investigations by the corner. for the mother, the verdict is already in.

that her son died for nothing. >> the sacramento chapter of the aclu was questioning them, this will happen outside the drug store. the aclu says that it was serious physical harm. >> it needs to be regularly regulated.

they say it was not excessive. an oklahoma driver ends up on the wrong side, this is an amazing story. police thought the man was drunk or on drugs. then they taser him. it turns out the man was in severe diabetic shock. he usually resembles somebody that is intoxicated. once the police realized what is happening, they rushed him to the hospital. he should be ok, but this should be a lesson. the police should be schooled by these types of things. >> responding, getting out a gun. >> maybe the diabetic should

wear something, i don't know. >> the 21-page court document -- >> we still have to defend them. >> without any provocation, they take him in the neck. jefferson county sheriff's would not speak directly to those claims. >> the findings were that there was no indication of any wrongdoing.

>> their released a statement saying that their job is to protect the children. shocking children with lasers could result in serious physical and mental injury. >> a 55-year-old homeowner is a bible study teacher. being a pregnant -- they are fighting back. they will use excessive force just to quiet down a backyard party. >> it was supposed to be a happy day to celebrate the baptism of these little boys. he says there is a backyard celebration that came to an abrupt halt after some confusion when he was asked for

an id and he was taser three times. >> he took out his wallet, and when he lifted up his license, he started feeling the electric shocks. >> and again on this side at the same time. my dad was not under arrest. >> police issued a statement confirming that two people were taser. the homeowner was highly intoxicated. the officer explained the noise ordinance to the homeowner who refused to turn down the loud music. they began to act disorderly and refused to identify himself to officers.

they were charged with public intoxication. the family says they try to help rodriguez. she was charged with assaulting a police officer. >> she was assaulted by an officer. >> it all happened in front of the yard. >> there was a defensive mode, like they were criminals. everybody felt like that was how we were treated. >> the pregnant woman remains in custody tonight. she was detained by immigration and customs enforcement. the police chief has ordered an internal affairs investigation.

>> i wanted to show these clips for you will. no matter how many times that we say to you is a dangerous weapon -- that gazers are a dangerous weapon, it does not convey the effect of some of the things that have happened. what they said in previous testimony, it is still true. we have all shown concerns by the folks at amnesty international. we encourage you to deploy tazers. if you do this, here is wha you shout --- what you -- what you should be thinking about. this is important. he was talking about the motion that was before the commission. she said it was putting the cart

before the horse. improvements should be made [unintelligible] i understand the instinct to try to keep it separate it will not involve a mentally ill person, we understand the regulation includes some mentally ill individuals. but i am here tonight to urge you to a knowledge and recognize that there is a connection. they made it very clear when he went on television, on the news, that the gentleman was shot in the wheelchair.

it was the first of the start of this year. the former chief went on television and said that these other kinds of incidents. he appeared before the commission and i was there. these issues are intertwined. the message he was sending is that this is why we need tasters. -- tazers. there are significant positive steps that the commission has

taken like a adopting the resolution last week. i know that there was some back- and-forth and obvious opportunities, and you did not do that. what we are saying. now, don't stop short. -- what we are saying to you now, don't stop short. this is the point i want to make. the changes of the use of force policy has to include how to deal with people with mental health issues. those proposals don't include that, and they are going to fall

short. you instructed, you created this new position. you instructed them to come back to you with proposals with changes to the general orders. those have to be a part of the new use of force. give it a chance. i fear that it is irresponsible and dangerous. before that process has run its course, to arm officers, even a small program with these new weapons, we have heard testimony tonight that even when they are used exactly as the manufacturer

tells you to use them, sometimes people will be seriously injured or killed. especially in the context of what is going on right now in the community. it is not the time to arm officers with weapons. given this choice, please don't rush into this. and i understand the concerns. there is no urgency they can wait until the safety program is in place. and the apartment that you go to, it is the cutting edge that has been so successful.

that is not an accident. [applause] >> they would like to add something. >> thank you very much president -- much, president mazzucco. there are less lethal weapons that are not intended to be lethal but can, in some instances, be lethal. they are authorized to explore in addition to limitations of consideration that the department has focused carefully. they are in their capacity for

police tactics. and also the observation of over 20 years of history, there is no substitute for sound tactics. and the tragic shootings within the city highlights that tactical planning is paramount to effective policing. regardless of what might be available to an officer. it includes a behavior in risk, before taking action. to determine whether immediate action is necessary or whether it can be slowed down to permit the gathering of information. tactical planning for behaviors

and risk change. moreover, they caused the incident to escalate quickly. there are complaints that the occ has investigated. they did not find unnecessary force was used. they identify training and policy failures. in some instances, it could have included securing the perimeter,

waiting for backup, and approaching an individual quietly. it will result in the individual lending at the -- lunging at the officers and the officer's shooting. and the individual they thought to arrest or assist. they recommend that regardless of the type of less lethal weapons available, the department immediately enhances its tactical skill training to include more scenario-based incidents. identifying the events that can be resolved and providing more communication skills. they also recommended that the jurisdiction of the firearms discharge review board make recommendations on tactics, and

not just whether a shooting was in the or out of policy. >> if we were to go for it, does that seem to be involved, he mentioned the conditions steady. they studied both the task force and it is better to have taser is as one of the tools for law enforcement officers. i was wondering if you could read their conclusions. >> under the appropriate guidelines, i agree with their

conclusions. the appropriate medical care could be provided, appropriate medical equipment. each patrol car has a taser.

>> it will be two minutes per person. light up. >> i have worked for 42 years. i was just overwhelmed, i am just a guy out there and the public. i want the police department to get every tool or weapon, what ever you want to call it, so i will be blunt. any member that votes against the the taser is an idiot.

ok? i'm not a cop, so if somebody came after me with a gun, i would run like hell. he does not have that luxury. a cop has to defend himself. it is not like he has a target range. he can take his time, and, and shoot. he has a fraction of a second and that can be fatal. given the alternative tools or weapons, i am not an expert. as long as they are lawyers, they see dollar signs.

you should be concerned with the damages of the lawsuits. if somebody was shot to death, it will cost us millions of dollars. [chime] >> sir, we have a huge audience tonight. i apologize. we are going to go one at a time. if you are next. >> [unintelligible]

immediately, when i heard he was pointing a taser at him, he shot him anyhow. then they shot him in the back. i also want to rapidly recount what happened in 2005.

he was walking and a couple others thought he was a drug dealer. he turned around and saw a couple of people in uniform. they said taser. he does not know what that word means. then they shot him in the back. they wanted [unintelligible] if you see me walking with a cane today, it is because of

the extreme tissue damage from the taser. thank you. >> i am part of the national alliance for mental illness. i am part of the community partnership. i totally agree with the aclu. i don't know about taser is, but $1,000 per taser, we are already talking about where the money is going to come from to send a focus group to memphis. if teasers -- tasers are adopted, they will become a stepchild of tasers because of lack of funding.

they are always at the end of the line. i understand this is not the health commission, but i must say something. i am living in a kafka-esque world of mental illness. constantly having our loved ones rushed instead of individuals. just last week, we know that continued residential treatment, resources are limited. this is all we can do. with the drug dealers constant, or the family, they failed to take their medication. there is no follow-up. the police are called over and over again.

they are very closely connected. >> commissioners, the evening. -- good evening. i have watched the procedures, and not one of you brought up because factor. -- the cost factor. what it will cost the city of san francisco, and not the sfpd. the previous mayor lied about the deficit. revenues are declining, and this is the most expensive weapons system. the training goes on at $90,000 a session or whatever the number happens to be and it keeps going

from there. a brand new weapons system has a brand new costs. neither can the city or county of san francisco afford it. that 10% a year. if there is a policeman out there, the citizen population at large. the taser is not the answer. for $29, by peppers pray that i can use.

that is the type of system that is effective. it is cost-effective, and we should look at that. thank you for your time. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is pamela fisher, i am the member -- also a member of the national alliance of mental illness. the issues cannot be separated. i think if you vote to purchase the taser is, you are undercuttg the message that they need to learn de-escalation techniques. he will not take the time to slow things down and verbally

de-fg8hoescalate the situation. i urge you not to decide this issue in a positive way tonight. >> hello, commissioners and chief of police. in the re-enactment that you did, you could have used staff that distracts de person with a knife. it is a lot cheaper. it is an air horn compared to teatasters -- tasers. >> i am speaking on behalf of the national lawyers guild where we would urge you to vote down we would urge you to vote down this resolution to bring in