Anti-Cop Eviction Protesters March Down Mission With Cop Escort

Photo by Lauren Smiley

Photo by Lauren Smiley

Go social – share this article with your friendsFacebookGoogle+PinterestRedditLinkedInEmail

About 70 anti-eviction and anti-cop protesters (a new breed of Mission activist?) just passed our newsroom on Mission Street a bit before 4 p.m. Wednesday, chanting “Unite the block, against the cops!” The protesters — of the black hoodie-wearing type — were escorted down the street by dozens of cops and about four SFPD vehicles — ready for any potential trouble. Traffic was momentarily delayed.

The activists were moving from the 24th Street BART Station north to the 16th Street one, for what their posters announced as a “coffee not cops” gathering. (Only in the Mission).

We’ll have an update later this afternoon.

The banner out in front is a unique twist on the ol’ “What Would Jesus Do” bracelets, instead reading in Spanish, “What would the Zapatistas do?”

So, Subcomandante Marcos, any thoughts on the Mission eviction crisis? Our comment section awaits your response.

The police vehicles trailing the protesters down Mission Street.

The police vehicles trailing the protesters down Mission Street.


  1. John

    Anti-eviction, anti-cop, anti-gentrification, anti-business, ant-everything.

    I just wish some of these hoodied losers were FOR something. All they seem to know is what they don’t want which, typically, is nothing more than a form of self-hatred.

    • Ace

      stop commenting. you are over simplifying things and just clomping together groups that you think you know something about.

  2. George

    Subcomandante Marcos probably has tears in those very famous eyes.

    • John

      Why would ML ask a white male tech worker who has helped gentrify the Mission by buying a condo here whether he opposes white male tech workers gentrifying the Mission by buying condos here?

      • landline

        You have very limited knowledge, don’t you? Wrong Marcos, not your adversary/man crush on various local website comment pages.

        Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but is seemingly required for your commentary.

        • John

          So you suddenly decide that it is OK for white male tech workers to outbid local residents for housing by buying a condo that could have been used to house a low-income person of color?

          How right-wing and shamefully reactionary of you. We deprived people of mediocrity must fight for our right to live in a place that we blatantly cannot afford to live in.

          • landline

            Keep digging your own grave. You have no idea who Subcomandante Marcos is, obviously. Your infatuation with the talkative “marcos” from this and other websites has distorted what little judgement you may have.

            Try reading the articles before commenting. Or better yet, stop commenting. You are embarassing yourself and giving readers a bad impression of Mission District residents (if you are indeed one).

          • John

            So which is it, landline? Are you referring to and supporting some cop called marcos or a gentrifier called marcos?

            Either way, this mob opposes you.

          • landline

            I’m only pointing out that you have no idea who Subcomandante Marcos is, as your most recent comment confirms. He is neither a cop nor your unrequited Mission District love interest.

            As Mark Twain once wrote, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

          • John

            Well since you have also given no indication of who this alleged person is, we are both in the same boat.

            Where we are different, however, is that you routinely make personal attacks and I do not.

          • John

            Let me know when you’ve googled it, landline.

  3. Heather

    “I shit on all the revolutionary vanguards of this planet..also, who are all these white kids?” – Subcomandante Marcos

  4. John

    So you don’t know who this alleged person is either then?

    Got it.

  5. Aristotle

    The best part was when a citizen on the sidewalk gave them a SERIES of verbal bitch slaps and shout downs.

    • John

      If I had been there I would have done the same thing. Somewhere between bragging about my wealth and telling the little urchins to “get a job”.

      With a little luck, it would have provoked them into an over-reaction whereupon the cops would slap them down big-time.

      A couple of nights in central lockup would cure many of these miscreants.

      • landline

        And that comment summarizes your world view. A keyboard warrior would pick a fight and turn to the cops to defend him.

        “I’m richer than you. I’m better than you. I’ll taunt you and hire people to hurt you.”

        That “citizen” was also chanting, “Shut down the SRO’s.” The article omitted that part of his tirade.

        • John

          Everyone here is a “keyboard warrior” if you wish to diminish the whole point of engaging in debate. So what is your excuse?

          I saw no mention of the attribution that you allege. But those SRO’s are hotbeds of crime.

          • landline

            I’m not threatening violence as you are although you are too cowardly to use it yourself: “With a little luck, it would have provoked them into an over-reaction whereupon the cops would slap them down big-time.”

          • John

            100% wrong, landline. The mob was threatening violence (“kill the cops”). I was opposing it.

            I note that you have not yet condemned their threats against the cops, nor commended the cops on their restraints.

          • landline

            Perhaps the commenter who thought that Subcomandante Marcos was a San Francisco Green Party activist or a SFPD commander will now know better. Or remain ignorant.

            Of course, Marcos’ role in leadership of the EZLN is implied by the article’s author. If only some people would read before posting….

          • John

            Thanks for educating both landline and I, scum.

          • landline

            You don’t speak for me, even with incorrect grammar.

          • John

            I wasn’t speaking for you, landline.

            I was refuting you.

          • landline

            Well you failed. You thought Subcomandante Marcos and Mark Salomon were the same person.

            SFBG apparently turned off their comment capability. (I don’t comment there, but I notice no new comments in a few days). Pity for Mission Local readers.

          • John

            No, you clearly didn’t understand that I was playing you the whole time.

            I have no idea why SFBG cannot fix simple technical bugs but since it only has about five readers, I doubt anyone cares either.

            Either way, I’m going nowhere. Happy New Year.

          • marcos

            Todos somos marcos.

  6. V

    Well Hello.

    I’m a Classical Progressive Revolutionary type: Vegetarian, 3rd-Party, over-informed dreamer, etc. with a strong sense of “how much is enough” to cooperatively thrive in this world. I’ve been living and working and biking in SF for 13 years, and “the capitol of counterculture” is nowhere near as vital as it used to be, which is tragic.

    My old building/home of freaky characters just got bought by a company with a history of gutting tenants. The thought that I may be forced to leave SF ONLY TO BE REPLACED by some pod-person-techie who specializes in what can essentially be reduced to as “SELLING & SPYING”, and who knows or cares of little more beyond last years operating system, gives me the blackest of hearts indeed.

    I don’t mind sharing but I’ve seen FAR TOO MANY of my friends leave SF ONLY TO BE REPLACED by shiny, sterile shite. Basically, if you work in Silicone Valley, then live close enough to bike to work. Visit the city whenever you want (you have the $), and do whatever bland-ass cultural things you do, but DO NOT displace the counterculture, the nightlife, and the admittedly funky-gritty mess that is an inevitable byproduct of an activist haven.

    I do hope we can resolve this before pitchforks and torches are involved.

    Love, V

    • John

      In other words, V, you’ve been forced to grow up because you elected not to grow up yourself?

    • poor.ass.millionaire

      Hello V,

      While I appreciate your carefree, low consumption lifestyle, what in gods name gives you the RIGHT to stay in SF? You need to own your own home to do that babe. Otherwise, you are by all means welcome to continue your beloved lifestyle in Oakland, which is more affordable.

      While one can question the ethics of Ellis acting truly senior (70+) and/or terminally ill tenants, that is not the case in most evictions. And besides, I think the responsibility of finding replacement homes for those senior/ill evicted falls squarely on the city. SF certainly has the budget to help those truly in need (and it takes over 1 year to evict so there is plenty of time) to relocate.

      You cannot expect private landlords to become social welfare organizations. If protesters and others feel strongly about protecting tenants from market rate increases, they should help the city create housing programs that ALL SF residents pay for. Like a SF specific section 8, where the program helps the tenant pay the rent each month.

      • John

        Exactly, help for the poor should come from the general fund. The voters can then decide how much extra tax they wish to pay to support that.

        It should not be borne disproportionately by a few people who are unlucky enough to be stuck with “lifer” tenants with a sense of entitlement.

        • landline

          Voters support rent control. If given the chance, voters would support a local opt-out to the Ellis Act (even if it wouldn’t survive a court challenge and decision by judges from the property owner class).

          Pity the poor landlord who doesn’t have to work for a living; who should have known the rules of the game before buying property; and who wants to move his (however small) financial risks to the public sector by asking for subsidies to boost his legally regulated rents.

          • John

            Local opt-outs are an insane idea because the whole point of Ellis is to prevent local opt-outs and exceptions. Since you claim to care what the voters want, then the voters of CA do not want local opt-outs.

            The sole purpose of Ellis is to PREVENT local voters voting for opt-outs.

            Oh, and while landlord’s knew the deal when they got in, so did tenants. When you rented your place, you KNEW that Ellis was the law, and accepted that risk.

Comments are closed.