Sheriff Mirkarimi charged with domestic violence

|
(338)
DA George Gascón announces the filing of charges against Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.
Steven T. Jones

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has been charged with three misdemeanors in connection with an alleged domestic violence incident against his wife, Eliana Lopez, on New Year's Eve, District Attorney George Gascón announced this afternoon. Gascón said a restraining order has been issued that bars Mirkarimi from contacting his wife and child and that bail has been set at $35,000, although he was unaware whether Mirkarimi had been booked yet.

Mirkarimi is being charged with one misdemeanor each of domestic violence battery, child endangerment, and dissuading a witness from testifying. Gascón said their young son, Theo, was present during the incident. Lopez has refused to speak with investigators, but she has publicly denied that her husband has ever abused her.

Mirkarimi has maintained his innocence, as he did again with Lopez by his side during a City Hall press conference held simultaneously with Gascón's press conference at the Hall of Justice. "We believe that these charges are very unfounded and we will fight those charges. I'm confident in the end that we will succeed,” Mirkarimi said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. It was unclear whether the appearance with Lopez violated the restraining order.

Gascón confirmed press reports that Lopez had communicated via text message about the incident with the neighbor who ultimately contacted police – although he refused to disclose or characterize the contents of the communications – and that there was a photo taken of an injury to Lopez's arm. He also said there are indications that this was not an isolated incident and the investigation is continuing. “We have heard there have been other instances,” Gascón said.

The fact that the charges were misdemeanors wouldn't require Mirkarimi's removal from the office he assumed just last weekend if he's convicted, but he has already been required to relinquish any weapons, including his service revolver. He faces a year in jail and three years probation on the charges.

“While we do not relish having to bring charges against a San Francisco elected official, I have taken an oath to uphold the laws of the state of California and as the chief law enforcement officer for the city and county of San Francisco it is my solemn duty to bring criminal charges when the evidence supports such action. No one is above the law,” Gascón said. “Whether this was the elected Sheriff or any other San Francisco resident, this type of behavior is inexcusable, criminal, and will be prosecuted.”

Gascón also said that while Lopez has refused to cooperate, he believes there is ample evidence to bring charges. “A case is always stronger if the victim is willing to testify. However, it is very common for victims to be uncooperative in domestic violence cases," Gascón said, noting that his office filed 771 domestic violence cases last year. He also said, “Regardless of whether the victim supports a prosecution, it is the state's and my office's obligation to ensure the safety of the victim.”

Comments

Unless it is a Newsom appointee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpiELzyx-Xc&feature=related

"SAN FRANCISCO / Chief's husband said he feared for his kids / In 911 tape, he's heard telling dispatcher his wife gave him 'two big bumps' on head
June 24, 2005|By Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White. Chronicle file photo by Michael Macor
Credit: Michael Macor
The husband of San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White told a dispatcher that she had given him "two big bumps" on the back of the head with a pint glass and that he feared for the couple's three children, according to a tape of his 911 call released Thursday.

Prosecutors, citing a lack of evidence, decided Wednesday not to file charges in the case, and Sean White has given police a letter recanting his allegations of domestic violence.

Police did not release their report on the case or the investigative file Thursday. But they did release an edited recording of the 911 call, which features a seemingly calm Sean White saying he wants to file charges. Hayes- White, 41, is audible at times in the background...."

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

Greg,

You are upset. And that is your right. Please calm down for a moment.

Try to look at this issue from the perspective of the hundreds of thousands of women who are battered each year by husbands, relatives, and boyfriends.

The DA believes there is compelling evidence here. Please, please exercise verbal restraint. The weeks ahead will tell the true story.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

...why take them seriously. Because he is a "progressive?"

Geez.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

Greg makes a lot more sense than those like yourself who are giving Gascon a pass in not having to provide PROOF of Sheriff Ross M's guilt or not getting a conviction BEFORE Gascon attempts to remove Ross from office or do any other punishment to him.

You, unlike Greg, don't believe in the American legal system of innocent until proven guilty. When you get accused and punished severely before any proof is given against you, maybe you'll see the benefits of the American legal system.

Since you don't like the American legal system, the obvious suggestion I have for you is to move some place that has a system you like - try China. There ppl are guilty until proven innocent.

Your welcome.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 4:08 am

Guest,

The DA proves allegations in court. This is how our system has always worked. Charges are filed, and then they are proven in court.

The DA is not required to prove allegations before bringing charges, there would not even be any method for doing this.

The DA has charged Mr. Mirkarimi and now he will prove his case in court and Mr. Mirkarimi will have legal counsel to defend himself.

Also, the DA has no authority to punish anyone. A judge decides a sentence, only after, and if, an individual is convicted following a trial. There is no punishment that has been brought against Mr. Mirkarimi, so I have no freaking clue what you are even posting about.

This how are legal system works, and there is nothing strange or unusual in this particular case. Either you have never even watched an episode of Law and Order, let alone taken a civics class in school, or you are from another planet and you have just landed on Earth.

Posted by Christopher Brown on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Wow, this is beyond stupid. Seriously, you think a DA has to provide proof to the public when s/he files a case? And you think Gascon can "remove Ross from office or do any other punishment to him"? (BTW, is this supposed to be English?) You're nuts.

"Your" (!?) welcome!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 16, 2012 @ 12:57 am

And I know I have a right to be without your fucking approval, so don't give me that patronizing bullshit.

I'm upset because this is taking the typical habit of overcharging and putting it on steroids. Why? In order to pursue a malicious, political prosecution. In order to completely destroy a person's career, reputation, and family.

Contrast this with the "respect" that was shown to Hayes-White by the political and law-enforcement establishment. And no, trolls, I am NOT arguing that because one high official got away with DV, then another one should too, so don't give me that straw man garbage.

There are BIG differences between the cases. For starters: in one case the victim called the police himself and later recanted (possibly under pressure). In the other case, the victim NEVER asked for any help from any authorities, and emphatically denies that there's any problem at all. I don't know about you, but that makes a big difference for me.

And yes, I've heard the line about how women can't speak for themselves and all (ironically from the same people who claim to be feminists). And I'm not so naive that I totally discount that this happens in some cases. But if you're not going to believe a woman who has NEVER called the police to begin with, and emphatically denies that there's any problem at all, is there EVER a case when you take a woman's word at face value at all? Unless of course she's saying what the advocates want her to say.

And incidentally... while we're at it, you speak of "hundreds of thousands of women who are battered by husbands, relatives, boyfriends"... you might do well to read the study Matlock linked to on the other thread (he's no hated "progressive" you know). The study, and others I've seen, show that DV is hardly such a one-sided thing as you imply. See Joanne Hayes-White.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 12:28 am

"But if you're not going to believe a woman who has NEVER called the police to begin with, and emphatically denies that there's any problem at all, is there EVER a case when you take a woman's word at face value at all? Unless of course she's saying what the advocates want her to say. Unless of course she's saying what the advocates want her to say."

Unless, of course, she never made a complaint about any domestic violence because she is afraid of the consequences. Your "out of sight, out of mind " argument is very disturbing.

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 12:55 am

That was a typical hot-headed male response. You are genetically programmed to have violent tendencies, and they sometimes show through.

Posted by Typical male response on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 8:56 am

a "typical" female response? I hope not, because it's pretty ugly.

If responses such as yours reflected all women, then one might be tempted to conclude that they're incapable of logic and resort to finger-wagging scolding when confronted with an opposing opinion. Fortunately I know this isn't the case, as I've seen quite a few women who demonstrate the contrary. I can only conclude that this problem is peculiar to you.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 9:21 am

"And I know I have a right to be without your fucking approval, so don't give me that patronizing bullshit." Greg said.

Of course you have a right to be upset. No one is denying this right. I am merely asking you to look at this issues with a certain degree of CALM. With introspection.

Tens of thousands of women are battered by men each year, and many of them are in full denial.

The DA's office understands the scope of this problem and wants to thoroughly address it. Comprende now?

Posted by The piper on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

At one point, it becomes necessary to destroy the family in order to save it.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 8:50 am

Perhaps when a family operates on one spouse hitting another spouse, it is not worth saving.

Also, if Mrs. Mirkarimi truly did not want help, then I find it odd she would have reported the abuse incident to a neighbor, let alone asked her to photograph her injury. People who want to keep things private, generally keep things private, they don't go blabbing about something they want kept secret, and they sure as hell don't ask people to take photographic evidence. What was the purpose of the pictures, if not to bring the matter to the police? If she just wanted to confide a deep dark secret to a close friend for support and comfort, there would have been no reason to ask for the bruise to be photographed.

If you want to be an apologist for DV, that is certainly your prerogative (though, it certainly doesn't make you seem like anyone I would want to invite over for dinner). But, don't expect the rest of us to feel sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Mirkarimi who have created a screwed up relationship between themselves, aired their dirty laundry, and now plead for privacy. I do feel sorry for his child for having to deal with having two crazy parents.

Posted by Christopher Brown on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

whose family is worth saving and whose isn't?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Who am I? Oh, you must be getting bleary-eyed spending all day behind the computer screen acting as Ross Mirkarimi's professional ass-kisser.

My name is Christopher Brown, and I have as much right to my opinion as you claim to have to your opinion.

Now that we have cleared this up, you might want to go outside and get some fresh air.

Posted by Christopher Brown on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

Christopher Brown I have news for you, 'loyalists' in no way whatsoever have a "right to my opinion."

They only have a right to Willie Brown's opinion through his intermediary Ed Lee.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

who are you to tell people to calm down...seek therapy fast...you.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

You crazy man, crazy!!!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

Gascon is a total a$$hole and if he keeps f*cking up like this he isn't gonna last long in this town.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

I fully agree.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 11:25 pm

Eliana keeps saying "I have no complaint". She never says "he did not bruise me".

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:22 am

I don't find it all surprising that the spouse usually wants the investigation called off. There is a risk that her marriage and family will be torn apart by this. The father of her child might wind up jailed for one of society's ugliest crimes. I'm sure that it is different if she has been beaten to within an inch of her life but in the garden variety DV I can see why she would want the whole thing to go away.

Do you ever watch the show COPS? Every week there is a woman with a black eye telling the police that she slipped in the bathroom.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:57 am

Yes, it is infuriating. But as long as we're conducting this trial by press, I would like to express a doubt about the truth of this allegation. Two women who have known Ross Mirkarimi on the most intimate level have both indicated that the charges against him are unbelieveable. And one of them is his wife, who has said that she has no complaint whatever against her husband.

Yet, Ms. Lopez's family is being torn apart in the name of 'protecting' her. What could be more condescending, patriarchal and less empowering for a woman than to be treated like an utter child?

Here's what his former girlfriend, who lived with Ross Mirkarimi for nearly a decade, had to say~

“I was shocked when I read about it,” Evelyn Nieves, a journalist and a past partner of Mirkarimi’s, said in an e-mail. “Ross and I were together for the better part of a decade — eight years or so — and never once did he even come close to being physical during an argument.”

“It’s just not his way,” Nieves added. “He was way more prone to proposing that disagreements be talked out. He could talk and talk.”

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/15d8L)

Posted by Lisa on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

as "patriarchal." The progressive crazy train has come full circle.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 7:02 pm

I didn't really didn't know what to expect around all of this, but this is amazing. This is Nixon apologist level crazy.

It's well known that a person suffering from abuse will often side with the abuse(not convicting Mirkarimi), when cops show up to abuse situations they end up dealing with two hostile spouses. etc...

So thats why these laws were written this way, by I would guess, people on the left.

Our local leftist sect is complaining about too much government in peoples lives.

It just gets stranger and stranger.

Posted by Matlock on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

I agree that spouses often recant. Sean White did as well.

--"Prosecutors, citing a lack of evidence, decided Wednesday not to file charges in the case, and Sean White has given police a letter recanting his allegations of domestic violence."

But it baffles me how "two big bumps to the back of the head" does not constitute evidence of getting hit on the head twice with a bottle.

--"The husband of San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White told a dispatcher that she had given him "two big bumps" on the back of the head with a pint glass and that he feared for the couple's three children, according to a tape of his 911 call..."

I have to wonder if hospital records may exist somewhere. If I had two big bumps on the back of my head from a pint glass, I'd get it checked out....just sayin.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

You have the ranter who won't shut up about Hayes-White - as if she's the issue here. And Lisa screeching about the patriarchy of DV laws, which were rewritten in the 70s and 80s, in conjunction with feminist leaders, to eliminate the previous bias in favor of the abuser.

Meanwhile - the main gist of the Ross defenders here seems to vacillate between "Hayes-White got off - why shouldn't Ross?" and "dark conspiracies emanating from the City Hall and 301 Eddy."

This case has really exposed a frightening number of demons within the progressive community of SF. The internecine fighting is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

I don't think anyone is saying Mirkarimi should get off. We are saying Hayes-White should be fired if Mayor Lee is so upset about DV that he is looking for ways to go after the Sheriff through the city charter, as he announced in his press release.

Hayes-White should be fired and if she isn't that is evidence of the politicization of this issue by the mayor, and quite honestly by his lackey in the DA's office because everyone knows the same people are still in charge over there as when Hayes-White's husband made his 911 call.

Hayes-White will not be fired because she is loyal to Newsom's hand picked successor Ed Lee, and Mirkarimi will have the book thrown at him by Kamala Harris' hand picked successor because of lack of loyalty over the years as Gonzalez former campaign manager and as a progressive supervisor who won citywide office.

If anyone here claims they are comfortable with the DA cherry picking who he prosecutes based on political affiliation they are obviously lying or conflicted.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

as was Mirkarimi. You are still attempting to conflate two different issues here - it's not working.

For the record: I don't believe Mirkarimi should be removed unless he is convicted and then I hope he'd resign. Until then he should continue serving. He is innocent until proven guilty. I'd oppose any attempt by the mayor to remove him from his post without a conviction.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

Exactly hmonk.

Mirkarimi was ELECTED by the people which makes attempting to remove him a serious issue. Maybe he should face a recall election, but removal by political rivals should be fought with everything we've got.

Hayes-White was NOT elected by the people which should make her removal for DV so much easier.

Why is it that a Newsom appointee has so much greater tenure with the current mayor than an official elected city wide?

Could it be that this election was exactly about keeping the same people in power, and that is now most sacrosanct at city hall??

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

But he hasn't provided any proof. He's providing plenty of threats to Sheriff Ross M but refuses to follow a basic principle of the American legal system: INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Gascon is a reckless, out-of-control cowboy that, unfortunately, no one in the legal community has had the guts to call him out like he should.

As long as Gascon provides proof or evidence that all these charges against Mirk - charges he didn't level against Fire Chief Hayes-White - have some credibility, then he's okay.

But as long as he refuses to do so, he's a reckless cowboy using his power to try to overturn the results of our fair elections.

Throw Gascon out!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

You know - in court? Not a trial in the SFBG comments section.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 12:13 am

You ignore - because it would make your stance look like the loser position it is - the main point of her post: that the person who lived with him for 8 years as his lover has said he's not violent, that that's not his nature.

But hey, I don't blame you for ignoring that. I'd probably do the same if I was as desperate as you to come up with something. You state no facts, you defend no position, just lame cheap shots.

I wasn't familiar with your posts but with that response, I now know you as one who can't debate with facts or evidence, just useless noise.

You should change your screen name to "desperado" because desperate is all you are as your posts prove. In a real debate contest, you woudn't be allowed in the hall.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

Thanks so much for that post. It's a good indicator that Gascon, with help from San Francisco's right (including the Chronicle editorial bd and the cops' leadership), is USING this as an EXCUSE to get rid of a political enemy.

They couldn't do it via elections - the way things are usually done in a working democracy - so they are using this to overturn an election they lost.

UNTIL Gascon provides PROOF or at least some evidence of Mirk committing DV or get a conviction in a trial, Gascon is acting criminally himself by trying to use these means to overturn a fair election for his "team."

What we know so far is that there's allegations that Mirk grabbed his wife's arm (that's all I've read there is at this point) and that that allegedly caused bruising.

YET on the DAY AFTER this story hit the Chron paper, his wife was photographed by Chron photographers and interviewed by Chron reporters WHILE WEARING A SLEEVELESS DRESS yet there was no pictures or descriptions of any bruise. And no mention was made in the stories that a bruise should have been visible in a sleeveless dress if the bruise was from grabbing her arm.

Greg is right - people should be furious at what Gascon and his buddies at the Police dept and Chronicle and rightwing forces in SF are doing to try to overturn an election they lost.

Let's call it what they are really trying to do: STEAL an election.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

No one gives a shit. He has no legislative power, his carpet bagging legislative career is likely at it's end. No one is going to conspire to get rid of a time serving parasite.

What is wrong with you people?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Their hero, Ross Mirkarimi, cannot be possibly be guilty of what he is accused. It's a plot - a dark plot emanating from City Hall where Rose Pak and Willie Brown convinced their minion Ed Lee to sneak into the Mirkarimi's home and hypnotize the couple, using magic herbs from a CERTAIN Chinatown shop, to act out this drama. Brown and Pak then drugged Gascon and took pictures of him in a compromising position with 3 transsexual Republican prostitutes. They then blackmailed Gascon to get him to press charges against Mirkarimi. Ivory Madison was clearly paid off/threatened to get her cooperation. The police on the scene were in on it as well.

Mirkarimi was just too much of a threat to Pak, Brown and their minion Lee. The sheriff's office being the center of power and influence it is they decided they just couldn't risk Ross thwarting their agenda.

I would warn Campos and Avalos to be on their guard and vigilant!! There are plots afoot.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 12:11 am

Mirkarimi was a Republican and that Lopez was therefore playing "stand by your man". I mean, neither you or I were in the bathroom with Larry Craig when he was charged for soliciting sex.
No, I am not a conservative or a Republican. Liberal and progressives tend to have to tie themselves in knots to defend or rationalize Democrat candidates and leaders while blatantly ignoring history and facts. (Like most domestic violence victims do not press charges against their abusers, and tend to stay with their abusers instead of leaving. Domestic violence does not have to be physical either.)

Just because Lopez "appears" to be a strong and independent woman to you does not mean that she is not a victim of domestic violence, and that her refusal to file a complaint does not necessarily translate that there is no abuse.

Posted by Michael W. on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 8:38 pm

You just sound exactly like what a Republican would say. If you shrouded you're arguments in more bipartisan manner people wouldn't oppose you at all and you could get a unelected Sheriff in office. Just think from a new Point of View. The Facts don't seem to really concern you that much.

Posted by SG on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

spousal abuse is almost never just a problem with the abuser, but is a fundamentally codependent problem shared by both partners together

it is incredibly common for battered spouses to deny to others, and even themselves, that they are being abused

as to the Mirkarimi-Lopez case itself, why don't we just wait and see what the trial shows instead of crowing and/or proselytizing on one side of the matter or the other

both the sanctity of innocence under law, before guilt is proven -and- the honest recognition of the deeply serious problems of domestic violence, deserve our respect of letting the law do its job

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 11:24 pm

My point is that liberals and progressives are relying on the specious arguments that since Lopez does not want to file charges, nor that there have been incidents report in the past, then there must have been no domestic violence at all. This appears, to me, to be a rationalization or defense to what may be a human rights violation. Liberals do this when they defend or ratioanlize invasions or countinued invasions of other countries by the Democratic Party. ( I expect to see further self-deception and rationalizations during the upcoming presidential elections as liberals try to claim that the Obama Administration is not part of Wall Street.)

If Greg wants to argue that only Mirkarimi and Lopez are the only people who really knew what went on that night, then that argument must then be applied to all situations, such as one with Larry Craig.

I am not claiming Mirkarimi is guilty, I merely wish to point out one of the many hypocrisies of liberal ideology.

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 12:44 am

which, as I worte earlier, is akin to "out of sight and out of mind."

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 1:00 am

Incidentally Michael, I do apply the same reasoning to Larry Craig, in the respects that the situations are similar, which of course they're totally not.

If both Larry Craig and his bathroom stall partner had denied that anything went on, I don't think it's anyone's damn business.

Of course that didn't happen. Unfortunately for Craig, his stall partner happened to be a cop. And I do think there's a legitimate question of entrapment with that one. Entrapment for something that shouldn't be a crime to begin with. Consensual relations between adults should not be subject to prosecution, period. I don't care if those consensual relations involve blowjobs in bathroom stalls, whips and chains, inflicting pain for sexual gratification (provided it's consensual), or even spreading Santorum.

Of course, the problem I have with Craig isn't his act, but his homophobic hypocrisy, which is why I didn't shed too many tears for him. I don't know what exactly you were trying to say with this example, but the cases have very little in common.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 1:25 am

and Lopez are the ones who will only know what really happened is a rather weak, flawed, and possibly, a down right desperate argument. That argument could be applied to any situation and therefore invalidate any attempt at addressing a civill or human rights violation. Same as arguing that since a person has not spoken or reported abuse, no abuse exists.

I used Larry Craig because it is an example where liberals like to reap scorn on a Republican, and usually demand his/her resignation, but look the other way when a Democrat does something. (How about that Barney Frank? Claiming that Kerry lost the elction because of the gay marriage issue and saying that trangender indiviuals will just need to wait for their rights.) I also believe that Frank was caught in a sting, but Craig's hypocrisy is no worse than Frank's.

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 2:09 am

"I also believe that Frank was caught in a sting, but Craig's hypocrisy is no worse than Frank's. "

We're veering well off topic here, but I didn't want to let this pass. Actually, Craig's hypocrisy was infinitely worse, since there was none on Frank's part. These two cases are diametrically opposed. Craig acted like a homophobe all his life, and fought for laws to hurt gays. When he was caught, he tried to deny everything. Frank, even when he was keeping his orientation private, always supported full human rights for the LGBT community. When he was caught, he admitted everything, but basically said "so what" and resisted calls to resign, and ran for re-election.

Craig had to resign in disgrace because of his double life, while the voters of Massachussetts re-elected Frank because he was never a hypocrite.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 8:15 am

You wrote:
****
"My point is that liberals and progressives are relying on the specious arguments that since Lopez does not want to file charges, nor that there have been incidents report in the past, then there must have been no domestic violence at all."
***

Let me tell you why your reasoning in that above statement is faulty. I agree that the the first part (Lopez doesn't want to file charges nor have their been past allegations against Ross M) does not guarantee that there must have been no domestic violation.

But the first part also DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THERE WAS A DOMESTIC VIOLATION.

So by ASSUMING there was one - WITHOUT REQUIRING GASCON TO GIVE THE PUBLIC PROOF OR HAVE A TRIAL FIRST BEFORE PUNISHING ROSS M - you are stating that YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Gascon can, according to you, reverse the results of a democratic fair election by charging a person WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF OF GUILT.

So karma requires that you too be picked up, arrested, punished severely without the govt having to prove you're guilty. I hope you're okay with this since you're okay for it to happen to others. I do hope for your sake that they don't treat you too bad - gonna suck to be you when it happens but that's the justice system you want.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 2:29 am

nor said that Mirkarimi was guilty. If you have evidence that I did otherwise, please direct me to it.

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 2:44 am

You wrote earlier: This "does not mean that she is not a victim of domestic violence, and that her refusal to file a complaint does not necessarily translate that there is no abuse." Sounds like to me you're saying or implying that it's up to Ross to prove he's innocent rather than Gascon proving Ross is guilty (for you are not demanding Gascon provide any evidence).

That's not the way the American legal system works.

If Gascon were to provide proof of Ross's guilt or take it to trial and get a guilty decision AND THEN NOT prosecute Ross, then that would be what ppl should be concerned about wrt Gascon's actions.

But it's just the opposite of that: Gascon is NOT providing proof WHILE at the same time, attempting to remove Ross from office (and reverse the results of our democratic election). So, at this point, THAT'S the big problem with Gascon's action.

But you have no comment or criticism regarding Gascon attempting to remove a fairly elected person without providing any proof of his guilt. So presumably that is not a problem to you - or not a very big problem since all your multiple comments so far have been of the nature of, "just because she says she wasn't abused doesn't mean she wasn't" and thus implying anyway that Gascon's actions are appropriate because "there's no proof she wasn't abused."

I agree you haven't endorsed Gascon's actions but a fair reading of your multiple comments would say you're leaning in that direction since not once do you criticize Gascon's actions and you seem to be saying that the burdon of proof is on Ross rather than Gascon.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 3:46 am

"Sounds like to me you're saying or implying that it's up to Ross to prove he's innocent rather than Gascon proving Ross is guilty (for you are not demanding Gascon provide any evidence)."

No. I was addressing the argument that if there is no report or charge of abuse by a domestic violence victim, then it would appear there is no abuse. This "out of sight, out of mind" is what I find disturbing --being rather akin to arguments made by Republicans and hence why I found it hypocritical--, and that it is coming from someone who has held himself on this site to be a liberal or progressive to demonstrates how it does not follow that being liberal or progressive means that one is actually sensitive or aware to the issues of domestic violence. I am not saying it is up to Ross to prove he is innocent. and I do not see how what I have wrote is in support of Gascon's actions.

"But it's just the opposite of that: Gascon is NOT providing proof WHILE at the same time, attempting to remove Ross from office (and reverse the results of our democratic election). So, at this point, THAT'S the big problem with Gascon's action."

Again, that is not what I was addressing in my replies to Greg, and it does not logically follow that I support Gascon's actions, nor does it follow that I support a police state. If you look at my further responses to Greg, you will note that I do not disagree with him about the justice system in America, but I do believe that a sheriff is actually part of the system of injustice, and as much as Gascon is in his role as district attorney. I also commented on "rule of law" mentality here:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/12/29/12-arrested-raid-occupied-oaklan...

"So presumably that is not a problem to you - or not a very big problem since all your multiple comments so far have been of the nature of, "just because she says she wasn't abused doesn't mean she wasn't" and thus implying anyway that Gascon's actions are appropriate because "there's no proof she wasn't abused."

How is questioning Greg's comments on the subject of domestic violence implying that I find Gascon's actions appropriate? You are merely making assumptions, ie: that I SEEM to be saying or leaning towards, not demonstrating any direct correlation or evidence that I support Gascon, that I believe Mirkarmi is guilty, or, as other are asserting here, that I support a police state.

Posted by Michael W. on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 5:57 am

I read your post a few times to try to make sense of it but it doesn't make any to me.

You start off by implying Greg's response to what many feel is an unfair prosecution - based on the facts released SO FAR (basically none) - is based on Mirk not being a Republican but being a progressive.

Then you reassure readers you're not a Republican - at which point you go out of your way to blast "liberals and progressives" by saying that they are naturally very biased for L&Ps - according to you, they tie themselves into knots to defend L&Ps while ignoring the facts. So you're definitely no fan of liberals or progressives because obviously, acc to you, they don't think logically.

But, you say, you're not a Republican.

But by making the accusation you did against liberals and progressives, you made it clear that if you're not a Republican by party reg, your political outlook is very aligned with the RP. Thus it's silly for you to make the bold proclamation that "I am not a conservative or a Republican" when your own comments reveal your own political beliefs are antagonistic towards liberals and progressives - and thus probably pretty opposite from them which would indeed put you close to the RP.

See the big problem that Greg, myself, and others have with this whole thing is Ross M got more votes than the other candidates for sheriff in a fair election. So whether one likes it or not, political considerations are going to be suspected if the actions taken against RM seem to be OUT OF PROPORTION with the facts that we all know and how similar cases are handled when it's not a progressive.

When one looks at the facts we all know so far - one should be, if one indeed wanted to be fair, troubled that, all this is being threatened against Ross M based on - based on what? Based on him allegedly GRABBING HER ARM - not hitting her but grabbing her arm.

We also are being told there was a bruise that apparently resulted from him grabbing her arm. But then the day after the story broke, she was WEARING A SLEEVELESS DRESS and apparently NO ONE SAW ANY BRUISES. Somehow it never came up in the Chron articles on this why that was the case.

So if Mr. Gascon is going to take the steps to erase the results of a fair democratic election, HE'D BETTER HAVE SOME DAMN GOOD REASONS AND HE BETTER GIVE PROOF THAT THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL DECISION rather than a legal one.

HE HAS NOT DONE THIS YET.

Yet this does not bother you. That should trouble you for what IT REVEALS is that it's not Greg who's tying himself into knots to not be fair, it's you. That is if you believe in the American form of justice - innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe in that, then that should trouble you too for it means YOU COULD BE ARRESTED FOR NO REASON and because some prosecutor didn't like you or your brother or your brother-in-law or your friend, decided to take it out on you.

So before you come to the conclusion that it's Greg who's not being fair and objective, you should look at your own natural bias AGAINST progressives and liberals ("they tie themselves into knots to defend Democrats while ignoring the facts") and look at what you're getting on this board to defend: the changing of the results of a democratic fair election even though no proof has been given Ross M is guilty of anything.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 2:00 am

in what does or does not constitute proof of domestic violence and that Greg's reasoning struck me as suspect due to who he was defending. Greg has clarfied that he would afford his defenses to a member of a political party he disagrees with, so while my suspicion of him having a double standard was incorrect, I still believe his defenses are confused and faulty. I am not saying Mirkarimi was guilty, nor was I defending Gascon.

Why is it that people think that if you criticize the Democrats than you must be a Republican? I do not see how anything I have written supports or endorses a police state. If you can show differently, I would welcome it. Again, I support the Socialist Workers Party and I would be very happy to discuss with you how the very flawed and contradictory nature of liberal / progressive ideology ultimately works to support a police state.

Posted by Michael W on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 2:35 am