Courtesy Attorney John Burris

Banko Brown was fatally shot by a man who never identified himself as a security guard, a lawyer for the Brown family says.

CNN
 — 

The security guard who fatally shot Banko Brown, a transgender man who was suspected of shoplifting from a San Francisco Walgreens in April, must pay $1,500 in fines for code violations, says the agency that regulates security services in California.

Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony is being fined for carrying a concealed firearm and for uniform violations, according to a citation order from California’s Bureau of Security and Investigative Services.

The notice, issued by Deputy Chief Samuel Stodolski, says Anthony did not have a concealed weapons permit at the time of the shooting but was carrying a gun in a zippered pouch on the tactical vest he was wearing on April 27.

The citation order says Anthony was wearing a sweatshirt without “bureau-approved patches on each shoulder,” which should have said “private security” and the name of his employer, when he was on duty at a downtown Walgreens.

“(That) may be the reason (Brown) was trying to get away or resist as much as he can,” Brown family lawyer John Burris said during a phone call to CNN on Friday. “Nowhere did he (Anthony) say that ‘I’m a security guard.’”

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins declined to file criminal charges against Anthony, saying he acted in self-defense. In May, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office would investigate that decision.

According to a report released in May, the security guard told investigators Brown repeatedly threatened to stab him.

Scott Strazzante/San Francisco Chronicle/AP

Asia Hubbard, ex-girlfriend of Banko Brown, speaks outside City Hall, Monday, May 15, 2023, after a march from the Market Street Walgreens in San Francisco, following District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’ decision not to prosecute security guard, Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony, for confronting and killing Brown, who was suspected of shoplifting inside the store. (Scott Strazzante/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)

San Francisco security guard will not be charged in fatal shooting of suspected Walgreens shoplifter

Surveillance camera video also released in May shows the moment when Anthony attempts to stop Brown from leaving the store before Brown shoves him. A physical altercation ensues, the footage shows, where Anthony holds Brown on the ground and then releases him after about a minute. Brown begins to leave before turning around and moving toward Anthony, who shoots him.

Anthony must pay the $1,500 total for three fines within 30 days of the citation, which was issued on Monday, or he could face “disciplinary action” by the bureau. He can contest the decision with the disciplinary review committee, the citation order says.

Anthony has not responded to requests for comment from CNN.

The security company that employed Anthony, Kingdom Group Protective Services, also faces a $5,000 fine from the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services for failing to submit an incident report within seven days of the shooting, as well as failing to “maintain an accurate and current record of the proof of completion of the trainings” for Anthony.

The security company was also given 30 days from the citation date, July 13, to pay its fine. The company has not returned CNN’s request for comment.

The post San Francisco safety guard who fatally shot suspected Walgreens shoplifter charged $1,500 in fines appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

San Francisco politicians are considering another policy that would harm tenants in the event of property violation: a ban on smoking in private homes.

On Thursday, a committee of the city’s board of directors voted to propose a bill banning smoking in private homes in homes with three or more units. The San Francisco Examiner reports that the restrictions would apply not only to tobacco products, but also to smoking marijuana and even vaping.

According to billing sponsor supervisor Norman Yee, the goal is to protect non-smoking apartment residents from the fumes of their ruthless neighbors.

“I take pride in helping residents avoid exposure to secondhand smoke in their own homes,” Yee tweeted as he introduced the bill last week. “Smoke moves easily between units and buildings. Now that more of us are working from home, it is more important than ever because there is no way to contain it.”

San Francisco currently prohibits smoking in the enclosed public areas of multi-unit buildings. Yee’s proposal extends to the interiors of these buildings’ private homes, as well as balconies and terraces.

The bill would allow the city’s Department of Health to punish offenders with a fine of up to $ 1,000, though the investigator reports they would receive warnings first. According to the legal text, a violation of this prohibition would not be a reason for eviction.

During the first year of the ban, the Ministry of Health would also need to “conduct a multilingual and culturally engaging public information campaign to raise awareness of the smoking ban and smoking cessation resources”.

63 California cities have similar bans. Yee’s proposal is endorsed by the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, and the San Francisco Tobacco-Free Coalition, all of which have issued letters of support.

Common claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke are made in these letters, including the notion that “there is not a safe amount of secondhand smoke exposure” and that secondhand smoke kills 41,000 people annually. However, recent medical studies have not found a clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Unlikely claims that smoking bans in public spaces are causing massive, immediate decreases in heart attacks and heart disease have also been largely debunked. A 2016 report by the Royal College of Physicians in the UK stated that “there is no direct evidence of such passive exposure to date [to e-cigarette vapor] is likely to cause significant damage. “

Yee has spoken out in favor of his ban as people are expected to seek refuge in their homes during the pandemic. One could use the same argument against the proposed ban: it is better to let people smoke in their homes than to light up on crowded public streets.

This is especially true for marijuana smokers, who would have few places to pamper themselves if Yee’s ban were passed. In San Francisco, smoking marijuana is illegal in public and in almost all businesses except the city’s cannabis lounges, which are closed during the pandemic.

In his credit, I think Yee proposed a change that would allow people with medical marijuana cards to continue smoking weed in their homes, the examiner said. At least one manager, Rafael Mandelman, has said he wants a blanket exemption for cannabis.

Given the weak public health case to crack down on second-hand smoking, it is difficult to view this proposal as anything other than an advanced form of invasive nanny statism. It effectively treats people’s homes as public places just because they happen to live in an apartment building.

That’s pretty bad for privacy and pretty bad for freedom. It’s also quite discriminatory to apartment dwellers. People who are rich enough to be able to afford a house or at least a maisonette in the extremely expensive city are not affected by the ban.

None of this is meant to ignore the preferences of non-smokers who don’t want to smell cigarette smoke in their own four walls. However, this preference can be satisfied by living in a building where smoking is prohibited as a condition of the lease. Likewise, smokers who want to live in their own four walls should be able to choose a building that allows them.

Obviously, people’s ability to find a building that suits their indoor smoking preferences is made significantly more difficult by the prohibition of apartments in much of the city in San Francisco. This lack of housing forces these two groups of people to live cheek to ashtrays in whatever houses they can find, creating conflict.

A better solution would certainly be to legalize new buildings so that consumers can choose from more types of housing in more locations. Smokers and non-smokers would then be better able to choose environments that better suit their needs.

The entire board of directors will be considering Yee’s smoking ban for the next month.

The post San Francisco Considers $1,000 Fines for Folks Smoking Tobacco or Hashish in Their Residences – Cause.com appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.