Rally for Ross at noon today on the City Hall steps

10.08.12 - 8:58 pm |

(45)

Join Sheriff Michael Hennessey; Mayor Art Agnos; Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder of the UFW & Medal of Freedom Recipient; Supervisors Sophie Maxwell, Harry Britt, Doris Ward, Willie Kennedy and Carol Ruth Silver; Public Defender Geoff Brown, and others in calling for the reinstatement of Sheriff Mirkarimi this Tuesday before the Board of Supervisors Vote.

RALLY @ NOON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9 2012 - CITY HALL STEPS

The San Francisco Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, SF Labor Council, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1021, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, Latino Democratic Club, Bernal Heights Democratic Club, District 5 Democratic Club, Padres Unidos, Bay Area Iranian Democrats, SF Green Party, San Francisco Guardian, Bay Area Reporter, Sunset Beacon, and Central City Democrats all Support Reinstatement!!

Come to the rally and show your support too!!!

Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder of the UFW, Medal of Freedom Recipient, Eliana Lopez and Friend

If you can not make the Rally – Please call you supervisor today – Let them know you Stand with Ross and will not stand for anything but reinstatement!

Click to Donate to the Ross Mirkarimi Legal Defense Fund

or by sending a check to:
Ross Mirkarimi Legal Defense Fund
721 Webster Street
San Francisco, CA 94117

Comments

Please let San Francisco not be a witch hunt town.

Please. Be there.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 9:41 pm

I'd rather chew broken glass than support a wife abuser as

Sheriff. And if the perp here had been a Republican, that's what you would be saying too.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 5:28 am

no, you are wrong

sometimes an arm grab is just an arm grab.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 7:29 am

Not this time.

Not this time.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 10:25 am

Never in 100 years, my friend.

And some people would rather repeat a lie like a broken record than get out of their comfort zones and look for the truth—whoever the accused might be.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 7:47 am

No lie, Daniele/ChrisCraft. Ross was convicted - he no longer

gets the benefit of the doubt. Ross is an admitted, proven and convicted abuser. You might not like that but that's the way it is. The only question now is whether that makes him unfit for office.

Most SF voters believe that to be the case.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:06 am

and you divine what "most " San Franciscans

want is to pay out a big judgment in about two years? How do you do that, through which body part?
He was NOT convicted of dv abuse. Check the language of the misdemeanor to which he pled..See that part...no intent to harm. As much as it drives you nuts, sometimes an arm grab is just an arm grab, sometimes it's best treated as a private, family matter. really.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:31 am

So why is Ross

doing 52 weeks of DV counseling?

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:43 am

Good question. Since Ross "technically" ducked the DV rap, he

was well within his rights to insist that he not get the standard DV sentence. And yet he had to. Clearly the judge wanted to send Ross a very clear message - your expensive lawyers may have helped you dodge the more serious charges, but i am going to punish you as if anyway.

That wasn't lost on any observant outsider.

And of course Ross also admitted that "I committed an act of violence against my wife" and apologized both to Eliana and Ivory. It wasn't, after all, a small private matter. With a "powerful man", it never is.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:05 am

We've seen three polls all confirming that

Plus any amount of anecdotal evidence unless you've been on Mars for the last 9 months.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:59 am

The people have the power to

The people have the power to wrestle the world from fools. —Patti Smith

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 9:54 pm

Is "former" not in your vocabulary?

None of these people are current office holders. They are no longer a "supervisor" or "sheriff" is they do not hold office.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

Not sure if it's the same in your country, but the convention

here in America is that people are referred to by the last title they held, sort of as an honorific. Hence, in the presidential debate, the president referred to Mitt Romney as "Governor Romney," not "former Governor Romney."

Hope that clears things up for you.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:21 pm

Wrong - elected titles are not lifetime awards

Contrary to their thinking elected officials are not monarchs nor given lifetime titles.

Carol Ruth Silver? She was a supervisor for sure - 23 years ago. "Governor Romney" was a one-term governor and is no longer one. Do you refer to Sarah Palin as "Governor Palin" too?

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

Actually, yes you do.

Heard Obama referring to Romeny as Governor Romeny several times during the debate. Pretty common.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 6:02 am

Yes, and someone need to slap

Yes, and someone need to slap down that error in a hurry. When you are NO LONGER in elected office, you are "former." Just as, if you were smart enough to divorce Ross Mirkarimi (which undoubtedly will happen soon), you would not continue to refer to yourself as "Mrs. Ross Mirkarimi" -- but rather "the former Mrs. Ross Mirkarimi."

As in "Former Supervisor -- and now McDonald's Happy Meal Mascot -- Eric Mar."

Posted by homee on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 1:31 pm

Easy now...

I don't think you need to use the word "former". I've heard "former" President Clinton addressed as "President Clinton" plenty of times...

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

Etiquette point

Yes, Daniele, but this is a relatively recent practice. I keep trying to post a link to the relevant Miss Manners column, but I get the CAPTCHA message that I can't make work. Rest assured that calling former presidents "Mr. President" isn't how it was done for most of American history and, in my opinion, shouldn't be done now. Same with former governors.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 10:37 am

Waiting for the SFBG endorsement of

Lyndon Larouche anti-conspiracy rally.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

Please correct blog posting.

Please correct blog posting. Individuals in the Latino Democratic Club are in support. The Latino Democratic Club membership as a whole has not taken a position.

Posted by GUEST on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

Progressive Lithmus Test

I am surprised Julian Davis and the other so-called progressive supervisor candidiates are not listed! Maybe they are afraid it will cost them at the polls. I have already written to urge the supervisors to support the Ethics Commission and remove Mirkarimi, San Francisco need someone who puts the best interest of the city first. Mirkirimi, his spouse and the as yet unpaid attorneys are more interested in money, job security, attention, sympathy, and the game of politics. San Francisco deserves better!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 3:02 am

San Francisco deserves citizens

with a basic sense of proportionality and the ability to sniff out an attempted political lynching when they see one. Do you get conned often?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 7:31 am

SF also deserves that the guy in charge of the prisons is not

convicted of false imprisonment, is not on probation, and is not an admitted criminal.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:07 am

so you don't approve of the

"gal" currently in charge and double-dipping?Be careful who you give a ride to. If you don't go precisely where they want to go when you are driving, you could be charged with misdemeanor false imprisonment at well. You would want to be arrested, right?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:33 am

The current interm Sheriff has several things going for her

1. She is a professional- she has actually worked in the jails and she worked her way to the top under Hennessey's administration. She actually has leadership ability and knows how to run the department. Ross on the other hand barely even worked in law enforcement and saw the chance to be sheriff as a possible launching pad to the Mayor's office. He has zero experience working in corrections and would be approaching the position as a politician.

2. She was never convicted of a crime

3. She is not on probation

4. She is not in domestic violence counseling.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:49 am

And she is running the prisons without admitting that she

falsely imprisoned others.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:06 am

One thing she doesn't have going for her

There's the little insignificant matter she was never elected to anything, and got her job through shady machinations of a coup. Details, details...

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 11:59 am

She was also never arrested for spousal abuse

Seeing as Hennessey kept promoting her and she was on his command staff, and Hennessey has been on of the few to actually support Ross through this whole mess, it seems pretty stupid to go after her. She was quietly retired and came back to lead the department when asked. Never heard even a whisper that she has done anything to push this mess in one direction or another.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

She was also never the victim of a witchhunt

Nobody's "going after" her. She just wasn't elected to the office. Ross Mirkarimi was, so that's who should be in there. No one else. If she wanted the office, she should've run.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

But do we really need to elect a sheriff anyway?

We dont elect the fire chief or the police chief.

And the sheriff's job is mostly admin - it's not a policy-making role. Just run the jails and courts efficiently - that's all you can ask.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

The current sheriff has kept out of the news which is what I

expect a sherriff to do, i.e. not commit crimes and be forced to apologise to his wife, his neighbour and the people of this city who Ross admits he has betrayed.

And driving a car doesn't bruise anyone unless there is more to it.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:01 am

Stand With Ross! Think Of The

Stand With Ross!

Think Of The Continuing Entertainment Value!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 5:12 am

Stand with Ross

Show your support by rabbit-punching the woman standing next to you!

Posted by Orwell's Uterus on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 6:44 am

Please...

This is not a joke.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 7:50 am

Daniele, when you stand with someone who stated that

"I committed an act of violence against my wife", then you ride with the devil, and should take the blows in good grace.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:10 am

Devil this...!

It was an arm grab and I'm willing to bet that if someone kept taking your young child out of the country, against your will, you might be moved to committing one of those fearsome arm grabs too.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 8:35 am

Funnily enough, no, I don't think i can win debates by bruising

peoples' arms, keeping them in a car, shouting at them, and then trying to cover that all up.

Does that make me very rare?

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:02 am

Thank you

once again for demonstrating that domestic violence is sometimes justified, even warranted, if the abuser is a member of your tribe.

Posted by Orwell's Uterus on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:16 am

The ultimate irony of this case is that if it had been Ed Lee

who had "monetarily held his wife's arm as she pulled away", Bruce, Tim and Steven would be screaming DV and "unfit for office".

Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Posted by Anonymous and Proud on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Way to twist the "truth"

Eliana never actually took the child out without permission of Ross. She brought it up and allegedly he became angry because the last time she went, apparently with his permission since a Passport requires BOTH parents to consent, she stayed longer than expected. Very different from the child abduction scenario you paint up above.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Don't need your "devil", don't need your "blows".

I am not "riding with the devil". I am well aware of "the act of violence" that was committed and admitted to by Ross.
It was unfortunate, and I know he agrees—we all agree.
Still. Life is not perfect, nor are people—that would include you and me.
And someone's right to do things the way she wanted to—that would be Eliana—was taken away from her by the "strong arm" of the DV machine...

You are free to decide for yourself, and so am I. But "riding with the devil"? That's your fantasy, your interpretation, your superimposition. And I don't subscribe to it.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 9:51 am

Hope he's reinstated. If not,

Hope he's reinstated. If not, hope he sues the City of SF. Hope someone investigates the bomb threat.

Posted by Bob In Portland on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 11:26 am

If Ross is reinstated, he'll have no respect or credibility with

his staff. That's the real reason he should move on - he's a busted flush

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

San Francisco Latino Democratic Club

I know this is now after the fact but I must clarify a situation that exists here on this plug for Ross Mirikirimi. Its important for the integrity of the San Francisco Latino Democratic Club that the club never took an official position on this issue. A number of members were personally invested as a result of the situation that the family found itself in but the SFLDC never took an official position. As the President of the San Francisco Latino Democratic Club I have to take exception with anyone that has inferred or indicated that they were speaking on behalf of the club. There is a process and we can never deviate from that process especially on something so critical to the community. Again I state that the SFLDC never went on record as taking a position one way or the the other!

Posted by JSalinas on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

SFBG: close personal relationship with scumbag

isn't it interesting that every other supervisor is referred to by surname, but this scumbag, narcissist, utter embarrassment and internationally known FOOL and the SFBG are on a first-name basis?

What a RAG this is.

Posted by homee on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 1:28 pm