Today
Sections
More
Features
advertisement
|
your ad here
Home of the San Francisco Chronicle
- Bay Area & State
- Nation
- World
- Politics
- Crime
- Tech
- Obituaries
- Education
- Green
- Science
- Health
- Weird
- Opinion
Ethics
Internet trolls attack former police chief after his stroke
Former San Francisco police chief Earl Sanders certainly has his issues. Just this month the Chronicle ran a story on a judge's ruling that Sanders knew a witness in a murder trial had given false testimony, but did not correct it, resulting in a tainted conviction.
But when it was reported that Sanders, 73, had suffered a serious stroke and was hospitalized, some of the online comments were incredibly vicious. Anonymous writers said things like, "I hope he dies and rots in hell . . . the hotter and longer the better.''
It's a familiar phenomenon. Cowardly internet trolls write the meanest possible posts, knowing that they will get a public viewing without anyone confronting them. The idea that these are people, with families and friends, seems lost, along with a sense of humanity.
But this time there was a response. Marcus Sanders, the chief's son, posted a reply. (In it, he refers to another case, where two defendants, Antoine Goff and John Tennison, were freed from prison after serving 10 years because the courts found some evidence was not disclosed during the trial.)
Here is the response in full:
''You are all talking about my father. And your comments are very cruel. Its easy to be cruel when you are hidden in the anonymity of the Internet. I am the Chief's son, Marcus Sanders - None of you have the courage to say what you've said in your comments to my face.
''If you had the courage I might educate you on the real facts about my father's over 30 years of public service, the circumstances of the Factual Finding of Innocence granted to my father and how his courage to stand up lead to the release of Tennison and Goff and this latest case. But, (spending) time to educate you would be complete waste of my energy in educating you ignorant Internet Trolls! You never deserved my father's time and service! That's why I spend my career getting rich and not serving a day working for an undeserving public!''
I reached Marcus Thursday afternoon and he confirmed he was the one who responded.
"We're used to the battle back and forth about my father in the news,'' he said. "But we're a family, going through a pretty tough time and when I read some of those comments I thought they were just horrible.''
Marcus said this was his first experience with internet trolls, but he wouldn't mind meeting up with some of them.
"I'm 6-2 and I weigh about 250,'' he said. "Come up and say that to my face.''
| December 23 2010 at 05:17 PM
More Tales From Cell Phone Hell
Today's cell phone column created a small flood of e-mails, mostly from those who wanted to tell their own story of someone using a "Yell Phone'' in a public place. Here are a few of the best, and we'll try to update during the day as more arrive.
ouchh.com
A photo taken during a recent ride on BART.
This is my method, especially at SFO. When I hear someone blabbing about business on a phone, I pull out a yellow pad and start making notes. When the target notices my actions and inquires (invariably they do), I explain that I am just doing my job for an "information broker". The facial reactions are priceless, and some become very concerned that whatever I wrote down might get them in big trouble. Especially if they are caught talking about their fellow workers in unkind terms.
I start joining the conversation and advising the person what they should do and what they should say to the other person. If they try and ask me to not get involved I merely state, “…Oh, I was certain you were talking to me b/c why else would you be directing your conversation for me to hear. If you are forcing me to listen to your conversation I have no choice but to join it. …†Most of the time the person moves away or hangs up. If they say something rude to me I show them I can be rude too. Often I will turn to the general public and ask everyone nearby in a loud voice if they think this person should shut up. This has worked beautifully.
There is one possible countertactic to intrusive cell conversationalists: get involved in the conversation. Start up a discussion with one's companions about the cell call subject or even interrupt the cell conversationalist with questions. I haven't actually had the guts to do it (yet) but I'm getting close.
-- The best story I heard about rude cell phone use occured in New York City on the subway. A man, talking very loudly his cell phone, got on the train and sat next to a little old lady who was reading a book. He continued his very loud conversation, oblivious to the fact that he was disturbing everyone, when the woman sitting next to him started reading her book--aloud! He turned in disgust and moved to another car, still talking and probably missing the point. Cheers and a standing ovation from her car mates.
-- I am very lucky, being a very large, well muscled male, and intend, when faced with situations like we are hearing about, to grab the offending phone, and either throw it away, or break it... no explanation, no discussion.
-- I've already had one experience that was too much for me. I was in my seat on a plane waiting for takeoff, when the man in the middle seat dialed up one of his medical patients to discuss a devastating diagnosis. The person was young because parents were mentioned during the call. After the doctor hung up, I mentioned that the call was very sad. He was surprised. It hadn't occurred to him that I was listening to every word--he was in the middle seat for god's sake. It turned out that he was a nice guy and was sorry for his call. Read More 'More Tales From Cell Phone Hell' »
| April 05 2007 at 09:32 AM
Enough Apologies from Kramer
There's just one last pledge for former "Seinfeld'' star Michael Richards to make.
No more apologies.
AP
OK, he's sorry. Now what?
First, Richards is terrible at apologizing. He's now been on "The David Letterman Show,'' and on Jesse Jackson's radio show to say how sorry he is. But he's pretty much covered the ground. He's very, very sorry. He's not a racist. He feels terrible.
OK, we get it. The problem is that he seems to be all over the map, looking both sincere and weird at the same time. Kind of like Kramer, the character he played on "Seinfeld.'' Kramer's dead serious, but skewed, view, is what made him a hit. (A personal favorite: Asked if he wanted to go out to the airport with some of the other characters, Kramer was thrilled. A chance to "hit the duty free shops,'' he said enthusiastically.)
But more than anything Richards looks like a guy who wants to say whatever he can to make this go away. And there really isn't anything. He's stuck. He was caught on tape using the worst kind of racial slur. He was vilified. He's apologized, over and over. There isn't another step.
Frankly, he doesn't have a good explanation for why he went off on an angry rant at a Los Angeles comedy club when he was heckled. The hecklers, as you've heard, were black and when Richards flipped out he attacked the two men verbally he used what turns out to be the final forbidden word in American language -- nigger.
Kind of shocking to see it there in print isn't it? I actually paused while typing it. Amazing power for a single word, when you consider all the profane and ugly words in our language.
I don't know what the worst word that you can think of is, other than the N-word, but whatever it is, I don't imagine you'd be surprised to hear someone use it at work, on the street, or on the train. I don't think you'd rush home and tell your family that you heard someone say it. You'd think that person was crude or stupid, but it wouldn't change your life.
But this, like Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant or Sen. George Allen's strange and odd racist taunt to someone in the crowd during his campaign, has ignited a national debate.
And there are those who welcome this and say it is a good thing. But aside from a few racist nitwits, with whom are we arguing? Who thinks it is a good idea to use ugly racist slurs?
Who is defending that right?
Nobody. Certainly not Gibson, who apologized at length on a prime time TV special. Not Allen, who lost his Senate seat. And certainly not Richards who will be turning up at your front door any minute to tell your how very, very sorry he is. Read More 'Enough Apologies from Kramer' »
| November 28 2006 at 07:45 AM
The Coach Who Clobbered the Kid
My column on the Stockton football coach, Cory Petero, who clobbered a 13-year-old kid last weekend generated a hundreds of e-mails. I even got an invitation to appear on the Bill O'Reilly Show. (Not sure about that one. Do you think he'll yell at me? Do you think I ought to go on the show?)
Mario Trevino
Right about now football coach Cory Petero is wishing he'd kept his cool.
In the column I said that, as a father, I had the same urges that guy did. When you see your child become the victim of a cheap shot — as this one clearly was -- the urge to run out and protect your offspring is powerful. And I admitted that I'd had that urge too, and had struggled to keep myself under control. The column clearly hit a nerve.
I said it was tough, but you have to do it. That there is never an excuse for losing control and hitting a kid.
The responses fell into four categories. First, there were those who thanked me for my honesty and admitted that they'd had the same urges. One woman fessed up that she'd gotten carried away.
"I am so ashamed of the things I yelled at a basketball game,'' she said. "I don't know what came over me.''
And, as many, many parents said, it is not only hard to keep yourself under control, but difficult to understand the feelings if you didn't have children of your own. One man described telling the guys where he worked that he'd felt so angry when his son was the victim of an unfair foul that he nearly ran onto the field. His co-workers, who didn't have children, were aghast. What was he talking about?
Just wait, guys. When it is your kid everything changes.
Then there was a disturbingly large group who thought that I was condoning what the coach did. Several of them ended with the words, "Shame on you.''
My theory in writing is that if you disagree with my opinion that's part of writing a column. But if you misunderstand what I said, that's my error.
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that it is never right to attack a kid like that. In fact, a foul had been called on the play and the referees were well on the way to handling the problem. By rushing out there and clocking the kid, the dad only made himself the bigger loser. I hope that message wasn't lost in the heat and smoke of the debate.
And finally, there was a small percentage, probably five percent, who had one of two reactions. First, not only should the guy have knocked the kid down, he should have punched him too. These were people who told stories about how their dads used to whack them when they got out of line and look how well they turned out.
There were even some who said the coach's mistake was doing it on the field. He should have waited until the parking lot, they said, when he could have gotten away with it without anyone seeing. There really isn't a good response to these types. You know they have had problems their entire life and the real source of it is that they continue to believe that force is the solution to everything. They've created a mythology about themselves, that they never back down, and feel that justifies their actions.
I only bring them up as a reminder that these people are still out there, standing on the sideline of youth sports, road raging their cars down the freeway, and arguing with you at the checkout stand.
The real point is that it is no sure thing that cooler heads will prevail or that every single one of us will keep ourselves from running on the field and doing something stupid. Frankly, the publicity about this case does a great deal of good in that area.
And finally, there was a fourth group that simply thought I was an absolute moron. Those e-mails were unsigned, of course, and were mostly just obscene rants. There wasn't much point in replying to them, but I do have one suggestion.
Hey guys, there's a reason why they call them four-letter-words. They have four letters. Dropping an F-bomb on somebody isn't as effective when you misspell the F-part.
| September 07 2006 at 09:35 AM
JonBenet: The Weirdest Investigation Ever?
At this point I have just one question about the investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
Is everyone out of their minds?
AP
John Karr certainly looks creepy enough. But have authorities jumped the gun -- again?
God knows the entire investigation went horribly wrong ten years ago. The Keystone -- whoops, sorry, I mean Boulder -- police bollixed the case from the morning JonBenet's body was discovered. Eventually, the chief of police resigned after admitting mistakes and the detective who was first on the scene also left the force. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Combined with the wild rumors and unfounded allegations -- that JonBenet's father John was into child pornography or that her brother, Burke, was a prime suspect -- it was an embarrassing, slipshod mess.
But now, ten years later, you'd think things would go a little more smoothly.
Not so much.
The case against former schoolteacher John Karr, arrested in Thailand with fanfare and TV cameras, seems to be unraveling before our eyes. The first warning came when district attorney Mary Lacy called a Thursday press conference in Boulder to announce — well, nothing really.
Lacy declined to answer almost all questions about Karr or the case, said he was arrested very "early in the investigation'' and cautioned everyone "Do not jump to conclusions, do not jump to judgment, do not speculate.''
Well then, here's a thought. If that's the case, don't hold a nationally televised press conference. Why not pick up Karr in his apartment in Thailand, quietly bring him over to the United States, and see if you have -- oh I don't know, a match for the DNA -- before you get up to deliver a lecture on how everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Read More 'JonBenet: The Weirdest Investigation Ever?' »
| August 18 2006 at 10:03 AM
Can we be mad at Israel, but not hate the Jews?
We are getting all kinds of e-mails and comments on Mel Gibson. The response has ranged from the worst kind of invective to can't-we-all-get-along pleas.
LA Country Sheriff's Office
Mel Gibosn's booking photo: at least he's got us talking.
Some people, frankly, are obviously bigots and are using this incident to spout hatred. Some are from the planet of peace and love and want to forgive everyone for everything. (Which is fine. I wish I was that person.)
But there is another group. They are surprisingly thoughtful, seem well informed, and are honestly concerned. They bring up a question that I hear in the office, on the streets, and, out of nowhere the other day, in the doctor's office. We all seem to be wrestling with the same problem?
Is it possible to be mad at the Jews and not hate them? No one needs to tell you this is a slippery slope. The moment you start to categorize a group you are headed for trouble. Maybe the next step won't be careening down the highway with a bottle of Tequila in the seat next to you, or claiming that the Jewish people are responsible for all the wars in the world, but there is the danger of an over-reaction.
But, honestly, I do not believe these people are bigots. They are, however, often parents. And when they see those dead children being pulled out of that bombed out basement in Qana, Lebanon, they wonder: why are we in this country backing this operation? Officially the idea is to deliver a blow to the insurgents and Hezbollah, who have been firing rockets into Israel. I think we all get that. Read More 'Can we be mad at Israel, but not hate the Jews?' »
| August 02 2006 at 11:20 AM
Ozzie Guillen gets a free pass
Someone stopped by my desk the other day with a simple question for which I had no good answer.
I hate it when that happens.
Rueters
You'd think, if you were surrounded by the media, like Ozzie Guillen, you'd realize you have to watch what you say.
Basically, what he was asking was simple. Remember John Rocker, the Atlanta Braves pitcher who was essentially drummed out of baseball for his ugly, racist, and homophobic remarks in a magazine story? Why, the questioner asked, was that such a big deal and the comments by White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen isn't?
Uh . . . I'm sure we have an answer to that. Just a moment.
Guillen, you may have heard, was upset with a Chicago newspaper columnist, Jay Mariotti. In another in a series of free-wheeling media sessions last Tuesday, Guillen called Mariotti a "f----ing fag.'' I suppose it would be possible to make a case that he lost his composure for a moment and said something completely out of character.
Except that this isn't. Loveable Ozzie (and he can be very personable) may have won the World Series with the White Sox, but he a public relations disaster waiting to happen. He pops off about all kinds of things — calling an umpire a liar, or ordering a pitcher to throw at an opponent, or, recently, identifying an old friend to reporters as "a homosexual . . . a child molester.'' Read More 'Ozzie Guillen gets a free pass' »
| June 23 2006 at 07:26 AM
The end of empty revenge
Can we now agree that the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was a mistake? Four years in the planning, six weeks of trial, and it still looks like a case drawn up on a napkin in a law school cafeteria.
Getty images
With any luck, this will be the last time we see this face.
We have a powerful taste for Old Testament vengeance in this country. And to be brutally honest, there is nothing more satisfying than seeing someone evil get their just deserts. It is the basis for every Batman comic ever written.
But revenge is a tricky thing. You need to be sure to get the right person, and have his case dead to rights. Otherwise you end up with what we had here, angry vigilantes ready to lash out at anyone remotely connected to the crime.
And Moussaoui is nothing if not "remotely connected.'' Who would argue that he is not a delusional nut? Not only was he not among the 9/11 hijackers, Moussaoui never even talked to the real hijackers once they came to the United States.
But it is one of the deeply aggravating facts of the campaign of terror that those who cause the death of innocents often commit suicide in the act. There is no one to blame, to charge, or to punish. Moussaoui was the closest thing the government had to a target for our national rage. So they blamed him.
Moussaoui, prosecutor David Novak told the jurors, "murdered 2,972 innocent people on 9/11.''
Actually he didn't. He was in jail that day. Read More 'The end of empty revenge' »
| May 04 2006 at 06:51 AM
Movies, media, sports - and as little politics as possible. Light reading for those who follow the entertaining parts of life, but don't take them too seriously.
By C.W. Nevius, Read Bio
advertisement
|
your ad here
more