that and dynamic situations. we are not telling them they shall not. >> thank you for coming. i had a question with regard to -- it also says, unless the situation justifies possible risks or death of serious injury. what would be the weapon more dangerous than name taser -- than the taser? >> i have to be careful about the way i answered that question. a firearm would absolutely be more dangerous. >> that is the answer i was looking for.

>> i am looking at the houston and michigan slides you presented. years and dollar amounts only tell part of the story. do you have any actual numbers that show the numbers reduced? i would advocate for you to work directly with the department. everything i bring to you is going to have that air of taser international. >> ok, thank you.

>> good evening. i am the chief of staff and the supervisor at the risk management office, the officer- involved shooting team, the legal division, and i work with the city attorney's office on policy. i do not know why the 18 months ago that occ, the police commission and the police department did not complete its the request made -- i do not know where the ball was dropped. we would not be here today if that had been completed? soon. what we're asking you to do is let us look at this pilot program.

it is the chief's belief that taser is something that will save a life. we go out to every officer- involved shooting. we see the work that goes into those investigations. there is nobody that comes away unscathed when a police officer shoots and kills citizens. we do truly believe this is a life-saving tool and i know there are multiple sides to this discussion. many of us are very passionate about this. our perspective is that we believe we can save lives. the chief requested an officer- involved shooting steady for the last five years that the occ was very active then. -- active in.

we believe that program works. we're asking for an additional tool for the officers to have on their belts to save lives. even an ecd is not gone to be an option in the escalation of force, but it is an option we do not have now. it is a pilot program. we're going to do all the research that we need to do. we will work with the city attorney to come up with the policy. but then we will come back to the police commission and ask you to look at what we present to you. at that time, you are going to tell us, yes, you agree. cornell, and we can live with -- or no, and we can live with the note, but we even -- we have not gone to the point for we can present to you yet. it is something that is important for us to look at. the national alliance on mental

illness supports the use with conditions. that condition is the escalation tools. -- de escalation tools. we're going to go through those use options as they present themselves. sometimes they do not present. sometimes -- the department of justice released a study last wednesday that supports the use of taser but found there is no evidence of cardiac problems. the aclu sent a letter yesterday and they stated there

are countless studies of the use of the taser and support that deescalation is the best tool in officer has. we would ask to try a taser before deadly force. they also wrote some names of some people we have killed with lethal force. it is an option that we would train he officers. i do not believe is an option that we but only use as a resource with the mental health community. across the board, we will train officers. we train officers to not to reinvent the wheel. if it works in one situation, if

you do not have to think through the process in a different situation. the dynamics were you would be confronted with the resisting subjects, if you would resort to a taser in that situation whether mental help was an issue or not. i would ask you to consider this pilot program. >> thank you. >> how long have you served in the police department? >> 22 years. for years with the sheriff's department. >> you have been involved in risk-management? and the aftereffects? >> yes. >> it is no easy task. the officers had asked you for another tool. have they come to you and ask for another tool before using their firearms? >> yes.

the officers have mentioned at the scene of a shooting, i wish i had a taser or an option other than lethal force. >> you do not take this lightly. you are a paper way from your ph.d. in psychology from stanford? >> yes. >> thank you for your presentation. >> i asked a number of questions in terms of how we would structure a policy in san francisco. one of the issues that i had a concern about was whether or not a taser is a less lethal option which would reduce the number of fatal officer-involved shootings, which would certainly be a goal. do you believe in the research that you have done, there are

safeguards and it is a matter of policy that the department can look at to ensure the way we would use the taser would be for that specific goal? >> that would be our goal. >> thank you. >> it is something that we would work with those that were interested in working on that policy. >> thank you. commissioner kingsley: thank you for your input. i was under the impression when i saw this item on the agenda that what we're going to be presented tonight would be the parameters around the pilot'. with a lot of the protocols and so on already in a proposal. what i am hearing is that you are here first asking for the

green light to create that proposal. the protocols have not been totally determined. is that right? >> the hope was to get permission to go forward because it -- we would have to find the money to buy the devices. we would use the policies from the departments that already have it, which is everyone, to come up with what we do here in san francisco. we would bring that policy back for further discussion. my hope in bringing this quickly, believing that sense we had adopted the memphis model, the harm it does to the officers

psychologically to take all these classes, they have absolutely no intention or want to harm anybody any harm somebody. if it is the decision of this body that that decision is not to be made tonight, although disappointed, i will respect that decision. we do a hitch disservice to the officers in the fields -- and huge disservice to the officers in the field when we leave them no option. no matter how much to discuss the dangers and the warnings, the only reason they have -- they can use this in any of these circumstances is the alternative -- the alternative is going to be a gun. a gun kills people. >> thank you for your input. i heard you mention the nami, their concerns an end to its --

and input. there were several pages of recommendations that were very specific the ced's. i am wondering whether the department intends to basically follow the perf recommendations. i thought most of them hit upon what the aclu and others were saying, but expanded content in a way that was particular. there a comprehensive, but particular to this police department. have you had an opportunity to look at the 2008 recommendations? >> we are needed to halt policy

comes down and -- in san francisco. given permission, we will have many people in the discussion as we go forward. i am not naive enough to think i could bring a policy here tonight and think i was going to walk out and hand 74 tasers out to officers. >> understood. >> that document will be one of the documents we will look at, as well as all the other policies that are progressive in the way they are used. >> in terms of involving the community in putting together the pilot, what are your thoughts? >> we would include community input. there was the plan in place 18 months ago. it sounded like a good plan on paper. with the consistency of this

command staff, the commission, the occ, that is an option we would discuss and consider. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> now we can call the doctor. >> i want to introduce the associate professor of medicine at ucsf. i should thank him for his time. he is donating his time by presenting to the commission. this is his third time before the commission. he is one of the few independent researchers in the country. it is dr. tseng. he was here, but has published

since then. >> welcome back. >> sorry we had to make you wait so long. >> thank you for waiting. >> good evening. thank you for the invitation. i see some familiar faces, and some new faces. i will present some new data since my presentation mostar. -- my presentation at last year. i wear three hats at the diversity. i am a researcher and a faculty member at the medical school as well. sorry, i am a math person.

[inaudible] my focus today is to try to bring an objective view of the research in taser. i am focusing only on the pe er-reviewed studies. you will see a lot of studies come across your desk that have not been peer-reviewed. by way of disclosure and

transparency, i have substantial research support from the national institute. i am an investigator for a cardiac death steady. i consulted for a commission in the government of canada up for their taser policy in 2008 and 2009. this is what we are talking about we're focused on the potential lethality of the taser. on the top, you see the normal cardiac function. this is an example from what i have done in the operating room where i stopped the heart in order to rescue the heart. luckily, we have a very effective antidote. 99% effective antidote.

the first example, you will see on the right. on the bottom is a commonly deployed device. these are meant for use by a layperson. very little training required. these have been shown to be highly effective in rescuing somebody from cardiac arrest. this slide is key in terms of demonstrating the survival percentages from cardiac arrest. it may not be visible there, but you have a 50% survival rate if the rescue someone within two minutes. the key to resuscitation is prompt recognition that somebody has cardiac arrest. what are some of the conditions

that increase your vulnerability? if you without prior heart attacks, heart failure, much higher risk. hydromel in states are known contributors to increased seven -- adrenaline states are known contributors to increased cardiac states. in the operating room, much higher rates of sudden cardiac arrest. that simulates what the real situation might be. obviously, you will face suspects on cocaine and those drugs also increase your vulnerability. acidosis as well as another condition commonly seen in diabetics might increase your risk. the distance between the chest

and heart is critical. i am going to skip this in terms of the effects of taser application. it has been debated post-cardiac arrest and sudden death after taser deployment that if you find no autopsy findings, it is inconclusive. the finding of no finding an autopsy supports an electrical cause of death. very briefly, i will review some taser animal studies. this was a simulated model. three other independent studies have shown ventricular fibrillation during a critical part of the cardiac cycle.

one of the conclusions from the animal study is that it is critical for the rest. that is why the warning for of boarding the chest -- avoiding the chest. how about human studies? this is a weapon that is going to be impossible to study in an ethical matter. what has been done, you have heard that the -- the risk for cardiac arrest. we also have an instance of taser-induced cardiac arrest captured on a pacemaker. it can overwhelm the ekg. this particular situation was

captured by a pacemaker. exactly at the time of the taser the event was recorded. the data supports a cause and effect in the proper vector, a potential for lethality of the taser. this recent article came out in may of 2012. he reviewed eight taser causes of sudden collapse. these are eight cases, there are hundreds of cases of collapse. it is hard to prove cause and effect for all of them. these are eight cases were he had actual evidence. let me focus on our study, which

was published in 2009 in the american journal of cardiology. we sent out to measure some of these a facts. in a real-world setting, do we decrease in sudden death? do we decrease officer shootings? do we decrease officer injuries? this study was designed to do that by looking at a survey of 126 california cities what using tasers. we looked at these rates in these 50 cities. one of the things i will focus on in terms of methodology is the importance of proper control group. some of these other rigid the comparison is with a different cities. when you're comparing different cities, different crime rates, different times of the year, it is difficult to compare apples and oranges.

this was the major finding of our study. you will see on the left, the five years prior to taser deployment ec a sudden death rate of 0.8 per 100,000 arrests. jury difficult to quantify the amount of time a taser was utilized because the data -- we used instead the very low recorded arrest rates for every city. you will see the sudden death rates is not zero. we all recognize there was a rate of sudden death prior to tasers being introduced. after that first year, the rate came down to 1.4 per 100,000.

the baseline is still 40% above baseline. much of that six and a% increase was mitigated by the second year. -- 600,000 -- 600% increase was mitigated by the second year. >> you lost me between the difference between this study and the doj study. >> we surveyed 50 cities, many more than nine doj study did. we compared each city with themselves. over a 10-year period. we were able to abrogate all of this data. each individual police department -- we have the power to do this particular analysis. to address the last presentation, the chief asked

me, it is this conclusive? we're not introducing something where you can prove cause and effect. we're looking at events in aggregate. if you look at the statistics -- that statistic means that this finding could it only happened by chance. you would have to throw a pass over 1000 times. this is almost conclusive that there is a real effect with that taser. off to the first year, it comes down to 1.4. i will highlight some of my recommendations. how about the big question of a firearm death?

we looked at this particular question as well. we saw an increase in doubling of officer-related shootings in the first year of taser deployment. you see that spike in the first year, which comes down to near baseline after that first year. these are the rates of -- i will be the first to admit that we had inconclusive data. there were only four cities contributed to this particular outcome. there is not really any pattern. recently, we did an analysis looking at 50 cities. we looked at funding sources and looked to see if that influenced whether a conclusion of safety was made. you'll see that we have reviewed 50 cities, 23 of those studies were funded by taser and

27 were independent studies. taser funding or affiliation was 18-fold higher. the point here is that carefully looking at the methodology, carefully looking at conclusions is important when looking at who is funding the study. if you design the study differently, you might have concluded differently. the methodology precluded the chance that it would have cost -- cause. what are the implications? there is a definitive crescas for the mechanisms -- a

definitive risks for the mechanisms. i've mentioned the vector is critically important. i will mention that after our study was published, taser came out with their warning about not to taser the chest. this taser was associated with that increase in that first year. there is a chance to decrease that can prevent that spike if we were to design policy. the other important point is that the number of times increases in the amount of times or increase the rates of cardiac arrest. if you allow me to editorialize as a physician