deployment. explanations are severalfold. initially, police departments using the taser had much more liberal policy about using the taser. as there was recognition of risk, policies were put forth that dampened that use of taser s and that mitigated some of that risk. if tasers were to be brought, we want to prevent that 600% increase in seven deaths and not have that increase. i will point out that after the tasers were used, it did not come back to baseline. it came back to 40% above that baseline. 50 cities provided data for the study. the other question we asked was how about shootings. do they go down? about 20 cities replied.

we found about six shootings per 100,000 arrests, which doubled in that first year of taser use. it came back near the baseline after that first year. but shooting stubble. one possibility is that with liberal use of tasers, confrontations escalated until lethal force was necessary. i will be the first to admit that this particular outcome -- we did not have the power to measure this outcome. only four cities provided data on officer injuries. nevertheless, we did not see a decrease in officer injuries. what is the summary of our research? there is a definitive risk for lethal arrhythmias. that rate is not 1 per 100,000. it is something much higher than that, and i would partly be in

agreement with 3% to 5%. detectors are important. taser admits to not targeting the chest. there is an early increase in sudden deaths which may be preventable. then there is a low increase in risk. if you will allow me to editorialize a little bit as a physician, a researcher, and a taxpaying san franciscan, these are my recommendations. tasers may serve a useful role in law enforcement. i have the utmost respect for our officers to face dangers every day. a pragmatist obviously recognizes the benefit in these potential situations where lethal force may have otherwise been used. but policies should be designed to take into account that phasors -- tasers should only be

deployed in situations where you would otherwise use lethal force. avoid a vector across the chest at all costs. avoid repeated shocks. the more time to pull the trigger, the more likelihood it will cause cardiac arrest. third, a relatively inexpensive antidote -- police officers are the early responders to cardiac arrest. if you are going to have a device that can potentially cause cardiac arrest, have the antidote available, which costs on the order of about a thousand dollars. that would be my final recommendation for using tasers. president mazzucco: thank you very much. commissioner hammer: thank you, doctor. welcome back. i've been a prosecutor for a trial where you were most -- one

of the most impressive witnesses i've ever seen. the chemicals estoppel, which i appreciate very much. -- you came across as a thoughtful, which i appreciate very much. one of the things that came across clearly -- if the commission decides to go forward, i will not vote for it, but i will make sure every patrol car has one of those in them. >> i think that will go a long way. commissioner hammer: the other thing you pointed out that i would like to encapsulate -- the study did was an amalgam of department data. if i recall correctly, you said that there were departments that did not have an increase, and they averaged out to sixfold. can i ask you to speculate on

what that might be? >> i think we did hear testimony from a woman from berkeley. some police departments had a more liberal use of policy on the taser/ it is in these liberal situations that you do not recognize the potential for vehicle outcomes, where it causes excess harm. if we have a careful policy in place where tasers are restricted in their use, we avoid tasering folks with cardiac condition, or over the chest, i think a lot of risks can be mitigated. commissioner hammer: in terms of your findings, you are not claiming cause and effect. it is that if you do not have tight oversight of officers to use them, you are likely to see these effects? >> that is correct.

commissioner hammer: think you for coming. chief godown: i appreciate your presentation. real quick, if i can get my hands around this study -- i am kind of confused. prior to the implementation of tasers, there was one in 100,000 of sudden death. once the agency's implemented the taser, it was six in 100,000. can you tell me that had anything to do with the taser? >> we cannot. this was not a clinical trial. we cannot ethically use a clinical trial. the only thing we can do is look at outcomes and perform statistical analysis of outcomes we see. there is no question that there was a significant, substantial increase in the outcome. you are right. were those six all due to the taser? i cannot answer that question. before the tasers were

introduced, death rates were one in 100,000. afterward, they went up to six fold. it is the same city, demographic, police department. chief godown: officer involved shootings went up after implementation. you said they had more and more violent time during that time. we cannot tell me that had anything to do with tasers, correct? >> that is correct. this is a limitation of and epidemiological study. that is a valid criticism of the study. it was peer reviewed and published in "the american journal of cardiology." commissioner slaughter: thank you for your presentation. it is incredibly useful. if we could have a copy of the slides, it would be very useful for us, moving forward. one clarification and one question. when you are talking about one

in 100,000, it is deaths? >> correct. commissioner slaughter: i did not realize you had worked on the braidwood commission. i am getting up to speed on this. i read portions of it over the weekend. i wondered if you agreed with the commission conclusion when it comes to how the weapon has been deployed, that our society is better with these devices in use them without them? >> i did not review that particular statement. are you asking me if i agree with that? i think if we had a very restrictive policy and we have potential mitigation in place, they probably do serve a useful role. >> one question that helps us

evaluate these. could you talk a little bit about the value witting different studies? i have a stack of studies. there are lots of conflicting results. could you tell us really quickly how we figure out if they study is a quality study or a study we should pay less attention to? >> the commonly heard metaphor in academics is "publish or perish." for a study to be published, it has to be peer reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. that is a standard that is the very minimum for to buy russian of the study, whether it has been published by a peer- reviewed journal. president mazzucco: we really have to move forward. >> i understand. i was at a meeting last night and the question came up about delirium.

i was looking at the braidwood study, and there were several psychologists saying it was not a valid medical diagnosis and was used more frequently to absolves law enforcement. can you talk a little bit about that? >> unqualified that i am not a psychiatrist. delirium is a debated condition. i think some of the sudden deaths predating tasers were attributed to excited delirium. the idea is that subtexts are excited to death. it is a debated mechanism for how the subject guide. it could be cardiac arrhythmia. it was seen in subjects who were psychologically deranged. it is a situation where a taser could potentially increase that

risk by further increasing the instability in the system. that is another potential mechanism, other than a direct captor of the heart. >> thank you for your service. we only have two speakers left. we will get into public, and very soon. mr. jack bryson, are you here? we may have only one more speaker. our last speaker will be alan gi hopper, director of police practice at the aclu of northern california. >> i'll give you my brief comments. >> perhaps we can do is as we get into public, we can work on fixing the audio. then you will get a chance to do that.

>> 14 year-old kyle martinez looks normal until you see this. >> it is really painful. >> 18 staples and six stitches pieced her head back together after she was tasered. doctors told her family that one of the prongs went through kylie's skull and hit her brain. it happened last thursday, as her mother argued with her about pictures of herself on. the police department came and

when they got there, kylie bolted for this park. >> i did not mean for my child to be injured. >> the police officer claims she tried to walk away, but he told her to stop. when he pulled out the taser, she ran out of fear. >> you do not go and take a 14- year-old child. >> the officer said he told her to stop warning and -- stop running and warned her about the taser. police say they

>> the last moments captured by bystanders. she could not go into the baggage area or get a message to them.

then he throws something. a security man appears. they need an interpreter. as they arrive, before they get there, the answer is yes. as the mounties approach, they ask if the man speaks english. for a moment, they try to talk to him but it is no good.

he writhes and moans. the man behind the camera becomes a surrogate. they can his neck and his head

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.