Mirkarimi takes the oath


The room was packed for the inauguration of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, and for the most part, the crowd wasn’t talking about what Mirkarimi referred to as the “cloud” hanging over the event. He mentioned the investigation into possible domestic violence only that once, then joked that he’d managed to get a lot of press to his event.

There was music, dancing, former Mayor Art Agnos administering the oath of office, a long, long Mirkarimi speech on criminal justice policy (please, Ross, 15 minutes would have been plenty). Most of Mirkarimi’s progressive colleagues (including supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, and Eric Mar, state Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano) were on hand. And the press conference afterward was surprisingly mild.

Mirkarimi was asked what happened the night in question, and he declined to talk about it, saying the criminal justice system would work its way through the process. Then his wife, Eliana Lopez, interrupted, took the mike, and announced that this was a “family matter” and she would have no more to say – except that she has no complaints about her husband.

That was it. No shouted questions as the sheriff walked away, no 1000-watt camera flashes in his eyes, nothing to indicate that this is the gigantic scandal that it’s become in the daily papers.

But Mirkarimi did make one statement that’s worth mentioning: He said that there were forces in the department (I think he meant the Police Department) that didn’t want to see him as sheriff. That’s absolutely true.

Let me make a few points here.

First, for the record: There’s no excuse for assaulting anyone, and there’s less excuse for assaulting your wife. Domestic violence is a serious, under-reported problem, something all too often dismissed by the authorities – with catastrophic results. Women die because batterers are not held to account. I have close friends who have been in abusive relationships, and it’s not pretty and it’s not a joke and it’s not something to take lightly.

That said: I don’t know what happened that night at Mirkarimi’s house. But I do know that the minute the cops were brought in, it became political.

See, the cops, for the most part, are not Mirkarimi fans. He beat their guy, former Police Officers Association president Chris Cunnie, in the race for sheriff. He’s demanded changes in the department (including foot patrols, which a lot of old-timers don’t like). He also beat a sheriff’s captain. He’s a civilian who is going to run a law-enforcement agency as a civilian, which means he’s not part of the Fraternity.

The news reports about the incident were clearly leaked by the SFPD. So, I’m sure, was the search warrant (that’s a public document, but I honestly don’t think the Examiner tracked it down, I think it was delivered to the paper by a source in the department). Nothing wrong with that – cops (and politicians) tip reporters to stories all the time. I’m not blaming the Chron or the Ex for doing the story – it’s news, you have to report it.

And, of course, if the cops had ignored the case or downplayed it, they would have been criticized for covering up an incident involving the new sheriff.

Again: I’m not excusing Mirkarimi’s behavior (alleged behavior -- we don’t know what actually happened). But the way the story and the details were leaked reflects the political reality that the cops don’t love the new sheriff, and a lot of them would be thrilled to take him down. That’s just political reality.

Which means Mirkarimi needs to be very, very careful – there are people watching every single move he makes, every day. And they’re not interested in policy debates.

PS: The D.A. and the cops managed to finish this particular investigation in record time. I wonder what’s happened to the investigation into possible vote fraud in the Ed Lee campaign. Months have passed. Nobody is facing any charges. There are no police leaks about anyone involved. Funny, that.


Oh, please!

I never thought I would hear the Bay Guardian defend a man for spousal abuse.

Do you really believe this is all part of a grand ploy by the right-wingers to sully an enemy? You could possibly be right. But when a woman denies injury after being assaulted and starts defending her man, it is usually because she is afraid of more abuse, more violence.

Posted by JanePhantom on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 8:03 pm

Since you seem to know what happened that night at the Mirkarimi's that Lopez is saying is a family matter and that you think should not be, why don't you tell us what happened that night? If you don't know, then why do you make a post accusing the Bay Guardian of something you don't know a fucking thing about? Why don't you take your fucking bullshit and ram it up your right-wing ass?

Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 1:17 am

Very typical male response. You so often fall back and defend your own kind in home spousal abuse cases. Why is that?

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:56 am

And yours is a typical female response. What's your point?

You don't know anything more than the rest of us. Jump to conclusions much?

Posted by Matt on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Yes, Matt, true. The typical female response is to stand up for a fellow woman who has been beaten.

Is there anything wrong with that? We abhor violence.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 7:19 am
Posted by matlock on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 7:50 am

In this case the "sister" doesn't want your "defense." In fact she's telling you to stay out of it. Maybe we should listen to the sister instead of ignoring her.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 7:53 am

Greg, has it ever ocurred to you that the sister is asking you to stay out of it because she is afraid of getting mor beatings?

This is often the case. The woman is afraid of more battering.

Obviously, you are out of touch with feminine issues.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 8:41 am

Usually, there's a pattern of domestic violence in those cases, and it's usually more serious than an alleged arm-grabbing. Often the victim personally calls the police and then retracts, and often the pattern repeats more than once. In this case the alleged victim has NEVER asked for outside help, and has categorically stated she has NO complaints against her husband.

If your default position is that the alleged victim should be listened to only in the case that she makes a charge, and should be completely ignored otherwise... that reduces the woman to little more than a child who is incapable of making independent decisions, and that puts the "advocates" into a very hypocritical position, on the one hand saying that victims should be listened to, while on the other hand ignoring those same "victims" when what they say doesn't fit the narrative that the advocates want to advance.

The only two people who really know what happened are Eliana Lopez and Ross Mirkarimi, so I think the default position should be that what they say should carry a lot of weight.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 9:17 am

Greg, this may a very, very typical spousal abuse case.

The man is in denial, and the woman is in denial, too, because she is afraid of getting beat up again.

Many, many women have been murdered because they are publically in denial of the abuse against them, and male force finally overwhelms them.

Fortunately, police departments have become more proactive about dealing with spousal abuse in recent years.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

It seems like anyone who doesn't agree with you fails to see the picture, or they're sexist, etc. Even if there's no pattern of abuse, and the "victim" herself says that she has no complaints, then the victim is just "in denial."

In your conception of reality, there seems to be no possible way whatsoever that maybe, just maybe, the domestic violence advocates have it wrong. Ever.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

Greg, are you are saying that spousal abuse/violence does not exist if 1) there is no pattern (ie, this is the first time), and 2) the woman denies she has been abused (despite evidence to the contrary)?

The evidence needs to be thoroughly examined. It needs to be properly vetted. Until that happens, the alleged abuser is innocent.

But to deny that there has been abuse before all the evidence becomes transparent is, yes indeed, male denial.

And I think we both agree that at the very least Ross Mirkarimi needs anger-management therapy.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

All I'm saying is that:
1. We shouldn't jump to conclusions. All we have right now is a bruise. I wouldn't say that a bruise in and of itself is proof positive of abuse. Hopefully you wouldn't go as far as to say that a bruise is proof of abuse. Have you ever had a bruise and not been abused? I know I have. A complaint... a pattern... etc., might be stronger evidence. Even a lack of a denial, but the way that Ms. Lopez has responded, I tend to believe that she's telling the truth. I think she's a strong and independent woman, and I'd have to see something more before I'd be ready to declare that she's just lying. To declare her to be a liar, is not being very supportive, IMO.

2. The word of the alleged victim DOES in fact count for something, and not just when it fits the narrative of the so-called advocates. In fact, dare I say that I believe in women's strength and independence enough that her word counts MORE than the word of her self-appointed advocates.

3. No I do not necessarily agree that Ross Mirkarimi needs anger management therapy. To say that a-priori is to already admit that something actionable happened, which both he and his wife are thus far denying. Maybe if more/different facts came out, but then...

4. Did I mention that we shouldn't jump to any conclusions?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Above all, I am pleased that the DA is actually looking into this matter. Spousal abuse is so often entirely ignored by the authorities.

The woman who took the video and exchanged the emails is a friend of the Mirkarimis. She hosted a campaign party for The Mr.

She has obviously seen some evidence and was concerned.

It irks me, in particular, that certain Guardian readers (including the Mr. Mirkarimi, judging from his comments when he was sworn in) have shrugged off this entire affair. A conspiracy, they say. Let's all laugh and turn the other cheek.

Again, a fairly typical male reaction to spousal abuse.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

is to jump to conclusions, deny the reality that politicians make political decisions, and ignore the alleged victim while claiming that you can speak for her better than she can... then I'm glad I'm trying to take a more balanced, nuanced view of the situation.

Tell me, is it a typical female response to dismiss anyone who doesn't toe the line as a conspiracy theorist, too?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

A "typical" female response would be concern, above all. Concern and sympathy for another woman experiencing the wrath of a male-dominated and sometimes violent society.

Chill out. Let's wait and see how this shakes out. But the pooh-poohing of this entire incident by certain males (Mirkarimi's grinning smirk-off of the incident at his inauguration, his and Tim's implications of a conspiracy) are truly disheartening.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 9:48 am


Take your fucking left-wing DV apologist BS and ram it up your own ass--hard.

Even an accusation of domestic violence is not a "family matter," it is a serious criminal allegation, and it should be treated as such.

And, yes, you fucking asshole, no one knows what has happened (except those present) when ANY criminal allegation is made, until an investigation is completed. That doesn't mean the issue cannot be discussed, nor does it mean that the investigation is politically driven, nor does it mean any suggestion that it it is true is somehow a "right-wing" political statement.

Right-wing, left-wing, or centrist individuals who turn domestic violence into some political football, make me sick!

I don't give a crap that Ross Mirkarimi is the Sheriff, he better be thoroughly investigated for this serious allegation, just like any other person would be. Actually, not just like any other person, since DV is often not taken seriously, as demonstrated by assholes like you.

Posted by Chris on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Here's one reason why Lopez might be denying the charges: http://www.baycitizen.org/crime/story/mirkarimi-went-ballistic-court-doc.... The neighbor who made the video documenting the alleged abuse says Lopez asked her to do it in case Mirkarimi tried to take their son away from her.

If true, that suggests Lopez wasn't interested in criminal proceedings, just protecting herself. It isn't really to Lopez's benefit to have her husband in jail -- even if she does end up leaving him in the end.

It bothers me that the Guardian lunged at the political foul-play angle. By trying to claim political foul-play, you yourself are putting politics above the truth. When it comes to domestic abuse charges with evidence and testimony from impartial neighbors, I for one don't care if politics brought this to public light. There needs to be a trial. I'll decide afterwards what I think.

Having a progressive in office isn't as important to me as having one who does not abuse his family.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 18, 2012 @ 11:09 am

It is funny. Funny that you would equate a voter fraud investigation with a case of domestic abuse. You don't see any difference in the investigative processes?

Also, there was no voter fraud. Lee won in a landslide the way everyone knew he would and didn't need to engage in any shady processes. Of course, if you have 10 or 11 opponents gunning for you they're going to find some cases of poor judgement by election volunteers.

And when did the cops 'finish' the Mirkarimi investigation? He hasn't been either charged or cleared.

Wow. Does it ever bother you that you have to fabricate SO MUCH to make your case some times??? Does it tell you anything at all?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

There was certaintly voter fraud by Ed Lee's supporters. Why lie???!!! Were you involved with it??? You must have been because you are trying to float this bs that there wasn't when IT WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE that anybody that tunes into SF politics HAS SEEN.

Are you saying you didn't see his volunteers telling the elderly folks exactly WHO TO VOTE FOR???

Why do you BEND OVER BACKWARDS to DEFEND CORRUPTION???!!! Corruption is not good - this is apparently news to you or more likely you had a role in it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:10 pm

What part of "poor judgement by election volunteers" did you not understand? When you have everyone and his brother looking for something to embarrass Lee and that's the best that they can do it means that it was a pretty buttoned up campaign.


Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

Just so long as no bruises were left on Democracy's arm by systemic vote fraud, then it is just a personal matter, right?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

Screwing around with elections like illegally gaining votes for your candidate - a felony I'm sure - is indeed "poor judgement" as well as voter fraud. Might as well stop excusing it if you're so gungho on attacking Tim for stating the obvious: cops are HUGE political players.

Stop playing stupid and ignorant about the political skill of the SF Police and their leaders.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

LOl - this would be funny if it weren't so weird and poorly timed.

Mirkarimi is innocent until proven guilty - but The Guardian is not helping his case at all with shit like this. It's shameful and it's wrong and Tim should apologize for posting such conspiracy-laden crap - even if it's under the guise of his "opinion."

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

the frame up of Mirkirimi.

The neighbor calls the cops, then and all the best laid plans fall into place. I picture the Sting where a bunch of guys are sitting around, the code word comes in and there is a flurry of preplanned activity.

I wonder if this is how it works in the fevered mind of Tim Redmond.

"Yeah, Clancy round up the boys we're gonna stick it to that Mirkirimi pretty good now. Patty go lean on the neighbor, tell her we know about her breaking the Mann Act with that Spaniard least year. Mick go rent the room next door and start the tapes rolling, if the land lady gets worked up tell her you saw the rat inspector heading her way..."

Then later in the dream the cops are having beers with grizzled Chronicle reports at some earth tone local dive as they further plan on getting Mirkirimi for busting up that liquor run at pirates cove. "You boys down at the Chron keep the heat on, we'll find something, no one busts are truck full of plastic bags, happy meals and smokes and gets away with it"

Posted by matlock on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

That's hilarious - the only thing missing is the fog (it feels like summer right now) and a fedora-wearing PI who discovers the TRUTH!

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

Good one, Matty! Get your gumshoes out of the closet, toot suite. We gotta a Bearded One to tug on.

Posted by PI Smithy on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

Surely you can't think that some members of the SF Police wouldn't go out of their way to hurt Mirkirimi if they could. You do realize that this is the same police force that has been caught on camera MULTIPLE TIMES stealing goods from the apartments of people they came to interview or arrest.

And do those cops carrying on this behavior get in trouble from higher ups in the department or by the DA? Nope. Nothing happens to them. In fact the department comes to their defense like a gang rallies around its members when they are in trouble.

Tim's right - Mirkirimi is an outsider, not a law-and-order freak like the cops like them. And yet the notion that they would want to hurt him politically is something beyond your imagination???

Either you're incredibly naive or an incredible BS'er. I'll assume you're not incredibly naive.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

She called the police, they didn't just drop by and start fucking with him.

It sucks that the media spending so much time on this at such an early date, but your shit here is just paranoid and fucking dumb.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 8:46 pm

Yes, Matlock, the neighbor is a campaign supporter of his, not some conspirator. She is also a close friend of his wife.

His wife went to her friend and said Ross bruised her arm and asked the neighbor to take a photograph of it. So, yes, there is evidence. Then, the neighbor called the police.

But, I disagree with you about the "sucking" issue. It doesn't suck that the media is spending time reporting a serious allegation against someone who is sworn to enforce the law, including the law prohibiting domestic violence. As a resident of the city, I certainly want to know if the person elected to enforce the law is breaking it, especially if it involves a violent crime.

Posted by Chris on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 11:26 am

I don't think you understand, Chris. Matlock's primary function is to trash progressives on chatboards. I understand you're no progressive yourself, but I imagine you're not a troll. From the perspective of a troll, however, it does suck. Why? Because, the thinking goes, if the media shoots their wad now, it will be old news by the time the campaign rolls around. Matlock wants it for campaign value. He'd prefer that it wasn't an issue at this "early stage" so that it will be an issue at a later stage.

As for the "evidence," there could be a million reasons why his wife would have done that, and a million ways the bruise could have gotten there which did not involve assault from her husband. I think we should wait and see before we jump to any conclusions. And above all, some of you mods should follow your own advice and listen to the alleged victim. If she says he didn't assault her, I'm inclined to start by giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

The conspiracy marches on.

I think it being the media so much now is bad because if it all turns out to be BS then it will be with Mirkarimi for a long time, although I think he is a towering douche bag, it would be unfair to be saddled with this for years to come if not true.

I don't have the fevered and crazed mind of a true believer who thinks about this as some chance to get over, or to spin it in such a way as to add it to any sort of paranoid fantasy that gets dreamed up. Never in a million years would it occur to me to care that the media will run out of steam on this, thus fretting that this will be old news when it's election time. Thats just typical paranoid ravings from you.

Many people have a intrinsic sense of right and wrong, as you act as apologist and conspiracy spinner, it's obvious your's is missing.

Mirkarimi if proven innocent should be able to leave this behind him. Too soon to tell, but not too soon to see conspiracies under the bed.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

a "troll" anyone who advances any type of contrary argument.

That's the lunacy of the left. If you're not on board with their nonsense, then there's something wrong with you. You're "conspiring" with others. You're part of the "1%". You're a bigot. And so on.

The left loses an election, and it's always "fraud", dirty tricks, money or of course the winner "doesn't have a mandate".

Greg has trotted out these lame excuses and rationalizations for so long, he almost believes them himself. Practice losing debates and elections for long enough, and it's instinctive. He doesn't even realise he is doing it.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

What's this bs about the right not stealing elections??? Are you kidding me? Or yourself???

Ever heard of Bush-Gore, 2000 where the 5 rightwing nutcases on the Supreme Court (SC) violated the US Constitution that EXPLICITLY SAYS it's up to each state to carry out its elections without federal interference???

Guess you also haven't heard about Ed Lee's supporters committing voter fraud where they were essentially voting for elderly folks - they should have gone to jail for such interference in our elections.

Guess you haven't heard how Republican state legislatures around the country are trying to prevent segments of voters that usually vote Democratic from voting???

Guess you're pretty ignorant about what goes on in SF and around the country.

I'd love to debate you, you'd be stammering and probably walk out from the humiliation.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

Locally the progressives are always barking about losing elections for reasons other than that they didn't have enough votes.

For example the JROTC vote a few years ago was upsetting to progressives, so they complained that the voters were fooled and that their side was outspent. Most everyone in the city knew all they needed to know on the subject after two minutes of looking into it.

This latest round of elections have them bemoaning the beating that Avalos got although it was under a system they advocated for.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 2:28 pm

Very well put.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 10:47 pm

When you view everything through the prism of SF's warped politics, I guess it warps your grip on reality.

Even the notion that there is nothing here is absurd.

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty but your knee-jerk reaction to something this serious from OUR SHERIFF is just bizarre.

Ross probably explained to his wife after the fact, that he would lost his giant public employee pension if convicted of a felony so it's all yuks now from the family now.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

Tim, you spoke against the gang known as the SF Police and they want to let you know that that's a no-no because there's lots of them and their family and friends and only you to defend yourself.

So get ready to be hit with all the ridiculous, "so Tim why you coddling up to a wife-beater, huh Tim?!" absurd talk. They know damn well that that's not what you're saying but they think presenting all these strawmen to hit will help them.

Of course you're right on this, Tim. The cops are the biggest political players in this town and these guys (cops or friends or family I assume) try to paint the cops as if they've never heard the word, "politics."

These guys hitting you are unintentional COMEDIANS. Laugh at them like they should be laughed at.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:29 pm

- Photos of the bruises
- Video of the bruises
- Text messages between the wife and Madison regarding the incident (not sure what they contain)
- Looking over the search warrant it looks like Madison documented the incident down to the last detail.
- A wife who is suddenly not cooperating with police (which is just strange considering she is the Sheriff's wife, right?)
- Mirkarimi has hired not one but two high profile defense attorneys. Seems like an odd course of action when one has nothing to hide.
- Lastly, Mirkarimi and Lopez are not saying it didn't happen. The wife is now saying it's "overblown".

Posted by Sammy on Jan. 08, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

about Ross's "indiscretion". Not a great start for him, but the idea of a stitch-up is implausible. How would they have initiated it?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 6:42 am

And a well-known history of Ross Mirkarimi abusing his staff and even visitors to his office. Heard through his office walls. Don't get me wrong. Philosophically, Mirkarimi's values are my values, and I want him to succeed. I want us to succeed. It is up to him.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

Bay Guardian playing using the media to play politics again. Unreported and under-reported domestic violence is a serious felony. It cannot be swept under the carpet. Bay Guardian is protecting the batterer and ignoring the victim. Sad.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:11 am

What you're really saying is that Tim SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to say the OBVIOUS (except to those with an agenda like yourself) - that Mirkirimi is HATED by a lot of cops and they would LOVE TO GET BACK at him.

That was all Tim said. And of course he is right. Did he defend women or anyone being abused by their spouse? NOPE. He spoke against it.

All he said was that SF cops are political players and to think they are going to make an exception in this case (not play politics) is naive. The fact is that the cops are HUGE political players. Remember Hongisto stealing papers out of the racks because of the story critical of him or the cops??? Remember the cops caught on videotape stealing goods IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO from apartments and nothing was done against them??? Remember nothing being done to Fire Chief Hayes-White when allegations came up against her???

What you all are saying is that Tim CAN'T MENTION the double standard and the fact that cops are HUGE political players. It's you all that are engaging in an attempt to stop all criticism of SF cops and the political games they play - probably because you all are cops or have ties to them or are political enemies of the left in SF and this is a great excuse to try to make the left look bad.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 8:13 pm

What the cops think of Mirkarimi is irrelevant. He is going to be investigated for Domestic Violence and perhaps prosecuted by a D.A.

What are the police supposed to do if I, as a neighbor, call them and say a woman came to my house and said she was assaulted by her husband--just ignore it because it might be "political"?

Posted by Scott on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

Mirkirimi's temper is legend, and the SFBG knows this well. Mirkirimi staffers and those in is sphere regularly complain about verbal abuse.

So why does the Guardian rush in to defend someone from domestic violence charges who they know has an anger management problem? Is it so hard to believe that his foreign born wife may be afraid of the implications of coming forward?

Is it so hard to believe that someone who's anger troubles are so well know to cross the edge over the holidays?

Don't concerned neighbors have a moral obligation to report?

And why does Redman takes his own raising the possibility of a police conspiracy as fact by the end of the editorial?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Good points all, fellow Guest. Let me explain the raising of the police conspiracy theory.

We don't know what happened in the Mirkirimi house that day, but we do know that a Progressive is being investigated for a possible criminal act. Therefore, we know that there is a police conspiracy, simply because of an accusation against a Progressive.

Hope that this helps to explain things.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 11:16 am

It's so weird. When SF cops REPEATEDLY get caught stealing property in duffel bags from people they are arresting, there just isn't any scrutiny on them. The ones whose job is to prevent stealing are actually DOING THE STEALING but it's totally swept under the rug.

But when somebody who's been somewhat of a thorn to the cops ("how dare he or anyone says SF cops should patrol the streets - who is THAT GUY?!") has some trouble, the cops are DEMANDING THE VIDEOTAPE and WORKING THEIR ASSES OFF to get every last detail but when one of their own (a fellow SF cop) was harassing women by actually forcing them into his off-duty car, they completely covered it up and ignored it and did nothing against him.

And then out of the woodwork comes all these defenders of the police to portray cops as innocent as a fresh new snowflake and it's that bad bad bad Tim Redmond whose really the bad one.

These guys are funny - unintentionally of course but funny nonetheless.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

Poster please join 2012. I see why you post as guest.



S.F. police scandal widens - 26 more cases dropped
Controversy widens over plainclothes cops' actions
May 28, 2011|Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

* San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi (L) speaks during a press conference as Seth Meisels and Matt Gonzales confer at the Public Defenders office in San Francisco, Calif. Photograph by David Paul Morris/Special to the Chronicle
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi (L) speaks during a press conference as Seth Meisels and Matt Gonzales confer at the Public Defenders office in San Francisco, Calif. Photograph by David Paul Morris/Special to the Chronicle
Credit: David Paul Morris

A San Francisco judge dismissed 26 more felony cases Friday involving plainclothes police officers who allegedly lied about the circumstances of drug searches and arrests or stole from suspects, bringing the number of prosecutions lost in the widening scandal to nearly 120.



Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

I'm not talking about stuff getting in the paper. I'm talking about law enforcement ACTUALLY TAKING ACTION against them.

PLEASE GIVE ME THE LINK WHERE THEY ACTUALLY GOT IN TROUBLE FOR IT - you know, lose their job, pay a fine, get demoted, you know SOMETHING - ANYTHING.

If you can't, then I was right. The cops can get away with stealing and the law in SF does nothing against them - from the cops themselves to the DA.

The only one "crazy" here is yourself for bending over backwards to dismiss voter fraud in elections and no actions against stealing from citizens by the cops.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 1:51 pm