Supervisors reinstate Mirkarimi, rejecting Lee's interpretation of official misconduct

Ross Mirkarimi, wife Eliana Lopez, and their son during a rally before the historic hearing.
Luke Thomas

The Board of Supervisors has voted to reinstate Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and reject the official misconduct charges that Mayor Ed Lee brought against Mirkarimi for grabbing and bruising his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument, for now ending an ugly saga that has polarized San Franciscans.

The vote was 7-4, two votes shy of the nine needing to sustain the charges and remove Mirkarimi, who now resumes the position voters elected him to in November with back pay going back to March when Lee suspended him. Sups. Christina Olague, David Campos, John Avalos, and Jane Kim voted in Mirkarimi’s favor, condemning the domestic violence incident but saying the it didn’t meet what is and should be a high and clear standard for overruling the will of voters, a concern also voiced by Sup. Mark Farrell. 

“I do take this job seriously, that we are public policy makers,” said Kim, a lawyer who emphasized their duty to set clear standards for officials during these unprecedented proceedings rather than being swayed by emotional responses to conduct by Mirkarimi that she called “incredibly egregious.”

But for most of the supervisors, that was enough. Sup. Eric Mar, who is in the middle of difficult reelection campaign against the more conservative and well-financed David Lee, said he thought is was important to have “zero tolerance” for domestic violence and his vote was “in the service of justice and a belief it will combat domestic violence.”

Earlier in the hearing, Kim had led the questioning of Deputy City Attorney Sherri Kaiser, whose broad interpretation of official misconduct standards and inability to set clear guidelines troubled Kim, just as it had earlier to Ethics Commission Chair Benedict Hur, the sole vote on that body against removal after it conducted six months worth of hearings.

“I agree with Chairman Hur, I think we need to take the most narrow view of official misconduct,” Kim said, echoing a point that had also been made by Campos, who quoted Hur’s comment from the Aug. 16 hearing where the commission voted 4-1 to recommend removal: “I have a lot of concern about where you draw the line if you don’t relate this to official duties.”

Farrell also shared that concern, which he raised in questioning Kaiser and during the final board deliberations almost seven grueling hours later. 

“I worry a great deal about the potential for abuse in this charter section,” Farrell said, warning this and future mayors to use great caution and restraint before bringing official misconduct charges. Yet he still found that the “totality of the circumstances” warranted removal because Mirkarimi had compromised his ability to be the top law enforcement officer.

Each supervisor expressed what a difficult and joyless decision this was, and even those who supported Mirkarimi strongly condemned his actions and the efforts by some of his supporters to minimize the seriousness of his actions and the need for him to change.

“I have tremendous mixed feelings about Ross Mirkarimi,” Avalos said, noting his many proud progressive accomplishments but adding, “I’ve always seen Ross as someone who has deep flaws….[This saga] offers a chance for personal transformation and I think that’s something Ross really needs to do.”

Mirkarimi seems humbled by the hearing, and the stinging criticism of his former colleagues and his one-time allies in the domestic violence community, and he pledged to work on “regaining their trust” as he tries to embody the city’s long-held value on redemption.

“I appreciate all the comments of by the Board of Supervisors and I hear the message. The next step is mending fences and moving forward,” Mirkarimi said. Later, he told reporters, “We’re absorbing all the comments that were made by the Board of Supervisors. They are my former colleagues and I take it very seriously.”

That need to heal the deep and emotional divide between San Franciscans who see this case in starkly different ways – which was on vivid display during the hours of public testimony – was sounded by several supervisors. “We will need to come together as a city on this,” Board President David Chiu said.

Most of those who spoke during the nearly four hours in public comments favored Mirkarimi and condemned the efforts to remove him as politically motivated, overly judgmental, and setting a dangerous precedent rather than resorting to usual method for removing politicians after a scandal: recall elections.

"If anything happens to the man, it should come back to me to make that decision. Don't do their dirty work for them," one commenter said.

The most politically significant person to speak during public comment was former Mayor Art Agnos, who said he was a friend and supporter of Mirkarimi, but he was more concerned with the scary implications of this decision. "I respectfully urge that this Board protect all elected officials from the dangerous discretion used in this case and reinstate Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi."

Most of those who spoke against Mirkarimi were domestic violence advocates, who were adamant that Mirkarimi be removed, casting it as a litmus test for whether the city takes their issue seriously. "This is a disciplinary proceeding, it is not election stealing," said Beverly Upton, head of the Domestic Violence Consortium, who has lead the campaign to oust Mirkarimi since the incident was made public.

But the two sides seemed to be speaking past one another, each expressing righteous indignation that people didn't see the issue like they did, indicating how polarizing these long-lingering proceedings have become and how difficult to heal that rift may be.

“It made my stomach turn to hear some of the comments that were made,” Sup. Carmen Chu said, condemning the actions of Mirkarimi supporters in vocally or visibly supporting one another. “That was wrong, this is not a joyous event.”

Yet Farrell said he was also concerned that Mirkarimi’s opponents would go after supervisors who made a principled stand against removing him. “I hope no one takes pot shots at the people who voted against this,” he said.

That principled stand – condemning Mirkarimi’s behavior but having a high standard for removing an elected official – was a trail blazed by Hur, who opened the hearing by presenting the Ethics Commission’s findings and a decision that he was the sole vote against. He noted the "challenge of my presentation" but made careful efforts to accurately represent the views of the commission majority.

Yet he ended up using almost half of his time at the podium -- his allotted 10 minutes plus a few extra minutes to respond to questions from supervisors -- to stress the danger of broadly interpreting the city's official misconduct language and not requiring direct connection to an official's duties.

"Public policy suggests we should interpret this more narrowly than proposed by the majority," Hur said, later adding that his colleagues on the commission "did not provide a clear basis for how official misconduct is delineated."

When Sup. Malia Cohen asked what he meant by the "public policy" interest at stake here, he replied, "The need to have policies that are clear...It does benefit the public when the laws are clear." (Cohen later voted to remove Mirkarimi, stating with little explanation, “I believe the reading of the charter is narrow and appropriately applied in this case.”)

The issue of what qualifies as official misconduct -- and whether there is a predictable way for officials to know where that line is drawn, or whether it's entirely up to the discretion of mayors -- was also highlighted by Kaiser’s long presentation, but probably not in the way she intended.

Kaiser appealed to people's sense of outrage about the initial arm-grab and subsequent guilty plea -- claiming Mirkarimi "attacked his wife" and "this conduct was serious!" -- and seemed to think that was an adequate test of whether bad behavior by an elected official warrants his unilateral removal from office.

Kaiser took issue with Hur's contention that a lack of clear, limiting standards gives too much power to future mayors to remove their political enemies for minor incidents.

"The mayor certainly does not agree with Hur's argument for a bright line rule," Kaiser said. She mocked the notion that mayors would abuse this expanded power. "The check on that is the Ethics Commission, and the check on that is this body." Kaiser's position was that the statute should be read as broadly as possible and that the process should be trusted to protect against political manipulations.

But Chiu also took issue with that standard, saying "having clarity in the law seems to make sense" and asking Kaiser how officials can know what standards they're expected to meet.

"I don't agree and I didn't mean to convey the standard is murky," Kaiser replied, but as she tried to elaborate, her standard began to seem ever murkier.

"It depends on the circumstance," Kaiser said. "But that doesn't make it too vague to apply. It makes it more nimble."

A nimble standard might suit mayors just fine, but the idea seemed to bother the supervisors, even Farrell, who told Kaiser that her position "seems to me very contradictory."

At the end of the hearing, Campos returned to Kaiser’s “nimble” comment as a reason for rejecting that argument and Lee’s charges: “I don’t think the analysis made me comfort. She said the interpretation was nimble, but I don’t know the difference between nimble and vague, and I think they are one in the same.”

"Most cases will be clear, but there are decisions on the periphery," Kaiser told Farrell during the earlier questioning, not making it clear which category she'd put the Mirkarimi case into.

Kim was the next to try to pin Kaiser down on whether there's a discernible standard for the city to apply to this and future cases, saying she'd like to see a "bright line rule or a test." Kaiser said that it depends on the office, but that a law enforcement officer shouldn't commit a crime.

"Then any misdemeanor the sheriff pleads to is official misconduct, is that right?" Kim asked.

No, she said, the conduct must be while someone is in office -- seemingly contradicting her earlier point – and found to be so by the board and commission. But then she said, "It is true that any misdemeanor relates to the duties of a sheriff."

Kim persisted: "This is where I get stuck. When does it fall below the standard of decency?"

"The charter doesn't answer that question. It's a case-by-case determination," Kaiser said.

"What's to guide us in the future?" Kim asked.

But again, there was no clear answer, it's simply for mayors to decide. "It is a discretionary decision," Kaiser said.

Kim, a lawyer, questioned whether the stance by Kaiser and Lee could lead the courts to strike down the city's untested statute. "Does that open us up to the vagueness issue, which would make the clause unconstitutional?" Kim asked.

But Kaiser said San Francisco voters wanted to give the mayor wide power to interpret misconduct when they approved the broad new official misconduct language in 1995, part of a complete overhaul of the City Charter.

"Voters made a considered choice to put suspend and remove procedures in the charter," she said, trying to counter the argument that recall elections should be used to remove elected officials. "These suspension and removal procedure is more nimble. It's less expensive than a recall."

Yet with a final price tag expected to be in the millions of dollars and proceedings lasting seven months, it’s debatable whether this process was really cheaper and more nimble.

Mirkarimi attorney David Waggoner began his presentation by saying, "There's no question that on Dec. 31, 2011, Ross Mirkarimi made a terrible mistake."

But it was a mistake that Mirkarimi admitted to, accepted the criminal punishment that followed his guilty plea, endured a forced six-month separation from his family, had his job and salary taken from him, was the target of a media and political campaigns that have deeply damaged his reputation, "his entire life's work was destroyed almost in an instant." All for pleading to a low-level misdemeanor.

"At the end of the day, the punishment does not fit the crime," Waggoner said.

He noted that just three elected officials have been removed for official misconduct in the city's history, each time for serious felonies. But now, it's being applied to a misdemeanor with arguments that broaden a mayor's ability to remove political adversaries.

"You must decide whether to uphold or overturn the will of the voters," Waggoner told the supervisors.

He even took a swipe at the domestic violence advocates who have led the campaign to remove Mirkarimi: "Ironically, the very advocates who should be defending Eliana Lopez have been attacking her."

Taking over from Waggoner, Mirkarimi's other attorney, Shepard Kopp, said Mirkarimi had no official duties before taking the oath of office, and the charter makes clear there needs to be connection. "It says misconduct has to occur while an official is in office."

Kopp also brought the focus back to the precedent in this historic case. "The other problem with the mayor's position is it doesn't give you any guidance or future mayors any guidance," Kopp said, later adding, "To follow the mayor's position is not workable policy and it doesn't have any support under the law."

Supervisors questioned Kopp and Waggoner, but it didn't seem to reveal any new insights, simply reinforcing their points that official misconduct should be a rarely used tool applied only to serious crimes.

In her final five-minute final rebuttal, rather than letting her co-counsel Peter Keith speak or trying to mitigate some of the damage from her earlier testimony, Kaiser seemed to double-down on her tactic of using emotional arguments rather than addressing legal standards for removal.

She alleged Mirkarimi's team offered "a theory that domestic violence doesn't matter if you're sheriff," prompting an audible negative reaction from the crowd that Chiu gaveled down. That reaction was even louder and more outraged when Kaiser implied Mirkarimi "threatens the life of a family member."

Those sorts of characterizations fed much of the crowd's stated belief that this case was a "political witchhunt" designed to destroy a progressive leader, and the opposition expressed to some domestic violence advocates testimony could be used against the larger progressive community.

But Agnos, who sat in the audience throughout the long hearing, told us the frustration was understandable. “The crowd, after nine months of agony, expressed a lot of emotions, and that is inherent in mass crowds,” he said. “They didn’t mean ill will to the domestic violence community. There was no malevolent intent there.”

Supervisors who voted to reinstate Mirkarimi said they want to make clear their commitment to combating domestic violence. “I worry that this case has set us back because of the tensions around how we responded,” Avalos said.

“I think it’s important that no matter how we feel about this that we come together as a city,” Campos said. “People on both sides have legitimate viewpoints on this issue.”


Progs are such Hypocrites. If Gavin Newsom had pulled a Ross you all would be having conniption fits.

Posted by Telegraph Hill on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:10 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:30 am

Newsom had drunken sexcapades with underlings including the wife of his "best friend," and gave Joanne Hayes-White a pass on what was truly domestic violence, drunkenly beaning her husband twice with a pint glass.

Rarely does history offer up such parallel examples.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:48 am

Thanks for the breakdown. But you need to correct one thing in this paragraph:

Taking over from Waggoner, Mirkarimi's other attorney, Shepard Kopp, said Lee had no official duties before taking the oath of office, and the charter makes clear there needs to be connection. "It says misconduct has to occur while an official is in office."

It should read: Taking over from Waggoner, Mirkarimi's other attorney, Shepard Kopp, said Mirkarimi had no official duties...

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:51 am

Thanks for the feedback and for noting that error, which I've now corrected. It was a long day and late night, but today is a new day.

Posted by steven on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:24 am

That's right, have fun beating on your loved ones, especially anyone with badges and guns and all you politicians let the a$$ kicking commence.
You don't have to worry bout a thing, cause you won't lose your job and in Avalos, Campos, Olague's and Kim's eyes Domestic Violence is uber progressive!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:01 am

But this was never about that, it was always about abuse of political power, any other outcome would have set a dangerous precedent. This law needs to be revisited and clarified to prevent any further such abuses.
Ben Hur was probably the only one to come out smelling like a rose in this bed of corruption.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:02 am

debts, and the left has aligned itself with the idea that DV doesn't matter.

A poisened chalice.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:12 am

DV matters, turning a car around and grabbing someone's arm are not DV.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:45 am committing an act of violence with his wife.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:56 am

There is reality and there is political reality, rarely do the twain collide.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:31 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:57 am

...when "progressive" pols lie, because it's all in the cause of the revolution.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:21 am

Now is the time for healing this ugly rift. Neither side occupies the moral high ground, neither the progressives who defended a flawed man who committed a terrible mistake, nor those whose judgmental sense of justice would only be satisfied with vengeance. This has brought the worst out in us, but I truly believe that we can become better people and a stronger community in its aftermath. Forgiveness, redemption, transcendance -- these are difficult and complicated concepts, yet the alternative is to continue the cycles of conflict that have fed this nasty episode. For me, that stops now, and I can only hope there are many of you out there willing to join me rather than remaining mired in this muck. Let's move forward.   

Posted by steven on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:18 am

And that you encourage your "followers" to do the same?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:32 am

Absolutely. I didn't agree with Lee's decision or approach, but I understand where he and his allies were coming from and I don't begrudge them their perspective. Hopefully, we can all come together to do something real -- rather than just something symbolic -- about the important issue of domestic violence. A good first step might be for the DV Consortium to talk to Eliana Lopez, and we're already discussing other steps that we might all take here at the Guardian.

Posted by steven on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

Let's burn the man - not the people.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:33 am

Had Ross been a conservative, you'd be calling for open rebellion and blood in the streets.

Posted by Ruth Bladder Ginsu on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:53 am

Well said, Steven. I know Ross will be getting together with his supporters, and that is to be expected after such a long ordeal. But wouldn't it be nice if we could get together with all sides of this issue and talk. I think both "sides" would have something to impart to the other, and in the process we would become stronger, more informed and more enlightened. Forgiveness, redemption, transcendence, and I'd add taking responsibility for right action...All big, human issues that had a lot to do with this case.
The people really came together for this. I'd love to see us capitalize on that power in ways that underscore our shared humanity for a change.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

all have a polite charming chat about reconciliation.

Until then, you are as guilty as anyone for your apologist stance for DV perps.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

"This is the fist mommy gets next, for losing all of daddy's money."

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:29 am

Ross knows Eliana, with her scheming and conniving, cost him hundreds of thousands in legal costs, all this grief, and his credibility.

One way or the other, he is going to make her pay for that

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

effectively plotting and conspiring with others behind his back to ruin his career and his bank balance.

One way or the other, he's going to make that little princess cry.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:02 am

If you live in the City you are now coughing up all that backpay. Really. Ask Mayor Ed.

Posted by Bob In Portland on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 10:02 am

Amazing how they will even use Gandhi's name as pejorative.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

It's simple sarcasm, Monk. Don't get your shawl in a twist.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:01 am

I believe you sat behind Cohen or Olague as she presented? Regardless - I always forget how sexy you are even though I loath your political opinions.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

Why thank you, Troll II. See, we're all getting along better already.

Posted by steven on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

Please, do you want make him lose his lunch? I hate to break to you, Troll II, but Steven's just not that into you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

I have to wonder whether the domestic violence groups that came out against Mirkarimi were pressured into doing so by the Mayor's office, which has control over a large portion of their funding.

I also wonder who wrote the scripts used by representatives of the domestic violence groups and their supporters. They all seemed to be professionally written.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

Eliana's op-eds. For someone who apparently had some language issues during her testimony, she certainly improved her English well enough to write some very eloquent essays.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

Possibly themselves, since they're in that world.

Anyway, whatever coordinated effort there was pales in comparison to the deluge of people the Mirkarimi team wheeled in.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

I have to wonder whether the domestic violence groups that came out against Mirkarimi were pressured into doing so by the Mayor's office, which has control over a large portion of their funding.

I also wonder who wrote the scripts used by representatives of the domestic violence groups and their supporters. They all seemed to be professionally written.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

Absolutely they had professional "dv" groups as their mouth pieces for this bullshit witch hunt. Who in their right mind would say that domestic violence is ok. The one i really am curious about is the bitch that set them up by taking the tape she recommended be made and turning it over to the media and police! I bet she worked herself out a sweet little political positioning deal for sure!!

Ed lee is so corrupt. He needs to be recalled if you ask me!

Posted by bluepearlgirl on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Very nicely summarized and with such a short deadline. The City government engages in abuses such as selective prosecutions and pursuit of administrative actions as a means of coersion and it is nice to see that the law, as clearly written, can prevail.

Posted by roflynn on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

This is AWESOME!! Thats what ED LEE gets for trying to purger himself on the stand. This was nothing more than a political witch hunt to rid SF of the last power position a progressive has. Ross has been an incredible city servant for the entire time he had been a sup. for my old neighborhood of 94117. This was one of the most egregious abuses of power (in the most blatant way!) i have seen in SF in the last 20 years. I am glat that the truth prevailed and Ross is able to FINALLY do the job that WE the voters of SF hired him to do. I have all the faith that he will do his job well.. as well as he did as a sup. for my old neighborhood 94117. Before you judge and disparage him, ask someone's opinion of him who he actually had represented for a long time. Every body loved Ross as a Sup. I hope he can put this behind him and take the job that WE the voters hired him to do!

BRAVO ROSS!! Failure to the real criminal... ED LEE!! That is what he gets for purging himself on the stand!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

Bravo Ross!!! Domestic Violence Abusers must unite.
We must fight Ed Lee and the bitter Domestic Violence Victims' Advocates to the bitter end!
All Domestic Violence is a private, family matter! People like Ivory must mind their own business!
Bravo Ross, you have been vindicated for abuse!
A Sheriff is a better Sheriff when ge has committed Domestic Biolence against his wife.
No other Sheriff can do the job like a Domestic Violence Abuser can!
Let us celebrate, sing on the streets
Loud and proud, Domestic Violence is a Private Matter!!!
Loud and proud, we won !!!
Domestic Violence Abusers unite, Ross will lead us, Unite!!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

We always knew you were seriously into S & M

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

Only Domestic Violence Abusers like our leader Ross can understand. He will unite us and give us the status we deserve.
Kudos to Eliana, a true supporter of Domestic Violence Abusers, victims need to learn from Eliana on how to support your Domestic Violence Abuser. She is the perfect Domestic Violence Victim that all Domestic Violence Abusers can be proud of!
Here, here for the Mirkarimis!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

"Private" is different from "Personal" as Ben Hur the distinguished attorney said "the wrongful conduct was not in the performance of the duties of office and RM was not "Official" the law cannot be changed to fit the mood of the moment whether that be FOR a "mob" or a movement used as a tool by a Political power group. This has "nothing"to do with DV because the REAL issue dealt with a Charter amendment approved by the voters if you dont like the way this turned out pass another Charter amendment this one doesnt apply (we are a nation that believes in the rule of law). The ignorance of the issue expressed by many a poster is immense...we need more education and less use of an emotional brain, angry, out of control fighing perhaps justly for past wrongs but in the wrong place..... Especially where these movements are then high jacked by a Political machine that uses these groups ignorant (hopefully) that they are being used to do the dirty work of the Syndicate

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

Victory!! Victory!! Cause to Celebrate!!
Domestic Violence Abusers Unite!!! We are victorious!!!
Violence at home stays at home!!
Celebrate the courageous Kim, the best friend Avalos, the other best friend Campos and the peer pressured Olague!!!
Celebrate these four Supervisors in elevating our status as Domestic Violence Abusers!!!
Thank you to the Progressives for embracing Domestic Violence and keeping all violence between couples private!!
Thank you to Eliana, the Domestic Violence Victim for standing for Domestic Violence and embracing your Domestic Violence Abuser husband!!!
Thank you for teaching your son that it is okay fir Daddy to abuse Mommy!!!
Celebrate !! Celebrate !! Celebrate !!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

HORRAY!! HORRAY!! finally a victory for the people and not big business or backroom dealers with our horrific mayor!

We love you Ross!

Posted by bluepearlgirl on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

Exactly bluepearlgirl or black and bluepearlgirl!!

Hooray, hooray, hooray!!
Domestic Violence will once again be only be behind closed doors!!
Ross will unite all Domestic Violence Abusers and their victims to live life privately without the scrutiny of Domestic Violence Victims Advocates trying to mess things up!
Justice has arrived with Ross and his message of Domestic Violence! San Francisco must rejoice for Ross is our Sheriff, Amen!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

of non profit anti dv groups who spend lots of money trying to destroy a family because of an arm grab instead of going after people who ask for their help, having been truly abused, beaten, hit, bloodied, etc. How about looking at the anti dv folks who were warned NOT to object to Kathy Black and Beverly Upton's enraged bowels over the arm grab? How about telling abused women to steer clear of Casa de los Madres..because that group will screw your life up without your permission..because they ALWAYS know your life better than you do. IF they destory your family, they'll say they were only trying to heeeelp you and pat you gently on the if to say, poor dear, we know what's better for you. You are just a poor pitiful woman.,who can't possibly know your own mind.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:27 am

in Bay Area publications have been members of local law enforcement who don't like Mirkarimi's progressive politics. Law enforcement officers as a group have double the rates of domestic violence. One of the attractions of a career in law enforcement is that many people seeking to be cops love to have the power of hurting others under the authority of law. It's always been this way. That's why the many cops who have suddenly gotten "religion" about domestic violence are really hypocrites. Rerun the film of the SFPD breaking up the Occupy camp and you'll see plenty of violence, and a lot of it against women.

Posted by Bob In Portland on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 12:51 pm

I hope your being sarcastic

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

an arm grab is sometimes just an arm grab.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:32 am

you just have to grab her arm harder if she doesn't listen.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Being halfway around the world and reading about the outcome the case of pathetic MIrikarimi, the result was truly shocking. The shameless Mirikarimi case should have never gotten this far. Showing no remorse for his reprehensible behavior, as a man and more importantly, as sheriff, is unconscionable.

There was no discussion needed. He just needed just to gracefully quit and leave San Francisco. The board of supervisors are culpable for letting this shameful bastard stay as our public servant. They have no shame. The result of this sham review sets a horrific precedent for others to get away with simiiar behavior.

Congratulations to those who stood up against the majority and fought to get rid of this civic embarrassment!

I feel a sense of sadness, 2000 miles away, that the city I grew up in no longer upholds the values it once held up with honor.

Posted by Roji Oyama on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

Thanks for staying in touch

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:35 pm