Prosters spray painted anarchy signs on the U.S. Bank building. Photo by Carly Nairn.

People gathered at Dolores Park and marched through the neighborhood Friday night to protest yesterday’s police shooting that left a man injured. A restaurant and two banks were vandalized.

Approximately 75 protesters gathered at Dolores Park at about 8:45 p.m. They marched east on 18th Street and threw paint balls at the windows of Farina restaurant. One protester was seen pushing a man and smacking his camera out of his hands. Protesters then walked to 16th Street, where they smashed windows and doors at Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank.

The crowd dispersed by 9:30 p.m.

The protest was in response to Thursday’s shooting of a 22-year-old man by a plainclothes police officer. According to police, officers were pursuing the man, a parolee, on 14th Street near Natoma when he brandished a semiautomatic Tec-9 handgun. An officer then fired two shots, injuring the man, police said.

Follow Us

A Modesto, CA native, Carly has been working in the news industry for the past five years. She has worked with The Portland Mercury as an Arts Intern, The San Francisco Bay Guardian as a News Intern, The Lewis County Chronicle in Centralia, WA as a beat reporter, and was the student opinion editor for her undergraduate newspaper, The Daily Vanguard, for Portland State University, in Portland, Ore. She currently lives in San Francisco, CA.

Hélène Goupil

Hélène Goupil is a former editor at Mission Local who now works independently as a videographer and editor. She's the co-author of "San Francisco: The Unknown City" (Arsenal Pulp Press).

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I have no proof that these “protestors” live anywhere other than in The Mission, but it doesn’t matter. I do, however, think that their acts of vandalism are opportunistic crimes which are not in any way related to the recent police shooting, or for that matter, to any police activity that takes place in our community. (Yes, I said “our community” because no matter what negative comments this post gets, The Mission belongs to this of us who live here.). What I don’t understand is how these “protestors” can possibly vandalize the police station at 17th and Valencia without the police trying to stop them.

    1. We must remember the demonstrators objective is to provoke and promote. Hence, police’s efforts to contain damages most certainly will be captured from every angle and posted in well edited form so the world can see The Mission’s example of brutality. Consequently, The folks at Mission Station suck it up and clean it up, just like everyone else on Valencia.

  2. The official story around this is pretty far fetched. If the victim intended to shoot at police, how is it that he didn’t get a single shot off but was accurately hit multiple times in the back?

    There is a well-circulated police training video (a video that, incidentally, is often used to justify shooting people who are holding knives) that shows an officer with a holstered firearm facing a suspect armed with a knife. The suspect is 21 feet away. In the training video, the suspect is able to run the 21 feet and “stab” the officer before the officer can pull and accurately aim his weapon. If this police study is at all feasible, than it is hard to believe that a man trying to shoot at police with a tec-9 wouldn’t be able to fire a shot before being wounded to the point of incapacitation by 40 caliber bullets (which, while being highly lethal, don’t have great stopping power). After all, a 9 millimeter round travels a bit faster than a guy running with a knife. In order for it to be believable that the officers could have accurately shot him without him firing it must be assumed that the officers had already drawn their guns before the victim began running. If this is the case it seems highly improbable that the suspect would have drawn and raised a firearm at a group of armed men with guns trained on him whom he feared enough to flee from.

    It is important to remember that when an officer uses his firearm it is considered lethal force. They are trained to shoot to kill. Even if the person they stopped was a gang member (not unlike the plainclothesed officers who stopped him) or committing a crime (the police narrative doesn’t state that he was stopped for committing a crime) lethal force is not warranted unless the life of an officer or civilian nearby was in danger.

    However, regardless of this last publicized incident, people are upset with the decades of police violence that preceded it. The fact that there is a well funded organization whose members can gun down any black or latino person and escape conviction in nearly 100% of cases is a problem in and of itself.

    1. Your last paragraph is revealing: “…regardless of this…incident, people are upset…” I.e., disregarding the facts in the matter being protested, “people” are upset about “…decades of police violence…” You admit that the incident on 14th St. is NOT what is being protested; rather the mere existence of police is being protested. This is a rarified view which virtually no one in the Mission shares. We have too much crime to dabble in anarchism. We know better.

      1. False dichotomy. People can be (and obviously are) upset about both the young man being shot 2 days ago and the hundreds of people killed by the police in the last several decades. Obviously it’s no coincidence that these marches occured the night of and the night after the shooting on 14th st, however, this does not mean that there isn’t a longer history of police violence that is also being addressed.

        1. After re-reading my comments, and actually paying attention to the facts presented by the SFPD I realize I am wrong. My apologies. I have also decided to go get my GED and destroy all my graffiti supplies. I shall devote my life to improving the Mission, by actually leaving my pc and going to a farmers market and doing some volunteer work.

    2. So, you’re saying that the victim didn’t draw or show his gun? Then what you’re saying is that the cop shot an (apparently) UNARMED man who was running AWAY from him. Seriously?

      You’ll have to ask the gangbanger why he was stupid enough to wave a Tec9 at a cop if he wasn’t going to shoot. Doesn’t really matter though. He’s just lucky the cop didn’t aim for his head.

      And all your ramblings about a training video which is completely irrelevant to this situation make no sense at all.

      1. “So, you’re saying that the victim didn’t draw or show his gun?”

        I’m not sure why you are asking what I’m saying. Is this rhetorical? I’ve already stated what I was saying, that’s why you responded to it.

        “Then what you’re saying is that the cop shot an (apparently) UNARMED man”

        Not necessarily. Being armed simply means to have a weapon on your person, it has nothing to do with whether or not that weapon was ever pointed at anyone.

        “You’ll have to ask the gangbanger why he was stupid enough to wave a Tec9 at a cop if he wasn’t going to shoot. Doesn’t really matter though. He’s just lucky the cop didn’t aim for his head. ”

        So the fact that the alleged action is seemingly absurd enough to warrant this type of response isn’t an indication that the validity of the official narrative should at the least be questioned? As for their aim, I don’t see why an officer who thought his life was in imminent danger from a supposed gang member pointing a tec-9 at him would not shoot to kill. That alone sounds ridiculous. So I’d either assume that the officer didn’t think his life was in danger and shot anyway, or he did try to shoot to kill and his aim was a little off.

        “And all your ramblings about a training video which is completely irrelevant to this situation make no sense at all.”

        No, it is relevant, in fact it is a training video that is often used in investigations to demonstrate that a police shooting was a “justifiable homicide” because the officer supposedly has so little time to make a decision to use lethal force. More importantly, it’s a video that’s often wheeled out for the public around these situations to try to develop a blind support for a police department any time one of its officers decides to use their weapon because “their job is so hard/dangerous/mexicans and blacks are scary and they are the thin blue line protecting us/etc.”

        1. Just don’t ask me to post a link to this video I speak of as it doesn’t exist…. OOOPS!!!

    3. “The fact that there is a well funded organization whose members can gun down any black or latino person and escape conviction….”

      Dude, are you serious?
      Read your statement.
      You basically describe the status quo of gangbangers running freely in the Mission.
      Thank goodness for a Police counter-force.

  3. Unfortunately the protesters seem to have constructed a self-justifying system. Their remarks are tired and stereotypic with one commonality – provocation. Cellphones with camera apps on are held as shields should their verbal targets loose their cool. This senseless drama enacted by a few serves to dilute the voice of of many. It is sad.

  4. What, no agent provocateur claims? I thought all the damage done during these “protests” were done by the police to make the protest look bad — at least that’s what the moron apologists tell me.

    There were only about 40 people walking down 18th Street, and I couldn’t understand what they were chanting. They should all be rounded up and sent home — yes, I also believe that none of these people live here in the Mission, they all come in from the East Bay or elsewhere. Thanks to the SFPD for trying to make our neighborhood BETTER.

  5. Once again, the anarchists trash the Mission.

    The guy shot pulled a Tec-9 assault-style pistol, and pointed it at SF Police.

    Congratulations, to the San Francisco Police Department for preventing another senseless gang-shooting. Good work!

  6. This anarchy symbol stuff and the Guy Fawkes masks are so past-trendy and such a cliche already. Can’t you people think of more creative (and less destructive) in making your voices heard.

    SFPD officers shot someone for pulling out a tec-9 for crying out loud and not dropping the weapon after repeated warnings.

    I can only think the anger is just something fashionable for these poseurs to do on a Friday night because they don’t have money for Pabst Blue Ribbon this Friday night.

    1. Two things:

      (a) I fully agree that attacking local businesses is an undesirable form of protest, it is impossible to organize a protest which is guaranteed not to include some misguided individuals.

      (b) We’ve tracked a number of officer involved shootings in the bay area this year, and while the story is often that an individual pulled a gun, the evidence often does not support that. We’ve spoken with multiple witnesses to the shooting which say that non-uniformed officers ran up to a man on the street, drew guns, did not identify themselves, told him to “stop”, and shot him when he fled. Who would not flee people who look like civilians pulling guns? It’s a troubling repeat story. Even if in this case there was some justification, the problem is that in a predominance of cases we see that does not seem to be the case, there is no recourse for the families of victims or the concerned community to see officers disciplined.

      Think what you will of what happened, but don’t just regurgitate the PD’s pubic statement. There seem to be a lot of people being shot by the police who are, confusingly, both fleeing and aiming a weapon at officers. I’d say that doesn’t pass the bullshit test at all. People whose lives are burdened with some poor decisions are not necessarily complete idiots with no basic survival instinct. Firing on the SFPD is clearly not a good way to survive.

        1. Sounds like you’re struggling to make the facts fit your activist narrative. As an eleven year Mission resident who has worked closely with an SFPD community officer to improve my gritty block, I’ll take the SFPD’s version over your home-made research.

          You are blanket protesting officer-involved shootings, no matter the situation. Do you expect officers to take a bullet like the CHP officer who was shot to death recently? Did you express your outrage then?

      1. 1) It’s not undesirable – it’s wrong. Hardly impossible to organize a protest that doesn’t result in property damage. And it’s the responsibility of those in the group who aren’t destroying property to pull back those who are misbehaving, as they have to realize that those douchebags are killing their protest message.

        2) There’s been no evidence presented to the public that counters the police version of the story. If you’ve spoken to multiple witnesses, why not at least provide anonymous quotes of what they said? Eyewitness testimony in a rapid fire situation like this isn’t highly reliable, but it’s something to consider. It’s also clear from the facts presented that the officers were on the gang task force and knew the suspect by sight. I’d think that the suspect also knew the officers on sight. It’s perfectly healthy to be skeptical of the police, but to launch a protest resulting in property damage and the usual shrill screaming and whining before all the facts are determined is going to make whatever point the protest has moot.

        Also, you repeatedly say “we” in your post – what organization are you with?

      2. “…there is no recourse for the families of victims or the concerned community to see officers disciplined.”

        I find it interesting that the family in this case is not joining the protests, nor the local community involved in the shooting. If it was a case of the police acting out of line, I would think the family and neighborhood of the victim would be seeking this recourse or somehow involved in protesting the incident.

        1. i find it interesting that everyone can make sweeping assumptions about this person’s family, where they live, and how they feel. I saw a lot of neighborhood people joining in and cheering for the protest last night, but i guess since they ain’t tech yuppies on valencia they barely count as people in most people’s eyes who post on this site. A person in plainclothes without identifying himself and without actually identifying that any kind of crime was happening pulled a gun on someone and shot them as they ran away. I would generally run from some man pulling a gun on me too. But you know, apparently all the police have to do is say that someone had a gun for sf yuppies to be satisfied with their story, it’s not like they haven’t been using that story for decades every time they shoot a black or brown man who immediately becomes a ‘suspect’ or ‘suspected gang member’. What would happen if a cop shot a tech yuppie on Valencia? Oh yeah, that would never happen…

          1. You’re right. A tech yuppie wouldn’t get shot on Valencia. That’s because tech yuppies don’t point Tec9’s at cops.

      3. Justin,

        What is so confusing about a guy running from police and then pointing a gun back at them over his shoulder, or simply turning for a second to point it at them? I see nothing confusing or contradictory about that report.

        The gun was recovered. It was a semi automatic assault weapon. In fact, that gun can be converted to full automatic, so it may have been full auto. It was loaded.

        Are you saying that someone who would carry a weapon like that wouldn’t point it at someone? What fantasy world do you live in?!?!

      4. Justin,

        You wrote “People whose lives are burdened with some poor decisions are not necessarily complete idiots with no basic survival instinct. Firing on the SFPD is clearly not a good way to survive.”

        Oh please. You should really see a Dr about your bleeding heart.

        Yes, this guy was clearly a “complete idiot”. He was on probation for what again? Oh yes, “assault with a deadly weapon”. That would be mistake number 1. Then he was out on the street again, carrying a Tec 9. Mistake number 2. Then he ran from the cops. Mistake number 3. Then he pointed his gun at the cops. Mistake number 4.

        I do believe he qualifies as a “complete idiot”.

    2. These poseurs ARE cliches – they are yesterday’s radicals and they know it. Hence the total desperation and declaring ‘solidaritay’ with the gang-bangers.

  7. Trustafrians mad at their rich dad and sticking it to “the man”. Be thankful those police officers shot the gangsta with the tec-9 because you could have caught that stray bullet while waiting in an impossibly long line at a hipster food truck.

    Thanks you, SFPD for all you do.

  8. As a small family business our neighborhood gym on Valencia St, Live Fit Gym suffered the 2nd attack on our business in 4 months. We’ve been on the street for 11 years. There has always been protests on Valencia but never have businesses been made to bear the brunt of their message. Please tell the Valencia community the logic of causing such grief and cost to small businesses?

    1. The people that vandalize your business do not live in the community and do not care about the community. They are just starting trouble.

    2. Just sayin, the rule of thumb is that if they attack small businesses without attacking more prioritized corporate targets, then they’re probably not anarchists fighting for a cause, but just some teens f*cking things up cause they could, or what we used to call COINTELPRO.

      1. Yeah, I’ve lived in the Mission for a decade and am a member of the gym that got attacked. It’s absurd how these people are acting. Protest, get the message out, but senseless destruction makes NO SENSE.

  9. I’m SO TIRED of these people coming to our neighborhood and trashing it!!! Dear Police: Please arrest them all and charge them with anything and everything you can!!!! If I’d known this was happening earlier, I would’ve been out there taking photos of the “protesters” (read: hoodlums) and then would IMMEDIATELY hand them over to the police!!!

      1. Doesn’t matter where they live. There’s no justification for trashing the community where we live. Seems like local businesses and some residents have to pay for the crimes of whatever evil straw man is being “protested” that week.

    1. I’m with you RhinestoneGrrl – like you I’m also in this neighborhood and part of the vast majority. It is difficult to believe these “protesters” weren’t part of a totally organized group, otherwise why would MOST of them be dressed entirely in black & wearing masks and scarves over their faces ?? And what are the chances that a lot of them don’t even live in the Mission, at least anymore ? – probably huge chances. In the last year, they just lost their “clubhouses” in the New College on Valencia and in the Modern Times bookstore also on Valencia (in their last couple of years by no co-incidence what-so-ever PART of the ‘New College’), and methinks, this little group is starting to get very desperate. The new youth pouring into the Mission District is apolitical or Libertarian, and the old-fashioned Anarchists & Marxists throwing rocks and paint at the Mission Station last Friday are terrified of them.