More on the Mirkarimi case

|
(172)

I wrote up the Jan. 19 hearing on the domestic violence charges against Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, but a few more points are worth thinking about as the embattled sheriff prepares for another court hearing Jan. 23.

For one, the stay-away order that Judge Susan Breall issued doesn't allow Mirkarimi to have any contact with his two-year-old son for the next 45 days. That seems not only harsh but bad for the kid, who doesn't understand why he can't see his daddy and is, not surpisingly, confused and upset. There are no winners in this case (except the folks who would just as soon see Mirkarimi gone and replaced with a more traditional law-enforcement sheriff), but the biggest loser, the one I feel worst about, is the kid. If the judge was really worried about Mirkarimi being a danger to his son (which, frankly, seems like a huge stretch), then she could have authorized supervised visitation. That's not at all unusual in these kinds of cases, and would at least give the child a chance to have contact and a relationship with his father during the period when all of this is being sorted out in adult court.

There's not a lot of talk about the inherent conflicts of interest in this case, issues that come about from a sheriff who was once an investigator in the District Attorney's Office facing criminal charges filed by that same office, which is now run by a former police chief who the sheriff clashed with repeatedly when he was a supervisor. I don't know the law on this or how it could possibly play out, but there's an interesting article about it all here.

It's odd that the conflict piece ran in a publication that makes its living bashing local progressives, but everything about the media in this case is odd (except that fact that it's become an international zoo). The one writer who has talked seriously about Mirkarimi's right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty -- and the only major voice in the media urging him not to step down -- is the Chron's conservative columnist Debra Saunders

Another interesting media tidbit: I don't know Mirkarimi will enough to have any insight into his behavior in romantic relationships, but one person who really does -- his longtime former girlfriend, journalist Evelyn Nieves -- has been quoted only once in the bottom of a New York Times/Bay Citizen story, to wit:

“I was shocked when I read about it,” Evelyn Nieves, a journalist and a past partner of Mr. 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,” Ms. Nieves added. “He was way more prone to proposing that disagreements be talked out. He could talk and talk.”

Again: Doesn't mean he's not guilty. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed. Just interesting that only one publication has even tried to contact and get a quote from Nieves.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but it seems to me that the defining moment in this case will not be the trial but the pre-trial hearing in which Mirkarimi's lawyer tries to get a judge to rule that the videotape of Eliana Lopez talking about her injury and her fear of her husband can't be used in court. Bob Egelko has an excellent piece here; he points out that if the video isn't admissible as evidence, the case will collapse. If a judge rules (and the legal arguments seem to support it) that the prosecution can't introduce the video or show it to the jury, then I suspect the district attorney will have to drop the charges; if Lopez refuses to testify against her husband, there's nothing else to go on.

But this is a domestic violence case, and judges (no surprise) are political, and how many members of the local bench really want to be the one who ended such a high-profile case (and in effect, let the suspect walk) on what the media will call "a technicality?"

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

That's why I was careful to say the women *ostensibly* involved. And the *alleged* abuse. It's there if you re-read it. Apologies if there was any prevarication. My focus was on domestic violence per se, using the facts as they are coming out in this case.
If it wasn't as clear as it could have been, that's what I get for writing while hungry. Of course, innocent until proven guilty.

And, by the way, I am not one to be swayed necessarily by an ex girlfriend who may have had a pristine relationship with Ross. That really has little bearing in the case, in my book. It's nice and all, but it doesn't mean that no abuse happened in future relationships, or other kinds of relationships, for that matter. And maybe nothing rises to the level of abuse/criminality at all! Maybe Eliana Lopez has a condition whereby she bruises easily! Who knows? Certainly not I.

I hope the truth comes out. That's all I hope. And I have to trust our justice system to deliver that truth.

Posted by Daniele E. on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

Yes, a change of venue is now essential.

I recommend a leave of absence and a trial in, say, San Jose or Sacramento.

AND anger-management therapy should definitely be on the cards.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

Another woman has come forward with an accusation that Ross is a thug and and a bully http://sfist.com/2012/01/23/new_abuse_allegation_comes_from_mir.php.

To all the people whinging about the presumption of innocence; of course Ross is innocent until proven guilty. But the accusations and the legal actions to follow make it impossible for him to be the top law enforcement official in this City and County and be an effective leader of the Sheriff's Department. He should give the day-to-day running of the Department over to a career civil servant until the charges are either cleared or sustained, at which point he can resume his duties or resign.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

Another TV personality. And the ex-wife of a SFPD police captain. Is this serial abuse? Or a wider frame-up? At this point, I'm confused...

"""An ex-girlfriend of Ross Mirkarimi has come forward to police with new accusations of domestic violence against the San Francisco sheriff, law enforcement sources say.

The former girlfriend, Christina Flores, was dating Mirkarimi shortly before the then-supervisor met the woman who would become his wife, Venezuelan actress Eliana Lopez, at a conference in Brazil in 2008. Shortly after they met, Lopez became pregnant with the couple’s child.

Flores, who has hosted a talk show on local cable access and has appeared on television stations KOFY and KTVU, showed up at San Francisco’s Northern police station Sunday to file a police report describing an incident that she said happened at least three years ago, in which Mirkarimi allegedly shoved her against a wall, law enforcement sources said.""

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

Wow, Tim Redmond was interview by Christina Flores (the "second woman") on SF Live in 2009

http://sf.commons.tv/video/19994/christina-marie-tim-redmond-sf

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

This is an interesting development with the other woman "coming forward." If there's really a pattern of domestic violence, I'd have to concur that Ross doesn't belong in that office.

But again... some random thoughts about patterns...

We saw in the DSK case that there was a pattern of sexual indiscretions. In fact it made the maid's allegations more credible. And yet he turned out to be innocent, and in fact it was probably a set-up, as we now know.

Which leads to a broader question about these "patterns." I read in sfist that this other woman may be called upon to testify. What for, may I ask? Was she in the room with Ross and Eliana? Or is it just to establish a "pattern?" If it's the latter, that's rather interesting. And I'm going to say something un-PC here, but I think it needs to be said... it's interesting because when a woman comes forward with allegations of rape/domestic violence/whatever, any evidence against her character is deemed inadmissable. The rationale is that even if she has a pattern of making false accusations in the past, we shouldn't be judging the "victim," even though at that point she's just an alleged victim and merely an accuser. But the record of the accused is apparently fair game, even to the point of calling in "witnesses" that didn't witness anything at all related to the actual case at hand. As we saw in the DSK case, bringing in allegations of the past record of the accused can lead to incorrect conclusions, so I think it would be wise to leave it out.

As far as Ross's case, given the "history" and the "patterns" of some of these prosecutions of politicians with a lot of... shall we say... political enemies, where some of these prosecutions didn't turn out the way we all thought they would, I would just caution people to reserve judgement.

But on a broader level, it seems to me that this is a back-assed way of doing things... this whole notion that an accuser's past history is off-limits, while the alleged history of the accused is fair game in the courtroom, as well as fair game to be splashed all over the front pages... it seems that this is rather at odds with our supposed presumption of innocence under the law.

I'm sure I'm going to get it from all sides for this, but I don't care. I'm not a politician, so I can say provocative things. Just don't be stupid in your attacks. Is it too much to ask people to debate substance rather than attack posters personally?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

I know you're not that naive, so I presume to assume that was a rhetorical question. Whenever the majority of these pathetic posters make an effort to engage in substantial debate they merely accentuate the 'stupidity' and ugly hate that informs their 'opinions'.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

Is it a conspiracy thats coming out of the mayors office?

Is it a conspiracy by the wealthy California bankers?

Is it a conspiracy thats come out of the DA's office?

What needs to be debated intellectually is who is behind the conspiracy to deny Mirkarimi an administrative job.

Make up something crazy and then claim to want a rational discussion.

Here's some topics I dreamed up...

Was Nixon merely great or just awesome, and why was the Tony Randal out to get him?

Who made Steve Gutenberg a star?

Was Peter Tork the greatest tambourine player of all time, or was it Sunny Bono?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
Yes

I guess it is too much to ask.

Hey matlock, while you're on the subject of crazy conspiracy ravings, tell me again how the progressive... how do you call it?... "uni-mind" has brainwashed the entire moderate, mayoral-appointed, MTA to do the Evil Bidding of the hated progressives?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

All but one of the members have risen through the lefts farm team and they are moderates?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Yes, somehow "the left," such as it is, brainwashed all of the past moderate mayors to pick only from their "farm team," whatever that means.

You crack me up with your crazy conspiracy theories.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

It is not unreasonable to wonder about the 3 days that Madison waited to report her evidence. My 2 cents.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

You have a powerful neighbor who works in LE. You support him politically. Is shopping him out an easy decision? I don't think so.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

@Greg,

It used to be the norm for defense attorneys to drag a rape victim's reputation through the mud in order to discredit her testimony. Women's groups were concerned that this discouraged rape victims from coming forward. Can you imagine what it would be like to describe your rape in front of a roomful of people you don't know? And then have your reputation smeared. Would you care victimized twice-over?

So feminists fought this practice until the laws were finally changed. I think it's a good thing, since most women will think twice about reporting a rape if they know they will end up being the one who is put on trial.

btw, new info has come to light indicating that DSK was not "set up" after all:

"It is not clear why the hotel workers celebrate together, but reports of the episode fuelled speculation that Strauss-Kahn was set up by his political enemies. U.S. investigative journalist Edward Epstein had claimed their ‘celebration’ lasted some three minutes, and made it look as though they had executed a trap to perfection."

"In fact the tapes show that the ‘victory dance’ lasted less than 10 seconds, with the hotel staff allegedly celebrating a ‘sporting result’, according to a spokesman for the Sofitel."

"Mr. Epstein has since admitted a ‘mistake’, with the New York Review of Books, which originally published his conspiracy theory, publishing a correction."

"Henri Leclerc, a lawyer for Mr Strauss-Kahn, admitted today: ‘I have no proof that there is a conspiracy. I have no evidence that there is a conspiracy.’"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071725/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-s...

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Legitimate rape victims may be scared of coming forward, and as a result, some guilty people would go free.

The flipside is that with the way it is now, some legitimate questions are off limits. What if the accuser has a history of making false accusations? What if she has a financial motive to do so? If these issues can't be explored, then some innocent people may be convicted.

It's a tough call, because you need to have one rule for everyone. Personally, I tend to agree with the old saying, "I'd rather see ten guilty people go free than send one innocent to the gallows."

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 5:35 pm

Greg, you are incorrect in your assertion here. If a "victim" has a history of false accusations, that IS admissible in court. However, her sexual history or other personal history may not be.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 10:22 am

Dirty open secret at City Hall where staffers won't press the same claims a private employer is liable for- stakes are too high for workers trying to move up in public service. The way some city officials harangue and berate and bully would get me slapped with 'hostile and threatening work environment' suit. Kevin Shelley got away with it until someone screwed up the courage to come forward.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

you've lost all perspective. What would your radical-college-self say if he could see you now? I'm betting you once considered yourself a feminist. Am I right? What the hell happened? This is not about political agendas or power struggles. You and your staff are the only ones I see making this a political issue. Nobody of any real consequence gives a fuck about the Sheriff's "Progressive credentials".

I voted for Mirkarimi in the Sheriff race. I still feel he could perform the functions of this office, but he needs to seek treatment for his anger issues. Changing this behavior is what's important. Teaching Ross how to appropriately deal with his anger is what will save his marriage and make him a better father to his child, not his getting off on a technicality.

I know misogyny is, to some extent, considered kosher in the radical-gay-men's community, so I'm not surprised at the comments from the usual wingnut posters here, but what about the women of the Bay Guardian? Are you seriously cool with this?

Now that does surprise me.

Posted by RamRod on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

There's the rub. The case hasn't even gone to trial, and y'all are so damned sure that you know all there is to know about what happened. Just because you heard it from the MSM (or was that the National Enquirer?). Do you really think it is cool to try someone in the press? I don't. I don't think dv is cool either, but I want to make damned sure that that's what this is really about before destroying a man's life (not to mention the lives of his wife and child). If RM is truly guilty -- and we won't know for sure until ALL the evidence has emerged in a court of law -- then and only then will I join you in demanding that he step down. INNOCENT until proven guilty. Like it or not, that's our American system of justice.

Posted by A Woman's Perspective on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

We know the wife had a bruise and we know that she said that Ross caused it and we know if he hasn't denied that.

We also know that he was abusive to at least one other girlfriend and that those who work with him say he has a "temper".

The probability that absolutely nothing went on is trivial. It quite simply would not have gone this far if that were true.

Ross may get off on a technicality. But the court of public opinion has already reached it's verdict.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

A bruise is a bruise is a bruise. I could dream up half a dozen "alternate explanations" without any trouble at all. But I won't....because I wasn't there, so I/ we simply don't know what occurred. So, this has to be our starting point~ a mind free of prejudice. Then let the facts emerge, as they will, in the trial of the case. That is the only way to obtain a just outcome in this case.

Incidentally, Ross M HAS denied the charges. He said that they are unfounded, and he can prove it. Well, we haven't heard his side of the story yet, have we? So, let's find out what that is before we leap to judgment. Anyone who is truly interested in justice must begin with an open mind.

Posted by A Woman's Perspective on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

You've misunderstood my post. I didn't say he should step down. I said that I think he is still capable of performing his duties as Sheriff, but that he needs help with his anger.

The only way he could possibly be innocent is if his wife made false accusations about him to their neighbor. If this is the case, then why doesn't she say so publicly? Ross losing his job would not destroy his life or the lives of his wife and child. But his tendency towards violence may very well lead to his destruction (as well as the destruction of his family) if it is allowed to go unchecked.

Posted by RamRod on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 4:48 am

The SF Weekly /snitch is now saying that Ross came home from the conference in Brazil to his apartment shared with a girlfriend...and immediately kicked her out of the house to install his new girlfriend (the Venezuelan telenovela star) who was already pregnant with little Theo.

Wow!
I can understand why the (now former) live-in girlfriend was pissed. But she had no right to go to the police TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT to dig up some dirt on Ross.

She would have done it immediately if he had really abused her. I think she is part of the anti-progressive SFPD racket to get Ross out of politics once and for all.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 23, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

But her coming forward now shows a PATTERN of abusive behaviour. It counts as further evidence.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 6:41 am

I hope so. If not, it sounds Orwellian... or something out of the Salem Witch Trials.

If she toes the line, she's telling the truth. If she doesn't, then she's in denial. There's no room in this universe for an accusation to be false, or for the accused to be innocent.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 8:59 am

we can reasonably claim to see a pattern evolving.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

What a silly comment casting aspersions against a woman you don't even know.... Most people don't run to the police every time they have an argument or someone scares them or shakes them, unless they are in fear it will happen again. She explained she was embarrassed to go at the time (probably because she was the ex wife of a Domestic violence investigator) and didn't want to go through the system over the incident back then. However, now in light of what is happening with his wife, she felt it her duty to report it. That is quite possible. Most grown ups do not run around trying to "get even" with people by making up police reports.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 10:28 am

According to a Jan 24th, 2012 story by Matier & Ross in the SF Chronicle, a new witness, an ex-girlfriend, has stepped forward, almost four years after the fact to claim that while Ross didn't beat her, he did yell at her. While she can't remember what happened she does remember once seeing a bruise on her arm. In the year they were together, there was only one physical incident whose details she still can't remember. Why she waited so long before stepping forward with an incident she can't quite remember? That alone is suspicious.

The enemies of Ross, some offended by his progressive politics, some by his severe criticisms of the SFPD when crime rose in his district and others upset because their candidate for Sheriff didn't win must be all searching high and low for additional "witnesses".

I believe that Ross needs help and encouragement, not criticism and condemnation. I agree that the stay away order, keeping Ross from visiting his little boy, even under supervision, until the end of the trial, victimizes his child.

For Ross to resign now is the same as admitting guilt. That would be a bad move for him and our city.

I continue to back Ross, I hope he can overcome these charges and move forward. He still remains the first progressive elected to a city wide office in the last three decades - a fact that the more conservative political forces in our city are very unhappy with. They can and will do everything they can to slam, slander and undermine him.

I will attend his trial to show support and continue to write in his defense.

David Elliott Lewis

Posted by David Elliott Lewis on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:07 am

I concur. The anti-progressives are circling the wagons. Their message: Don't ever get elected to city-wide office again.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Agnos, Terence Hallinan and Kamala Harris were progressives? Wasn't the last Sheriff Michael Hennessey considered a "progressive"? Maybe you could point to some conspiracy directed towards Hennessey by the establishment?

Why you have put so much energy into this all over the net is a mystery. That a progressive might actually have issues with self control is an impossibility, so there must be something more at work?

It's interesting how the rolls reverse here based on politics, you have now taken the Strom Thurmond position in relation to the Clarence Thomas hearings. A proud day for progressives.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 10:13 am

That is an extremely rose colored glasses review of what the new alleged VICTIM (not witness) has said of Ross.

Take a long look in the mirror Mr Lewis

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:30 am

is absolutely right. What subordinate would resist verbal abuse and fight back if he or she knew that he or she was risking his or her job and/or chance for advancement? Kudos to the person or people who finally spoke up to Kevin Shelley. And kudos to Ivory Madison. I'm sure she thought hard about whether or not to alert the police in this instance and soon enough came to the conclusion that NOT alerting the police would make her complicit in a pattern of abuse that was at worst illegal.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 9:50 am

Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of "GREG"

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Examples of GREG

"The Gregs who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves."

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 1:55 pm
??

Which Websters are you using, can't find that definition of 'GREG' online or in my doorstop. Though I did find this one:-
GREG (also GREGG), a shortened form of the male given name Gregory...The
name is of Celtic origin meaning - fierce.
FYI. I also found this definition of anonymous:-
3. lacking individuality, unique character, or distinction.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

Wow, a nurse defending a wife beater. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

Your comment above typifies the pathetic, spurious, hate-filled, twisted crap that you and your fellow bottom feeders regurgitate. At no time have I 'defended a wife beater', though given your demonstrated level of ignorance it wouldn't surprise me if your anger and hate didn't indicate a certain 'guilt by assosciation'.
I believe City College offers classes in remedial reading, writing and comprehension. Enroll and try to educate yourself.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

@Guest. It's "Herman" Cain you illiterate ignoramus.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 2:05 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 25, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

MAN > BERT.
Some typo.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 9:05 am

Sorta like the one you made when you signed a post "H"?

You know Patrick/H - you each write in entirely different styles so it's easy to identify who's using whose account. H's writing is more literal and is sprinkled with numerous references to all of the terribly important conversations he has with local politicians. While Patrick's are rambling and non-coherent as well as sprinkled liberally with insults.

You really must do a better job of masking that you're allowing your "handle" to be used by h. Brown there Patrick. The facade is so pathetic - you make it too easy.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Your ignorance, delusion and lack of cognition is laughable.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

It is so amusing to watch your 'pathetic' attempts to lay claim to insights as to 'who' is writing particular comments. You are wrong at least 50% of the time. I'm not saying that h is posting under my name, that would spoil the fun of knowing what a complete buffoon you are making of yourself.
My name is ******* and I approve of this.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

The other week I was having a conversation with Jane Kim, shortly after her overnight stay in a homeless shelter. She refused to comment on the controversy afflicting Ross (he and I are on a first-name basis as I am a member of the progressive intelligentsia, an incredible writer and a real "mover and shaker" in this town) but I sensed a deep unease with the hullabaloo surrounding our wayward former supervisor.

Shortly after I stopped by Buck's (I am now allowed on the understanding that I begin paying for my own drinks and stop harassing the other patrons) where the air is thick with discussion over the conspiracy (which many suspect was hatched at City Hall) which has ensnared Ross.

More to come!!!

Go Giants!!

Posted by h. Brownnose on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 5:22 pm

I look forward to hearing more about the unfolding conspiracy being hatched at Buck's Tavern. ;) Keep us posted!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

I am closely following the scent of many sources on this Ross thing and I have some very clear ideas on who's responsible. I'll report more later but right now I'll give you a hint: the Jews.

Posted by h. Brownnose on Jan. 29, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

All of this online debating on here isn't going to change that.

I don't want to comment on Ross directly as a person, or make character judgements on anyone else involved here.

But from a political perspective he's cooked. He will either be a Sheriff surrounded by constant scrutiny, zero political capital and no possible chance at reelection, or he will step down and head off into the sunset.

Either way, anybody thinking this man has a political future in SF is delusional.

Posted by Anonymous Guest Person on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

But of course he is more concerned with what is best for Ross.

Very sad. Such a waste. But yes, he's toast at this point.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

If progressives stand by him, he can beat this. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 24, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/1001/chius-path-to-the-board-pre...

Narcissistic personality disorder

Last reviewed: November 14, 2010.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.
Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

*

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
*

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
*

Have excessive feelings of self-importance
*

Exaggerate achievements and talents
*

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
*

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
*

Need constant attention and admiration
*

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy
*

Have obsessive self-interest
*

Pursue mainly selfish goals

Signs and tests

Like other personality disorders, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed based on a psychological evaluation and the history and severity of the symptoms.
Treatment

Psychotherapy (for example, talk therapy) may help the affected person relate to other people in a more positive and compassionate way.
Expectations (prognosis)

The outcome depends on the severity of the disorder.
Complications

*

Alcohol or other drug dependence
*

Relationship, work, and family problems

References

Posted by Guest on Jan. 26, 2012 @ 9:03 am

My friend who could care less about this, doesn't really follow local politics and therefore has no dog in this fight, made a brilliant observation while watching a news story on this case last night: Mirkarimi's wife is behind this. She's doing this on purpose - circumvented going to the police to press charges against him and had her friend start all of this. Think about it - why hasn't Mrs. Lopez said anything about the woman who reported Ross to police officials?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 27, 2012 @ 1:23 pm