best experts to say under what circumstances. we brought experts, the aclu -- the aclu from cincinnati supports it. if you read the statement the commander read, the aclu said, here are the circumstances to use it. i think the commission has to think of the unintended consequences of not doing this. do you really want to put san francisco police officers back on the street without an option they say they need? commissioner dejesus: you know what? aclu is here. they can speak for themselves. i do appreciate. thank you for answering the question. >> first of all, the guidelines , would they permit the officers to tase someone who is fleeing? >> yes. we had the circumstances under which -- we debated that issue for three hours in houston about the fleeing issue.

that is not the only circumstance under which you tase someone. the act of fleeing should not be sufficient to tase someone. >> your reviewed best practices, you came to our city. our use of dogs, officer shootings, it was a very thorough review. simple question for you. it is very clear that tasers are less than lethal and can cause death. the officers were to tase 10 people were shoot 10 people, what would they do? >> the vast majority of people do not get injured from being tased. most of the 10 who are tased

will get up and walk away. you have bad situations or tragic situations where someone falls off a building. that happened in new york city. you have situations. i understand what the commissioner is saying with someone fleeing. you know what? the police officer who does that has to ask, is it worth doing? it is like in a pursuit case. they have to ask themselves, is this worth the danger it could be? at the end of the day, i think you all have a very easy choice here. that is to give the san francisco police officers in the street every day a choice that you will then review. commissioner marshall: i asked this question last time. maybe you can tell me. taser international. is there gun international? tasers and guns are not without

risk. nobody is taking away the guns. what is it about the taser that bothers people more than guns? >> i think in some cases, tasers have been used inappropriately. commissioner marshall: so have guns. >> that has given them a bad name. the early history of them in new york city as they were used to torture people. people remembered that. now, today, we see them used much more strategically, much more carefully. commissioner marshall: i understand that. we have that shootings were people thought guns were used inappropriately. i'm trying to figure out what it is about tasers. no one is suggesting that law enforcement give up their guns. maybe they are. all right. i am just curious as to why -- i could never get that, really.

>> you raise a good point. one of the things your department has done very well as you have restricted the use of deadly force. one of the recommendations, you should not use deadly force against a car, shooting at a car. in a number of years, it has dropped significantly because we have restricted the use of deadly force. tasers are misunderstood by many people. police want to use them as an alternative to deadly force. commissioner marshall: all right. i don't have my answer yet. >> i understand your point. >> i will hold my question. thank you. >> at this point, commissioner chan has prepared a 45-minute presentation. commissioner chan: thank you very much. want to thank everyone for being here tonight.

i value your time. i have planned a presentation for the commission that highlights some of the considerations we should take into account as we discussed potentially taking action on this issue of less lethal weapons. it is something for us to keep in mind tonight. we need to review and evaluate independent research for medical professionals on the safety and effectiveness of tasers and other options. what i mean by "independent" is someone not paid by any of these weapons companies. we also must engage in an open conversation with members of the community and with community organization. we need to remember that two weeks ago, this commission came together -- it was a great night for all of us. we voted to adopt the memphis model to address mental health. that work has just gotten started. we had our first meeting last friday. i want to ensure that all of our officers receive sound and

effective tactical training so use of force can be avoided whenever possible. i know the chief had talked to us about this. also, we need to consider issues of liability and also, we need to know where the money is going to come from for any new tools for our officers. with that, i would like to start. thank you for waiting. >> thanks to all the commissioners here. this is an interesting discussion tonight. first off, let me say, some of you may know i have been involved in a police misconduct issue for a mighty long time. many debt cases, more than i would like to remember. death cases affect the people

who has been killed and the family members. it has far-reaching ramifications. it is not a question that we should take lightly. we should really think about the ramifications of it. i have been involved in a lot of taser cases. one thing -- some of them have been death cases. seven or 10 of them have been. the one thing that i do not think it's a fair analogy is that i think when deadly force is going to be used, i don't think an officer is going to use his taser. that is the scenario we saw here. that is not a scenario i have ever heard of. the officer shoots. if a knife is involved, i understand the rights of officers. i appreciate that. in a shoot/don't shoot

situation, the taser will not be the second or third option. i'm not disputing that. the taser is and often is a non- deadly force situation. the question is, what are the limitations on that? what i have seen, certainly in the death cases i have been in, and people of made references to those -- the person was mentally impaired, alcohol was being used, the person was not cooperative, the charges have been two minutes or more -- all of us have the knowledge that you can abuse the taser in ways that can result in death or injuries. a person was trying to climb a house, he was tased, fell down,

broke his neck. someone went down the street, was not cooperative, he fell down and was injured. those things happen. from that point of view, that goes to the question of training and accountability that you have. that goes to the study that you want to have. look at the issues of training and accountability. those, to me, are critically important. the potential of abuse is far more significant than one can appreciate. any officer in any point in time can make a judgment willy-nilly, somebody has not responded as quickly as they would like, somebody says something to them they did not like, and they get tased. they may not die, but they should not have been tased. how do you account for that? those coming to me, are

important questions. i have to tell you, as i listen to this, it sounds to me that this is the question of the joneses. everybody else has it. we don't. that is reason enough to have it. that is how it feels and sounds. that is not to say there's not utility and value in tasers. i have seen that. many of the cases i have are in the valley. everybody from fresno up through sacramento and beyond have tasers. the death cases have come about in those communities. we do know that they can be used. i will say that over the last five or six years, tasers in response to some of the cases i have seen half issued on different training nonchalance to incorporate much of what fits here to try to change the dynamics and give officers more

guidelines on how they ought to be used. that is not to say the potential for abuse is not there. that is the question you have to decide for yourselves as to whether or not what you're getting is worth the potential harm you have. i will say, you are not being fair and clear if you think that if a weapon can be used in order to prevent deadly force -- that is not the case. i have not seen that. i have seen officer shoot. they have. taser. they shoot because they have a potential threat of deadly force in front of them. they see a knife in front of them. they can close that gap pretty quickly and shoot them. you will not use a taser for that. you don't know if it is going to work.

that is not an accurate fact in order to use tasers. they may feel uncomfortable using them in communities. it is not because of deadly force. i would say, without having a real position on this, someone who has given a lot of thought to this, he thinks if you're going to do it, you ought to have this kind of study in place. i would support that. i don't think it is a necessary tool to have. remember this. this tart -- this department has function for 200 years. officers have been out in the street. there are incidents of police misconduct that are not as high as other departments i have been involved in. to say you need it because of that, it really is not an accurate statement. if you want it because you wanted, that is different. you ought to be fair and honest about that. commissioner chan: i want to

thank our interpreters for tonight for working hard and providing simultaneous interpretation. i apologize for talking so fast. do you have a question? go ahead. >> counselor, could you step up? >> of all the cases you have litigated, how many would you say, what is the percentage that the taser was abused and misused as opposed to some type of malfunction with the product? >> i have not had any case where there has been a malfunction with a taser. remember, people come to me after they have been abused. i don't get them before hand. when i get it, i'm trying to figure out where in the scheme of things was the force used, was it proper. because it was used to did not make it improper.

i have not had malfunctions. what you have had -- one question is it does not stop after five seconds. you keep pulling on the trigger, it will continue. you do have a continuation. you have the potential for abuse when you have continuation. that is an officer's ability to do that. you do have the ability to determine how many times it has been done. from accountability, you can look back and see whether or not that charge was used properly or not. that goes to the accountability question. that is part of the training and the study, if you do that. >> thank you. commissioner chan: thank you. [applause] mr. john burton, we're ready to proceed. mr. burton flew from los angeles to be with us tonight. i appreciate your taking the time.

welcome back. sure. if you would like, we can have another speaker go before you so you have time to set up, if you would like. ok. sure. let's move to another speaker while we try to get this fixed. is there someone who can help? ok. could i have the aclu here? your name has been mentioned a lot tonight. mr. allen hopper, director of police practices of the aclu for northern california. >> i do want to point out that i have a two-part presentation for you this evening. i would like to present a little video that will take eight or 10 minutes. i have a few minutes of comments. commissioner chan: maybe we will hold off on changing the laptop for now.

>> do you want me to go ahead? >commissioner chan: yes, please. >> however you want to do it. commissioner chan: i think you can use it right now. go ahead. >> good evening. i'm the police practices director at the aclu of northern california. thank you for inviting me to speak this evening. is that better? as i said, i have, with your indulgence, a two-base presentation. i have a video and a couple of minutes of commons. -- comments.

sorry for the delay.

i don't know if you have a way of putting it on the main screen. sound? >> can we pull the camera back? commissioner chan: if we need more time to make this work, we can have another speaker. i want to maximize our time. we will try to make it work. maybe we will have jack speak. sorry about this technical difficulty. mr. bryson, are you in the room?

he is not here yet. ok. rimi from -- i will try one more. barbara. >> all right. commissioner chan: she is the founder of accountability associates. she is an independent police auditor. and stand she is part of the occ. thank you for joining us tonight. >> good evening, chair mazzucco, commissioners. thank you for inviting me to speak tonight. thank you for that introduction. that is some of what i was going

to talk about. i started my career in oversight as a member of the staff of the office of citizen complaints back in 1983. i worked there for 15 years, seven years with the city of berkeley and four with san jose. i serve for 10 years on the board of the national association for civilian oversight of law enforcement. i am here to speak about my experiment -- my experience with the city of san jose and tasered deployment. i'm not here to tell you tasers are bad or should not be used in san francisco. there should be careful guidelines in place for use. i worked with san jose to establish guidelines. when first deployed there, the city relies on tasered training, -- relied on taser training, which was to use them early and

often. they have changed recommendations. the guidelines adopted in 2005 were the product of my recommendations as the auditor, were completed about taser guidelines by a representative of the aclu, and they are somewhat abbreviated from the guidelines disseminated for this meeting. the guidelines are an excellent starting place for developing a taser policy. if tasers were to be adopted, i recommend careful monitoring of taser usage by officers and units, as well as department wide. regular reports should be made to the commission and to members of the public. there should also be independent oversight of taser usage by the occ as well. supervision is extremely

important. this there's often -- this is shown in the numbers. it has been reported that often, tasers are overused when initially deployed. this was the case in san jose. during the first year, they were used 172 times. in 2006, the second year,232 times. in 2007, 240 times. that is when reports were issued and taser usage was issued. last year, commissioner marshall asked something to the effect, wouldn't it be better to be shot with a taser then with a gun? i think this is a good question and one that members of the public often ask when discussing tasers. i think looking at the number of times tasers are used helps to

answer that question. there far more often than a gun would be used. officers are taught that tasers are not to be used in deadly force situations, because tasers are not always effective if lives are in danger. officers are taught to use deadly force. i was in the other room when officers told stories about incidents that had happened, the removing stories, marie scary stories. in most of those scenarios, tasers would not be an appropriate weapon. tasers are not non-lethal weapons. they are less lethal. at least six people have died

nearby when tasers were used. in one of those cases, the man had been hitting a car with a garden hoe. he did not respond to commands, and officers used batons and pepper spray on him. the coroner's report said that tasers had been used 20 times. he died the next day. a comparison can be made a fatal officer-involved shootings in the five years before and after tasers were deployed in san jose. there were seven between 1999 and 2004, and seven in the five years following. however, when the number of deaths after tasers were deployed is added, it becomes 13. the numbers in san jose do not

do a strong support for taser deployment. the other issue is cost. the cost to purchase, the cost of training, which should be ongoing, because tasers should not be used often, and medical support for those shot. each should be used by a -- should be examined by a doctor. san francisco should purchase tasers with cameras to have the best evidence available. there are many issues and costs which must be weighed. i think you all have their work cut out for you. i also want to say there is a really important step in moving ahead with the crisis intervention program. having worked in berkeley, and a crisis intervention can save lives if it is a party of the

department. thank you for the time to address you today. i know you have many speakers. i do not want to talk long. but i am here to answer any questions you might have. >> mr. john burton, do you want to give it another stab after technical difficulties? if you give it a try, i think it will work this time. >> the cure may be using somebody else's lap top. >> mr. burton is an attorney from los angeles. i believe you were the first attorney to successfully sue taser international after a shooting death.

i wanted you to share your experiences on that. >> i have prepared a brief power. . -- a brief powerpoint. >> got it. >> here we go. the risks of this device are not apparent. these officers to go to these training sessions. they are tasered under controlled circumstances. it hurts like hell. they laugh afterward, go out in the field, and tend to use it in situations far below anything that would justify pulling a firearm, much less discharging it. they are trained that it is not a substitute for legal force.

we will see why, as we show you my presentation, that is the case. when it talks about ecd's, electronic control devices, conduct electrical weapons -- tasers do not have a lockout device on model x26, which is the only one being sold at this time. stinger, which was a competitor that lost a patent lawsuit to taser., had a lockout after five seconds, which was more responsible. it could be cycled three times, and then the taser had to be reset. officers get a lot of adrenalin

going. the wind of discharging the device far more than they think they did afterward. we have seen minutes of discharges. there were 35 second this charges recorded on the device -- their work -- there were 30 five-second discharges recorded on this device. there is no conclusive medical evidence that indicates a high level of death from exposure. i am not sure what they mean by high risk. it is a low percentage of people who are catered -- tasered who have serious injury and die. but we are talking about russian roulette. in the next per group on the in the next per group on the next page, it says exposure i