CCRKBA Says San Francisco Sheriff’s Plea Deal Smacks Of Hypocrisy

[beevul]

CCRKBA Says San Francisco Sheriff’s Plea Deal Smacks Of Hypocrisy

BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- The plea deal announced this morning that allows anti-gun San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi to keep his guns in what began as a domestic violence case “smacks of hypocrisy at the highest order,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Mirkarimi pleaded guilty in San Francisco court this morning to what the San Francisco Chronicle described as “a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment in connection with an incident in which he allegedly inflicted a bruise on his wife.”


“Why should Mirkarimi enjoy a double standard,” Gottlieb questioned. “Based on reports of what he allegedly did, any private citizen who did the same thing might be facing jail time. You can bet San Francisco prosecutors would not be cutting a deal that would allow that person to get his firearms back.

“Instead of getting his guns back under a sweet plea deal and retaining his job as sheriff,” he observed, “Mirkarimi ought to remain disarmed, and lose his job. Otherwise, from this date forward, San Francisco prosecutors need to apply the ‘Mirkarimi standard’ to every domestic violence case that hits their desk.


http://www.ammoland.com/2012/03/13/ccrkba-says-san-francisco-sheriffs-plea-deal-smacks-of-hypocrisy/#axzz1pBhDAkTv


Those of you that support the permanent disarming and classification of people involved in domestic abuse cases as "prohibited persons", do you support the "good sheriff", or the prosecutors that cut the plea deal with him?

Would you support the application of the ‘Mirkarimi standard’ for everyone else?

[shadowrider]

1. -- Snort --

Guns for me but not for thee.

I'm not expecting a ton of responses to your request, but just in case:

[Clames]

3. It's "snork"...

...or is it Snork? Snourk?

[shadowrider]

4. -- Snort --

You can snork if you want to..

[tularetom]

2. If you did the crime you should do the time

But "doing the time" doesn't include the lifetime suspension of your constitutional rights.

Goddamn right the "Mirkarimi standard" should apply to everyone.

Throw the book at domestic abusers, I have no problem with long jail terms for them but once they have "paid their debt to society" they should be able to keep and bear arms like any other citizen. They should also be able to vote.

[PavePusher]

6. Agreed. n/t

[shadowrider]

5. Still waiting for the first response to your inquiry

[spin]

7. The same standards should apply to all ...

If the average citizen would lose his firearms in such a situation, the Sheriff should also.

[TPaine7]

8. Everyone convicted in that jurisdiction on similar charges should bring a 14th Amendment class

action suit.

Too bad the jury would be San Franciscans, who like many here believe the police are special.

[ellisonz]

9. No. n/t

[oneshooter]

10. But do you support it as applied in this case?

Personally I believe that he should lose his job, go to jail, and have all firearms removed from his posession, never to be replaced. He has violated the trust of the people, and should pay a high price for that.

[shadowrider]

11. C'mon man, he's a cop. He can be trusted and stuff

At least according to what we read from anti-gun people in this forum.

[ellisonz]

12. I'm no apologist for domestic violence.

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.26

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.27

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.28

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.29

A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.30 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.31

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.32

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp#5

I'm also no apologist for ineffective gun control laws.

[oneshooter]

13. Still can't answer a simple yes/no question, can you.

In that case we can put you down as a "yes" answer.

[beevul]

14. I am so so disapointed...

I am so so disapointed.

I mean...here we have an individual who is "MUCH MORE LIKELY to discharge a weapon in public that those who don't carry gun", likely "straps on a gun or two before venturing out"...


And leaves bruises on his wife.


And yet...essentially, all we hear from those who usually oppose those things in the most vocal and boisterous ways, is this:

If this guy weren't a cop - you know - one of the "only ones" who should carry a gun in public, does anyone doubt for so much as a nanosecond, that this individual would be used in some, or multiple unsavory ways, to attack the rest of us?

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. They are overly deferential towards authority figures, and thus have a dilemma.

Cases like Mirkarimi's, the cop in Massachusetts that shot a co-worker in a domestic dispute, and the one where a cop left a gun where a kid got to
it and shot himself are problematic for them. They can't simultaneously acknowledge that some of The Chosen Ones fuck up with guns while proclaiming
non-cops with guns are especially dangerous...

[gejohnston]

16. being overly deferential towards authority figures

isn't very liberal is it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Not a bit liberal- but Rahm Emanuel and Mike Bloomberg still get love here...