this is something you have been thinking about, you put it on the agenda. that is what i feel about cit. why did we have situations ready to deploy? why are we waiting on that? if it -- if we wanted to get done, it would get done. i am not criticizing you because you were not the chief at the time and i know you have worked hard on it. but you could make it happen quickly. that is where some of us are coming from. when i listen to this, one of the things i heard said was she does not what happened. i know you are not the chief of police than but the department had an opportunity to present a plan through that resolution. it was spelled out quickly. that is all we ask to make an

informed decision using the community and looking at other standards. now i am hearing, we do not know why the ball was dropped. we will move forward. some of the things i heard tonight, still do not know how the ball was dropped. not acceptable. not persuasive. teasers -- tasers being the only group that approached this is not appropriate. it is our duty to do due diligence. just because they called us, that is not acceptable to me as a commissioner. and some people say you're crisis is not my crisis. i do not want to be trite but is convenient for the convenient not to comply. and then all of a sudden pushed tasers through without looking

at the other options of least lethal weapons, knowing what the options are out there. i have brought liability up over and over and i will continue. our officers are trained to shoot. if we had to shoot and the officer doesn't comment as the officer lose his community? can he be sued individually? can this commission also be sued for not following their own resolution or protocol? this is important to this commission and the city. not only the cost of a weapon and the calibration, but the cost of the disturbing later --

defibulator. that was mentioned the first time they were there. there is a lot of cost and training involved. what i heard taser say, the trigger stops. if you keep pulling it, it keeps giving dosage. i do not know the terminology of that but that is also a concern we have. i also listened to the doctor to talk about slipping down. we talked about the oakland officers chasing a used, old ladies getting, young children, it is concerning to me. the department had this opportunity to explore this. commissioner loftus: first, to the representative from the aclu, thank you for your

comprehensive letter. i really appreciated the thoughtfulness. thank you. i am usually loud enough. so i appreciate that. likewise, there is a couple of areas where i want to clarify some presumptions in the letter. the same thing with the taser, i am trying to separate the advocacy. the one thing i want to start with, we are all operating from this assumption that the resolution ordered the department determines non-legal options. it was clear that the chief, in conjunction with the occ word to modify the use of force and to investigate ced's and other

lethal weapons. it sounds as though this commission said this was something it wants to look into. it wants more information but given that san francisco is a different place, thank goodness, this is our home and we are proud of our progressive values, we want to do it differently. i do not think there was a violation in so far as there was a ban on tasers. there was a requirement within 90 days. there are many people who have responsibility for that. that is what is real so we should be honest about what i think the deputy was saying. the ball dropped in here we are. i want to make sure we are clear on what this document was. you reference to it in your letter. i do not know if you have a response to that.

you agree that included a taser in the steady. that was one of the options. >> yes. again, that is my understanding. i was not here last year, either. we wanted a comprehensive study. that is what we wanted to push for. that is something we think if we were brought up last week, we would present the findings of the study so that we can go forward and present our pilot program. we would have thought that was more reasonable. you are right. the ball was dropped from a lot of different hands. we think the police department should have taken the lead. commissioner loftus: you agree we should investigate and non- legal options? >> yes, i think we should have a steady on the options. commissioner loftus: that is

great. the other point i wanted to make, i have been on the commission since early may. a number of times we have seen officers who had the cit badge. commissioner chan has been good about asking the cheap. it is important to remember to the extent to which there are lapses, we meet every week and we talk about these things. it has come up a number of times and this is the first time i heard there is a concern it is not moving fast enough. it has been routinely on the report. for that it -- for what that is worth, things always need to move faster and we want that to move faster. it has been addressed by the commission. thank you gan for this information. -- again for this information.

commissioner kingsley: we value for what you have to save. my question was not directed toward miss davis but in a general sense following up on what the commissioner said, it is my recollection when we passed this resolution that what the commission was actually saying is that they were in favor of tasers or ced's but that in the course of exploring this, there were some other devices that came up that were presented that raised the issue if they might be effective as well. if the idea was to look closely at these other devices in addition to the ced's and to see if there could be something done concurrently and to see how they

would be used in connection with protocols, it seemed to me that when we passed it, we were basically saying, go ahead but also look at the other items. that is my recollection. not that we would revisit whether or not to have them. it was how to go forward and to do some more background to work before doing it. it is also my impression that, and we haven't complied with the resolution, looking at those issues are important, and the ball was dropped, and the deputy chief mentioned that and some reasons behind that, the other part of that is, it is almost a

sword and shield issue. it seems as if this was important to the organization, that wanted to see other devices, they would have pushed during that 90 days to get the research done, including our own commissioners. i do not remember who they were assigned to this. did we even have the two assigned? if we did, we bear the responsibility. it works both ways in terms of the background comparisons. my recollection is that we approve going ahead with the ced's but if there were other tools, we should be looking at them and we should be looking at the training whether it should be larger. and how to allocate the budget,

whether it is to other devices in addition. there are new commissioners, there is a new deputy chief, a new commanders. it is a new date. in terms of going forward, i would like input from the city attorney in terms of a resolution. we also have a new chief and new commission members. we can either go ahead with it as stated, we can modify it, we need to determine that and vote on it. but not tonight because we agreed to. >> [inaudible] there is nothing that would prevent the commission from deciding to proceed in an alternate manner or they could

to proceed with the resolution as adopted last year. it could also adopt a different course and a different plan. >> i want to move us to the public comment. i remember last february 2011, it was a big night. it was a five hour hearing. we got out of here close to midnight. i did not vote for this resolution because i'd like tasers. as you can tell from the research, i have looked deeply at teasers -- tasers, and i am deeply concerned about their impact. i did not vote for this because i wanted to go forward with a taser, but because i am open to

a study. i want to move to the community. i am and see to hear everybody. vice president marshall: my recollection is that it was a compromise issue to move things on. you know, we have to end at some points of this is what we came up with. am i right? what we can do moving forward. >> thank you for coming tonight and i apologize for being protective about some of the attacks. something that came up was, when we did this resolution it was a compromise because there was a recognition we needed something more than going to a firearm. everyone agreed there was a

weapon out there, whether it was a taser or something else, we would look at that if it was a less lethal option. that is how we ended it and i am glad you are clearer than i was at midnight. but you put a lot of hard work and effort into this. is there something else out there? we agreed we were tired of our officers having to use deadly force. you did vote against it, yes. we realize there is a need but the question is what is that level of force? whether it is a taser or some magical to will, -- magical tool. commissioner chan: between the three of us, we have a general picture of it. thank you for your time.

>> it is now time for public comment. we are looking forward to hear from the public. step forward, sir. >> lineup on one side or the other. >> good evening, commissioners, president mazzucco. good to be here again. deputy director with the mental health association. i have been involved with the development of the san francisco crisis intervention team and i fell to -- felt [unintelligible] i am here tonight to voice my opposition to tasers. i will try to stick to a few

minutes. for the last 19 months, after a lot of careful consideration, we began cit and have trained officers. i want to recognize that chief's work and his commitment to cit. we really have a -- come a long way since memphis back in 2011. that said, there is a lot of work to do wiht cit -- with cit. ropeways that need to be defined and more training for management and 911 operators. that is a christian note -- critical component. cit is a training that is in development. a lot of work is left to go. there is currently no funding and it is held together by a

voluntary efforts on the part of community members and officers. only four operators have been trained and we need some official protocol on the utilization and implementation in the community. i mention that because of tasers. it is the wrong thing to do. can i have 30 more seconds? no. ok. the wrong thing to do. >> i apologize. >> i want to make sure that we thank him for his work. they have put a lot of time in it.

if >> could we give them three minutes? they have waited an incredibly long time? can we change it now? >> we have already given two minutes. >> that was my full statement. the thank you to the department. the cit is the answer. i am committed to moving forward. >> good evening, commissioners. i want to correct the record. i believe that there might have been in this interpretation made a while ago. i confirmed with my colleague and we do not support the inclination of tasers. so i clarified that. they are strongly opposed to it

based on the risks and to the individuals and to people with mental health conditions. likewise, it does not report the use of this and i want to point out there is one crucial issue here that has led to a misunderstanding. it took me a while to figure it out myself. unless i'm mistaken, and nobody who is an officer was present at the recent event. nobody involved in this program we have been developing was actually there for this particular appointment. we believe that over time as the program is implemented, there will be opportunities for that to happen. to use an incident that did not have a solution as a justification for an alternate solution is problematic. the other point is, to a

turnaround and suggest we need a funded weapon as opposed to an unfunded program, it does not make any sense. it is about the escalation and effective training. i have been threatened and faced with people with knives and other things many times. nonviolent intervention can work and is the right solution. >> commissioners, in 2003, this commission defeated the taser proposal. in 2008, this commission

defeated it again. do we have to go through this every time there is a new chief or new commissioners? it does not make sense to me. some of you may remember that my agency -- i was tasered in optical -- in optimal conditions. and yet, in optimal conditions, i sustained permanent damage to minors. that is why you see me walking with 18 to date. of course i signed a statement released from liability.

but, you know, you have heard every argument about this. i want to respectfully remind you -- at a time when our budget is in need of repair, can we really afford due to injuries? please do that. >> next speaker. >> thank you for your stamina, commissioners. it has been 18 months. it would be a shame to rush things right now when there is so much promise to potential, you have more research, more people who are trained to could be tested out. let's not rush things.

let's go by your resolution that says develop a proposal in consultation with communities. it says put cost in the proposal. it says train people. you guys were not brain-dead 18 months ago. please follow your recommendations and please update the new commissioners on any past matters that would be coming before you so they are not at a disadvantage. i am surprised you would have a presentation on taser to the commission, including new members to do not have the background and there is not a fair presentation of alternate proposals or looking at the issue of how the use of guns to shoot suspects who may have gotten off muni for not paying.

there are some ridiculous things that go on with guns. this includes people of color as well as a youth. i am not a thin person. people who are black and brown can be very thin as well as u youth. i am concerned about this and i think we have to look at the research the doctor presented. for heaven's sake, let's look at all of the options and ways that officers can be heroes instead of killers. >> hello, commissioners. i am the president of the harvey milk cropp and i was surprised to have to be rushing in here to

find out about tasers back on the table. with the agreement that we were going to look at alternatives, it is hard to go forward and trust that this department has the community's best interest at heart when it will not take the time to do the outreach, and to continue the dialogue that was started. we held a thorough debate. we had the police chief come and speak with us. we do not approve of the tasers. we do not approve of this discussion tonight. we feel it flies in the face of what was promised to us as a community. to say they july 18 would be different, yes, if the officer was there results would be different. that does not mean we need

tasers. this adds to the arsenal instead of addressing the issue. we do not believe the police should to deal with a mentally ill and homeless person in the manner as they are. we should be holding our elected officials accountable so that the police can get on with their work and they do not have to do the work that our government is set out to take care of. >> i am so grateful that experts came out this evening, in particular the doctor that commissioner chan brought out because i have also seen his presentation a few times and it keeps getting better. i wanted to clear up a few things that have been presented as part of this item of

tonight's agenda. a few things that have been spoken on that were direct falsities, lies i should say. it has been repeated over and over again that since the introduction of crisis intervention there has not been lethal attacks on people with mental health issues by the police department. there have been 12 such attacks, nine of them being fatal. it is a flat out lie. at that same time, there has been reported, and i do not have the documents but we can present them, roughly 800 taser-related debts around the country. dole was also facts that have not been presented. -- those are also facts that have not been presented. it was brought up by president mazzucco, of the morning of the

politicalization of the family, they came here on their own. no organization, no non-profit. no one brought them here. that was a grieving family asking for justice. if anyone politicized them, it is you, sir. that is disgusting. my memory is very clear of these proceedings. last year after one of these hearings, i was followed by the police, threatened and arrested on a traffic infraction. this has been going on too long. n oto -- no to tasers. >> i do not know if this is back on are not? is it?

please take that out of my time. i am completely against tasers. cit training is descalation training. we have not seen what the officers can do without guns. maybe you know the name jesse-. this was a guy who threw rocks down on people protesting down below. he hit a couple of people. mike clift, an untraied -- trained occupier, got up on a roof and descalated teh guy -- the