PDA

View Full Version : Will Mirkarimi be able to keep his 2nd And. rights?


Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 9:53 AM
Ross Mirkarimi just pled to misdemeanor false imprisonment for his DV incident on Jan. 1, 2012. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BANT1NJH74.DTL&tsp=1 Will he be able to keep his 2nd amendment rights?

BigDogatPlay
03-12-2012, 9:55 AM
If it's not a specifically cited misdemeanor DV crime, then yes, his 2A and his ability to carry a firearm as a peace officer would not be affected. I note that the linked article indicates a three year term of probation. I would expect such a term to very often have not to own or possess firearms terms associated, but I'd guess that they will not.

Falconis
03-12-2012, 9:57 AM
Shouldn't be able to since it's classified as a DV incident. Not sure though.

Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 9:57 AM
That's what I was afraid of.

BigDogatPlay
03-12-2012, 10:03 AM
The DV charge was dismissed outright. An arrest on a DV charge /= a conviction. Once the RO is vacated he is no longer a prohibited person, IMO.

125 comments on the SFGate story already.

CrazyPhuD
03-12-2012, 10:12 AM
Nope he should be banned for life.....

Per ATF....

www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-3310-3.pdf

False imprisonment should qualify under use of or attempted use of force. I don't believe it would have to be called officially 'domestic violence'.

Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 10:23 AM
It will be interesting to see his terms of probation.

SanPedroShooter
03-12-2012, 10:30 AM
Isnt the fact that he commited this crime on his 'domestic partner' qualify him under laughtenburg? Or am I thinking of state DV laws?

Full Clip
03-12-2012, 10:31 AM
I hope so, as the irony would be perfect.

Eargasm
03-12-2012, 10:38 AM
From the article:

The amendment to the charges means that Mirkarimi can get back his firearms, which he had to turn in to authorities because of the pending domestic violence charge.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 10:39 AM
This will make him a prohibited person for life by federal law if the crime had as an element the use of force or attempted use of force. What's more, federal law prohibits felons from even having armed employees. He only plead to a misdemeanor instead of a felony and I don't know if the prohibition on armed employees applies to all prohibited persons or just felons. If he realizes he can't be sherrif, they may let him withdraw his plea or give him a pardon or something.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 10:39 AM
Nope he should be banned for life.....

Per ATF....

www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-3310-3.pdf

False imprisonment should qualify under use of or attempted use of force. I don't believe it would have to be called officially 'domestic violence'.

That's what it sounds like from my reading of that document. Any misdemeanor that includes use of force or threat of force against a spouse counts as DV, even if the word "DV" doesn't appear explicitly. Clearly she was / is his spouse and false imprisonment is use of force. He plead guilty and there is no way that can be undone, short of a pardon (?) so I think he will be lifetime-prohibited.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 10:53 AM
His prohibition will prohibit his deputies from carrying guns on the job if there was an element of force or threat of force in his conviction. A felony is not required to prohibit employing armed persons. Furthermore, it appears that if he has been acting as Sherrif while under the restraining order, then he and his deputies have been committing an offense. Scroll down to section (g) and (h) here for the federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(h):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

gobler
03-12-2012, 11:06 AM
Silly folks. You have to remember, he is one of the untouchables above the law boys in blue... He will get his guns back, he will continue as sheriff and this will all be swept under the rug..

/sarcasm


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

Gray Peterson
03-12-2012, 11:13 AM
His prohibition will prohibit his deputies from carrying guns on the job if there was an element of force or threat of force in his conviction. A felony is not required to prohibit employing armed persons. Furthermore, it appears that if he has been acting as Sherrif while under the restraining order, then he and his deputies have been committing an offense. Scroll down to section (g) and (h) here for the federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(h):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

What good is that if the US Attorney for the Northern California District refuses to prosecute?

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 11:17 AM
18 U.S.C. 922(h) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that
individual's knowledge and while being employed for any person
described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in
the course of such employment -
(1) to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition...

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to
participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or
threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that
would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily
injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence,



Case law holds that the crime need not be labeled "domestic violence" but need only have force or threat of force as an element, and that must have been against a person who was a domestic relation. I can't imagine how you could falsely imprison somebody without force or the threat of force.

He may be able to claim that the deputies are not employed for him, but rather for the county. That seems a pretty weak defense though since he directs them and has the authority to hire and fire them. This law was made for Al Capone types. If Al Capone could get around this law by just having his body guard thugs employed by some security corporation he didn't officially own, then the law would be ineffective.

Gray Peterson wrote:
What good is that if the US Attorney for the Northern California District refuses to prosecute?
Not much I guess. Though maybe he or his deputies could be subject to arrest or prosecution if they left the Northern District of California.

CrazyPhuD
03-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Case law holds that the crime need not be labeled "domestic violence" but need only have force or threat of force as an element, and that must have been against a person who was a domestic relation. I can't imagine how you could falsely imprison somebody without force or the threat of force.

He may be able to claim that the deputies are not employed for him, but rather for the county. That seems a pretty weak defense though since he directs them and has the authority to hire and fire them. This law was made for Al Capone types. If Al Capone could get around this law by just having his body guard thugs employed by some security corporation he didn't officially own, then the law would be ineffective.

Gray Peterson wrote:

Not much I guess. Though maybe he or his deputies could be subject to arrest or prosecution if they left the Northern District of California.

Well for most employees their direct manager has the authority to hire or fire them but that does not make the manager the employer. Pretty sure it's near 100% safe that there is no issue for the deputies. As per the law being ineffective, that is the definition of a law. They have always been and always will be trivially easy to get around if you have money and/or talent. Take capone in point, there is a reason he was convicted of tax evasion instead of any of the 'real' crimes he committed.

Squid
03-12-2012, 11:45 AM
Politically, he is all about costly and useless loony liberal posturing.

Given that at least one other ex came forward to accuse him of smacking her around, and his wife 'only wanted to make the tape for up-coming custody fight' I'd say his guy has a better than average chance of going Dan White on somebody, especially when mayor and board of supes convenes to pull his ticket.

supersonic
03-12-2012, 11:51 AM
That's what it sounds like from my reading of that document. Any misdemeanor that includes use of force or threat of force against a spouse counts as DV, even if the word "DV" doesn't appear explicitly. Clearly she was / is his spouse and false imprisonment is use of force. He plead guilty and there is no way that can be undone, short of a pardon (?) so I think he will be lifetime-prohibited.

Boy, do I hope you are right. However, I have very little faith in the justice system (ESPECIALLY when it comes to "covering their own" being they are of a higher-class in society than we are). Like I said before "10-13 ONLY!!! 10-13 ONLY!!!"...<and that truly means something. Anyone with LE in their family knows exactly what I am talking about.;)

He will get a slap on the wrist, MAYBE a desk job as an executive LEO (unless he is actually reinstated, doubtfully), and all his 2ndA rights will be restored. Mark my word(s).

However, I do hope to God I am wrong.....but I just don't think so. I.....just.....don't.

These LEO's that commit violence against others should be made an extreme example of. I'm talking stockade in front of City Hall; Tarring & Feathering; <things too disgusting to mention here>; and a host of other embarrassing and degrading punishment that will make him a laughing stock for many, many years. There is NOTHING quite as despicable as a bully. And DV violators are just that: BULLIES. Worse yet, a male BULLY of women. (I wish there was a smiley for a guy spitting on the ground in disgust, but oh well:mad:)

Posters should be plastered ALL over the S.F. Peninsula and city like this:

"Ross (The 'BOSS') Beatyermami For Sheriff Reinstatement!!! Ross ('The BOSS') Beatyermami For Sheriff Reinstatement!!!"

Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 11:56 AM
Boy, do I hope you are right. However, I have very little faith in the justice system (ESPECIALLY when it comes to "covering their own" being they are of a higher-class in society than we are). Like I said before "10-13 ONLY!!! 10-13 ONLY!!!"...<and that truly means something. Anyone with LE in their family knows exactly what I am talking about.;)

He will get a slap on the wrist, MAYBE a desk job as an executive LEO (unless he is actually reinstated, doubtfully), and all his 2ndA rights will be restored. Mark my word(s).

However, I do hope to God I am wrong.....but I just don't think so. I.....just.....don't.

These LEO's that commit violence against others should be made an extreme example of. I'm talking stockade in front of City Hall; Tarring & Feathering; <things too disgusting to mention here>; and a host of other embarrassing and degrading punishment that will make him a laughing stock for many, many years. There is NOTHING quite as despicable as a bully. And DV violators are just that: BULLIES. Worse yet, a male BULLY of women. (I wish there was a smiley for a guy spitting on the ground in disgust, but oh well:mad:)


What does 10-13 mean? I'm a current cop and I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, you are off your rocker if you think cops get a pass on DV prosecutions. In fact, my experience is 180 degrees opposite of yours. Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

As to the tarring and feathering, sorry, as everyone on here reminds me, LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

I can't stand Mirkarimi and hope he resigns or is recalled, but your comments seem rather unhinged.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 12:03 PM
California penal code seems to have an extremely short definition of false imprisonment:

236. False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal
liberty of another.

That's all apparently. I don't see an element of use of force in there. For example you could just lock the door to a room somebody had entered voluntarily. I'm not sure locking the door would be considered a use of force. Though from a physics perspective perhaps it could be said that the walls and locked door exerts a force on the person trying to leave. On the other hand this lawyer site http://www.shouselaw.com/false_imprisonment.html says "Force is an element of both misdemeanor and felony false imprisonment...."

I also doubt my Al Capone's body guard analogy above, because while Capone's body guards are employed "for" Capone's benefit, the deputies are employed "for" the benefit of the county and not "for" the benefit of the Sheriff at all, or at least no more than for any other citizen.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 12:05 PM
Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

That would not surprise me at all. My feeling is that DAs like to go for some kind of "payoff" in terms of consequences to the person. Busting a drug dealer for dealing drugs... eh, doesn't change his life much. Busting a cop for DV... destroys his career. Which is more rewarding?

supersonic
03-12-2012, 12:09 PM
What does 10-13 mean? I'm a current cop and I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, you are off your rocker if you think cops get a pass on DV prosecutions. In fact, my experience is 180 degrees opposite of yours. Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

As to the tarring and feathering, sorry, as everyone on here reminds me, LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

I can't stand Mirkarimi and hope he resigns or is recalled, but your comments seem rather unhinged.

Yeah, maybe you are right. And I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. Most cops ARE good dudes. I am friends with quite a few, in fact. But maybe I am unhinged. But I've just seen too many LEO's get off on charges that would have put a civilian away for 25 to life. Obviously, I can get "passionate" in some of my posts about these things. But let's just wait and see what the outcome is. We will "agree to disagree" until then, ok? Until then, if one doesn't agree with my post above, just take some of the comedy out of it. Sorry, I just think there are few things lower than hypocrite bullies.

Oh, and "10-13 only" (I may have a digit off here) essentially means "Cop talk only...Secret club s***.....cover for your partner......nobody (not even FAMILY is to know what we are discussing...etc...etc..." It (10-13) comes from the radio code (I'm sure, being a cop, you know what the 10-13 code is, yes?):)

LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

If you truly believe that, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Well, maybe I should rephrase that. Cops are NOT civilians. In fact, they openly (and everyday) refer to anyone that isn't 'one of them' a "civilian." And as far as the last part, you are correct! They are entitled to the same rights as civilians are. But reverse that, and the same just ain't true at all. :cool:

And maybe you are also correct on the DV status. We will find out in the outcome of this case. But justifiable homicide by 2 cops that gun down a kid with countless rounds at a Home Depot would be easily be ruled as Murder if it happened to be a "civilian" protecting his own life in which he thought was in danger. LEO's don't have to go through losing their families, freedom, friends, home, income, etc, etc, etc, for doing the exact same thing a civilian would do to defend his/her life, unless there is absolutely ZERO doubt it was in cold blood. With a "civilian," even the type of ammunition, or gun, or BODY WEIGHT DIFFERENCE!!!** or "interpretation" by the jury whether or not one really "was in fear of his/her life" could kill ya.

**when is the last time anyone has heard that a police-related shooting was ruled unjustifiable due to the fact that the officer outweighed the "perp" by 100 lbs.? Never, as far as I know. Anyway, I am not trying to cop=bash here, but I think our justice system SUCKS on ice.

:rant:

VW*Mike
03-12-2012, 12:22 PM
The guy screwed up. He was found guilty of a crime, not being a lawyer, I would assume most of us could reach with a plea bargain. Wether he gets his job back, or can have his 2A rights will be seen at some point. Judges, as we know, don't always do the right thing. I have a friend on probation for a drug charge and has a major drinking problem that got a DUI while on probation. Did 30 or so days on a violation, judge lets her out, but says she has to stay away from any place that sells or serves alcohol, except a grocery store. He did allow her to go back to work though, which was nice since she is a bartender....... with a drinking problem. Genius.

cacop
03-12-2012, 12:22 PM
California penal code seems to have an extremely short definition of false imprisonment:



That's all apparently. I don't see an element of use of force in there. For example you could just lock the door to a room somebody had entered voluntarily. I'm not sure locking the door would be considered a use of force. Though from a physics perspective perhaps it could be said that the walls and locked door exerts a force on the person trying to leave. On the other hand this lawyer site http://www.shouselaw.com/false_imprisonment.html says "Force is an element of both misdemeanor and felony false imprisonment...."

I also doubt my Al Capone's body guard analogy above, because while Capone's body guards are employed "for" Capone's benefit, the deputies are employed "for" the benefit of the county and not "for" the benefit of the Sheriff at all, or at least no more than for any other citizen.

236PC Felony is using force or menace or fraud to deprive someone of their liberty.

236PC Misdemeanor is merely depriving someone of their liberty.

It is actually pretty rare to charge someone with misdemeanor 236. Mostly because most people are grabbing onto people they shouldn't be grabbing onto. For misdemeanor it ususally more like you stand in the way of someone or lock a door and hold the key.

Deals are done by DA for DV cases all the time. They secretly hate them because juries do not convict. The penalties are very extreme and juries do not like he said/she said cases. From what I understand of this case she recanted DAs usually drop these outright, at least in my county. I have only seen them go after a recanted DV once and it went to trial. IT involved a parolee coming up from his county to ours. The DA wanted to send a message, "Stay out of our county."

It kind of sucks taking DV cases because you have to do a lot of work only to know that it will go nowhere. Just to go to the call and make an arrest and write up the report it will take me 3-5 hours of work. Only for the DA to drop it in 5 minutes.

cacop
03-12-2012, 12:23 PM
I will note it does look like the Feds say he can't have firearms but the SF DA seems to think he can. It is one of the many wonders of this state. I have seen suspects get sent to jail on misdemeanor rape charges. There is not such thing as misdemeanor rape yet I saw it happen.

BigDogatPlay
03-12-2012, 12:41 PM
Case law holds that the crime need not be labeled "domestic violence" but need only have force or threat of force as an element, and that must have been against a person who was a domestic relation. I can't imagine how you could falsely imprison somebody without force or the threat of force.

PC 236 is the false imprisonment statute. From this link, we find the following and the emphasis is mine:

In order to convict you of misdemeanor false imprisonment, the prosecutor must prove the following facts (otherwise known as "elements" of the crime):

that you intentionally restrained, confined, or detained another person, compelling him/her to stay or go somewhere, and


that the other person did not consent.


In order to convict you of felony false imprisonment, the prosecutor must additionally prove that you accomplished the restraint, confinement, or detention by means of

violence,


menace,


fraud, or


deceit.

Because violence or menace are not in the elements of a misdemeanor crime in violation of PC236, I believe that a Lautenberg prohibition is not triggered. When the overlying crime of domestic violence was dismissed based on a plea to the lesser offense the elements of which specifically exclude violence or menace, trying to infer that gets it back to a domestic violence conviction under the terms of Lautenberg is something of a bootstrap I think.

Much as I may not like it, I think the sheriff is free to retain his firearms and carry them under his authority as a peace officer just as soon as the RO is vacated and the associated CADoJ computer record of him as a person under terms of an order is cleared.

Now it comes down to the terms of his probation, but given what's gone on I am fairly certain that there will not be a no weapons term. I'm also better he won't have S&S.... ;)


ETA:.... in New York, and around the Northeastern US 10-13 on the radio is "officer needs help, emergency". I'm not aware of any agency out here that uses 10-13 as a radio code for anything.

WWDHD?
03-12-2012, 12:51 PM
I will note it does look like the Feds say he can't have firearms but the SF DA seems to think he can. It is one of the many wonders of this state. I have seen suspects get sent to jail on misdemeanor rape charges. There is not such thing as misdemeanor rape yet I saw it happen.
I'm not suprised. Since when did the City & County of SF ever care about Federal law (or state law for that matter)? Too many examples yo list...
For someone who dislikes the 2nd amendment as much as RM he sure went to a lot of trouble and expense to keep his.
Does anyone really think the Mayor or Sups. will boot RM out?

thebronze
03-12-2012, 1:01 PM
Yeah, maybe you are right. And I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. Most cops ARE good dudes. I am friends with quite a few, in fact. But maybe I am unhinged. But I've just seen too many LEO's get off on charges that would have put a civilian away for 25 to life. Obviously, I can get "passionate" in some of my posts about these things. But let's just wait and see what the outcome is. We will "agree to disagree" until then, ok? Until then, if one doesn't agree with my post above, just take some of the comedy out of it. Sorry, I just think there are few things lower than hypocrite bullies.

Oh, and "10-13 only" (I may have a digit off here) essentially means "Cop talk only...Secret club s***.....cover for your partner......nobody (not even FAMILY is to know what we are discussing...etc...etc..." It (10-13) comes from the radio code (I'm sure, being a cop, you know what the 10-13 code is, yes?):)



If you truly believe that, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Well, maybe I should rephrase that. Cops are NOT civilians. In fact, they openly (and everyday) refer to anyone that isn't 'one of them' a "civilian." And as far as the last part, you are correct! They are entitled to the same rights as civilians are. But reverse that, and the same just ain't true at all. :cool:

And maybe you are also correct on the DV status. We will find out in the outcome of this case. But justifiable homicide by 2 cops that gun down a kid with countless rounds at a Home Depot would be easily be ruled as Murder if it happened to be a "civilian" protecting his own life in which he thought was in danger. LEO's don't have to go through losing their families, freedom, friends, home, income, etc, etc, etc, for doing the exact same thing a civilian would do to defend his/her life, unless there is absolutely ZERO doubt it was in cold blood. With a "civilian," even the type of ammunition, or gun, or BODY WEIGHT DIFFERENCE!!!** or "interpretation" by the jury whether or not one really "was in fear of his/her life" could kill ya.

**when is the last time anyone has heard that a police-related shooting was ruled unjustifiable due to the fact that the officer outweighed the "perp" by 100 lbs.? Never, as far as I know. Anyway, I am not trying to cop=bash here, but I think our justice system SUCKS on ice.

:rant:


Someone's off their meds...

:drool5:

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 1:02 PM
The Lautenberg prohibition doesn't require violence as required by the false imprisonment felony, it only requires the use of force or threatened use of force. The California false imprisonment misdemeanor can be triggered for example by using gentle force to hold somebody. The felony is triggered by violence, which is interpreted as using more force than the minimum necessary to imprison the person. The question of whether Mirikarimi will prohibited turns on whether there was any way he could have imprisoned her without using force. Does locking a door or passively standing in a doorway and refusing to move, qualify as use of force? If it does not, then he may not be prohibited.

supersonic
03-12-2012, 1:11 PM
:rofl2:Someone's off their meds...

:drool5:

Read the post a few above yours. I was being tounge-in-cheek in much of that post.:cool: (funny that the only comments made about my "over-the-top" post were all made by police officers.

curtisfong
03-12-2012, 1:17 PM
Silly folks. You have to remember, he is one of the untouchables above the law boys in blue... He will get his guns back, he will continue as sheriff and this will all be swept under the rug..


Pretty much

/sarcasm

Disagree. Your post is 100% factual.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 1:19 PM
[elements of false imprisonment...]
fraud, or
deceit.

Ah, that's why it won't be disqualifying. False imprisonment could be non-violent (not involve force, intimidation, threats) so it won't trigger DV. The bruises don't matter; what matters is that the charge doesn't necessarily involve anything that would trigger DV. Oh well. I was hoping he would be lifetime-disqualified.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 1:34 PM
Fraud or deceit bring the false imprisonment up to a felony, and thus it is prohibiting.

Can you think of an example of misdemeanor false imprisonment that clearly doesn't use force and also doesn't rise to the felony level? Would you say that locking a door is the use of force?

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 1:45 PM
Fraud or deceit bring the false imprisonment up to a felony, and thus it is prohibiting.

Can you think of an example of misdemeanor false imprisonment that clearly doesn't use force and also doesn't rise to the felony level? Would you say that locking a door is the use of force?

Hmm, good question, I have no idea what's the legal answer on that. I'm sure this question is answered in some decisive way at this point and presumably his attorney has been smart enough to check into it to make sure that the plea doesn't result in the sheriff losing his gun rights.

Wherryj
03-12-2012, 1:48 PM
What does 10-13 mean? I'm a current cop and I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, you are off your rocker if you think cops get a pass on DV prosecutions. In fact, my experience is 180 degrees opposite of yours. Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

As to the tarring and feathering, sorry, as everyone on here reminds me, LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

I can't stand Mirkarimi and hope he resigns or is recalled, but your comments seem rather unhinged.

I am not an officer, but I also found it strange that a poster arguing for "equal rights" turned around and suggested fewer rights for officers.

I'd argue that the rules must be the same, although there could be less "lee way" for offending officers. This happens all the time for professionals. DWI is a huge deal for someone holding a physician's license. That doesn't necessarily mean fewer rights, it means more responsibility.

Unfortunately Mirk will skate on this one. There's no way that SF will eat one of it's own liberal elites.

snobord99
03-12-2012, 2:00 PM
Fraud or deceit bring the false imprisonment up to a felony, and thus it is prohibiting.

Can you think of an example of misdemeanor false imprisonment that clearly doesn't use force and also doesn't rise to the felony level? Would you say that locking a door is the use of force?

This question isn't relevant for the discussion. The prohibition kicks in if force is an element of the crime. Force is not an element of misdo false imprisonment so whether an example could be thought of wouldn't affect whether he is prohibited.

The simple facts are: 1) he pled to misdo false imprisonment and 2) force is not an element of misdo false imprisonment. Conclusion: he isn't prohibited.

thebronze
03-12-2012, 2:07 PM
The simple facts are: 1) he pled to misdo false imprisonment and 2) force is not an element of misdo false imprisonment. Conclusion: he isn't prohibited.


Unfortunately...this.

mofugly13
03-12-2012, 2:13 PM
I have a coworker who was convicted of DV after he moved his wife out of a doorway she was standing in to keep him from leaving the house (he pushed her aide, not shoved, pushed). She called the cops, but then declined to press charges, and he was convicted solely on the phone call and the information she gave to police. The cops went into his house then and there and took all of his firearms. I bet that there are a LOT of DV convictions out there that were the result of this type of thing. Seems like she should have been charged w/ misdo false imprisonment.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 2:25 PM
I quoted a lawyer site above http://www.shouselaw.com/false_imprisonment.html that states that force is always an element of misdemeanor false imprisonment. But I doubt that statement is reliable. If you can think of an example that would clearly be misdemeanor false imprisonment but would clearly not involve the use of force, then the use of force would clearly not be an element.

Here are the official California jury instructions http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf (p.1171) for misdemeanor false imprisonment, for what they're worth:


The defendant is charged [in Count] with false imprisonment.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:

1. The defendant intentionally [and unlawfully] (restrained[,]/
[or] detained[,]/ [or] confined) a person;
AND
2. The defendant’s act made that person stay or go
somewhere against that person’s will.

[An act is done against a person’s will if that person does not
consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely
and voluntarily and know the nature of the act.]

[False imprisonment does not require that the person restrained or
detained be confined in jail or prison.]

Are "restrained, detained, or confined", uses of force? I'm not sure. If it's not clear that force is an element, then I guess he would be in the clear.

newbee1111
03-12-2012, 2:30 PM
This one isn't hard to figure out guys. If he is pleading guilty to a charge then its a charge that will have no bearing on him keeping his guns or staying on as sheriff. It would make no sense for him to do otherwise and I'm sure his lawyers checked this out.

The only bull**** here is I'm sure he will be the only person in ca this year that will get a DV charge plead down to a misdemeanor false imprisonment that doesn't trigger a lifetime ban. Everyone else that isn't a sheriff gets a lifetime gun ban. But hey, I'm sure there was no special treatment here.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 2:36 PM
From Lexisone.com:
As People v. Hendrix (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1458 explains, force is an element of both the felony and misdemeanor offenses. But the "force" referred to in Hendrix and required for misdemeanor false imprisonment is implicit in the instruction (CALJIC No. 16.135) provided here: Intentional restraint, confinement or compulsion to remain without consent. No additional instructions on force are required.

Paul S
03-12-2012, 2:43 PM
I will note it does look like the Feds say he can't have firearms but the SF DA seems to think he can. It is one of the many wonders of this state. I have seen suspects get sent to jail on misdemeanor rape charges. There is not such thing as misdemeanor rape yet I saw it happen.

Yes indeed...such things do happen...more often with burglary charges. The judges can handle many felony crimes as misdemeanors per P.C. 17.

Maestro Pistolero
03-12-2012, 2:43 PM
Whatever the charge, did she not have bruises from him associated with this incident? Isn't that a use of force?

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 2:59 PM
After reading People v Hendrix, I don't think the court's ruling can be considered a holding that force is always an element of misdemeanor false imprisonment. Rather I think the appeals court was merely correcting the lower court that didn't seem to realize that force is usually or almost always an element of the misdemeanor offense as well as the felony offense. So it looks like the Sheriff may be in the clear.

Whatever the charge, did she not have bruises from him associated with this incident? Isn't that a use of force?
But he has not been convicted of bruising her.

Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 3:12 PM
Mercury News is saying since he wasn't convicted of DV, no firearms prohibition and he gets to keep his job. I am disgusted, but given the evidence, that's probably the best the DA could hope for without risking an acquittal.

Let's hope all of those liberals in SF will hold him accountable, riiiiigghhhhtt.

CCWFacts
03-12-2012, 3:15 PM
Let's hope all of those liberals in SF will hold him accountable, riiiiigghhhhtt.

Sure they will, just like NOW held Clinton accountable for sexually harassing a subordinate employee and ruining her career.

Scarecrow Repair
03-12-2012, 4:28 PM
Some quotes for the non-readers:

Mirkarimi had been charged with domestic violence, dissuading a witness and child endangerment in connection with the incident, which authorities say took place in front of the couple's 2-year-old son.

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment.

The sheriff had to turn in his guns when the charge of domestic violence was filed; the new charge doesn't carry the same automatic restriction.

CrazyPhuD
03-12-2012, 4:37 PM
Mercury News is saying since he wasn't convicted of DV, no firearms prohibition and he gets to keep his job. I am disgusted, but given the evidence, that's probably the best the DA could hope for without risking an acquittal.

Let's hope all of those liberals in SF will hold him accountable, riiiiigghhhhtt.

Just because the papers say he isn't prohibited or even the DA doesn't mean that he isn't. This is ultimately up to the ATF and corresponding legal challenges/case law. After all one cannot actually imprison someone without either using force to confine them or the threat of force to confine them. If there is not force or threat of force then there can be no confinement. Maybe they think he's free but that ruling could change at ANY time.

CrazyPhuD
03-12-2012, 4:43 PM
While I am personally no fan of ANY lifetime prohibition(once you do your time your punishment is up, if it isn't you shouldn't have been released in the first place). As a person in a position of upholding the law, he should choose not to possess. Why? Because in every instance of the spirit and the intent of the law he violated it.

The law is likely wrong....but as a representative of that law he should hold himself to a higher standard. Unfortunately he is saying if you are well connected enough the rule of law doesn't apply to you. That is unacceptable from any public official. If he wanted to show leadership he should refuse to posses even if he might be legally allowed to, so long as he holds a law enforcement office.

Patrick Aherne
03-12-2012, 4:50 PM
Sure they will, just like NOW held Clinton accountable for sexually harassing a subordinate employee and ruining her career.

He was who I was thinking of when I typed that line. Remember how many women came forward about him, and they all had they same story about how he whipped out little willy...

Yet, all the feminists gave him a pass because there's a (D) after his name.

Hard to get all spooled up about Rush's idiocy last week.

I HOPE that there's some CHANGE and the voters recall Mirkarimi.

stator
03-12-2012, 5:04 PM
As much as I don't like what I hear about this guy, and I abhor SF politics, I do not believe that any misdemeanor should result in loss of gun rights, PERIOD. This does not matter if the dude in question is likable by me or anyone else.

LockJaw
03-12-2012, 5:14 PM
KTVU 2 is reporting that one requirement of the plea bargain is that the Sheriff attend 52 weeks of DV classes.
How will this affect his situation?

curtisfong
03-12-2012, 5:55 PM
I really don't see the point to speculation

What we know

1) He will get special treatment as CLEO
2) He will not be prohibited in any way
3) You or I would never get the same treatment
4) There is nothing anybody can do about it. CA is completely corrupt.

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 6:44 PM
I realize now that locking a door or standing in a doorway are the use of force for false imprisonment because arranging inanimate objects like walls and doors to exert a force on a person to restrain them is the use of force. The use of force doesn't have to be active, it can be reactive. For example, imagine wrapping your arms around a person's waist very closely but not quite touching them. As soon as they try to move and you marshal the chemicals in your arms to exert a force to keep your arms from moving, then you are using force, despite only trying not to move and despite the fact that your victim moved to contact you. It surely wouldn't be any different if you programmed a robot to put its arms around your victim's waist without touching, and then ordered it to simply lock its joints, turn off, and not move. Likewise, if you arrange a door lock to not move, then you are marshaling the chemicals in the lock to exert a force to imprison the victim. A clearer example is letting the prisoner know you've set up a shotgun connected to a tripwire outside the door. Just because your finger is not on the trigger doesn't mean you are not threatening the use of gunfire, which is clearly the threat of force. The use of force doesn't have to be direct exertion of your muscles. If someone is locked in a room, they are being forced to remain in that location. They are not there by choice or the power of persuasion.

On the other hand, there are at least two ways to imprison someone without force or threat of force. One is blackmail, e.g. "Don't leave the room or I'll send these pictures to your spouse." Another is deception, e.g. "There is a rattle snake right outside the door, so don't open it." But those both qualify as the felony false imprisonment. The question is whether there is any way to false imprison that is not by force, threat, or deception. There could be. If there is, then use of force would not be an element in misdemeanor false imprisonment. If Mikarimi can't come up with an example of imprisonment without force, threat, or deception, then a court might reject a facial challenge to gun prohibition under misdemeanor PC236 and cite evidence in his case that he used force, in order to reject an applied challenge and hold him prohibited.

This issue might be significant to others concerned about their gun rights and thinking about such a plea bargain.

BigDogatPlay
03-12-2012, 7:32 PM
Are "restrained, detained, or confined", uses of force? I'm not sure. If it's not clear that force is an element, then I guess he would be in the clear.

No they are not in and of themselves uses of force. As a peace officer I could and did detain people, meaning they were not under arrest but not free to leave, and did so quite often without use of any force other than me telling them they were not free to leave. A restrained detention, as a LEO, would indicate some manner of force or physical control (handcuffs or seated inside the back of a police vehicle) was employed.

OTOH, force could be used to effect any of those conditions, but the misdemeanor false imprisonment specifically excludes force as an element. Without that component it would be impossible, IMO, to trigger a Lautenberg prohibition.

He's not prohibited by way of his plea, and I don't see any way to make it so. Sucks, as I think he is a hypocritical worm who has no business being a peace officer, but there it is.

Tarn_Helm
03-12-2012, 7:46 PM
Ross Mirkarimi just pled to misdemeanor false imprisonment for his DV incident on Jan. 1, 2012. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BANT1NJH74.DTL&tsp=1 Will he be able to keep his 2nd amendment rights?

He's the only one professional enough to be convicted of abusing his wife and keep his gun rights.
:facepalm:

snobord99
03-12-2012, 7:50 PM
I realize now that locking a door or standing in a doorway are the use of force for false imprisonment because arranging inanimate objects like walls and doors to exert a force on a person to restrain them is the use of force. The use of force doesn't have to be active, it can be reactive. For example, imagine wrapping your arms around a person's waist very closely but not quite touching them. As soon as they try to move and you marshal the chemicals in your arms to exert a force to keep your arms from moving, then you are using force, despite only trying not to move and despite the fact that your victim moved to contact you. It surely wouldn't be any different if you programmed a robot to put its arms around your victim's waist without touching, and then ordered it to simply lock its joints, turn off, and not move. Likewise, if you arrange a door lock to not move, then you are marshaling the chemicals in the lock to exert a force to imprison the victim. A clearer example is letting the prisoner know you've set up a shotgun connected to a tripwire outside the door. Just because your finger is not on the trigger doesn't mean you are not threatening the use of gunfire, which is clearly the threat of force. The use of force doesn't have to be direct exertion of your muscles. If someone is locked in a room, they are being forced to remain in that location. They are not there by choice or the power of persuasion.

On the other hand, there are at least two ways to imprison someone without force or threat of force. One is blackmail, e.g. "Don't leave the room or I'll send these pictures to your spouse." Another is deception, e.g. "There is a rattle snake right outside the door, so don't open it." But those both qualify as the felony false imprisonment. The question is whether there is any way to false imprison that is not by force, threat, or deception. There could be. If there is, then use of force would not be an element in misdemeanor false imprisonment. If Mikarimi can't come up with an example of imprisonment without force, threat, or deception, then a court might reject a facial challenge to gun prohibition under misdemeanor PC236 and cite evidence in his case that he used force, in order to reject an applied challenge and hold him prohibited.

This issue might be significant to others concerned about their gun rights and thinking about such a plea bargain.

You're WAAAAAAAY over thinking it. The required elements are physical force or a deadly weapon. I can darn near guarantee you that "physical force" means physical force upon the person, akin to the violence or menace element of felony false imprisonment. If it was meant to be any force as you're arguing, then the wouldn't have put "physical" in there as force, by itself, would be sufficient.

Sure, in theory there's such a thing as passive force. In the law, however, there's no such thing. If physical force was supposed to be an element of the misdemeanor, it would be in the jury instructions. Similar to how violence or menace is in the felony instruction.

Falconis
03-12-2012, 8:26 PM
Yeah, maybe you are right. And I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. Most cops ARE good dudes. I am friends with quite a few, in fact. But maybe I am unhinged. But I've just seen too many LEO's get off on charges that would have put a civilian away for 25 to life. Obviously, I can get "passionate" in some of my posts about these things. But let's just wait and see what the outcome is. We will "agree to disagree" until then, ok? Until then, if one doesn't agree with my post above, just take some of the comedy out of it. Sorry, I just think there are few things lower than hypocrite bullies.

Oh, and "10-13 only" (I may have a digit off here) essentially means "Cop talk only...Secret club s***.....cover for your partner......nobody (not even FAMILY is to know what we are discussing...etc...etc..." It (10-13) comes from the radio code (I'm sure, being a cop, you know what the 10-13 code is, yes?):)



If you truly believe that, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Well, maybe I should rephrase that. Cops are NOT civilians. In fact, they openly (and everyday) refer to anyone that isn't 'one of them' a "civilian." And as far as the last part, you are correct! They are entitled to the same rights as civilians are. But reverse that, and the same just ain't true at all. :cool:

And maybe you are also correct on the DV status. We will find out in the outcome of this case. But justifiable homicide by 2 cops that gun down a kid with countless rounds at a Home Depot would be easily be ruled as Murder if it happened to be a "civilian" protecting his own life in which he thought was in danger. LEO's don't have to go through losing their families, freedom, friends, home, income, etc, etc, etc, for doing the exact same thing a civilian would do to defend his/her life, unless there is absolutely ZERO doubt it was in cold blood. With a "civilian," even the type of ammunition, or gun, or BODY WEIGHT DIFFERENCE!!!** or "interpretation" by the jury whether or not one really "was in fear of his/her life" could kill ya.

**when is the last time anyone has heard that a police-related shooting was ruled unjustifiable due to the fact that the officer outweighed the "perp" by 100 lbs.? Never, as far as I know. Anyway, I am not trying to cop=bash here, but I think our justice system SUCKS on ice.

:rant:

This post doesn't seem to indicate that any of the above was tongue in cheek, but rather an earnest rant on your part about your dislike of cops. I won't formally question into any great length what your intentions were or are, but I have a feeling it was to go off on a tangent that the CGN boards are well known for and turn this into an off topic post. I would also question how close those cop friends are to you.

As a cop though, I will say this situation does suck in it's entirety. But this isn't the first time something like this has happened and I am sure it won't be the last. I do hope Mayor Ed Lee pursues the City misconduct charges he is able to and convince 9 of the 11 supervisors to remove him from office.

It would be one thing if this was a 1 off incident with his wife making the statement about trying to make off with the custody suit, but the fact that a former girlfriend came out of the woodwork and was willing to testify also says something to this case. I personally think since this is classified as a domestic incident, he should trigger the California Domestic clause (lack of a formal description) and be a prohibited person and be removed from office.

Like I said, this isn't just about him and her fighting and maybe him pushing her out of the way. It sounds like there was a lot more to this that no one is reporting. Any cop here who is or was a DV investigator knows what I am talking about when it comes to patterns of abuse and history.

BTW Supersonic, I have no idea what 10-13 is either. But as far as super secret squirrel stuff, I've been doing that with my friends since I was in grade school. Long before I ever even thought about being a cop. It happens with more social circles then you think.

huntercf
03-12-2012, 9:47 PM
What does 10-13 mean? I'm a current cop and I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, you are off your rocker if you think cops get a pass on DV prosecutions. In fact, my experience is 180 degrees opposite of yours. Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

As to the tarring and feathering, sorry, as everyone on here reminds me, LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

I can't stand Mirkarimi and hope he resigns or is recalled, but your comments seem rather unhinged.

Please don't take this the wrong way, no disrespect intended but is that why the CHP called my SIL to come pick up her BF (sheriff's deputy) because he could barely stand when they pulled him over instead of popping him for a DUI...twice?

MindBuilder
03-12-2012, 9:52 PM
@BigDogatPlay - When an officer detains a person by verbal order, it is by threat of imprisonment. In other words, threat of (lawful) physical force. Note that if a person stayed still, it would be possible to put a leg iron around a person's ankle without it touching them and then secure it to a stationary object, and you would be using physical force to detain them even though the leg iron might not even touch them until they tried to move. The leg iron would be like a door lock that does nothing until the person tries to get out of the confinement. The only difference between the leg iron and the locked room is the size of the confinement area and possibly the flexibility of the structure.

@snobord99 - A door lock applies a passive physical force upon the person trying to open it, just like leg irons do, and just like a robot with its arms locked around somebody's waist. The differences in the above are only in size, shape, and construction of the confinement area, not in the nature of their use of force upon the person.

Falconis
03-12-2012, 10:00 PM
Hey people, I think at this point we are all forgetting ... It's not about what he did. It's about what he plead to and what the DA's office agreed to.

Falconis
03-12-2012, 10:04 PM
Please don't take this the wrong way, no disrespect intended but is that why the CHP called my SIL to come pick up her BF (sheriff's deputy) because he could barely stand when they pulled him over instead of popping him for a DUI...twice?

So do you want to tar and feather everyone involved? Throw the book out and at them at the same time? What is it you want out of that?

RickD427
03-13-2012, 1:03 AM
His prohibition will prohibit his deputies from carrying guns on the job if there was an element of force or threat of force in his conviction. A felony is not required to prohibit employing armed persons. Furthermore, it appears that if he has been acting as Sherrif while under the restraining order, then he and his deputies have been committing an offense. Scroll down to section (g) and (h) here for the federal law 18 U.S.C. 922(h):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

There's no prohibition on his deputies carrying firearms.

Your reference to 18USC922(h) governs employees of a prohibited persons.

San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's are not employed by Ross Mirkarimi. They are employed by the government entity that is City and County of San Francisco.

The United States Secret Service had to deal with the same issue when Vice President Agnew became a convicted felon.

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 2:38 AM
I sincerely hope that he doesn't lose his gun rights. If this happens, this story will fit right into California's narrative on racist, elitist, good ol' boy laws that make sure white landowners or statesmen got certain privileges while minorities were denied equal protections that the Bill of Rights should have affirmed for them.

I'm starting to understand that nothing happens in a vacuum. CA has generations of racist laws on the books, and they continue to be enforced against minorities while the "elite" classes are unaffected.

LockJaw
03-13-2012, 5:57 AM
This from today's LA Times attributed to Paula Canny the Sheriff's wife's attorney.

"She described the plea as common for cases involving law enforcement officials, because it does not contain a mandatory prohibition from possessing firearms."

While this may or not be true I see two troubling issue with that statement. First any one charged with a DV charge will be looking for the same deal. Second if it is true or not , it gives the public the perception of two classes of justice. One for the Public, and one for Leo's.
Just more ammo for Haters in general.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=1788682&postId=1788682&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=6978&curAbsIndex=1&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A6978%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

glbtrottr
03-13-2012, 6:40 AM
And LEO's wonder why civilians despise their ethics when they cynically parade their double standards and are not accountable for their criminal actions. The fish stinks from the head.

Proof?

Look at Murakami.

It's OK to beat your wife and get away with it...provided you're in law enforcement.

The apologists will claim: No, no! It never happens! DA's want to burn us at every turn! It's not like we work together every day! Others claim: Oh, it only happens in upper management! Not the rank and file! There is no thin blue line!

Snore.

Look, being on the job does suck. I specifically made a decision against it after a year and a half for many reasons, not the least of which was that it resembled garbage collection. The air of superiority that so many badged carry and the perpetuating of the double standard is disgusting, more so in this state than any.

Mirikami should fry, period. Lead by example. Be accountable for your actions.

In some ways law enforcement reminds me of the Muslim: While some cry Jihad, as LEO's commit crime ranging from robbery, rape and murder, the vast majority of Muslims refuse to cry out in outrage over the actions of their peers that color the perception; they simply don't generally renounce it, much as the thin blue line never speaks out publicly about crime in their own ranks, since they allegedly "police their own".

snobord99
03-13-2012, 8:09 AM
@BigDogatPlay - When an officer detains a person by verbal order, it is by threat of imprisonment. In other words, threat of (lawful) physical force. Note that if a person stayed still, it would be possible to put a leg iron around a person's ankle without it touching them and then secure it to a stationary object, and you would be using physical force to detain them even though the leg iron might not even touch them until they tried to move. The leg iron would be like a door lock that does nothing until the person tries to get out of the confinement. The only difference between the leg iron and the locked room is the size of the confinement area and possibly the flexibility of the structure.

@snobord99 - A door lock applies a passive physical force upon the person trying to open it, just like leg irons do, and just like a robot with its arms locked around somebody's waist. The differences in the above are only in size, shape, and construction of the confinement area, not in the nature of their use of force upon the person.

Again, I'm not refuting that a theoretical "passive" force can exist. All I'm saying is that in the law, there's no such thing. Physical force means a force upon the person. When they say physical force, they don't mean "you locked the door on your way out of the restroom therefore you've falsely imprisoned upon the person inside by use of physical force." If "physical force" is defined as broadly as you're asserting, they wouldn't have used the word "physical" as all force is, ultimately, physical.

This is a discussion of the legal, not the philosophical.

I can't say I know for sure what the ATF looks at when they determine prohibitions, but I'm willing to bet that they basically just look at what you were convicted of. I'm pretty sure it's a "he was convicted, what was he convicted of and what are the elements" process. I very much doubt they're calling up the arresting or prosecuting agency and asking for a copy of their file so they could check the facts of each case and seeing if a leg iron was placed around the victim's ankle without ever having touched the victim.

supersonic
03-13-2012, 8:31 AM
I really don't see the point to speculation

What we know

1) He will get special treatment as CLEO
2) He will not be prohibited in any way
3) You or I would never get the same treatment
4) There is nothing anybody can do about it. CA is completely corrupt.

:hurray:....Yet when I make the same factual points (using more "expressive"language), I am said to be "off my meds" or "off my rocker" and all the LEO's on this thread tell me I am wrong about "special treatment." It's a FACT, guys. If you are embarrassed by it (which you should be,not to mention ashamed), then just stay away from threads like this. This type of "special class treatment" has been a reality since law enforcement was started. You know it, I know it, and most everyone else knows it! If you don't, you have your head buried deep in a hole.;)

supersonic
03-13-2012, 9:03 AM
This post doesn't seem to indicate that any of the above was tongue in cheek, but rather an earnest rant on your part about your dislike of cops. I won't formally question into any great length what your intentions were or are, but I have a feeling it was to go off on a tangent that the CGN boards are well known for and turn this into an off topic post. I would also question how close those cop friends are to you.

As a cop though, I will say this situation does suck in it's entirety. But this isn't the first time something like this has happened and I am sure it won't be the last. I do hope Mayor Ed Lee pursues the City misconduct charges he is able to and convince 9 of the 11 supervisors to remove him from office.

BTW Supersonic, I have no idea what 10-13 is either. But as far as super secret squirrel stuff, I've been doing that with my friends since I was in grade school. Long before I ever even thought about being a cop. It happens with more social circles then you think.

Yet another cop coming to the table that hates some of the harsh truths about a bad group of his brethren. And you are going to question "how close these cop friends are to you.":rolleyes: .... Well, question all you want, but you'll never truly know. And the "10-13" stuff (you call it "secret squirrel" to make it seem cute and irrelevant, which it is FAR from) is a term that is used within TWO local law enforcement agencies, by the way (most agencies have their own little "codes" or "catchphrases" about the "hush-hush" stuff, and you know it if you are an actual veteran of the force;)). Like I said, it is a fact that many cops are good guys, but many of them are pure scum. I'll just end with what I think is the best post in this thread:

And LEO's wonder why civilians despise their ethics when they cynically parade their double standards and are not accountable for their criminal actions. The fish stinks from the head.

Proof?

Look at Murakami.

It's OK to beat your wife and get away with it...provided you're in law enforcement.

The apologists will claim: No, no! It never happens! DA's want to burn us at every turn! It's not like we work together every day! Others claim: Oh, it only happens in upper management! Not the rank and file! There is no thin blue line!

Snore.

Look, being on the job does suck. I specifically made a decision against it after a year and a half for many reasons, not the least of which was that it resembled garbage collection. The air of superiority that so many badged carry and the perpetuating of the double standard is disgusting, more so in this state than any.

Mirikami should fry, period. Lead by example. Be accountable for your actions.

In some ways law enforcement reminds me of the Muslim: While some cry Jihad, as LEO's commit crime ranging from robbery, rape and murder, the vast majority of Muslims refuse to cry out in outrage over the actions of their peers that color the perception; they simply don't generally renounce it, much as the thin blue line never speaks out publicly about crime in their own ranks, since they allegedly "police their own".

^^The most truthful words I have EVER heard/seen regarding the the whole "cops get special treatment....even cops that are FELONS.";)

Patrick Aherne
03-13-2012, 9:10 AM
Except, in fact, we are p!ssed about Mirkarimi getting off, so most of your rock throwing is pointless. However, I also know that if Ross Mirkarimi was not Sheriff, this case would have been dropped along time ago. Most DV cases are plead out, and the defendants who get a good attorney and have a non-cooperating victim get convicted of, wait for it: nothing.

Unless, of course, the defendant happens to have a badge, in which case the DA leaves no stone unturned.

narcolepsy
03-13-2012, 9:39 AM
It seems to me that a resolution which permits him to retain his firearms,* particularly in a situation in which a guilty verdict would be difficult to obtain, not to mention highly unfair, would be greeted with cheer around here, irrespective of politics or personalities.

We have to choose sides, and stay together no matter what. This is what fighting is about.

Remember, the ACLU went to bat for Oliver North. It did not matter what they thought of him or his politics. His rights, i.e., everyone's rights, were on the line, and they were vigilant to their commitment.

___________________________________________

* The DV-misdemeanor prohibition is an abomination. But it's not going anywhere.

ap3572001
03-13-2012, 10:05 AM
What does 10-13 mean? I'm a current cop and I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, you are off your rocker if you think cops get a pass on DV prosecutions. In fact, my experience is 180 degrees opposite of yours. Most DA's can't wait to fry a cop for DV.

As to the tarring and feathering, sorry, as everyone on here reminds me, LEOs are civilians, too and by that measure, are entitled to the same rights as you.

I can't stand Mirkarimi and hope he resigns or is recalled, but your comments seem rather unhinged.

+1! . You are right

Falconis
03-13-2012, 10:15 AM
What harsh truths? The fact that you want to tar and feather cops? Dude, get a grip. I don't think there is a cop in here that thinks Mirk should have gotten off as easy as he did. But I also don't see you coming in with any substantiated facts or numbers of what actually happens. The only thing I see you doing is going all over the place to start something that isn't there to begin with. Have fun with yourself.

Falconis
03-13-2012, 10:31 AM
Special treatment for LEOs is not exclusive to CA.

LMAO, a lot of these calgunners would probably crap themselves if they took a trip out of country.

Some of the most hospitable treatment I have ever received was from other states and countries. Ya know, where my status means nothing over there. Ahh good times traveling abroad.

swat
03-13-2012, 10:44 AM
Nope he should be banned for life.....

Per ATF....

www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-3310-3.pdf

False imprisonment should qualify under use of or attempted use of force. I don't believe it would have to be called officially 'domestic violence'.

You are right on this topic.

I remember when this law was first passed there were a number of police officers who were fired because they could no longer possess a firearm due to having previously been convicted or plead guilty to a misdemeanor crime where the underlying offense was domestic violence related. One guy was fired because he had pled guilty to misdemenanor vandalism as he had slashed the tires of his then wife's car ten years earlier. It was the Fed's and local DA's opinion that a conviction for any crime which was related to domestic violence incident invoked the ban. There is no requirement that the person be convicted of a specific domestic violence statute. In fact when the law was first implemented the DA had to go back and review the fact situation of every incident in which an officer had been convicted to determine if the incident was "domestic violence related."

The other interesting thing about this law is that it was one of the few laws that was implemented retroactively. A person can be punished for an act that was committed before the law existed. Additionally the ban is lifetime, which seems excessive given the nature of the violation and contrary to the Constitution's 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Now with that being said, the politics of San Francisco are very unique. If the SF Mayor and Board of Supervisors agree to revise the job description of SF Sheriff, eliminating the requirement to be able to possess and use a firearm, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that prohibits the incumbent Sheriff from remaining Sheriff (without a gun).

This should be fun to watch, and I would love to be a fly on the wall during the closed door meeting between the Mayor and Sheriff.:43:

gvbsat
03-13-2012, 11:57 AM
I vote we all chip in and send him a CA legal 2.5 oz of pepper spray with the CGN logo on it with a note saying "so you not defenseless"

supersonic
03-13-2012, 12:12 PM
inI am going to just back out of this pointless argument because......well, arguments are pointless (ESPECIALLY when on the internet). Yes, I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because I was actually the victim of LEO's who abused their power on THREE separate occasions, so maybe the color in which I view through my lenses through is a bit too tainted to provide a fair discussion here. That is my bad in this thread. However, I do have some very close friends that are LE, so I know there are some really good eggs out there.


Either way, the police are NOT your friends out in the field, and likewise they are NOT there to help you. They are there to find bad guys and protect themselves from getting hurt/maimed/killed. And that's okay. But we should be allowed the same rights to defend ourselves, which, again, proves my statement earlier that they are given special privileges and basic human rights that we (CIVILIANS) aren't.

Sorry, all. Back on topic!

And to all you (good, moral) guys on the job out there: be careful out there, okay?:)

MindBuilder
03-13-2012, 12:17 PM
I think it would be a mistake to prohibit someone under Lautenberg for misdemeanor vandalism because I don't think vandalism has use of force against a person as an element of the offense, as required by the Lautenberg Amendment. While you might argue that vandalous use of force against an object is sometimes or even usually also the simultaneous use or threat of force against a person, I don't think it would always be so, and thus not an element of the offense. For example, a guy might be pissed that his ex-wife got the cool car tires in the divorce settlement and decided that if he couldn't have them nobody would and therefore slashed them. There might be no reason to believe that he would do bodily harm to his x and no reason to believe he would continue vandalizing anything else. Such would satisfy the elements of vandalism but would only be use of force against the ex-wife's property and not against the ex-wife. If he stole the tires instead, his x would be out just as much and he would have to use just as much force to remove the tires as to slash them. So then would all misdemeanor thefts against domestic relations be the use of force against the person because the thief had to use force to carry out the theft? I think not.

Next some might say that you would have to look at the facts of the case to see if the vandalism was force against the person. But the Lautenberg Amendment specifies that the use of force must be an element of the offense. The alleged facts are only alleged. If the alleged facts were not necessary elements of the offense then it can simply be claimed that the Lautenberg prohibition doesn't apply since the facts were not proved. This is especially the case if there was something like a no-contest plea where no facts were confessed to. If you're accused of attempted murder and you plead no-contest to misdemeanor vandalism, it's the elements of the vandalism law rather than the alleged murder facts that determine the Lautenberg prohibition. The alleged attempted murder facts could just be crap made up by the x if they were not elements of the conviction.

calif 15-22
03-13-2012, 12:40 PM
I really don't see the point to speculation

What we know

1) He will get special treatment as CLEO
2) He will not be prohibited in any way
3) You or I would never get the same treatment
4) There is nothing anybody can do about it. CA is completely corrupt.

Give that man a prize. He summed it up in simple sentences. Debating the law and how it gets applied is pointless. If you currently or retired from the badge you get special treatment from your peers. Maybe not the DA, but certainly from LE on the street. I've seen it first hand and more than one occasion.

And in most cases I say good for you. Perks of the job as they say. As LE you've had to deal with the scum of the earth each and everyday as part of your job. So if you speed you tend to get off good for you. A fight in bar, you get to go home no charges. DUI gets you a drive home or phone call to get picked up.

Anyone who thinks the law is applied consistantly is just plain off their meds. If you have clout, means and friends in high places, you are for the most part immunned. You see it in politics, you see it in Hollywood, you read about it every day.

If I hit my wife, girlfriend, daughter, mother, neighbor, etc., I would be in jail, with a record and have an empty safe.

Fair . . . No. Is it how things are done . . . yes.

The SF Sherriff will not only walk, he will certainly keep his firearms. Maybe not his job, but certainly his guns.

BigDogatPlay
03-13-2012, 12:53 PM
@BigDogatPlay - When an officer detains a person by verbal order, it is by threat of imprisonment. In other words, threat of (lawful) physical force.

No, actually it's not. If I said, "you are being detained, you are not under arrest but you are not free to leave at this point", there is no threat or implication made of the use of force by me. All I have done is informed you verbally that under my authority as a peace officer you aren't free to leave. That you infer it is entirely up to you and your interpretation of what it is that I said. If you try to leave when I've detained you then yes, I can turn that into a restrained detention and put you in handcuffs.

Note that if a person stayed still, it would be possible to put a leg iron around a person's ankle without it touching them and then secure it to a stationary object, and you would be using physical force to detain them even though the leg iron might not even touch them until they tried to move. The leg iron would be like a door lock that does nothing until the person tries to get out of the confinement. The only difference between the leg iron and the locked room is the size of the confinement area and possibly the flexibility of the structure.

But if the leg iron is never applied? Just because a restraint could be applied at some point is not the same as that restraint actually being applied.

The law recognizes these differences. Words and actions mean things. The absence of those actions means that those actions did not take place under the law. In the case of Sheriff Mirkarimi, a deal was made that allowed him to plead to a non-violent crime which does not affect his ability to own or possess a firearm.

randian
03-13-2012, 1:41 PM
If I said, "you are being detained, you are not under arrest but you are not free to leave at this point", there is no threat or implication made of the use of force by me.

That's absurd. All police detentions have the implied threat that force will be used to enforce that detention order. You mentioned handcuffs; that is clearly a forcible detention, and no sane person would believe that you weren't threatening to use them if they didn't comply with your order not to leave.

BigDogatPlay
03-13-2012, 3:56 PM
That's absurd. All police detentions have the implied threat that force will be used to enforce that detention order.

Really? Perhaps in the police department you worked in. That implication is your interpretation. The bottom line is that if force is not used, it is not used in the eyes of the law. Unless there is a specific, articulated threat to use physical force, no inference can be drawn.

You mentioned handcuffs; that is clearly a forcible detention, and no sane person would believe that you weren't threatening to use them if they didn't comply with your order not to leave.

But the problem with your logic and argument is that if I don't use them, then it was not a restrained detention, hence no force used. If the person who I am informing that they are detained then tries to leave, then I am allowed to use force to turn it into a restrained detention... but that is their choice and is based solely on their actions.

Again, you are drawing an inference. And while we all can infer that Sheriff Mirkarimi may have implied he would use force, and did (apparently) do so, the guilty plea to the misdemeanor false imprisonment, which again has no violence component, takes that inference off the table.

Please don't confuse my trying to point out the fallacy in your argument with support for Mirkarimi. He is a complete and utter tool bag. But the law is the law. I am not a lawyer, but I've been around enough DV cases and courtrooms to understand this.

newbee1111
03-13-2012, 4:18 PM
I love how the charges specify lack of force when the victim had bruises on her. It's a miracle. They should have gone all the way and had him plead guilty to littering and having an overdue library book.

snobord99
03-13-2012, 4:47 PM
I love how the charges specify lack of force when the victim had bruises on her. It's a miracle. They should have gone all the way and had him plead guilty to littering and having an overdue library book.

You realize that the facts could easily be one where the bruises have nothing to do with the false imprisonment, right? He could have hit her and then 2 hours later not allow her to leave by standing in front of the door without ever touching her.

calnurse
03-13-2012, 4:51 PM
Of course he will! He is a cop and will find a way! His buddies will find a way to help him keep his guns!

calnurse
03-13-2012, 4:53 PM
I asked a couple of officers I work with and they would be surprise if he does NOT get them back!

Gray Peterson
03-13-2012, 4:55 PM
Well, at least normal gun owners know what kind of charge to ask for if they are jammed up on BS DV charges...

snobord99
03-13-2012, 5:22 PM
I have to say, having worked in a DV unit in a city attorney's office where 90% of what we prosecuted were misdemeanor DV cases (10% misdo child abuse/neglect cases), I don't see anything in the news report that makes this sound like special treatment of any kind. It sounds like the thousands of standard cases/pleas you don't hear about because no one is famous and no one complains they got screwed.

MindBuilder
03-13-2012, 5:29 PM
BigDogatPlay wrote:
That implication is your interpretation. The bottom line is that if force is not used, it is not used in the eyes of the law. Unless there is a specific, articulated threat to use physical force, no inference can be drawn.

You mentioned handcuffs; that is clearly a forcible detention, and no sane person would believe that you weren't threatening to use them if they didn't comply with your order not to leave.
But the problem with your logic and argument is that if I don't use them, then it was not a restrained detention, hence no force used. If the person who I am informing that they are detained then tries to leave, then I am allowed to use force to turn it into a restrained detention... but that is their choice and is based solely on their actions.
When an officer detains a person by verbal order, force is not being used in the eyes of the law, it is only being threatened. An inference can be drawn though, because a threat to use force doesn't have to be certain, just significantly likely. Just because you decide not to use force on a few particular occations, doesn't mean you didn't implicitly threaten force on those and other occations. You just didn't carry out the threat. While a person has the choice to defy an officer's order, they cetainly didn't choose to be restrained, that was against their choice. Just because your threat is conditioned or based on some actions they might take, doesn't mean it's not a threat.

newbee1111
03-13-2012, 6:43 PM
You realize that the facts could easily be one where the bruises have nothing to do with the false imprisonment, right? He could have hit her and then 2 hours later not allow her to leave by standing in front of the door without ever touching her.

The bruises by themselves should have got him a misdemeanor DV charge that he couldn't plead guilty to without getting a lifetime gun ban. Allowing him to plead guilty to the false imprisonment just allows the city to sweep this all under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it. Everyone else in this situation would have been offered a deal to plea for the misdemeanor DV.

snobord99
03-13-2012, 6:52 PM
The bruises by themselves should have got him a misdemeanor DV charge that he couldn't plead guilty to without getting a lifetime gun ban. Allowing him to plead guilty to the false imprisonment just allows the city to sweep this all under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it. Everyone else in this situation would have been offered a deal to plea for the misdemeanor DV.

I take it this is from your extensive experience prosecuting misdemeanor DV cases with only facts you see in the news?

Falconis
03-13-2012, 6:58 PM
Ummm, people can drawn inferences from just about anything. If force isn't used, force isn't used. In the case of a lawful detention, I don't think the above argument is going to fly if all the officer says stay here, your not under arrest, but your not free to leave either. That's just a lawful order.

Unlike an actual false imprisonment case where a suspect may say stay here with a menacing look on his face. With that, you'll also have to draw upon many more reasonable inferences to charge a case. In the case of the officer and the lawful detention, the inference that use of force was used with all the above mumbo jumbo is going to be a hard one to prove.

There are cases (many cases) where an officer just merely informs someone of what is going on, investigatory action, and the "implied" use of force is never needed. Like I said, has to be reasonable. Of course it can come back as what is the detainee doing to make that assumption reasonable?

BigDogatPlay
03-13-2012, 6:59 PM
We're dragging this somewhat off topic so apologies in advance.


When an officer detains a person by verbal order, force is not being used in the eyes of the law, it is only being threatened.

Please go back and read my earlier post. I said those exact words more times than I can count in many years as a LEO. There is no overt statement indicating that there is or will be a use of force. There is no threat under any cogent analysis. You perceive there to be one. You are entitled to your perception. The law, however, requires some overt threat or action.

An inference can be drawn though, because a threat to use force doesn't have to be certain, just significantly likely.

And in the case of Sheriff Mirkarimi there is no latitude to draw an inference. The charge he plead to is quite specific. If there were a component of violence in a false imprisonment, then it becomes a felony.

Just because you decide not to use force on a few particular occations, doesn't mean you didn't implicitly threaten force on those and other occations. You just didn't carry out the threat.

Nice strawman. Cops sometimes have to use force to overcome resistance to arrest or lawful detention, so therefore anytime a cop turns on the red light he is threatening to use force. Sorry, that dog just doesn't hunt.

One cannot assume a threat of force has been made when no overt statement or action is made that would lead a reasonable person to believe that force was being threatened.

While a person has the choice to defy an officer's order, they cetainly didn't choose to be restrained, that was against their choice. Just because your threat is conditioned or based on some actions they might take, doesn't mean it's not a threat.

Again, you're making something out of nothing. You cannot put your perceptions on another person.

[/ off topic]

Irish Gunner
03-13-2012, 7:27 PM
Back to topic. This Mirikami plea reeks. Reeks of elitism and only proves that justice is bought and sold every day in the US. If you can honestly replace his name with yours and his spouse's name with your spouse and honestly say that you would have rec'd the same treatment can you disagree. (I am assuming that "you" are an average person, not a current or former LEO, attorney, elected official or celebrity...)

Falconis
03-13-2012, 7:37 PM
Back to topic. This Mirikami plea reeks. Reeks of elitism and only proves that justice is bought and sold every day in the US. If you can honestly replace his name with yours and his spouse's name with your spouse and honestly say that you would have rec'd the same treatment can you disagree. (I am assuming that "you" are an average person, not a current or former LEO, attorney, elected official or celebrity...)

Hey Irish, I actually worked DV investigations for a while and this sort of stuff happens all the time. Sometimes the actual crime was worse than what Mirkirami did, but in the end it got plead down. Sometimes it was the work of a good lawyer, but a lot of times it had to do with an uncooperative witness which the wife was turning into. But the bottom line is that that everyday people do get the same outcome. I think this was already stated previously by another officer here. I know what stinks is his liberal views and the appearance that he is getting off very easy for what he did is irking a lot of people. Combine all that with who he is and what we as a 2A community stand for, and I think that's where the feelings actually lie. As to him getting special treatment, ehhh I want to find out a few things first before I make a final judgement.

I still hold to my beliefs that he should have his gun rights stripped since this is a domestic incident and the fact that he has to take 52 weeks of DV classes backs that up IMO. But I also feel that way about any legitimate DV case. The above statement is more about fairness as to the DV statutes more than it has to do with misdemeanors and gun rights.

Irish Gunner
03-13-2012, 7:47 PM
Hey Irish, I actually worked DV investigations for a while and this sort of stuff happens all the time. Sometimes the actual crime was worse than what Mirkirami did, but in the end it got plead down. Sometimes it was the work of a good lawyer, but a lot of times it had to do with an uncooperative witness which the wife was turning into. But the bottom line is that that everyday people do get the same outcome. I think this was already stated previously by another officer here. I know what stinks is his liberal views and the appearance that he is getting off very easy for what he did is irking a lot of people. Combine all that with who he is and what we as a 2A community stand for, and I think that's where the feelings actually lie. As to him getting special treatment, ehhh I want to find out a few things first before I make a final judgement.

I still hold to my beliefs that he should have his gun rights stripped since this is a domestic incident and the fact that he has to take 52 weeks of DV classes backs that up IMO. But I also feel that way about any legitimate DV case. The above statement is more about fairness as to the DV statutes more than it has to do with misdemeanors and gun rights.

I know well about plea deals and in general they are a good thing. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. My only gripe, it that the system favors those with money and influence.

I am coming from the fact that my brother is fighting to get his gun rights restored, because he plead to a misdemeanor and the DA tagged on the DV clause. What my brother did is a lot less offensive that Mirikami in that only property was damaged. No physical harm was done. He didn't have the money for an attorney and he got screwed.

Falconis
03-13-2012, 8:28 PM
I know well about plea deals and in general they are a good thing. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. My only gripe, it that the system favors those with money and influence.

I am coming from the fact that my brother is fighting to get his gun rights restored, because he plead to a misdemeanor and the DA tagged on the DV clause. What my brother did is a lot less offensive that Mirikami in that only property was damaged. No physical harm was done. He didn't have the money for an attorney and he got screwed.

I can't argue with you on the first bold I made in your post. As for your brother, without making a statement either way to his cause, I think the second bolded part of your story is the driving factor there.

Irish Gunner
03-13-2012, 8:31 PM
I can't argue with you on the first bold I made in your post. As for your brother, without making a statement either way to his cause, I think the second bolded part of your story is the driving factor there.

Not arguing that. Just cynical based on the number of miscarriages of justice based on the size of your wallet and not the merits of your case....

snobord99
03-13-2012, 8:41 PM
Not arguing that. Just cynical based on the number of miscarriages of justice based on the size of your wallet and not the merits of your case....

So you're saying this was special treatment because the guy was able to hire himself a good attorney?

Irish Gunner
03-13-2012, 8:44 PM
Slight oversimplification but yes. You think a public defender could have gotten the same deal? Would he have gotten same deal if he was a mechanic?

snobord99
03-13-2012, 8:58 PM
Slight oversimplification but yes. You think a public defender could have gotten the same deal?

If you get a good one, absolutely. While it's an oversimplification, I take issue with the position because having the money to hire a good lawyer is not special treatment just as having the money to go to a better hospital doesn't constitute special treatment.

You also have to keep in mind, we don't really know all the facts here. Most importantly, we don't know what could and couldn't be proven at trial. People assume because we have all these reports with alleged facts that they could be proven at trial; that's certainly not the case. You have to remember, pleas are not based on what happened; they're based on what could be proven at trial.

Irish Gunner
03-13-2012, 9:05 PM
I will grant that the public doesn't have all the facts. I will also grant you that without a cooperative witness it would be hard to prosecute as a lot of DV cases are. But if you really believe that John Doe mechanic with a PD gets the DV part dropped in the plea deal, I have a house with an ocean view to sell you in Kansas.

Even reduced to criminal trespass with spouse equates to DV misdemeanor. I would have to believe that false imprisonment of one's spouse is too.

snobord99
03-13-2012, 9:22 PM
I will grant that the public doesn't have all the facts. I will also grant you that without a cooperative witness it would be hard to prosecute as a lot of DV cases are. But if you really believe that John Doe mechanic with a PD gets the DV part dropped in the plea deal, I have a house with an ocean view to sell you in Kansas.

Even reduced to criminal trespass with spouse equates to DV misdemeanor. I would have to believe that false imprisonment of one's spouse is too.

Again, you're just assuming you know all the facts. You're assuming that because this guy was the sheriff, he received special treatment, but you have no idea what could be proved at trial. If I don't think the prosecution will be able to prove the DV, why the hell would I plea to it? This applies if I'm the sheriff of the county or John Doe mechanic.

If you really believe that all people with a PD get a bad deal based on your brother's one experience with them (or even a handful of experience you heard about), then I do believe that you actually think you have a house with an ocean view in Kansas.

Did he receive special treatment here because he's the sheriff? Maybe, but I simply don't know the details of the case and what evidence they had. I'm simply not arrogant (or jaded) enough to assume that I know enough to conclude definitively either way.

Sutcliffe
03-14-2012, 5:43 AM
This whole thing was more about his enemies in high places than anything else.
His enemies get to see him dragged through the mud, he gets to remain sheriff and keep his guns and the rest of us can suck it.

anthonyca
03-14-2012, 6:05 AM
In my experience with DV cases in the mid to late 90's, (OJ murder case days) these types of pleas were rare, from what I saw. We had many soldiers who were arrested for DV and none received a sweetheart deal like this. I personally witnessed the "DV crime" that got a 19 year old guy arrested. He burned through his few thousands of life savings and part of his mom's. That burned in my mind to NEVER trust the government! No joke of a plea for him.

I did a job at a city hall that had police offices. The background checks were intense and included ARRESTS for misdemeanors well over 15 years old. Convictions were not needed and this was just to replace the air conditioning and boilers in non sensitive areas.

Merkarimi couldn't even be a contractor to mop the floor in his office building but he is the sheriff. Something is very wrong here.

Patrick Aherne
03-14-2012, 7:58 AM
In my experience with DV cases in the mid to late 90's, (OJ murder case days) these types of pleas were rare, from what I saw. We had many soldiers who were arrested for DV and none received a sweetheart deal like this. I personally witnessed the "DV crime" that got a 19 year old guy arrested. He burned through his few thousands of life savings and part of his mom's.

You're proving my point. If your 19 year old soldier had Lidia Stiglich and $100k for legal fees, I doubt he would have plead to a DV.

supersonic
03-14-2012, 10:55 AM
I wanted to exit this thread, but it keeps dragging me back because I have a personal interest in a few things related to this case. All are cases in which I was the victim of some pretty serious s*** by a few of those that abused their power in despicable ways. And I think this thread could end right here with these past quotes:

Give that man a prize. He summed it up in simple sentences. Debating the law and how it gets applied is pointless. If you currently or retired from the badge you get special treatment from your peers. Maybe not the DA, but certainly from LE on the street. I've seen it first hand and more than one occasion.

And in most cases I say good for you. Perks of the job as they say. As LE you've had to deal with the scum of the earth each and everyday as part of your job. So if you speed you tend to get off good for you. A fight in bar, you get to go home no charges. DUI gets you a drive home or phone call to get picked up.

Anyone who thinks the law is applied consistantly is just plain off their meds. If you have clout, means and friends in high places, you are for the most part immunned. You see it in politics, you see it in Hollywood, you read about it every day.

If I hit my wife, girlfriend, daughter, mother, neighbor, etc., I would be in jail, with a record and have an empty safe.

Fair . . . No. Is it how things are done . . . yes.

The SF Sherriff will not only walk, he will certainly keep his firearms. Maybe not his job, but certainly his guns.


Of course he will! He is a cop and will find a way! His buddies will find a way to help him keep his guns!

I asked a couple of officers I work with and they would be surprise if he does NOT get them back!

The bruises by themselves should have got him a misdemeanor DV charge that he couldn't plead guilty to without getting a lifetime gun ban. Allowing him to plead guilty to the false imprisonment just allows the city to sweep this all under the rug and hope everyone forgets about it. Everyone else in this situation would have been offered a deal to plea for the misdemeanor DV.

I know well about plea deals and in general they are a good thing. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. My only gripe, it that the system favors those with money and influence.

I am coming from the fact that my brother is fighting to get his gun rights restored, because he plead to a misdemeanor and the DA tagged on the DV clause. What my brother did is a lot less offensive that Mirikami in that only property was damaged. No physical harm was done. He didn't have the money for an attorney and he got screwed.

Of course he will! He is a cop and will find a way! His buddies will find a way to help him keep his guns!

Silly folks. You have to remember, he is one of the untouchables above the law boys in blue... He will get his guns back, he will continue as sheriff and this will all be swept under the rug..
/sarcasm


I'm not suprised. Since when did the City & County of SF ever care about Federal law (or state law for that matter)? Too many examples yo list...
For someone who dislikes the 2nd amendment as much as RM he sure went to a lot of trouble and expense to keep his.
Does anyone really think the Mayor or Sups. will boot RM out?

Unfortunately Mirk will skate on this one. There's no way that SF will eat one of it's own liberal elites.

This one isn't hard to figure out guys. If he is pleading guilty to a charge then its a charge that will have no bearing on him keeping his guns or staying on as sheriff. It would make no sense for him to do otherwise and I'm sure his lawyers checked this out.

The only bull**** here is I'm sure he will be the only person in ca this year that will get a DV charge plead down to a misdemeanor false imprisonment that doesn't trigger a lifetime ban. Everyone else that isn't a sheriff gets a lifetime gun ban. But hey, I'm sure there was no special treatment here.

I really don't see the point to speculation

What we know

1) He will get special treatment as CLEO

2) He will not be prohibited in any way
3) You or I would never get the same treatment
4) There is nothing anybody can do about it. CA is completely corrupt.

He's the only one professional enough to be convicted of abusing his wife and keep his gun rights.
:facepalm:


And LEO's wonder why civilians despise their ethics when they cynically parade their double standards and are not accountable for their criminal actions. The fish stinks from the head.

Proof?

Look at Murakami.

It's OK to beat your wife and get away with it...provided you're in law enforcement.

The apologists will claim: No, no! It never happens! DA's want to burn us at every turn! It's not like we work together every day! Others claim: Oh, it only happens in upper management! Not the rank and file! There is no thin blue line!

Snore.

Look, being on the job does suck. I specifically made a decision against it after a year and a half for many reasons, not the least of which was that it resembled garbage collection. The air of superiority that so many badged carry and the perpetuating of the double standard is disgusting, more so in this state than any.

Mirikami should fry, period. Lead by example. Be accountable for your actions.

In some ways law enforcement reminds me of the Muslim: While some cry Jihad, as LEO's commit crime ranging from robbery, rape and murder, the vast majority of Muslims refuse to cry out in outrage over the actions of their peers that color the perception; they simply don't generally renounce it, much as the thin blue line never speaks out publicly about crime in their own ranks, since they allegedly "police their own".


Please don't take this the wrong way, no disrespect intended but is that why the CHP called my SIL to come pick up her BF (sheriff's deputy) because he could barely stand when they pulled him over instead of popping him for a DUI...twice?




This post doesn't seem to indicate that any of the above was tongue in cheek, but rather an earnest rant on your part about your dislike of cops.

^^I must take serious issue with this accusation,however. Let me re-educate you. First, go back and read my post.....carefully. Then, read it again and you *might* see that I have ZERO "dislike" (as you call it) or any ill-will whatsoever, for LEO's. In fact, We need them and they are the 2nd most underpaid civil servants in this country. Now "crooked" cops (or cops that don't tow the line and live by their sworn vows)....THAT is a different story. YOU should have hatred towards them as well (unless you are one of them, of course - which I am NOT accusing you of. Just poor comprehension skills, that's all. That can be fixed with some home study. But once you are "on the take" or think you are "better than any civilian" .....well all bets are off then and you will pay dearly, sooner or later, for it.)

Peace, guys. See ya' in another forum. This thread should really be locked. We'll find out soon enough what happens to that dirt-munching gasbag in S.F. soon enough.:cool::p

LockJaw
03-14-2012, 8:22 PM
For those that haven't read what CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb had to say about the actions of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. It's worth the read. The public shaming continues.

http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=2840

My favorite of his choice remarks:

“Mirkarimi’s reputation as a double-standard elitist is now solidified,” Gottlieb said. “For a person who has advocated gun control for everyone else, he should be ashamed. Ross Mirkarimi can now be known as the High Sheriff of Low Behavior.”

Baaaaa, I love a well worded, slice to the bone, insult. In my world hypocrites deserve to have it thrown back in their face.

Patrick Aherne
03-21-2012, 1:34 PM
I watched a news blurb from DA Gascon where he stated that Mirkarimi's conviction was absolutely "DV-related" because Mirkarimi had to go through 52 weeks of DV counseling.

Uxi
03-21-2012, 1:52 PM
The only bull**** here is I'm sure he will be the only person in ca this year that will get a DV charge plead down to a misdemeanor false imprisonment that doesn't trigger a lifetime ban. Everyone else that isn't a sheriff gets a lifetime gun ban. But hey, I'm sure there was no special treatment here.


Right. The problem is as much the whole plea system, and the government's blatant coercion with it, as much as the equal protection offense.

Striker
03-21-2012, 2:59 PM
Here's my take and I'm surprised I didn't see more take this approach.

First, yes he may get his guns back depending on how this plays out. Though I think the speculation that he'll keep his job is off. At that level, you're a politician more than anything. His superiors are elected officials and this guy is on the wrong side of public opinion, meaning he's a political liability. If you let him keep his job, be prepared to lose yours in the next election. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, a major city, didn't get there by being non political. I have no idea how they would justify to voting public that they let him keep his job. And don't for a second believe that their opponents in the next election won't bring it up. They understand the game and they understand how to keep their jobs. Yes, it's motivated self-interest, but in this case, as long as it serves justice, who cares.

The Clinton incident doesn't compare. When the Clinton incident happened, people wrote it off as a consensual sex thing, which it was. He lied, but the public didn't care because it was a private matter between two consenting adults. And since he was POTUS, in this case, the public was who he answered to. Since they didn't believe the act was egregious enough to remove him, it wasn't. This is nothing like that incident.

Also, even if he gets to keep his firearms, no intelligent person will issue him a CCW. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. He has DV charges, though they were dropped, he was still charged with it. And he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. You issue him a CCW permit, he goes off the deep end again and guess who gets sued; you and the city or county you work for, with good reason. Again motivated self-interest, but who cares as long as it serves justice. I think he's done, but that's just my opinion.

lost2ndamendmentrights
09-22-2013, 7:18 AM
Since this topic did not have a real-life experience regarding an equivalent case, I thought I would post mine.

I was arrested in 2001 for a THREE nefarious CHARGES in Marin County. I proved two of the charges false/incorrect/unsubstanciated, then pled guilty to the third, misdemeanor False Imprisonment. WHY? Because I read the law and it does state that if the victim feels that they don't have the freedom to leave, you are then guilty of the imprisonment. Am I wrong - read the entire law first and then respond. Remember, I did not go to trial, I pled quilty of that charge. I'm an honest guy and I understand what I read.

I had three years of probation, a year of Anger Management Classes, fines, ect....just like the Sheriff. I also turned in my guns.

By the way, there were no guns involved during my argument. In fact no one, not my wife or me, ever stated there was any "hands on" at any time. No pushing, no throwing objects, I never said "stay", or "don't leave", there was never any verbal indication that I wanted any physical placement of her location. I yelled at her and threaten to leave her. However, she was in the corner of the carport when I approached her - so the situation/environment was already "set up".

I turned in the three personal firearms that I owned.

At the sentencing, the Judge chewed out the DA for wanting to send me to jail for 9 months...so there was a grateful amount of support from him. I was allowed to continued to carry my employment firearm in the scope of my employment (I won't specify my employment - it shouldn't matter). I also had a restraining order placed upon me during the sentencing, but the Judge asked my spouse, who was present at sentencing, if she had anything to say. She asked that the restraining order be dropped because "everyone has problems from time to time and we wanted to continue our relationship"...so the Judge modified the restraining order allowing me contact (at her invitation), but the modification still stated that I was not to "restrict her freedom of movement". Fine.

Now I left that job a few years later.

10 years after that, I attempt to purchase a firearm, FBI NICS says, NO. You have a DV. I argued that to them that the law states a requirement for physical or threat of physical, which there was none. They maintained a "NO".

I appealed - they maintained "NO, you have a DV". This was in 2012.

End of story. My misdemeanor False Imprisonment conviction ended by 2nd Amendment Right to carry a firearm in this country according to the FBI NICS overlords.