E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Beck Diefenbach / Reuters
San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi speaks to the media following a court appearance for his domestic abuse case at San Francisco County Courthouse on Monday.
San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was sentenced Monday to serve one day in jail after pleading guilty to one count of "false imprisonment" for a New Year’s Eve spat with his wife, Eliana Lopez, during which he bruised her arms.
Mirkarimi also received three months' probation and was ordered to take part in anger management counseling. A temporary stay-away order preventing him from contact with his wife and toddler son remains in place.
A plea deal that averted a domestic violence conviction was a deft maneuver that allowed the Mirkarimi to retain his gun, and thus be able to carry out his duties as sheriff. But if he is to continue in the post, he will first have to survive a political challenge.
"It would be a stretch for the San Francisco sheriff to oversee programs and impose sentences of domestic violence on inmates when he has been convicted under similar circumstances," said Kathy Black, executive director of Casa de Las Madres, a nonprofit that assists abuse victims. "I think it would be best for everybody if he would step down. If he’s not willing to do the right thing, then the mayor and board of supervisors must."
A majority of San Francisco residents agree, according to a CBS 5 poll conducted last week. Sixty-one percent of 400 people surveyed want Mirkarimi to leave office, with only 21 percent saying he should remain. Fifty-eight percent said city leaders should remove Mirkarimi if he does not step down voluntarily, according to the poll.
"There are no excuses and I accept full responsibility," said Mirkarimi, reading a statement to the media after the sentencing, The Associated Press reported. He "sincerely apologized" to his family, the Sheriff's Department and the people of San Francisco, it said.
He gave no sign that he was considering stepping down, saying that he would "work so much harder to regain your trust ... to be a better public servant."
Mirkarimi attempted to correct what he said was a misperception that he felt domestic violence was a "private matter," as he told the press early in the drama. He reiterated his advocacy against domestic violence while serving two-terms on the Board of Supervisors.
"I do not believe that domestic violence is a private matter," he said. "I have worked very hard for the anti-domestic violence community."
Some of his critics saw that statement as too little too late.
Casa de Las Madres, an advocacy group for victims of domestic abuse, raised money for a billboard campaign to reinforce their message that victims and witnesses of victims should not be afraid to come forward with evidence of domestic abuse — a message they felt was undermined by Mirkarimi’s earlier comments. One of those billboards, reads "Domestic violence is never a private matter" was positioned right across the street from the courthouse where Mirkarimi was expected to stand trial.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has said he's considering whether to attempt removing the sheriff from office, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Basically it comes down to the question of whether someone convicted of unlawfully imprisoning his wife should be the sheriff of San Francisco," said one source close to the talks, cited by the Chronicle, which reported that Lee has been consulting with City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Lee was expected to suspend Mirkarimi if he was found guilty of domestic violence and thus been barred from carrying a gun. But the plea bargain that emerged on Friday muddied the mayor’s legal options, the Chronicle reported.
An opinion column written by former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown laid out the politically awkward task for Mayor Lee and the city attorney. Attempting to oust the sheriff will make the Board of Supervisors, Mirkarimi’s longtime colleagues, the jury for the sheriff.
"On the other hand, if the mayor doesn’t pursue Mirkarimi’s removal, he and he alone will have to answer to critics as to why the sheriff was allowed to stay on after being convicted," Brown wrote.
But, he said, even if the mayor decides to hold off, Mirkarimi could face a recall effort in July.
"That's when recall petitions can begin circulating to recall the sheriff," he said. "And given the mood of the women in the anti-domestic violence network, I'd say a recall is inevitable."
Msnbc.com reporter Kari Huus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- 'Kratom' leaf making presence felt in US emergency rooms
- Mom: Trayvon was killed because of 'the color of his skin'
- Fuhgeddaboutit! NJ top state for fighting corruption
- Woman found dead with three kids was 'good mom'
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
The cop motto "Do as I say, not as I do!"
I am of the understanding that a Stay-away order is the same thing as a Restraining order. I am also of the understanding the the imposition of a TRO requires the surrender of all firearms.
Does anyone know whether that is correct?
Restraining orders in california state on them that you must sell or surrender your firearm to the local sheriff lol, he is the local sheriff haha.
"There are no excuses and I accept full responsibility," said Mirkarimi, reading a statement to the media after the sentencing, The Associated Press reported. He "sincerely apologized" to his family, the Sheriff's Department and the people of San Francisco, it said.....He accepts full responsibility?"I do not believe that domestic violence is a private matter," he said. "I have worked very hard for the anti-domestic violence community." I was not aware they determined victims of control freaks was considered a community.Alas if I were king detention would not serve due payment for his soul must be damned.What in the heck is our society coming to this man is obviously an out of control power mad freak yet the courts allow him to keep his gun.God willing I hope this waste of resources uses it on himself but i fear he will use it on others.When not if this man tales a life even if it is his own the people that allowed him to remain in his job are to blame.
Based on the shootings last fall that MSNBC covered Cali doesn't seem to be doing well at enforcing that.
Bla , bla , bla ....
That's the smartest thing you've ever said!
WOAH.... A guy is married to... a woman... IN SAN FRANCISCO??
The above line is prolly one of the dummer things sed on this webpage. Thumbs Up me...
If you're going to post stupidity, have the courtesy to spell it right. Better yet, smash your computer.
"There are no excuses and I accept full responsibility,"
after weeks of excuses and denying any responsibility whatsoever
so he'll be running for higher office pretty soon...
Since the DA has been put on notice, who will take responsibility when he guns down his wife and child?
Any other suspect would've been charged and convicted of domestic abuse but, because he is an officer of the law, he walks with something that doesn't violate the Lautenberg Amendment.
The use of a "stay-away order" is interesting because a restraining order for domestic abuse would result in the forfeiture of his firearms under Lautenberg as well.
Looks like the judicial system made every effort to ensure this guy has the opportunity to stay in law enforcement.
The judicial system and law enforcement are practically one in the same.
Law enforcement corrals them up and judicial throws away the key.
He isn't fit to carry a firearm, no matter what spin the DA puts on it, nor is he fit to be sheriff.
That's up to the D.A. what he is charged with. The citizens should make him explain himself why he let the sheriff off the hook with a lesser charge.
Why in the world are they letting this scumbag keep his gun and office? he's a wife abuser. We never know what he might do next. Heck, he might go on an anger rampage with that gun and kill his wife and son or shoot a guy that he is trying to arrest just because. I do hope the men and women in charge get together and collectively boot him so hard out of office their collective foot goes so far up the sun can't ever shine there.
he got in a fight with his wife and grabbed her arms for a moment? Goodness, if you can draw the conclusion that he is a "wife abuser" and a "scumbag" just because of that, you're very telepathic. Most marraiges have some nasty fights a few times or other. Most women get away with slapping their men and the men are just too proud to report it, or better said, society prefers to consider abuse only when a man hits a woman, not when a woman hits a man.
The judge heard all the evidence, unlike us......and only gave the guy 1 day in jail. I guess that answers your question on how serious the "abuse" was.
Based on that, most of us men (and women too for that matter) should have spent a day in jail a long time ago! LOL
Ike...he left bruises on her arms. Unless she has some medical condition or is taking a medication that makes her bruise easily, it's rather difficult to leave a bruise if you grab someone gently.
It's not he beat her up! He jusy slapped her around to get her attention!You know how women can be!UppittyThey should make him carry a water gun instead of a real one!
"I accept full responsibility"Really?Then why did you not plead guilty?Why in the hell are you still occupying you post with a right to be armed ? Accepting responsibility must be a far different thing in his world than mine. Dude you held your partner against her will and are guilty of battery if not assault.This peice of human waste is attempting to keep his job regardless if he is human waste if he is allowed to do so those that look the other way are accomplices.
Another example of political corruption and cops protecting their own. Will it ever stop? nope it will just get worse until our society collapses and another reset takes place.
Of course cops will protect their own. Heck, if I were a cop I would expect the same from my fellow officers. Yes, I know that sounds crazy but you have to understand that these people work as a TEAM to keep citizens safe. It's really the teamwork that makes a strong enforcement group. It's extremely rare for cops to turn on each other and not protect them even if they know they may have done wrong. And do you really think corruption is getting worse? I can tell you that corruption today is minuscule when compared to that of 30, 40 and 50+ years ago but ONLY because it's that much easier to get caught in today's society than it was decades ago. There will always be corruption anytime people work together as a team. It's inevitable people. Get over it!
You took an oath and you more than broke it. Step down.
Quilty. baliff, Take Mr. Li@!$%#sky
WHAT ????????????
A cop in San Fran with a GUN?
Thought local ordnance dictates only pepper spray condoms as a defensive mechanism...
A pretty pathetic attempt at sick humor.
@ disguted conservative,
Goddamn thats funny! Not too politically correct, but funny!!!! Not that I agree with it, but I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard when I read that. And all you other people, don't give me any of those donut and coffee jokes.
easily amused
@ dave-sunny so. cal,
Yes, you are correct. I get tired of the gloom and doom all the time. I try to find humor in whatever I can. Lighten up some. You might enjoy life a little better. People are toohung up on trying to be rigidly correct in their speech that they have forgotten how to live. It is only words. If it hurts your feelings so much that it causes you sleep at night, I suggest you take some sandpaper and toughen up your skin. If what people say about you is true, than deal with. It's the truth. If it's lies, then don't sweat it. They are too ignorant to know better, so what they say doesn't matter.
What "disgusted conservative" said was obviously not the truth, but still humorous as long as you don't have rigid political stick up your ass.
I am not really "anti-police" but I am "anti-police who think they are above the law". But more-so I am anti-gun laws that prevent gun ownership if a person has been arrested for "domestic violence", the charge is not a felony and the law was sneaked into law with the Brady Bill which was one of those crusades some people go on after an event that gets a hell of a lot of attention and all of the "followers" jump on the band wagon and "demand change" and we end up with UN-Constitutional laws going in to effect. As a matter of fact, I am also against the laws that say a person convicted of a Non-violent felony can't vote or own a firearm for life even though that person has paid his or her debt to society by completing their sentence and re-entered society and maintained a productive lifestyle for an extended period. What that (lifelong voting and firearms ban) equates to is a "life-sentence" effectively for a crime that was NEVER intended to carry a life long sentence. It really tells the FORMER offender that they are not a citizen any longer, that although they pay taxes, they have no say in our form of government, which basically tells the former offender that no matter how hard you work to be a good citizen and no matter how hard you have worked to build a better life for yourself and your family that you are ALWAYS going to be viewed as a CRIMINAL in the eyes of society and by the police which has implications that in and of itself are frightening. In this case the Sheriff had a friend in the prosecutor's office that allow the reduced plea agreement to go forward, which is obvious "misconduct" on the part of the States Attorney's office. The fact that their are various levels at which the laws are applied to offenders is another indication that our system of government and justice have been corrupted and are in dire need of overhaul and oversight. In other words the "System" has become a really bad joke.
Daniel, this is the obvious balanced reply to this situation where a woman screams foul and everyone jumps to ostracize the man without paying any attention to the actual situation..the guy isn't a wife beater, they just got in a fight once and he grabbed his wife's arms, wow big deal.........Most marriages have a slap or something here or there.....Women think it is OK to slap their men but if a man does the EXACT same thing it's criminal, there is already too much discimination against the men in these situations.
Other than obvious, serious abuse.........husband/wife fighting where she slaps him or he slaps her, it IS a private matter. common sense came out of his mouth, then he had to retract it. no don't retract it, it's whatever 50% of the rest of us are thinking anyway!
Sounds like you've been a fly on their wall. How do you know with such certainty this was a one-time event? How do you know that the violence hasn't been escalating? I've been married over 17 years and my husband has never laid one finger on me in anger. Or I him. Violence of any type should never be tolerated.
No way, no job, no gun, no severance pay...and he better say a big thank you for no jail or prison time too.
Give him a raise in pay, and let him carry two bb guns, or rifles with pop corks.
Cute lil CheeWaaWaa. (tickles the underside of your chin)
All husbands and wives fight with each other. Many, many, MANY couples get to the point at least a few times during their marriage where there is a slap, a small shove or a small hit on the arm or something.
In fact, the prevailing view (if you are to believe the slapstick 'comedy' shows on TV and pretty much all of hollywood's view of things, which people accept, agree to and laugh at) is that it is OK for a woman to "slap" a man's face if she is hurt or offended at something. However, see a man do an equally physical strike to a woman and she calls the police.
You can't read my preceeding paragraph as an honest person and then tell me that is correct / OK / moral / equal, fair or anything else.
I'm all for women not being abused, but as a society we have swung the pendelum (as we usually do), WAY too far in a certain direction.
the idea that a woman can slap a man's face as part of a dramatic outburst for something that hurts her feelings........But yet if a man, a respected sheriff, grabs his wife's arms for a few seconds (literally) and restrains her.......That man is suddenly "an abuser", a "criminal", etc.........is just patently absurd.
@ ike,
I have been married for 23 years, having met my wife while stationed in Germany. I have never had the need, or want to physically hurt her. The vows I took on the altar said to love, honor, and cherish. NOT to beat, kick, slap, or otherwise abuse because we don't see eye to eye on everything. This I have tried to instill in my three daughters. If a man feels the need to hit you, then he doesn't care for you. I have also spoken these words to every boyfriend that they have had. If I ever find out you physically hurt my daughter, PRISON AND JOB BE DAMNED!!, I'll bury you in the hills of North Texas. Any man whom is such a bully that he must feel the need to strike a woman is not fit to remain in society. I am 6'3" 237lbs., my wife is 5'7" 132lbs. I just can't see me ever needing to hurt her. And God help any man who does. He may forgive, I won't.
everything you said sounded very loyal and north-texas-y of you. you did a great job in the ridiculous prose you wrote. Old henry at the feedstore will be very proud of you. "north texas", barf...
you failed to answer my question. you may believe in a weird type of in-equality where a woman can slap a man and society considers it funny, but if a man touches a woman he/she is a criminal. If you do, you're a coward yourself who doens't have the intellectual courage to intelligently discuss the difficult subjects. You're the type who solves everything with your north texas brawl and your north texas gun. stupid stupid...
if you really believed in equality for all (and if you don't - I suggest getting the hell out of texas, they won't like you much there!) - then yo uwouldn't believe it is OK for women to abuse men, but men not to abuse women.
neither should abuse each other, period. but poeple who go around crying abuse everytime someone touches them simply aren't fit for society in my opinion. just like emotional sensitivity, if you have it--ya ain't going to get very far in your career or corporate culture when it's time to get a job.
If she has bruises, she was abused.
People who think that this is not abuse are probably abusive themselves or in denial and in a abusive relationship.
Or think that they are above women!
"Bruised her arms"?
Boo Hoo... wtf is going on in the world today?
In the good ol days when your wife was being a b*tch you dealt with her and she understood why... nobody came and arrested you, nobody said step down from your job, no bleeding heart save the world types jumped on your &ss
You used to be able to punish your kids when they were being lil pricks, now days you'd get arrested for spanking them... but when they really get in trouble and end up in jail, it's the parents fault for not disciplining them
The new world order sucks... thanks for playing!
@ buckyg
" you dealt with her and she understood why"?
Well, I think everyone on this board knows what kind of person you are. Give it time and your picture will be on Wikipedia under the caption, " Bully abuser whom is such a slack jawed loser that he has to hit women ". That will be your legacy in life. God help any woman who feels she must stay with you instead of looking for a real man.
Maybe you should read Suzannes sentence above your post.
Wow....just WOW!
a big deal about nothing.
Domestic Violence Fraud is a huge business nowadays. His wife didnt think she was being abused, she wasnt being abused. Dont believe the spin the feminist media is putting on this. The sheriff is being railroaded illegally and hes not doing us any favors by caving in to the liberals.
"His wife didn't think she was being abused" !!??
How do you know, did you ask her?
If she didn't think she was being abused why did she get a court order to keep him away from her and their son?
And how is he "caving in to the liberals"? What the f does that even mean?
"the Feminist media" !? You mean Rush Limpdick and Billy OhReally? Grow up.
So I see SF is leading the way with the zero tolerance for domestic abuse.
well done. we all know when people make mistakes, there is no turning back.. they are forever, and ever damned by the events they took place in, and doomed to never ever be able to get past it.
Domestic abuse is a crime one can never ever be able to get over, or get past.. in fact why not make domestic abuse a instant death row crime. no matter one might apologize, since one can never ever ever never get past it, the true and right thing to do would be to jail these people for life, or simply end that life right now.. since as everyone knows..
Domestic abuse is not only wrong, but it is a crime one can never ever get past. ever never.
of course this only applies to males.. SF has shown us that females are utterly incapable of any crimes what so ever. oh that and gay men. totally innocent.. in fact the only real criminals left in California are white males.. they are all guilty of something.
Give him a break man, this is S.F. they give criminals more rights than the common man on a daily basis.
There was a time when someone who assaulted another person would get more than one day in jail but then that would be someone who is not in law enforcement and not white in SF or Marin or Oakland . Recall this Sheriff and do it quickly before he uses force on someone else. There is no excuse for Domestic Violence and there is also no excuse for the slap on the wrist this guy got.
maybe he should take the clue and use the gun.
I live in San Francisco and I can guarantee you that this guy is a class A loser. No man should ever lay hand on their wife or any other person. Not to mention that he threatened his wife and mentioned that he was a very powerful person. You can't tell me this guy is not a scumbag.
Who cares. He grabbed his wife's arm and their looking for the death penalty.
I care, and 1 day in jail ain't exactly the death penalty, is it?
No matter how we each personally feel about domestic violence and what does or does not constitute domestic violence. The law is clear on the subject, regardless of how fair you or I think it is. If there are marks or bruises, you going to jail, and the police won't bother to talk opinion. They will tell you its out of their hands, bruises mean domestic violence. Even if it turns out that the bruises came from a gorilla escaped from the zoo, an arrest would be made, charges filed, and only then would the investigation begin. I worked with a guy who was charged in the fashion, he was never arrested in the matter, but was served court papers. He had to go to the police station and turn himself in to be booked on the charge. In the investigation, the alleged victim neglected to mention there were four witnesses to the whole scenario. My coworker was at a party with his girlfriend (the alleged victim), who started two fights on separate occasions within a half hour (physical altercations with other women at the party). Since there was no witnesses to my coworker assaulting his girlfriend, but ample accounts of her attacking other people, not to mention that the girlfriend did not have any visible signs of injury, the case was dismissed.
Unfortunately for my coworker, the original charge filed (domestic assault), has been left on his record, even though the case was dismissed. This happens all across the country and it means that you can have charges you were never convicted of placed on your record for the whole world,(including prospective employers), to see. He has been to talk to a lawyer about having the charge expunged to remove this from his record, and the lawyer cheerfully assured him it can be expunged - but he will have to pay for an estimated 60 hours of legal fees at the going rate.
The primary point I wanted to make was that if all that can be done to someone who has four witnesses to clear them, shouldn't it happen to a sheriff that has no witnesses? His own department of law enforcement would toss you or I into the can and not even blink for the mere presence of a bruise. People have been charged over a broken remote control as the only alleged evidence of a violent act. The courts do not care in the least bit if they ruin someone's career over merely being accused of a crime. The city altering the charge to allow him to keep his job simply because it would ruin his career is absolutely shameful. How is one man's career more important than another's?
Regardless of how each of us feel about domestic violence and what we think the law ought to be, I say that the law should be enforced equally. The law that governs one man should govern all men (and women), I mean aqual justice for ALL.
Minneapolis Man,
Unfortunately that story you told, or something like it, happens all too often. All it takes is for the woman to make an accusation and it's all over for the man. You can have witnesses and proof and have your case kicked out but the damage is done. You have had your name dragged through the dirt, spent tens of thousands of dollars, (not easy for average Joe to come up with) probably lost your job, and you'll always have the stigma attached to you. No wonder we always hear of somy guy going "crazy" at a courthouse.