SF Sheriff arrested for DV

[ArtP]

The sheriff of San Fransisco County has been arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. Of course a conviction would result in him becoming a prohibited person.

Personally, I find some interest in this case for a couple reasons. The myth that those in LE are protected has been squashed in this case. But I'm very interested to see if the charges stick.

I'm very much a believer in the wealthy or powerful getting off charges that the average citizen could not escape. I suspect this is bitter sweet. That is, refreshing to see a high official charged like a common citizen, but I'm afraid the final result will likely demonstrate the wealthy and powerful ultimately are not held to the same standard as common folk and the sheriff will escape conviction.

In defense of the sheriff, he was arrested for leaving a bruise on his wife's arm on new years eve (I assume a firm grab). I can't get on board with behaving that way, but I personally wouldn't categorize that level of abuse worth legal intervention -- but that's the standard the rest of us are subject to.

My information comes from televised news reports. Rather than google and post links, I'll leave that to you fine folks.

 

[Bovice]

Not only will he become a prohibited person if convicted, he's going to lose his job.

If the conditions are right and the charges are legitimate, I hope he'll fry.

 

[ArtP]

Bovice, I understand the spirit of your comment, but I hope you reconsider.

IMO you want him to fry because you want top officials to be subjected to the ridiculous standards common people are, for their rights to be taken.

I was married for 16 years and was violated by my wife a couple times. Don't get all crazy with the term "violated". I mean on one occasion she "wound up" like a baseball pitcher and slugged me so hard, without me knowing it was coming, that I couldn't hear for a week out of my left ear.

That is obvious grounds for DV, but in my opinion, I had it coming.

She had come after me and I tackled her, like men do so not to cause harm. Upon letting her up and believing her word that she would behave, I got clocked out of nowhere because I believed her. Somehow I kept my footing and told her to get out of my sight while she had the opportunity to do so.

My Ex wife who is now the RN director of an ER room and did deserve a DV conviction by societies standards. The SF sheriff was "softer" than my ex, quite a bit softer. Neither of them deserve a DV conviction in my opinion.

But I am interested to see if the SF sheriff is held to some crazy standard that common folk are.

I'm suggesting the standards are all screwed up. There are abusers and there are those who got a little heated. I can forgive someone who got heated and went a little over the top, as long as it isn't a pattern and those around the person continue to feel safe.

 

[biogenic]

It's political. They'll charge but nothing will stick. I do believe he had an altercation with his wife but it will all be forgotten in the long run.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Bovice, I understand the spirit of your comment, but I hope you reconsider.

IMO you want him to fry because you want top officials to be subjected to the ridiculous standards common people are, for their rights to be taken.

I was married for 16 years and was violated by my wife a couple times. Don't get all crazy with the term "violated". I mean on one occasion she "wound up" like a baseball pitcher and slugged me so hard, without me knowing it was coming, that I couldn't hear for a week out of my left ear.

That is obvious grounds for DV, but in my opinion, I had it coming.

She had come after me and I tackled her, like men do so not to cause harm. Upon letting her up and believing her word that she would behave, I got clocked out of nowhere because I believed her. Somehow I kept my footing and told her to get out of my sight while she had the opportunity to do so.

My Ex wife who is now the RN director of an ER room and did deserve a DV conviction by societies standards. The SF sheriff was "softer" than my ex, quite a bit softer. Neither of them deserve a DV conviction in my opinion.

But I am interested to see if the SF sheriff is held to some crazy standard that common folk are.

I'm suggesting the standards are all screwed up. There are abusers and there are those who got a little heated. I can forgive someone who got heated and went a little over the top, as long as it isn't a pattern and those around the person continue to feel safe.

See Art, that is the problem right there, because she is a woman you are holding her to different standards. If it were the sheriff who "wound up" and hit his wife so hard she could not hear for a week, in the eyes of the world he would be scum. If she expressed a thought like "in my opinion, I had it coming" I have no doubt folks would assume she had been beaten by her husband so long she was suffering from battered woman syndrome.

Whether or not you deserved the hit I cannot speak to, I can however say if the sexes were reversed you would forever be a prohibited person.

 

[ArtP]

Unforgiven, I'm very aware of the double standard between men and women. IMO each side suffers from stereotypical standards, not just related to law enforcement.

I do know exactly what you mean by, if I hit my wife like that and the likely felony conviction and roughing up I might take in jail and the prison term I might face.

I don't agree with the current DV laws, or rather I'm not happy with the standards used to strip Americans of their 2nd.

I guess I find it unfortunate that we cannot all be grown-ups and admit when we've provoked another and admit when we're being abused. The ability to cry wolf simply to punish another is the most disturbing.

I pissed her off with my desire to run off with her friends to continue the party. This was in my early 20's and that was the reason for getting slugged. I can understand her pain and frustration and feelings of abandonment.

 

[andrewstorm]

almost all families argue

Some are violent,pushing shoving or worse,all the things cops are trained to do on a regular basis and they respond in the way they protect themselves at work,a spiteful spouse or dating relationship member can wreck your life and they know it, the one chance people have is to be acquitted,or in some states plea bargain,to a lesser charge like disorderly person,or creating a disturbance, it helps to be innocent,and have the best lawyer ,and pray. my crazy wife left me and took my Lincoln, dang I miss that car.

 

[ArtP]

My ex wife took more than a Lincoln. She took a very expensive seven year degree worth an income well into six figures, on the road.

I suspect this thread is going to be shut down for drifting off topic.

But in regards to "families fight". They do. I'd like to want someone in the family to be grown up enough to decide when law enforcement should be involved. Unfortunately some of us have blown it, as citizens, and caused the law to involve itself in family matters, sometimes when not necessary. And I get that. In the case of the SF sheriff I believe that is exactly what happened. I don't believe he deserves prosecution, but I am very interested to see if he is subjected to what "we" are subjected to.

When I was "going through it" with my ex in court, I liked to say. "I am currently paying the price for thousands of years of men abusing women". The inequities are astounding. The pendulum has shifted.

 

[P-32]

But I am interested to see if the SF sheriff is held to some crazy standard that common folk are.

You have no idea just how much closer LEO's are held to a higher standard than common folk are.

 

[ArtP]

I have a very good friend who works for DEA at headquarters in DC. He assures me of the same. That is LE is held to a higher standard.

I'd like to see this come to fruition and be proven wrong by those who claim public officials are held to the same, or a higher standard.

If the sheriff is convicted, I will eat all my words and rejoice in justice.

 

[P-32]

Don’t in your zeal forget people are innocent until proven guilty. I know a LEO who’s now ex-wife turned him in for a domestic. She admitted she was filing a false report.She was mad and wanted him to get into trouble. LEO’s are held to such a ridiculously high standard I will not disclose any type of details for Washington St because the standards are so ridiculous.

 

[ArtP]

Guy who lives by Spokane WA,

Don't get me wrong. If I have any zeal, it's for the unforgiving laws and our willingness as a society to strip rights afforded in the Bill or Rights of the average citizen.

To be quite honest, I feel for the SF sheriff and in my mind I don't find him guilty of a crime. I'm not privy to the evidence though.

My point in bringing this up, is to see if the sheriff is held to the same standard the average citizen is. You alluded that public officials are held to a higher standard, just like my DEA buddy did. I don't think that's true and the outcome of the SF sheriff will be closely followed and at most can be used to support my claim -- when he gets off.

I appreciate your point of view, your opinion and your willingness to make those public.

 

[Zoogster]

P-32 said:

You have no idea just how much closer LEO's are held to a higher standard than common folk are.

That statement is misleading when it comes to DV because in many cases other police will not arrest another law enforcement for the same type of minor scenario precisely because they know it is a career killer.
Even in states that mandate automatic arrest if domestic violence is believed to be involved.

A regular person might get arrested as soon as they hear there was some hostile touching, or even physical contact during an argument, but the officer frequently won't get charged unless they did something quite serious.
So yes the public may hold officers to a higher standard if they learn or hear about something, including an inhuman standard of perfection, but other officers tend to hold them to a lower standard especially when it involves petty laws.

Quite often they will simply talk to the off duty officer, or remove or separate the couple, giving every possible benefit of the doubt and more. Going out of their way to not ruin the career of the other officer.
When a regular person would have been going to jail and appearing in court for domestic violence for less. Gun rights for a common person? No big deal, their hands are tied and they have to follow guidelines and the law.
Career of another LEO? Well that warrants taking every precaution to avoid lifelong consequences, unless it was so blatantly serious it cannot be swept under the rug.

 

[ArtP]

I wish I were as smart as Zoogster!

He makes a really good point, that "issues" are likely to be swept under before they become mandated offenses.

My long-term girlfriend's father told me many stories about his days as a San Fransisco cop in the 60's. To shorten a long story, there is a code among the brotherhood to protect the members.

 

[P-32]

That statement is misleading when it comes to DV because in many cases other police will not arrest another law enforcement for the same type of minor scenario precisely because they know it is a career killer.
Even in states that mandate automatic arrest if domestic violence is believed to be involved.

Maybe where you live but not here. I'm telling you you do not have an idea of how it is now today in 2012. Do you get investigated because ytou raised your voice to your wife? I didn't think so.

My long-term girlfriend's father told me many stories about his days as a San Fransisco cop in the 60's. To shorten a long story, there is a code among the brotherhood to protect the members.

Maybe in the 60's but not like it is now. Back in the 60's I don't think a Cop could get a DUI. We can and will today.

I should not have brought this up because there seems to be some people who think Leo's can't get themselves in trouble. I got sued because I tazed a female who was hitting my Chief. I did nothing wrong. I followed training. Damned if you do damned if you don't. So don't even think you can tell me how it is. I'm glad to be out of L/E. And I was one who tried to do what was right. I would cut a guy a break unless it was something you could not over look. Tell you what, how would you like to go to some guy's house sand tell him his wife, 2 kids and his MIL was killed in a car wreak? I have and you can't stand to see us cut our selves a bit of the same break you would give to you? I have seen a LEO's wife arrested for DV for crying out loud. Even though the LEO did not want her arrested. I'm done with this thread.

 

[ArtP]

Maybe where you live but not here.



Maybe in the 60's but not like it is now. Back in the 60's I don't think a Cop could get a DUI. We can and will today.

I don't think anyone got a DUI in the 60's unless they hurt someone.

If you're suggesting the police in your town are immune to brotherhood and fail to recognize the latitude of the law and do not take full advantage, then I suggest you post examples.

While I have given personal examples for my opinion, you've stated nothing but vague theory to back your claim.

 

[whalerman]

Art, you state that you have problems with the "ridiculous standards" of today. Be aware that the only way anything will ever be done about this concern of yours is if ALL are held to the same standard. As far as I'm concerned, Sheriff's are nothing but politicians. Whenever a politician gets screwed by laws its a good day for the rest of us mere citizens.

And your comment about your wife slugging you, and you deserving it, is strange to say the least.

 

[pricedo]

Not only will he become a prohibited person if convicted, he's going to lose his job.

If the conditions are right and the charges are legitimate, I hope he'll fry.

I'll believe it when I see it.
Maybe his golfing buddies the DA and Circuit Judge (not the gun) will "take care" of him.
If he just grabbed her arm then perhaps he shouldn't be convicted.
The again an angry 220 pound 6'6" muscle bound guy could break a 110 pound wife's arm with a simple grab.
Depends on how aggressive the grab was and that'll be up to a judge to decide.

 

[ArtP]

And your comment about your wife slugging you, and you deserving it, is strange to say the least.

I have empathy.

Perhaps deserving being slugged was was a stretch. But I understood and she didn't need to be arrested to prevent further abuse. At its core, arrest is to ensure the accused indeed faces the court and to isolate an abuser.

She needed neither.

 

[whalerman]

Maybe SHE didn't need it but if you think that's an ok deal then maybe YOU need a discussion or two with a psycho type.

 

[ArtP]

Okay, you got me to bite.

Let's say I have her arrested....

I now have to post her bail, or forfeit 10%, and hire an attorney to possibly get her off the charges. I have to drive her to and from anger management classes, I have to concern myself with living with a prohibited person if she is indeed convicted. I have to explain to my children why daddy needed to call the police on their mother. Blah blah, blah.

Further, I had a hand in causing her overboard reaction. Apparently in this era, some of us have forgotten how to be accountable. And further, further; you have forgotten the "union" part of marriage.

She wasn't a real threat and there was no reason to seek the protection of law enforcement and burden you and your tax dollars.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

The myth that those in LE are protected has been squashed in this case.

It's not a myth, at least not around here. Often the women choose not to proceed because they discover that the officer/husband will lose his job and isn't likely to secure other work at the same salary level, thus the family income would be severely reduced. The officer agrees to go to counseling and the problem doesn't recur or at least the wife never reports it again.
This information came to me first hand and from more than one source.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Guns?

 

[Bobson]

From what I've read (which, admittedly, was only about 2/3 of the posts in this thread), every comment so far was made as though we know for certain the sheriff actually committed an act of DV. We don't. Having been accused of committing a crime is not the same as having committed a crime.

Guns?

Yep. I find this thread interesting, but can't help but notice it has absolutely nothing to do with the "mission goals of THR," namely:

• Introduce new people to RKBA
• Support new shooters with information and encouragement
• Present a civil, peaceable and friendly image of gun owners to the world
• Organize actions to protect and expand our rights

To quote Oleg Volk, from his sticky in this subforum:

Consider yourself invited [to the legal subforum] by me personally and please do not abuse my hospitality by picking on other guests or by misusing the venue provided for discussions of topics specifically excluded from its brief, such as celebrity misbehaviors or non-RKBA politics.

 

[jackpinesavages]

Yes, LE ARE held to higher standards.

Nothing like another electronic dog pile on your local LE agency, though.

Yes, LE are held to higher standards in EVERY segment of our lives, on-duty and off; from our personal life to our electronic life. (I'm pretty sure my agency/employer tracks my IP activity.)

I have to be comfortable with that level of monitoring my activities for good moral, ethical, and legal reasons.

What makes me uncomfortable is the increased number of anti-LE and government threads on the interwebs lately. Yes I believe that to dissent is a form of Patriotism. However, these trolling threads that simply ask for, and examplify, unsubstantiated LE hatred are becoming the norm.