Finally, a prosecutor leaps into D.A.’s race

|
(73)

From the moment I walked into Sharman Bock’s District Attorney campaign launch and saw the roomful of “signs proclaiming, "A prosecutor for District Attorney", I realized that Bock isn’t the type of candidate to hold her punches. And that makes perfect sense, because unlike the other candidates in the D.A.'s race, Bock, 48,  is a seasoned prosecutor.

Bock, as I soon found out, is also a longtime San Francisco resident, who moved here from Iran when she was four and has lived in the city for more than four decades. She went to high school here, returned after graduating cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center, and earned a clerkship with the Hon. D. Lowell Jensen of the Northern District of California, before starting her prosecutorial career in Alameda County, where she has served as an Assistant D.A. since 1989.  And she continues to live in San Francisco, where she is currently raising two kids with her husband in the Richmond District.

Joined by Congressmember Jackie Speier, Lulu Flores, President of the National Women’s Political Caucus, and Shronda Wallace, whose mother was brutally murdered in 1989, Bock made no bones about why she has decided to spring into the race.

“I’m running for San Francisco District Attorney because this is a job that requires a seasoned prosecutor who knows what it takes to put the most violent and dangerous criminals behind bars and keep them there," Bock said. "I am a professional prosecutor. I want to give voters a real choice. No other candidate in this race has prosecuted even a single criminal case. This is no job for rookies. The stakes are too high and rookies make mistakes.”

When Bock noted that her conviction rate is over 90 percent, and that she has never lost a serious or violent jury trial, I wondered how successful the other main contenders--former SFPD Chief George Gascón, who Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed as D.A. in January, and former San Francisco Police Commissioner David Onek, are going to be when it comes to downplaying the fact that neither, as Bock wasn’t afraid to remind reporters, “has ever prosecuted a criminal case.”

“This is not a managerial, police or career job,” Bock continued, confronting head-on the arguments Gascón and Onek have already tossed out in response to questions about how they can be D.A. given their complete lack of prosecutorial experience.

“It’s certainly not a job for a rookie, and with 22 years of experience, I’m ready," Bock commented.

“To lead an office of trial lawyers, you’d have to walk a mile in their shoes,” Bock added, noting that currently she is doing just that. “I’m responsible for supervising extremely experienced trial lawyers each day,” she said, referring to her job as Assistant D.A. in Alameda County.

Praising the record of former D.A. Kamala Harris, who was elected Attorney General in November, Bock observed that San Francisco “sets the national standard. Kamala did a good job, and I’d like to keep the momentum going. We can’t lose it.”

Next, Bock outlined some of the highlights of her prosecutorial career.

A national expert on efforts to combat human trafficking, Bock leads the Human Exploitation and Trafficking (HEAT) Unit, which prosecutes complex trafficking cases. In fact, Bock actually prosecuted the first human trafficking case in California.

Based on her expertise with DNA and other forensic evidence, Bock was tapped to lead the Cold Case Unit, which focuses on solving old murder and sexual assault cases.

Bock also oversees other specialized felony units, including Public Integrity, Child Sexual Assault, Sexually Violent Predator and Restitution, which recovered more than $15 million for victims of violent crime last year.

In 2009, Bock received the Fay Stender Award from the California Women’s Lawyers Association for her “ability to affect change and her commitment to representing the underprivileged. And in 2010, the California Legislature recognized Bock as “Woman of the Year” for her groundbreaking work to stop human trafficking.

“American children are being sold for sex in our own backyard,” Bock warned, as she talked about what she has learned from her decades as a prosecutor. She said solving cold cases "provides closure that is priceless for families of victims” and is part of keeping the community safe. She talked about the fact that she is an independent prosecutor, who won’t be conflicted by police misconduct and crime lab scandals, unlike our current D.A. And she wrapped up by voicing her desire to serve—and remain in—San Francisco. “I am committed to giving back and serving the city I love,” Bock said.

Meanwhile, across the city, D.A. Gascón had just a neighborhood prosecution program in the Bayview and Mission districts. According to a Gascón press release, the program, “brings immediacy to the resolution of crimes that diminish the livability of local communities by employing a restorative justice model” and “brings the D.A.’s Office into the community, positioning the office to be more directly and immediately responsive to the needs of community members."

Gascón promised that the program will engage “residents in the process of determining an appropriate sanction focused on repairing the harm done to the community and setting the offender on the path to long-term productivity. This approach will bring a swifter and more certain resolution to offenses that have repeatedly gone unchecked for too long.”

The idea is that designated Assistant D.A’s will be assigned to  local police station to pre-screen eligible individuals and determine if the offenses they have been cited for by police are suitable to be heard in neighborhood courts. “Under the supervision of the District Attorney’s Office local residents are trained in restorative justice to adjudicate matters, instead of having cases charged and heard in criminal courts,” Gascón stated. "The adjudicators represent a wide swath of the community and include merchants, home owners retirees and students.”

Gascón says a range of non-violent offenses, including drinking in public, vandalism and petty theft, fit the criteria for matters that can be reviewed in the neighborhood court.“Eligible individuals cannot be under the supervision of the criminal justice system,” he stated. “Individuals who volunteer to have their matters heard in the neighborhood courts agree to abide by the prescribed outcomes that focus on restoring both the community and the offender. Individuals who are successful in meeting the terms avoid the blight of a mark on their criminal record. By taking this restorative justice approach, the program seeks to break the cycle of crime. It increases the accountability of the offenders to the community and the community’s stake in the offenders’ rehabilitation.”

Gascón claimed the program saves money by significantly shortening the length of time it takes to resolve offenses. “Typically the offenses being heard in a neighborhood court in one to two weeks from the time a citation is written would take nine months to a year to be heard in a criminal court," he stated. "The average cost of having these cases charged and heard in a traditional criminal court would be $1500 per misdemeanor compared to $300 in a neighborhood court.”

Gascón concluded by noting that this new neighborhood prosecution program will operate under the direction of the newly-formed Collaborative Courts Division of the D.A.’s Office and is scheduled to spread citywide. “The Bayview and Mission district launches are part of D.A. Gascón’s initiative to increase accountability and integration of the former Community Court programs,” Gascón’s press release stated. "The neighborhood prosecution program model will eventually be adopted and employed city-wide, district by district as a replacement for the former model.”

Bock for her part seemed less than impressed by the fairness of Gascón’s program. “People dealing with quality of life crimes deserve a District Attorney,  a defense attorney and a judge,” she said. “You can’t shortchange justice “

And she wasn’t shy about sharing her thoughts on the conflict of interest Gascón faces when dealing with the ongoing police misconduct and crime lab scandals.“George Gascón is between a rock and a hard place,” Bock said. “He was in charge of the police district during that time period," she observed. "And it’s important that the police don’t get thrown under the bus in the process.”

And unlike Gascón, Bock is personally opposed to the death penalty.“I will oppose any effort to further that law, and I would support ballot measures to change it,” Bock said. “It hasn’t had a deterrent effect, it doesn’t make the community safer, but it is the law of the state.”

As D.A., Bock would implement the same procedures that former D.A. Kamala Harris had in place—a committee where each case is reviewed in fact and law, and not reflective of a personal opinion. “I would look at each case,” Bock said.

“I want to make this city as safe to live in as I have fought in Oakland to achieve,” Bock continued, noting that when she graduated, she faced a choice of a corporate job or public service. “I chose public service,” she said.

Unlike Gascón, Bock does not think the city's recently enacted sit-lie legislation has resolved anything. “Sit-lie is a perfect example of why political hot-button measures don’t work,” Bock said. “People should be able to use the sidewalks. But at the same time, there are people with serious mental health issues. Sit-lie hasn’t solved any problem. And the good news about me is that I am not a politician.”

Congressmember Jackie Speier enthusiastically endorsed Bock. “This is a very important race for San Francisco, and it’s not a political race,” Speier said. “It’s a race about safety and prosecution and making sure we have a District Attorney who is going to be here for thecommunity.”

Speier noted that Bock has worked for some of the finest law firms, has dedicated more than 20 years of her life to prosecuting heinous criminals, has deep roots in San Francisco, and is on the board of numerous non-profits.

“She has been successful in over 1,000 cases—tough cases, including murder, torture and sex trafficking,” Speier continued. “She is someone who has the capacity to handle this job like no one I’ve ever seen. Her passion for her work knows no bounds.”

“And she is truly committed to San Francisco,” Speier added. “It’s no secret that the present occupant of the D.A.'s office is interested in being a highly placed person in the F.B.I. I think Gaston will be good in some respects should he seek that.”

“Politics is a funny thing, the process works the way it does, but the people of San Francisco have an opportunity to compare and contrast—and this is a stark contrast,” Speier concluded, pointing to Bock’s “impeccable credentials and proven track record in the prosecution of criminals,” and describing her as “the best and brightest” as she lauded Bock's leadership skills and talent as a prosecutor.

Lula Flores, who flew in from Washington, D.C. to announce the National Women’s Political Caucus early endorsement of Bock, described Bock as a “progressive forward-thinking candidate."

“We need more women in leadership safety positions,” Flores said, noting that Bock “represents diversity and is the most qualified and most experienced candidate.”

“She will do the best job,” Flores continued. “San Francisco is home to a myriad of leaders, it is the place that has grown so many of our national leaders.”

And Shronda Wallace recalled how her mother’s 1989 murder had been “all but forgotten, but then Sharman Bock took charge.”
Wallace described how, using DNA from the crime, Bock “re-created the scene, identified the killer, proved he intended to kill my mother, convicted him, and put him in prison without parole for the rest of his life. Through her determined and relentless prosecution of this cold case, not only did Sharman Bock make me feel safer, but she brought me desperately needed closure, and that is something I will never forget.”

 

 

 

 

Comments

“I’m running for San Francisco District Attorney because this is a job that requires a seasoned prosecutor who knows what it takes to put the most violent and dangerous criminals behind bars and keep them there," ...............After a statement like that are we suppose to believe that the BG is ok with this? don't think so.....the BG believes that society is to blame for all criminal behavior, not the actual people do it ;-)

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

Restorative justice is about placing the needs of society above the individual criminal act.

There are some evil, murderous fucks out there. They need to be kept in a small room far away from the rest of us. But you don't repay murder with murder. It's what Terrence Hallinan did, it's what Kamala Harris did, and it's what everyone but Gascón promises to do.

You don't flout San Francisco values while running for office in San Francisco.

Posted by proggy boy on May. 18, 2011 @ 6:44 am

What are San Francisco values and when did I or anyone else get to vote on them, whatever they are today that works to your advantage?

It isn't just carpet baggers showing up from all over the country telling the rest of us all how to live is it?

Please explain.

Posted by matlock on May. 18, 2011 @ 8:20 am

• secularism
• pluralism
• environmentalism
• pro-labor
• anti-war

and above all

• gay pride

Not values held by Republican Arizona cops.

Posted by proggy boy on May. 18, 2011 @ 8:46 am

When did I get to vote on those things and why do you get to define how they are implemented in the name of SF tax payers and citizens?

Lets examine.

Secularism, I myself have never believed in a god, but isn't a huge makeup of the self appointed San Francisco values crowd religious? Cecil William for example.

Pluralism, this is true, no matter the race or sexual orientation, as long as you agree with the self appointed guardians of San Francisco values, you can run for office. If for example you are Theresa Sparks you are a traitor to doctrine and there is no room for you in the big tent. So there is no real "pluralism" other than as a jingo.

Environmentalism, thats a mystery as progressives are for and against development based on class, they use EIR's as a way to get over. We should build denser they say, unless the wrong class of people may move in, then call in the lawyers.

by pro labor, you mean the values of labor leadership? Not the rank and file right?

Anti-war, have not heard much about that in the last two years.

What any of that has to do with Arizona? It is interesting that our SF values people insist that local laws around immigration is racist, unless they are the ones doing it.

And again, when did I get to vote on you getting to represent your opportunism as my values as a citizen of SF. Maybe you could go back to where you came from and tell those people how to live?

Posted by maltlock on May. 18, 2011 @ 11:49 am

"Isn't a huge makeup of the self appointed San Francisco values crowd religious?"

San Francisco politicos are not overly religious, no.

"So there is no real "pluralism" other than as a jingo."

The diversity of our electeds proves otherwise. Keep trying.

"Environmentalism, that's a mystery as progressives are for and against development based on class"

You're conflating issues.

"by pro labor, you mean the values of labor leadership? Not the rank and file right?"

Depends on the local.

"What any of that has to do with Arizona?"

Please. Read the bio of the front-runner. Keep up.

"And again, when did I get to vote on you getting to represent your opportunism as my values as a citizen of SF."

Fantasy rhetorical questions are not the subject.

"Maybe you could go back to where you came from and tell those people how to live?"

I was born at SFGH. Thanks for playing.

Posted by proggy boy on May. 19, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

Well if history is anything to go by, the Guardian support for Bock will be the "KISS OF DEATH"

Posted by Patrick Brown on May. 17, 2011 @ 10:14 pm

I had that same thrill when I saw her speak in front of the Milk Club. She's... formidable.

I don't think this town is going to elect a pro-death penalty Republican cop. I think she's going to take Gascón down.

Irony watch: While all the attention is on the mayor's race, we'll probably end up with two strong progressives in the law & order offices.

Posted by proggy boy on May. 18, 2011 @ 6:10 am

ANYONE BUT GASCON

Posted by dejesus ortez on May. 18, 2011 @ 8:28 am
+1

+1

Posted by guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 8:47 am

So, The Brucian is supporting candidates with actual experience on the job now?

You endorsed Gerardo Sandoval for judge, even though the California Bar Association said he was unqualified.

Why the sudden policy change?

Fog clouding your ideological glasses?

Posted by Barton on May. 18, 2011 @ 9:11 am

Now that Bock's surging, he wants to kick the Newsom appointment to the curb.

But if Jackie Speier and B3 can come together, that's pretty much a consensus candidate.

Posted by guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 9:26 am

So, The Guardian is supporting candidates with actual experience on the job now?

You endorsed Gerardo Sandoval for judge, even though the California Bar Association said he was unqualified.

Why the sudden policy change?

Fog clouding your ideological glasses?

Posted by Barton on May. 18, 2011 @ 9:13 am

Who the Guardian endorsed because of his qualification of thinking it would be neat to be a judge.

Also he had the correct racial and sexual orientation for the Guardian.

"What works today," the Bay Guardian motto.

Posted by maltlock on May. 18, 2011 @ 10:03 am

Michael Nava was qualified, he was GAY, how much more qualified could you be??? Really, now you are embarrassing yourself!

Posted by Patrick Brown on May. 18, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

None of the lead writers are GLBT and most are white - they're representing the old-line left in San Francisco.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 18, 2011 @ 6:13 pm

Being Nava or Sandoval's best qualifications according to the cities left have little to do with their lawyering. Nava is probably qualified, but the "progressives" chose to bait instead of rely on qualifications.

Posted by matlock on May. 18, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

"And the good news about me is that I am not a politician.”

- Sharman Bock

Sharman Bock claims she's not a politician. However, every comment made in this article is a political thrust.

Which would be fine - if she didn't deny doing what she is obviously doing - that is, being a politician.

She's like a duck claiming it's not a bird.

This contradiction, made at the very start of her campaign, won't fly. Either she is being dishonest in making this claim, or else she is so caught up with her own tunnel vision that she can't see the contradiction.

Neither alternative speaks well of her qualifications to be D.A.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 18, 2011 @ 9:38 am

As always Arthur, your comments are so infantile they hurt the skull.

What she means (and what everyone over the age of 12 understands her to mean) is that she has not been a political player until presently.

No one is confused but you.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 11:21 am

Don't waste your time amigo, while Arthur's delusion writings as an imaginary British academic do make for occasional comedic reading they are mostly just sad.

He's like a mentally ill person with a tick for San Francisco politics, slavishly repeating the same unsubstantiated rhetorical nonsense over and over again, like a obsessive compulsive turning on and off light switches over and over, failing to realize there's actually no light bulb and the sun is shining.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

She's got my vote.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 9:42 am
+1

+1

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

"And unlike Gascón, Bock is personally opposed to the death penalty.“I will oppose any effort to further that law, and I would support ballot measures to change it,” Bock said. “It hasn’t had a deterrent effect, it doesn’t make the community safer, but it is the law of the state.”"

Translation in plain English: I'm going to dance around the issue during the campaign to make me look more in line with most San Franciscans, but rest assured, all you death penalty advocates: I will use it.

Neeeext. Still waiting for a candidate with real progressive values.

We need an independent DA -someone who isn't tied to the corrupt city hall establishment, someone who will prosecute corporate crime and police brutality, enforce labor law and take on crooked landlords and polluting corporations. Yes, prosecute violent crime -but every DA candidate will do that. But in they should leave victimless crimes alone and not resort to using penalties like death and 3 strikes, which most San Franciscans are opposed to.

I'm still waiting for that candidate to emerge. And with 3 standard, run-of-the-mill law-and-order candidates currently running, there's a real opening for a DA candidate who can stand up as the voice of progressive San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

I've known Sharmin Bock for over thirty years and she ALWAYS says what she means. She will not mince words, she will not sugar-coat and she will not say things because it's politically expedient or will make her look better.

She is an experienced and highly effective prosecutor and I am 100% convinced she will make San Francisco a safer place to live. She will never change her personal stand of the ineffectiveness and moral wrong of the death penalty. As long as it's the law she will abide by it but not seek it.

I know her character, her strengths and weaknesses, and you will never find a better qualified, more dedicated prosecutor than Sharmin Bock. Don't miss this opportunity to have someone with a heart and soul who is tough on crime.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2011 @ 2:15 am

Then what exactly does it mean when she specifically says that she *personally* opposes the death penalty, but the law is the law?

It can only mean one thing, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It means that "my personal beliefs, as well as the beliefs of the majority of San Franciscans who don't want the death penalty used, mean absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G." It means, "You bet your ass I'm going to impose the death penalty."

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2011 @ 7:32 am
.

Nice try.

Posted by Librul on May. 25, 2011 @ 9:56 am

"What she means (and what everyone over the age of 12 understands her to mean) is that she has not been a political player until presently."

- Guest

Then she is not qualified to be D.A.

This office is a political office. It involves more than making legal decisions in court cases.

A district attorney has to deal with the political realities of the city. That means holding ones own in the fact of political schemes and pressures by the supes, the mayor, the police, the media, vested interest groups, and others.

A person with no experience in politics is just as unqualified as a person with no experience in enforcing the law.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 18, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

Right. You said yourself that her comments were political in nature. She means she is not a career politician looking for another paycheck. She has done the job of prosecuting for 20 + years, meaning she has experiance and wants to step up to the next level, which is a political position. This does not mean she does not know how to play the game. Anyone who has ever seen a trial, especially behind the scenes, knows it's not only about justice but about politics. If she has worked in that field so long, I'm sure she knows how to deal with politicos.

Posted by chelsea on May. 18, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
Posted by I am a wanker. on May. 19, 2011 @ 12:22 am

I have interviewed and researched Ms. Bock for a magazine article I wrote for another publication. Being a third generation native San Franciscan, my family has been living in San Francisco for over 100 years. While I personally no longer live in the City, many members of my family do, and I still half a great affinity for it.

Rather than listening to a few sound bites, or a stump speech, and/or reading an article or two, I spent several hours interviewing Ms. Bock. I believe that she would be an excecptional District Attorney, from the perspective of her experience as a prosecutor AND as a person who believes in San Francisco, lives there, and takes great pride in being from San Francisco. I have not interviewed the other candidates at this time, but I find it hard to believe that San Franciscans would choose someone who spent most of his career with the LAPD, considering the turmoils of that organization while he was there. I also find it surprising to believe that San Franciscans could elevate a UC Berkeley professor to be the District Attorney.

Mr. Evans complains in a previous post that the District Attorney needs to be a politican, not a prosecutor. I guess he also believes that the Chief of Police should not have a law enforcement background, the Attorney General of the United States should not be a lawyer, the Surgeon General should not have any medical background, etc. Mr. Evans seems to think that the Chief of Police is a political postion and that being a college professor is a political position. He seems to believe that two professional politicians are running against a career prosecutor.

If I was still living in San Francisco and was weighing the choices, it would be something like this:

Sharmin Bock - career prosecutor who has lived in San Francisco for more than 40 years, and is raising a family in the CIty

David Onek - college professor who has never tried a single case, and lives mainly in the theoretical work of college courses

George Gascon - has lived in San Francisco for about 1 year, lived in Los Angeles and worked for the LAPD - no legal background at all

Not too hard a choice...

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

Please pardon a couple of typos...

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

I have interviewed and researched Ms. Bock for a magazine article I wrote for another publication. Being a third generation native San Franciscan, my family has been living in San Francisco for over 100 years. While I personally no longer live in the City, many members of my family do, and I still half a great affinity for it.

Rather than listening to a few sound bites, or a stump speech, and/or reading an article or two, I spent several hours interviewing Ms. Bock. I believe that she would be an exceptional District Attorney, from the perspective of her experience as a prosecutor AND as a person who believes in San Francisco, lives there, and takes great pride in being from San Francisco. I have not interviewed the other candidates at this time, but I find it hard to believe that San Franciscans would choose someone who spent most of his career with the LAPD, considering the turmoil of that organization while he was there. I also find it surprising to believe that San Franciscans could elevate a UC Berkeley professor to be the District Attorney.

Mr. Evans complains in a previous post that the District Attorney needs to be a politician, not a prosecutor. I guess he also believes that the Chief of Police should not have a law enforcement background, the Attorney General of the United States should not be a lawyer, the Surgeon General should not have any medical background, etc. Mr. Evans seems to think that the Chief of Police is a political position and that being a college professor is a political position. He seems to believe that two professional politicians are running against a career prosecutor.

If I was still living in San Francisco and was weighing the choices, it would be something like this:

Sharmin Bock - career prosecutor who has lived in San Francisco for more than 40 years, and is raising a family in the City

David Onek - college professor who has never tried a single case, and lives mainly in the theoretical work of college courses

George Gascon - has lived in San Francisco for about 1 year, lived in Los Angeles and worked for the LAPD - no legal background at all

Not too hard a choice...

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Thank you, Guest, for your detailed post above. Some comments follows.

You say:

“Being a third generation native San Franciscan, my family has been living in San Francisco for over 100 years.”

So? What does this prove?

You say:

“I spent several hours interviewing Ms. Bock. …I have not interviewed the other candidates at this time…”

Isn’t there an imbalance here?

You say:

“I find it hard to believe that San Franciscans would choose someone who spent most of his career with the LAPD…”

No incumbent has ever been defeated in SF under ranked-choice voting.

You say:

“Mr. Evans complains in a previous post that the District Attorney needs to be a politician, not a prosecutor.”

False. I believe that a D.A. should have both prosecutorial and political skills. Sharman Bock boasts that she is not a politician. So there’s a deficiency here that's she proud of.

You say:

“If I was still living in San Francisco …”

I’ve been living continuously in SF for 36 years.

You say:

“George Gascon - has lived in San Francisco for about 1 year, lived in Los Angeles and worked for the LAPD - no legal background at all.”

Didn’t you forget to mention that he was also Chief of Police of SF?

You say:

“Not too hard a choice...”

I love watching wishful thinking in action.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 18, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

How does Gascon's boot taste, Arthur?
You seem to have really developed a taste for it.
Unlike the rest of San Francisco, who are sick of this spotlight loving, self absorbed LA politician.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

You Said:

"False. I believe that a D.A. should have both prosecutorial and political skills. Sharman Bock boasts that she is not a politician. So there’s a deficiency here that's she proud of."

Since you believe that the District Attorney needs to have both prosecutorial and political skills, and since none of the candidates are "politicians," and only Sharmin Bock is a prosecutor, you make the point that Sharmin Bock is the only one with ANY qualifications for the position.

FYI, being a third generation native San Franciscan, I feel that I have a vested interest in the City - and not some carpetbagger that an earlier posted mentioned - that it why I posted it.

I moved out of the City for employment purposes.

You claim that no non-incumbent has ever lost an election. I guess there shouldn't ever be an election if an incumbant wants to enter, eh?

I disclosed that I hadn't interviewed the other two candidates. How many have you interviewed? What do you base your opinions on?

Wow, I didn't mention that he was Chief of Police for San Francisco for one year - a department with its own problems. How many cases has he prosecuted (a requirement for being the District Attorney, according to you)? The answer is ZERO.

Court room experience is critical to understanding the needs and operation of District Attorney's Office. You fell into a trap that I set for you - which by your own comments regarding qualifications means that there is only one candidate qualified for the office - Sharmin Bock. You wouldn't last long in a court room..

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

You Said:

"False. I believe that a D.A. should have both prosecutorial and political skills. Sharman Bock boasts that she is not a politician. So there’s a deficiency here that's she proud of."

Since you believe that the District Attorney needs to have both prosecutorial and political skills, and since none of the candidates are "politicians," and only Sharmin Bock is a prosecutor, you make the point that Sharmin Bock is the only one with ANY qualifications for the position.

FYI, being a third generation native San Franciscan, I feel that I have a vested interest in the City - and not some carpetbagger that an earlier posted mentioned - that it why I posted it.

I moved out of the City for employment purposes.

You claim that no non-incumbent has ever lost an election. I guess there shouldn't ever be an election if an incumbant wants to enter, eh?

I disclosed that I hadn't interviewed the other two candidates. How many have you interviewed? What do you base your opinions on?

Wow, I didn't mention that he was Chief of Police for San Francisco for one year - a department with its own problems. How many cases has he prosecuted (a requirement for being the District Attorney, according to you)? The answer is ZERO.

Court room experience is critical to understanding the needs and operation of District Attorney's Office. You fell into a trap that I set for you - which by your own comments regarding qualifications means that there is only one candidate qualified for the office - Sharmin Bock. You wouldn't last long in a court room..

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

You Said:

"False. I believe that a D.A. should have both prosecutorial and political skills. Sharman Bock boasts that she is not a politician. So there’s a deficiency here that's she proud of."

Since you believe that the District Attorney needs to have both prosecutorial and political skills, and since none of the candidates are "politicians," and only Sharmin Bock is a prosecutor, you make the point that Sharmin Bock is the only one with ANY qualifications for the position.

FYI, being a third generation native San Franciscan, I feel that I have a vested interest in the City - and not some carpetbagger that an earlier posted mentioned - that it why I posted it.

I moved out of the City for employment purposes.

You claim that no non-incumbent has ever lost an election. I guess there shouldn't ever be an election if an incumbent wants to enter, eh?

I disclosed that I hadn't interviewed the other two candidates. How many have you interviewed? What do you base your opinions on?

Wow, I didn't mention that he was Chief of Police for San Francisco for one year - a department with its own problems. How many cases has he prosecuted (a requirement for being the District Attorney, according to you)? The answer is ZERO.

Court room experience is critical to understanding the needs and operation of District Attorney's Office. You fell into a trap that I set for you - which by your own comments regarding qualifications means that there is only one candidate qualified for the office - Sharmin Bock. You wouldn't last long in a court room..

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Guest at 3:50 judges politicians based on the number of generations their families have been in San Francisco.

The Parochial/Inbred view. Sounds downright Sartoris Snopes/Faulkner-esque.

(Time to get some Olone Indians on the ballot, quick-like).

Posted by Barton on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

Would you vote for a mayor or supervisor that moved to San Francisco a year ago and has no roots in San Francisco or doesn't know the City? People who live here have a greater understanding of the City than people who moved here last year. San Francisco is hardly some bland suburban community.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:57 pm

Would you vote for someone for Mayor or Supervisor that just moved here a few months ago? San Francisco is hardly some bland suburban community. It is a very unigque city.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

Would you vote for someone for Mayor or Supervisor that just moved here a few months ago? San Francisco is hardly some bland suburban community. It is a very unigque city.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

This is a city of transplants. This city attracts progressive, creative people from all over the country who have in common the idea that this is the best -maybe the only -place that they can live. Sometimes recent transplants have a better grasp of San Francisco than nativists, who are sometimes more priveledged and less in tune with social justice.

When people ask me whether or not I was born here, I tell them that I don't live here just because it's the place I happened to be born in, the place where my parents happen to own some property, and never bothered to go anyplace else. Oh no. I live here because I've lived all over the United States (and a few foreign countries), and found that this is the one place I want to call home.

Posted by Greg on May. 19, 2011 @ 7:42 am

"How does Gascon's boot taste, Arthur?"

- Guest

Some SF progressives have a knack for coming across as doctrinaire sectarians with a bunker mentality.

This behavior has the virtue of providing psychological relief to those who possess it. The down side is that it turns off undecided middle voters and loses city-wide races.

It has already come into play in the D.A.'s race.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 18, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

That is the reality.

You yourself are part of that regime and dogma whether you admit it or not.

By the very act of definition you give credence to all that you oppose.

Posted by Richard James on May. 19, 2011 @ 12:45 am

Instead of being negative and constantly criticizing, why don't you write about why you think Gascon is such a good candidate for DA?
What are your reasons?

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

I think Arthur will just say because he is the incumbent! Or maybe because Arthur is actually Gascon's press agent. Or maybe because Gascon is from Los Angeles!!!

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 5:39 pm

"Instead of being negative and constantly criticizing, why don't you write about why you think Gascon is such a good candidate for DA?"

- Guest

I responded with specific questions about Sharman Bock because this thread is about Sharman Bock. Her supporters responded with hostility.

They resent questions from voters.

Guess what? - This attitude does not play well with voters. They want to see politicians handle voters' questions intelligently and graciously.

There's a name for this process of interaction between politicians and voters. It's called democracy.

In other words, public office is not an entitlement. It has to be earned and re-earned.

This hostile attitude toward voters' questions sank Gabriel Haaland when he ran for supe in district five. Likewise it sank Alix Rosenthal when she ran for supe in district eight.

Neither of these could handle democracy.

Is the same true of Sharman Bock? So far, her supporters have given such an impression.

A better approach is for politicians and their operatives to welcome open dialogue and to respond in a principled, convincing way. Everybody wins.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 18, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

Read the article again Arthur.

One third of the article is about Gascon.

You were challenged to debate the qualifications of your candidate, but all you have done is to repeat the same tired garbage. We asked you questions, you dodged them.

You say: "In other words, public office is not an entitlement. It has to be earned and re-earned."

What exactly has Gascon done to earn the office??? He has never prosecuted one case - a qualification that you said was critical for the Chief PROSECUTOR, aka the D.A. D.A.s do lead the prosecution team on rare occasions - obviously Gascon can't. He was appointed to the office, not elected. You claim by way of his incumbency that he is entitled to the position.

Gascon has spent the majority of his career in the scandal plagued LAPD, and problems during his tenure at the SFPD are now appearing.

What voters want is a track record, not a record of being in corruption plagued departments. What voters want is not the evasive, blame the media mentality that you seem to espouse.

You keep asking for a dialogue and a debate, yet whenever someone asks you a question about the candidate you support, you REFUSE to answer. It appears that you have already conceded that you would lose the debate, that is why you won't or can't support you candidate.

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

"I responded with specific questions about Sharman Bock because this thread is about Sharman Bock. Her supporters responded with hostility."

No, No you did not, nor did they. How do you pretend to even identify supporters of any candidate vs. supporters of rational and civilized debate amongst your tirades of self-aggrandizing nonsense?

"Guess what? - This attitude does not play well with voters. They want to see politicians handle voters' questions intelligently and graciously."

What specific evidence do you have to support this? Can you point us to one quote, survey, phone poll, anecdote?

"Neither of these could handle democracy."

Again, what evidence do you have to support this outrageous theory?

"Is the same true of Sharman Bock? So far, her supporters have given such an impression.

A better approach is for politicians and their operatives to welcome open dialogue and to respond in a principled, convincing way. Everybody wins."

This is pure and utter speculation on your behalf and you should identify it as such and it is - in point of fact - the most negative and anti-democratic, anti-intellectual form of debate. You are adding nothing but contrived higgschool hearsay, conjecture and opinion to what is a very serious public matter.

The people will vote based upon the candidates' engagement with them. That will in fact, influence others to vote for or against them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Campaign, vote and engage with your fellow citizens and stop patronizing us. Those days are thankfully over. We do not need that anymore.

Posted by Richard James on May. 19, 2011 @ 12:38 am

sure to include

David Campos
John Avalos
Chris Daly
Tim Redmond
Ross Mirkarimi
tons of fixed bike riders in the Mission from the Midwest
outraged College students at SFSU from the Midwest
SEIU leadership from up and down the state
Non profit workers in the city from all over the nation

Justice activists, peace activists, peace studies students, democracy activists, ethnic studies activists, living in SF from all over the nation.
Angela Davis from Santa Cruz
Andrea Dworkin from beyond the grave
some drunk guy at Taylor and Eddy just off Greyhound
Jimmy Carters cousin (the bad peanut) in UN plaza

Posted by maltlock on May. 18, 2011 @ 7:08 pm