, all they have remaining is bold lies.

There *was* a poll conducted just before Mirkarimi had a chance to get his side of the story out -- and it was a push poll to boot, with wording explicitly stating the falsehood that Mirkarimi had gotten off lightly in his plea deal -- and then later there was a big lie about a second later poll which turned out to be slick propaganda; only being promulgated by newspaper gossip columnists and internet trolls.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 7:53 am
People here are hardly typical and I can honestly say that not a

single person I have met in SF in real life thinks Ross should keep his job.

Not one.

I cannot recall any other issue where 100% of the people I know agree on anything.

The hearings and testimony didn't change anything. We knew that Ross bruised his wife criminally before the hearings and we know that now.

The only uncertainty was how many other times it happened, and it is not in either Ross's or Eliana's interest for us to know that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 8:10 am
So now an anti-Mirkarimi troll is claiming "100%."

Go figure. The "moderates" are using the Goebbels technique.

If we had "known" that Ross Mirkarimi had "bruised his wife criminally" before the ethics committee hearing -- or afterwards for that matter -- then the DA should have been able to make that case. The DA *wasn't* able to make that case and Eliana testified quite convincingly that *she* had moved her arm suddenly causing a bruise.

Eliana knows what domestic violence is and she knows she did not suffer domestic violence. The pattern of duplicitous accusations by internet trolls does not change that.

There are no doubt "real world" San Franciscans who don't think Ross Mirkarimi should keep his job; there were certainly many who didn't like him before this witch hunt started and their opinions have not been changed. That said, the *vast* *majority* of those I've questioned about this think it is obscenely unfair the process which has been inflicted on the Mirkarimi family -- and many of these people believe it was a political machination on the part of the Brown/Pak/Lee.

All you Mirkarimi haters have left is bluster; an attempt to intimidate supervisors into adding to this injustice. Grand work I'm sure... if you can stomach it. It won't work.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 8:57 am
Lilli, the "people you talk to" are hardly typical SF'ers.

No doubt you surround yourself with people more like yourself. Nothing wrong with that and it's the same for me. The difference is that most SF'ers aren't extreme left-wing apologists for domestic violence. They are moderates - Lee-voters rather than Avalos-voters if you like.

So your "informal poll" of Avalos voters show support for Mirk. Well, whoop-di-doo. What else would you expect? As I said, there might be somebody I know who thinks Ross should get his job back but they're not saying.

I'm not anti-Ross; I'm anti-DV. And if a right-winger were in Ross's spot, we all know you'd be saying the exact opposite. I wouldn't. Big difference.

Both Eliana and Ross admit the bruise and there is video evidence. You're on a loser denying that. So the "real world" issue here is whether someone who bruises his wife and has a criminal conviction for a violent crime should be sheriff. The people say not.

Ross can stand for election as sheriff again if he really believes he has the will of the people. but when even his own wife runs away rather thans tands by his side, who would support Ross? Apart from you and your imaginary leftie friends anyway?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 9:36 am
During a heated argument, Ross grabbed Eliana's arm as she

moved to turn away from him. She jerked her arm away from him and got a bruise.

Your claim to not being "anti-Ross" but rather "anti-DV" rings completely hollow. If a right-winger were in Ross's spot, nobody who cares about justice would want to exploit the situation unfairly to break his family and overturn an election. That *is* the purview of the wingers such as yourself.

Eliana did not "run away"; another of your filthy anti-Mirkarimi falsehoods.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 9:47 am
LOL, you make it sound like Eliana bruised herself!

Again, Ross has already admitted assaulting Eliana. It is hopeless for you to seek to deny that at this stage. The only issue for the EC is not to determine that which has already been determined, but rather to decide if a violent criminal act makes someone unsuitable for a LE leadership role.

Most people think so, not surprisingly.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 11:05 am
CSI San Francisco (The case of the bruise)

I'm not a forensic scientist but I have watched them portrayed on TV.

That bruise on the FRONT inside of the forearm was NOT caused by pulling AWAY.

Think about it. You can be sure that the Ethics Commissioners have.

Ask a friend to grab your arm in a respectful manner and then jerk your arm away. See if you can simulate a bruise causing event on the inside of your arm like that.

Yes, if they are grabbing it with enough force to rupture blood vessels then yes, I suppose that Eliana's testimony would begin to approach believability.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 11:36 am
CSI you are not. Neither are you an engineer.

Some people bruise more easily than others and Eliana Lopez is likely to be one of the more easily bruised group.

Nobody is claiming it is right for anyone to grab their spouse's arm, but your suggestion that the position of the bruise shows one particular thing or another is weak. Come up with some citations to back your claims. You've told so many lies here that your words don't have a great deal of weight.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 11:55 am
I guess it should not

I guess it should not surprise me that is that if the voters put someone in office, the correct political process to remove the elected official should be a re-call. BY THE VOTERS. If 76% of the voters want him out, that should be fairly easy.

It is not up to another elected official, who was supporting an opponent, to use a rarely used executive power to remove another elected official from office.

So stop please stop your useless bantering and take action. Oh, I forgot. You cannot do that because it would require getting off your butt which would take too much effort. Armchair quarterbacking is just so much easier.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 9:21 am
There isn't much difference between 76% of SF'ers supporting

Lee's decision to fire Ross and 76% voting to have him recalled. It's the same 76% either way. And given that only 51% is needed, the margin is way beyond any reasonable doubt.

The people do not want a crimina as sheriff. Is that really that hard to understand? And if it were Gascon who'd committed a violent crime against a woman, you'd be screaming for Lee to do the same thing - fire him.

We voted Lee to run this city and that trumps a junior official with a criminal record who is on probation.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 9:40 am
There is *no* credible poll which shows that Mirkarimi would

be recalled or that people currently support Lee's activities.

There was a push poll taken just before Mirkarimi had a chance to get his side of the story out, and the only other poll was a ficticious story being circulated by gossip hacks such Melanie Griffin and C.W. Nevius.

All sorts of accusations for which there is NO EVIDENCE were being made at the time of the "real" poll, such as Ross having hit Eliana, or shaken her, and him being a "serial abuser."

Now that Eliana has made clear what happened and the very suspicious machinations of the Brown/Lee/Pak machine have come to light -- bomb threat anyone? -- it is becoming more and more clear that a referendum on whether Mirkarimi should keep his job would come out in his favor. That's why you Mirkarimi haters have been left to wallow in your own deceit.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 10:00 am
The majority of SF'ers want Ross gone and Lee's approval

rating continues to be very high.

Ross is free to stand for election again if he or anyone really and truly believes that the people will support him.

But you and I both know he is politically toxic and could never win an election. His credibility is shot.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 11:08 am
Has there been a poll on Lee recently?

Because I have a hunch his job approval ratings have fallen pretty sharply; his falsifications regarding the sheriff and the hokey "bomb threat" which got him off the hot seat are just two of the reasons.

If you had such polls as you pretend to have, you'd already have trotted them out.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 03, 2012 @ 12:02 pm
Mirkarimi`

Great editorial; the wife-beaters of America are in your debt. But it is quite wrong to say, " It's common to plead to a crime you didn't commit in order to avoid a trial on a more serious charge." It's not at all common. This is the kind of ill-considered wisecrack that prevents the progressive left from being taken seriously.

Every defendant who pleads guilty stands up in court and admits that he committed the offense, and Mirkarimi did too. If he had tried to plead guilty without admitting the offense, the District Attorney would have refused to go ahead with the plea bargain. It is true that, in rare cases, defendants will be allowed to plead guilty while maintaining innocence, but the courts do not do this very often, because of the threat it poses to the integrity of the criminal justice system.

After his plea, Mirkarimi made some noises about being innocent of the charge. DA Gascon called in the press and said that if he wants to say that, let him withdraw his plea and the prosecution will proceed with the trial. Ross doesn't want that; and if you support Ross you would be well advised to put a sock in it.

Posted by Guest Michael Mahoney on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 2:32 pm
"Mirkarimi" indeed.

Mirkarimi plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment -- i.e.: turning the van around.

He was originally charged with domestic violence, child endangerment, and witness intimidation. The city attorney had a chance to air all the evidence for those earlier charges during the ethics commision hearings and it was a big bust.

So Mirkarimi plead guilty -- at a courthouse which stood in the shadow of towering billboards proclaiming him to be a "wife beater"; falsely, as you do.

Just wondering: what makes you respond to the editorial as though it contained a denial of Mirkarimi's guilt? Because there is absolutely nothing in it for that. Nothing at all.

It kind of makes me think you are just acting as a shill for the Lee/Brown/Pak forces and parroting whatever lies have been established to be helpful to them.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 3:06 pm
You think anybody disagreeing

You think anybody disagreeing with the SFBG party line is "...just acting as a shill for the Lee/Brown/Pak forces..." In your world, those are the only two options.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 07, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.