deadly force situation. based on that, i would like to posit that there is no place for tasers in the police department. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. my name is barbara lopez. i currently work at an elementary school in the mission. i am concerned about disproportional use of tasers on communities of color. i am a career woman. i used to do a lot of parties in the mission and the castro for women. a lot of my friends are still promoters. when we talk about a gay agenda, our community disproportionately does drugs. a lot of my friends that are still on the scene in the castro disproportional the use cocaine, math, and other uppers, to deal with trauma. my have been two clubs, often police officers have had to

intervene because of people on drugs. i am very concerned when the first, i heard tonight was nothing bet -- that drugs are an appropriate of tasers. when you're under the influence of drugs, your heart beat gets faster. if you get tased, that increases the likelihood of a heart attack. a lot of gay boys i know are still doing drugs. they are going to be the folks that are going to get tasered, and i think that is a serious concern. i am asking you to vote no on tasers, because of communities that are going to get targeted. thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> good evening. my name is barbara growth.

i am concerned resident. i vote against the taser because of the long wires. i have a fear that the officer uses the taser and the other officer steps forward to protect him. you'll find the other officer dead sometime later with funny marks around his neck from another officer that may not be exactly on our side, because we let everybody in the department. the court is not going to turn them in either. i vote for the hand-held thing like i have gotten, which i use at home. it makes noise. i have not used it on a dog, like a wanted to. i wanted to show my son, but it pop so much he would not open his door and come out so i could show him how the thing looked or sounded. i would go for the hand held that those close to the person. that way, there is no mixup. you have to push it on one side

and hold it on the other. there is no mixup at all. the net take routine -- anybody can be made in that kick -- the nutcake routine -- anybody can be made a nutcake. i am 100 pounds overweight, compliments of putting it on in one month from difficult -- depacote, a psychiatric medication. they are nuisances. i divorced my problem. my ex-husband was a civilian employee with the san francisco police department who managed to get transferred to the closest district station. yes, this lady has a rap sheet, but i no longer have any problems, because i am divorced. thank you. president mazzucco>> thank you,r

opening and up to the floor. i worked as a community organizer in the commission, for predominantly the central american community. i want to point out for most it is often said that law enforcement is in place to protect and serve us. obviously, we pay the salaries of cops. a retired taxes are taken out of our paychecks, -- any time taxes are taken out of our paychecks, that goes to protect and serve us. i think you guys would be stupid to vote for this. why do i say that? it is obvious in this room that most of us in the community oppose tasers. if we are the ones who pay the salaries of the cops, how would you vote on something that goes against the interest of the people? [applause]

obviously, expert testimony has not supported that the taser is the way to go. until we see statistics and expert testimony, i do not see how we can allow our police department, on top of guns, to carry this device. we saw what happened with johannes. i am from massachusetts. there, he would have been put away for 20 years at least. but for the best interest of the public. we say no. [applause] >> hello, commissioners. my name is patricia ferrel. i am 59 years old. i love san francisco pd. i called and san francisco's finest. i lived 20 years in atlanta,

georgia. i prefer a cattle prod. >> my name is nick pasquerello. i testified a year ago against tasers. you voted them down. i hope you will do that again. one of the major reasons you voted them down a year ago was because at that time the department admitted it was a year and a half behind in the mental health training of the officers. this is another reason why you should not go forward with any further study of tasers until you have completed training of all officers in mental health training. thank you. [applause] president mazzucco: the left side of the room is now complete. the right side. >> i don't know about that. president mazzucco: not

politically. [laughter] >> i am a community organizer with the coalition on homelessness. i am working with the department. i was thrilled to weeks ago when the commission voted unanimously to listen to the voice of our community to prevent needless death of our community members through the cit model. i was also pleased to see another overture, when the chief attended a meeting of the lgbt democratic club to discuss our views on pacers. -- on tasers. thank you for doing that. community engagement is the heart of effective public safety and needs to be a consideration in every step of every issue. there are two things you need to do to listen to the community. nearly every person in this room who is now wearing a blue collar does not want -- who is not

wanting a blue collaearing a b s not want tasers. the same goes for those that were in the community overflow rooms. do what the aclu suggested. medical experts, representation from the school board, and representatives from the community must work with you on protocol and tactical options for less than lethal force situations. this group must look at all options, not just tasers. consensus is possible. but consensus building will seriously take time. correct me if i'm wrong, but you said last night you did not want the department to issue recommendations until after cit was implemented. is that right? if that is so, i agree.

you need to give this process time to do its work properly. thanks. [applause] president mazzucco: next speaker? >> i obviously want you to vote no on tasers. if you're still in this room, two minutes is not a lot of time, but it has been given to you and you should take it. the public comment has been almost entirely that we do not want tasers. these are people who of and set a -- have been staying all night to make their comment. if you want any semblance of representation of the public, of communities you would like to serve, you need to vote against tasers, or at least postpone it and have community engagement

before you make any vote. in terms of deescalating, you have just adopted a program to try to do that. why adopt a second program at the same time? we need to try to train people to deescalate. it has been called into question whether any weapon can be escalate -- can deescalate a situation. i understand why a police officer would be scared and want to use a weapon. when people have more weapons available, they use more weapons. it is just what people do. i think bringing more weapons into this situation is in no way going to deescalate anything. we need to try using a different method first.

i have two minutes. i am going to use them. we were playing been go downstairs. what did we have left that nobody setbacks -- nobody said? did anybody get been kodak's 3, 2, 1 -- get bingo? three, two, one. thank you. >> i am the president of [unintelligible] and a member of numerous other organizations. you have heard various arguments here tonight, but we also need to look to the moral issues. the effect of the matter is it is obvious when somebody gets hit with a taser the become agitated and it leads to escalation. the fact of the matter is that tasers are mainly used against homeless people, the mentally

ill, and the poor. these are people who need help, not torture. i say torture because as amnesty international states, it is a torture device. a fundamental question we need to ask in san francisco -- do we want to be regarded as the torturers of the world, as those to permit torture? i do not think so. also, why is there a different moral issue? we also have a budget crisis. i do not think we should be spending that money in arizona. there are other ways things can be used. if not, there are other

alternatives. let us think about this. let us not steal our funds. but as come down and do it properly, and then make a proper, intelligent, informed decision. thank you. >> my name is nate miller. i grew up in san francisco. i saw you guys on television on a bar down the street, and so i decided to come. hello, buck cavern. was i just on tv? [laughter] >> though you have anything else to do? >> were there at ball games? >> there are half price drinks for everyone who does this tonight. [laughter] [applause] >> go ahead.

>> i grew up in san francisco. i think there is always an argument for more tools. maybe you need a bow and arrow if the guy is running far away. maybe you need non-chuck p is a kung fu masters. but ultimately, -- maybe you need nunchucks if he is a kung fu masters. but ultimately, we need deesca lation. the best way is to show compassion. i encourage you to vote against tasers. that is it. [applause] [laughter] >> we have our last speaker. last but not least. >> good evening. i am carl stark. i am a rider. i am not familiar with shooting people. i am not really conversant with

tasers. i guess it is called the wechsler study. it was done by our very own ucsf. it did not really nail down why, but it seems that first year after the department' gets its hands on a taser, the impact is negative in the extreme. it did not seem to have too many positive points for officer safety either, not that officers are not members of the public. one of the questions i wanted to ask is if public safety does not really improve with the issuing of tasers, an officer safety does not really improved, besides taser international's bottom-line, what does improve

backspin -- does improve? i am a little concerned about how some of the academics were questioned into giving an answer regarding a very specific incident under a very limited control set of circumstances, with a very specific set of training guidelines in place, could this will possibly be useful. they were giving the answer yes. i am afraid the sound bite is going to be "yes," taken out of context. it certainly could not happen from anybody who has been part of the extensive and time- consuming proceedings tonight. thank you all for your time and patience on this matter. i think we have spent enough time and government money on this whole taser thing, in my personal opinion. thanks. [applause]

>> one of our regulars. come on and. >> i was in the child care room with my daughter. thank you, commission, for allowing us the time to speak tonight. i would most like to reiterate some of the concerns that people have expressed tonight. tasers do kill. they are not always less than lethal. we cannot afford the liabilities they cause. we cannot afford the loss of life that are potential to cause. we cannot afford the increase in injuries to people that tasers would cause. people on the street are already afraid of the police. this was probably the reason for some of the escalations we see in the first place. tactics police use on the street are very confronteive, and not

deescalationary. i commend this commission for voting to put the cit model into place. i urge you to give that model a chance to work, so we can see what that looks like. maybe once we see what that looks like we will realize that tasers are the wrong way to go. i already know that tasers are the wrong way to go, but maybe the police force will also. thank you very much for listening tonight. [applause] president mazzucco: at this time, i think the commissioners need to talk a little bit about this. i think we probably should start with commissioner hammer and i, who put together the amendment to line item four. we probably should start with what we are voting on. commissioner hammer: i am happy

to, but i think some interesting things came out tonight. i would like to hear from other commissioners. i think we talked a lot about it. commissioner chan: first, i really want to give a huge thank you for everybody being here past 10:00 at night. that is extreme commitment. i want to thank everybody from the bottom of my heart. [applause] i rode done pretty much everything everybody said to make sure we take in this be back. i also appreciate the department presentation. i appreciate the commission's patience in listening to the presentation i put together tonight. i have a list of things i would like to make sure we include in our consideration. first, i should think president mazzucco and commissioner hammer for talking about this ahead of time and how to frame it in a way that is constructive.

what i heard in terms of the resolution put forward -- it looks like some of the pieces we heard tonight, commissioner hammer probably has the same thoughts. we heard from every person there needs to be community input. whatever we do, we need a timeline that allows a real conversation with all the different communities that were highlighted tonight. that needs to happen. it cannot be rushed through. i do not want us coming back in 30 days and saying we want tasers. that is not appropriate. we have a huge community we serve. we need to meet with is the pri organizations and experts. i think we need to spend more time researching and talking with doctors who are independent. i have spent so much time the last couple of weeks trying to read every study i could find on tasers. i had a hard time finding studies that were as independent as we heard tonight.

most other doctors have a connection to taser international. dr. sang one say this, but when he did this research, taser tried to bribe him. then, they sued him. he is still doing this research completely independently. i admire that. community stakeholder discussions need to happen. we also need to explain what ever research we do, where the money is going to come from. where is the money coming from? how much will it cost in terms of training, acquiring weapons, which celebrating the weapons, lawsuits, liability. we had two plaintiff-side lawyers who were talking against their interest. it would be in their interest for us to adopt tasers so they could litigate. we need to talk about that and see where the money is coming from if we come up with any sort

of intermediate device. we also need to talk about use of force, when you would be allowed to use this weapon. i am not clear when you would be allowed to use this weapon. it looks like when there is a deadly for scenario, you cannot use less deadly force in response. it does not appear tasters -- tasers are that effective. houston and los angeles reported that they are about 70% effective. memphis reported about 50%. when there is a dangerous scenario, i do not see realistically how an officer is going to use a taser when it is a non-deadly-force scenario. i still need to be clear about it but we're going to research this. we need to explain what scenarios you can use these devices in. also, i am glad that the

proposed amendments so far includes the two commissioners. if we do move forward, i would help put this in terms of communication if there is community involvement. i want to highlight this, because i know we spent many hours on this two weeks ago. this was unanimously adopted by the commission to weeks ago. the working group had our first meeting last friday at 2:00. we're having a second meeting next week. during our initial meeting, some any questions. -- so many questions. there are a lot of questions that can be ironed out. but it is going to take time. dr. dupont and major cochrane from memphis estimate it takes from six months to a year to

roll up a cit program. i want to make sure that program is up and running. i heard, and i do not know if this is completely true, that this commission adopted cit many years ago, and it was never implemented. i can see that happening again. if i can help it, it will get implemented. but it gives you a sign of how difficult it is to make reform, especially when it comes to a difficult issue involving our mental health community. i do want to make sure that whatever we discussed tonight, whatever program we come up with, that cit needs to be up and running. we need training in place before we give weapons. if you have new weapons and you have cit barely having our second meeting, you're going to use one of the other. also, dr. sang came twice to

tell us he would strongly recommend that we have defibrillators, automated external defibrillators, if we adopt any weapon that might stop or capture the heart. as an immigrant rights activist, i cannot let this go. we cannot give money to arizona. there cannot be money that goes to arizona because that boycott is still active and going on. [applause] arizona unfortunately is still passing laws that are anti- immigrant and racist. these are things i want to keep in mind. one must point on my list is to make sure that whatever research we do, we respond to this community of color. that was mentioned several times tonight. commissioner dejesus: i would like to thank the experts that

testified this evening. your presentations were excellent. i would like to think the public that we did so patiently through the discussion this evening and gave their excellent input into this conversation. thank you. it is indeed very helpful. but at this point i would really like to turn to the chief, who has been sitting through all of this as well tonight, and thank you to the department for its terrific presentation. but i am wondering where the department is at this point in time, before the commission proceed with our conversation. the agenda framed our focus in one direction. we came into this meeting and we started it with a slightly shifted, amended focus. now, after we have heard from experts, the community -- where is your thinking at this point?

-- commissioner kingsley: chief godown: when we went to los angeles and look at their model, and went to memphis, i think all three of us sat down collectively and meant the decision that was what we wanted to do. the argument here is the fact that we are still trying to implement the cit. i could of been an obstruction to this and tried very hard not to implement the memphis model. i understand the theory that we want the memphis model up and running. what i am asking is a proposal to go back and research not only the taser, but any less lethal options in the law enforcement community today. i am being told there are lasers? you can flash and disorient people that have weapons. that is my request, to be able to go up there and research all

less lethal options that are out there, plus obviously the taser. that is what i am asking for. like i said before, i have an obligation to the men and women of this department to give them another -- i know people hate to hear the term "tool in the toolbox." as far as the scenario today with the knife -- the suspect could have a broken bottle or a baseball bat. different scenarios could have occurred. i understand the lethal use of force. i understand the passion of this community and every speaker who came into this room. i respect everyone's opinion. but as chief of this department i have an obligation to keep my officer's life. there needs to be extensive training. the use of force policy needs to be looked at. there is a litany of issues i have to deal with in this department. we will look into those, plus cit, plus where we will get

finances to pay for this. i have not even begun to look where the money was coming from because i never got permission to research. i am willing to invite the community to participate in this process. i am willing to go out and speak to the community. i want to work closely with the occ and community members. a lot of people came up tonight and said "arm tasers." all we are asking is to go out and research the feasibility. i might come back in a month and say it is not the way to go and i have found another weapon. i might say that after looking at everything i am still looking at taser. i will come up with an option, it will go to public comment, and the commission will vote. i am not asking to arm at this point in the debate. i am just asking to research the i am just asking to research the feasibility of a less lethal