. we have been around for over 35 years. we are an independent nonprofit. we do a lot of work for the department of justice. i have the network for 17 years. i worked in the boston police department. i have a ph.d. from mit. i have been studying these issues. we've been asked by the department of justice to look of this. in 2005, we are asked to develop guidelines for their use. that was about six years ago. we develop the guidelines. we brought in all sorts of experts. those guidelines came out and are used by most police departments in the country. six years later, in 2011, we brought over 150 people to philadelphia, including the

aclu and representatives from police departments across the country, canadians, british. we looked at the evidence. we said, "where are we today?" we were asked by the department of justice to do a study. that is here. it looked at what is the impact that ced's are having an departments that use them and do not use them. if you will allow me, i am going to review the findings. this is from the national department of justice study, independent of the manufacturer. perf compared the experience is over seven years of law enforcement agencies that use conductive energy devices with agencies that do not use ced's, reviewing thousands of

incidents. the study was supported by the national institute of justice research arm of the u.s. department of justice. the study showed that use of ced's is associated with a 70% reduction in the chances of an officer being injured, compared to agencies that do not use them. the odds of a suspect being injured are reduced by more than 40%. all in all, we found considerably strong effects in increasing the safety of officers and suspect's. not only are they associated with greater safety, but also within agencies, and in some cases the actual use by an officer is associated with a higher level of safety compared to incidents in which offers a ruse used other kinds of less lethal weapons, such as batons. because the can be fired from a

distance, allowing police officers to keep their distance from resisting suspects minimize the struggles that can cause injuries. while no device is foolproof, we find that when used properly the concern is a useful addition to the use of force and police departments. the can help officers make arrests with less risk of injury to of those arrested and to the officers. but thorough training is required to ensure that use of force and devices is used only when necessary. these decisions about whether to use force and what kind of forced to use are extremely difficult, given the variety of circumstances faced by police

officers on the street, and the fact that officers sometimes have only a second, as you saw in that scenario, to direct a situation and make a decision. the 52 gunman's we issued in 2005, a number of departments have adopted. these guidelines are about tightening restrictions, about making sure that are only used in certain circumstances, making sure a device is only used for five seconds and then stopped and evaluated. where there have been problems is when people have gone outside of these guidelines. if you have tight guidelines, that will further strengthen what you're trying to use. let me give you some examples. for example, the guidelines provided should only be used against people who were actively resisting police or were a

threat to themselves. this is very important when you are dealing with someone who is suicidal, when you are called by its parent worried about their son. all of a sudden, the last thing the officers want to do issue that person. that is the last thing the parents want to do. when a police officer has to use deadly force, it is one of the most difficult decisions. what you are considering is giving a police officer options. you are not giving up accountability or oversight. that is very important. some of the discussion seemed to get lost that if you give officers another option, somehow there will not be accountability. there has to be oversight and training. they should not be used against passive suspects. no more than one officer at a

time should activate it. you have to restrict them. you have to say that what the san francisco police department and commission are considering now is a thoughtful way to approach this. take a pilot program. take an area. train people effectively. have oversight. you are not giving up your accountability. evaluate how it works. the san francisco police department is one of the few major police departments in the country that does not use this. you go to departments around the country. in places like phoenix, charlotte -- the use of deadly force decreased dramatically. new guidelines, training -- to give citizens options.

restrict their use and the latest medical research -- we have six years of and permission about this. police departments would not be using this today if they thought it was going to cause more harm than good. i have worked in northern ireland. northern ireland is very restrictive on use of force. they debated, just like you are here. the debate for a long time until finally the allowed them to be used. one of the first circumstances where there were used was when a parent called up about their child, who was acting very irrationally. police officers were confronted with a knife. they used the ced. the mother was very happy and became the biggest proponent for their use. i think it is time to really try this out, pilot it, evaluate it. our organization is not looking for any funding.

we feel an obligation to the san francisco police department to help. we would be willing to help assist and develop a pilot study. thank you very much. president mazzucco: thank you. >> will questions until the end. >> our next speaker is sheriff mike hennessey, who will speak about the other law enforcement agency in san francisco, which is equipped with a ced. >> good evening, commissioners. i and the sheriff. i know some of you have heard me when i made this presentation before, so i will try to be as brief as i can. the san francisco sheriff's department has used taser devices since 2002, so for approximately eight years. we have very restrictive conditions under which we can use them, but we do use them. in eight years, we have

discharged the taser 14 times. we have taken it to the scene as a possibility of using it 69 times. in the vast majority of instances where we have taken the taser, it has not been used. we were able to bring the situation under control. in many instances, the display of the taser and the fact that the taser has a laser beam which presents a red dot where you pointed, and the person can see there is a red dot on them, is enough to deter the person and get them to comply. the petition reps refer to it as "red got compliance." people are intimidated by the taser, appropriately, know that if they are shot by it it will hurt.

more times than not in our experience, the person complies with the sheriff's order at that point rather than be shocked. in more than a dozen instances, we have shocked the taser at a person who has already battered somebody else or is using a weapon to threaten a deputy sheriff. in each of those instances, the taser was effective, except for once, when both barb's did not hit the person. it resulted in compliance, but no injuries other than pain. it resulted in no lawsuits. it resulted in no injuries to any deputy sheriffs. we have, as i say -- not every deputy sheriff has one. we restrict who has them. they must receive training. we have our own trainers, who

must receive more training. there must be periodic training for anyone authorized to use it. under our regulations, it also may not be used without a supervisor's approval first. those are the circumstances in which we have used them. i have found them to be a very effective tool. we also have an intermediary device deferred to -- referred to as a beanbag gun. we have a different type of device. it is called rwen. it shoots a hard neoprene baton about the size of the role of have dollars. it strikes with the course of a major league fastball. it is a big, ugly gun that an officer could not carry around on a normal routine, but can bring to racine. we had then device prior to the taser.

we found it to be not nearly as effective. for people who are particularly experienced in street fighting or who are particularly mad and not thinking straight, they will allow themselves to be shot and book continue to threaten and be in the physical condition to be able to harm the officers who are trying to subdue them. in the case of the taser, it brings almost immediate compliance, and the person is not able to fight back what it is in use. as i say, in has been a very effective tool for us. i am not here to tell the san francisco police department how to run the agency. i am here to explain to you that in the san francisco sheriff's department we have been using them for eight years. the have been a very effective tool. i would be happy to take any questions you may have, or i can

just go home. [laughter] >> i would prefer if we could let the sheriff answer his questions, so he can go. commissioner dejesus: i do have a question. i respect you tremendously. i understand you are the sheriff's department and we're the police department. my only concern is you're in a confined space. you're not dealing with women, teenagers, young people. you're not dealing with people who have guns, a gun battle or a chase, or people on the edge of cliffs or in water. there is a lot more of intangibles when it is out in the field. i have been in the jails. i know it is confined. i know they made to a house weapons. i also know there are situations our department is doing with -- chasing cars, chasing people, mentally ill. i know you have a mental billion

-- unit. you have met a -- you have medication. i assume their tactics you use to get to the level before you would have to tase someone. but there is a difference when we are dealing with a variety of individuals on the street. >> there is a big difference. probably the major difference is that in the jails attrition we have a greater amount of time to think about how we are going to react. the officer on the street, who is faced with immediate threat to himself or to a citizen, does not have as much time. the have to make a very quick judgment. they also have to act very quickly. there is no question is a different scenario. i will tell you that my department has what we call an emergency services unit that provides assistance to the san francisco police department at times of demonstration, new year's eve, halloween, and

other times of major crowds. my units go out and have a taser with them in that situation. president mazzucco: thank you, sheriff. >> thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. i now introduce ms. christine dubarry from the mayor's office. president mazzucco: good evening. how are you? >> i am well. i and the deputy chief of staff. i came to express merely -- mayor lee's support for the use of tasers a aspect -- as a possible tool that could be used as part of any implementation. i am happy to answer any

questions. commissioner dejesus: i whispered to the community that it was not his -- i always heard from the community that was not his decision. >> i am here at his request. president mazzucco: further questions? thank you very much. >> thank you. we have heard from police experts and managers. i now wish to change direction and hear from live officers, who can speak from actual experience in the field. i would like to introduce the surgeon from the tenderloin station. you may remember him from last year's presentation. he has more to add.

>> i spoke last year around the same time of year about an incident that occurred in the tenderloin. a store owner had called 911 regarding a trespasser in his store that was threatening him. a two-man unit encountered an angry parolee. a violent struggle ensued. the call for help. from our patrol cars, we could hear a loud crash from the center of the store. the loud crash was an interior wall that had been knocked over, blocking the entrance to the store.

we could still hear the fight going on inside. we had to crawl under the ball to get near enough to assess that. on entering, i saw the deployment of an apartment baton, which is roughly 26 inches long, made of steel and aluminum alloy. they hit him as hard as they could. it had no affect at all. in fact, it enraged him. he charged at me. the problem with the baton -- i had to get close to him to get a good strike. he charges you with such force that he ripped my jacket in have and drove me backwards through all those metal racks. the continued struggling with me and to me backwards with such force i hit the soda machine. i hit that so hard that we went

to the window. luckily, on the outside of that window is a metal barriers that kept him from going into the street. at that time, other officers arrived and were able to taken into custody. in a short time, it can be a very dangerous for two seconds. when i was about to hit that wall, i was reaching for my firearm. i had in my hand. i was when to shoot him. it was literally a second away from the shooting him. that would have turned this use of force incident into an officer-involved shooting. it probably would have been fatal. he was on top of me. i would not depend time to extend my arm. this incident could happen tomorrow. the suspect is back on the street after six months in county jail. i saw him two weeks ago, standing in front of my station.

the thing is, we need something, and whether it is midnight on christmas eve or 2:00 in the afternoon. when the 911 calls come in and officers call for help, we need something between a baton and a firearm. right now, officers are getting hurt. people are getting hurt. when you guys vote on this tonight, just think that we need something. >> thank you, sergeant. next, i introduced matt friedman, from mission statement -- station. he was working by himself in garfield park. he was injured as a result of his encounter, and was placed on disability leave. you should know that houston pd -- this graph i put out shows

their yearly workers' comp costs since 2004 have shown a steady decline. our total costs for this fiscal year was over $11 million. our current cost today is over $5 million. >> good evening, members of the police commission, chief, members of the command staff, and the community. thank you for having me speak to you today. i am a san francisco police officer stationed in the mission. i have been with the spd. i pay special attention to public parks in the mission district. i am here to share an experience i had on december 10, 2010. i was involved in a horrific incident.

i was on patrol as a one-officer unit, dressed in full uniform, in the area of garfield park. my attention was immediately drawn to several people sitting inside the playground, next to the child play structure. one of them, who i immediately recognized from past encounters as a criminal street gang member, had an unleashed pit bull next to his feet. he was drinking a call and smoking cigarettes. he was 20 years old and had no children with him. as a police officer, a recognized laws were being broken. as a parent, i realized how intimidating this could be to families wishing to use the playground, having to worry about a loud, and drunk adult with a pit bull smoking in a restricted area. my immediate goal was to have him leave. as i approached, three of them decided to do just that. the person who i know to be a

gang member had the pit bull in his possession. i hold a bachelor's and master's degree. i have always believed that the verbal persuasion was one of my strongest tools. after attempting toperson out on realized this person has no intention of leaving the park or listening to anything i had to say. not only did the person refused to leave the playground, he refused to present his left side, which was hidden by a trenchcoat that could have been concealing a dangerous weapon. with additional units and route to my location, i realized i had to be cautious. i asked the man to step out of the park and over to my car. my attempt to do that was met with a brutal assault. before i could react to what was happening, this person landed several punches to my head and face. as the attacker continued to

rain punches down, i became confused and dazed, but realize this was not stopping. what started on one side of the playground was now on the opposite side and i had -- and had no signs of stopping. by the time my attacker pinned my shoulders to the ground by mounting my chest while landing blow after blow on my face and head, while rolling to my side, i sensed something was wrong. as a police officer, one of my worst fears is being injured or killed. even more terrifying is being injured or killed with my own firearms. my attacker was attempting to rip the gun out of my holster. extreme fear, loss of vision, confusion started to overwhelm me. i was blacking out. in one last effort to save my life, i was able to break his hold and fire one round.

i went unconscious, not before polls bring my firearm. i woke up face down on the ground to another officer screaming at me to wake up. i was treated for concussion and contusions. i was out of work for close to a month. as a recover from the physical impact of this and the emotional impact the human psyche has from the enduring such lethal force, when it is something that will be with me for a long time. in closing, i won't stand in front of you and tell you if i had a taser, things to be different. i hope you consider what happened to me as an example of why it is important to equip officers with the appropriate tools for appropriate situations. give officers every opportunity, tool, or piece of equipment so they don't have to resort to a firearm. thank you. president mazzucco: thank you,

officer. >> our next speaker is going to explain an encounter he had several days ago. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm a patrol officer with company a. i would like the commissioners to try to put themselves in my shoes during this scenario. on february 20, he three days ago, i responded to a domestic assault and battery car recall upon a child. the mother called the police taking her husband had been using drugs and had just struck their kid. the mother was outside with her two kids.

i entered the apartment and found the suspect sitting on the bedroom floor. i ask him to stand up and he complied. i told him to turn around and i was going to put handcuffs on him. i attempted to place a twist lock grip so i could handcuff the suspect. the suspect yelled out, "i am not going. you cannot take me. shoot me. kill me. -- kill me." i called for a distress call over the radio. i only had one chance to put out the radio call clear and concise. i looked down and spoken to my microphone. as i looked down, the suspect grabbed my head and placed my head into a guillotine-type of hold. another sergeant was on scene

and attempted to subdue the other free arm of the suspect to no avail. when the suspect put his arms around my neck, he was choking me. i could feel my carotid pulsing. i punched the suspect numerous times to no avail. he did not release his grip. at the time, the only thing that came to mind was to use my firearm. my oc was not in play. i could i use a baton because of the distance. my head was buried in his chest. at the same time, the suspect was able to grab my microphone cord and ripped it from my radio, so i did not have a mic. i was not able to be in contact

with communications for over four minutes. another officer arrived at the location. he was able to free myself from the suspect's chokehold. that officer, myself, and the sergeant continued to struggle with the suspect until other officers arrived on scene. it took a total of six officers to subdue the suspect. we had to subdue the suspect. he was continuing to kick his legs, kicking at officers. the suspect continued to grab equipment from the gun belt and try to grab radios with negative result. we were ablto