within 5 feet of the officer. are the officers trained to use a taser or baton in that situation? are they trained to use a lethal weapon? >> at this stage, we don't have tasers. current training, their options would have been -- a knife- wielding subject is a level of deadly force. we are not trained to go lesser level of force to a higher level of force. in that situation, they could have used a taser. if that did not work, their only option is lethal force. commissioner dejesus: do you know of instances where an officer -- and i've-wielding person is four feet from the officer and use the tasered? >> i cannot answer statistics like that. >> commissioner, i would like to read one component. the problem with this weapon is the officers are all not going

to be able to carry that in a patrol car. that weapon would have had to be driven out to that location, even if we were going to conceivably use that in the senate -- in this scenario, which we wouldn't have. the minute the officer grabs that weapon and has to have another officer that guards him. his gun is of no use to him because his hands are full with this. he has to have a gardening officers standing by in case legal force has to be used. their dynamics that we can look at. once this officer grabs that weapon, he has to have somebody standing next to him. >> that is correct. that is our department policy. there has to be a lethal cover. >> it would apply to any scenario, a taser, any other type of weapon that is used. there would be a guardian. >> there should be. there should be communication between the officers responding. one would be illegal cover

officer. you don't want to have to transition and think about that at that time. there should be a game plan between the officers responding. >> thank you. >> we have a question. >> that is the end of the presentation, right? >> yes. >> i'm sorry. when you wrap it up, i will ask. >> in conclusion, i believe the department and public would benefit from our officers having all available less than lethal tools of their disposal. you should know there are over 800 agencies in california who use the ced. every day, the men and women of our department come to work and put themselves in harm's way, as we signed on to do. as managers and policy makers, it is incumbent upon us to make sure our members are properly trained and equipped so they go home to their loved ones. i wish to acknowledge the work

on the part of the department, those in the office of administrative services, training division, my staff, the role players tonight, the speakers, and commissioners mazzucco and hammer. that includes the department's presentation and request for approval to develop a pilot program to equip our members with ced. the panel is available for further inquiries. >> can i jump in real quick? anybody in this room that is part of the police department, please stand up. everybody in the room in plain clothes, stand up. every night, i go to bed. i take this phone i have and i stick it next to my nightstand. it stays on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. everybody in this room -- i am as passionate about them and

keeping them safe. that is why i am coming back here again. all i ask from the commission is to take a thoughtful approach when the vote comes to you. i think you for the time and i think you to allow us to give this presentation. thank you. >> we have some representatives from various police officers' associations. let's bring them up as part of the presentation. you can share your opinions and stories. >> good evening. how are you? >> the evening. -- good evening. i am a lieutenant currently assigned to the homicide detail for san francisco pd and the

president of the san francisco police officers pride alliance. we represent the 250 lgbt officers in the san francisco police department. this is an issue that i don't think i have ever seen my members so passionate about. they want another tool for the tool box. my organization over the last couple of years has lost a couple of our members who were involved in shootings. because of the stress of that encounter, they have left our police department. i don't want to see that happen to another officer. i want to see us have another tool to use other than our firearm when dealing with these difficult situations. we come upon violent suspects regularly. we need another force option other than the use of our firearm. i encourage this commission to give it careful thought and

allow our officers to have the use of a ced device. thank you very much. >> good evening, president, commissioners. i am the current president for the san francisco latino police officers association. i want to echo what the lieutenant was saying. this is a device that i think would help benefit both the police officer and the public in maintaining and preventing the loss of life, which is our ultimate goal, that everybody go home safe, that every child in person we encounter leaves the same way they came to us. i wanted to stress one thing. i don't know if you have noticed. we come in every size, shape, and form in the police department. some of us have the advantage of being 6'2".

there is a height and weight difference across the board. a tool like this helps equalize that level. when we come across the individual that is coming out of state prison, all the have had time to do is work on their physique, and their desire to continue on in the force. i am not a big guy. i cannot take on that individual. for me having this tool would benefit myself and that individual from both of us being hurt, one from being possibly injured lethally, and myself from being injured. i wanted to take this into consideration and anything that we can do within our organization or within the latino community to help in this search, we would be more than happy to help. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, police chief.

i'm a sergeant in the san francisco police department and president of the asian peace officers association for san francisco. this is a topic that needs to be explored. the public and our police officers -- and we have great police officers in this city with good management -- all we are asking to do is to look for an additional tool we can use to fill that gap between the firearm and baton. i think we deserve it and the people of san francisco, the citizens, we deserve it. please vote yes and let's look at this issue even further. thank you very much. >> a good evening, commissioners. i am kevin martin, the vice president of the san francisco police officers association. we represent over 2000 members

of the san francisco police department. more importantly, we represent all over 750,000 residents of san francisco and close to 1 million people who come to san francisco every day. we are charged with their public safety and the safety of their loved ones. to ensure that once we go to work, we go home safely at night. the tool we are looking for, another option, the difference between legal force and another option that would incapacitate someone who is attacking, presenting a great physical danger and harm not only to an officer, but absolutely to members of the general public, your family, your loved ones, your next-door neighbor, people you know, people you work with. please, consider the absolute necessity of having another option. another tool in the toolbox.

this extra tool is the difference between someone being killed and someone being incapacitated, taken into custody, in a very humane way. thank you very much. i appreciate your consideration. >> the commissioner has a question. commissioner dejesus: nice to see you again. i am looking -- you gave -- you have your guidelines that were sent out in 2005. since then, tasered international, the predominant manufacturer, has come out with a lot of different -- >> advisory's. i'm familiar with that. commissioner dejesus: that is

not my concern. my understanding is when we last saw you here, there were saying, don't shoot in the face, the neck, the grind. those were the things i recall. i think now they're saying, don't shoot at individuals fleeing the scene. >> yes. we have concerns about that. one of our guidelines addresses that issue. commissioner dejesus: they also talk about vulnerabilities of certain people. they say, don't shoot -- >> at the elderly, and juvenile. commissioner dejesus: skinny people, sick people, which i don't know how you know they are sick people. they also are saying that they suggest that police departments do their own research. in terms of liability, that is one of the things. the second thing is, how would you advise -- how would an officer use this weapon

effectively in the field of the cannot shoot when they're fleeing -- they can go in your eyes. they can go in your heart for your growing. they have but the warnings out there. what is the efficacy of this weapon? where are you supposed to shoot? >> you raise questions. having said that, i am familiar with the training bulletin that was sent out. we questioned the manufacturer about that and why they would send it out. at the end of the day, when a police officer -- police officers are dealing with real situations. when you listen to them talk, they don't want to use deadly force. they don't want to use deadly force in those circumstances. i know the manufacturer has said, don't shoot in the face, don't shoot in the groin, don't shoot in the critical mass area for various reasons.

you don't want more injuries to occur. they say, shoot in the back. that makes it more difficult. in those circumstances -- at the end of the day, if you're the choice between giving them an alternative and giving them no alternative, i would rather give them the alternative, knowing they have to use it in a restricted way. really come in the circumstances were the police officers talked, what you heard in their voices was, we don't have to use deadly force in these circumstances. we don't want -- of baton will not be effective. we need something that will incapacitate someone for a few seconds so we can get in and control someone. you're right. everything you said is correct about what the manufacturer said. if you have to make a choice between giving them this alternative, which is very restricted, and no alternative,

i would give them the option, then i would evaluate it, and also have accountability. the sheriff said in all this is years they used it, they only used it 14 times, says to me you can implement this, you can evaluate it, and you can have supervision and training. at the end of the day, what happened? this is not about taking life. this is about saving lives. it is about the police officers and the san francisco police department who are asking you for another option. you will still hold them accountable. they're saying, i don't want to use deadly force. this is not a circumstance i want to use my gun. give me an alternative. commissioner dejesus: that is the problem. after we met, tasered international is saying incapacitation involves risks that a person may get hurt or die. they say there is a risk of the application having a negative affect on a person's heart rate

or rhythm. i guess my concern is perpetuating a fallacy, if they use a taser, the person will be safe. the taser is the only weapon that used as design can kill. commissioner dejesus: commissioner, could you -- >> could you say that again? commissioner dejesus: using it as designed, it is a weapon, used in the way it can be used, it can cause death. >> it can. it is not designed to kill anyone. commissioner dejesus: i don't want our officers thinking they will tase the person and they will live. if used the way designed, it can cause death. it would be more of a shock to an officer using a taser

thinking he will say the person and he kills the person because it electrocutes them, or it is a young person, a pregnant person, a skinny person, or someone who is sick. how do patrol officers know when people are sick? this weapon use the way it is supposed to be used can cause death. that is the problem i have. how do you put that in your guideline? >> we are dealing with 800 police departments in the state of california, over 10,000 police departments in the u.s. almost every major police department has now had five years' worth of data. they have a number of situations in which police officers like you heard here tonight have stood up and said, if i didn't have a taser, i would have had to kill this person. in charlotte, north carolina, in phoenix, arizona, a number of

police departments, in los angeles, where chief comes from, incidents have dramatically reduced the cases. have there been some cases where people have died? yes. we now know more. we have six years of research that says repeated use of the taster can cause injury. what do we say in our guard line? one five-second deployment, and adult with. sometimes we say, when it is not working, you use something else. why would the police departments use this of it was causing more harm than good? their study showing less injuries. we are not making this up. commissioner dejesus: memphis stopped using the tasers. >> who stopped? commissioner dejesus: memphis. >> one of the few exceptions. commissioner dejesus: do you

know of a tasered that has a locking mechanism so it is only a five-second cycle? some of these deaths, people pull the trigger -- over 400 people have died by the use of tasers. >> i appreciate that you know this as well as you do. we have told the manufacturer to have a cut off at five seconds. they wrote back to was that they will cut them off at five seconds. we -- we specifically wrote to the manufacturer. i can show you the letter. i have it with me. commissioner dejesus: how do we know the weapons are not discharging more electricity than what the manufacturer recommends? is there a calibration method? how we know they're not being given a dose that is outside what the manufacturer calls for.

>> the weapon is tested. there is a record of activation when it is used. commissioner, you raise good issues, but at the end of the day, if you're a police officer, would you rather have the option to use this rather than deadly force? commissioner dejesus: the problem i have come it is a fluid situation in the field. they shoot at somebody who is fleeing, they fall into traffic, there had is crushed. it is a pregnant woman. they're going to -- >> that is why we generated 53 guidelines to say when you can use it and when you cannot use it. if we just use what the manufacturer said, it would fall short. we brought together some of the 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. joneses. everybody else has it