i can tell you pulled the trigger. that is about as much as i can tell you. i am trying to rush through this a little bit. i mentioned the camera side of that. we are the largest camera system out in the market today. we have about 56,000 camera systems. 56,000 cameras on our devices. we believe in giving you the visual exactly what happened during the use of the taser. that system is now available on name x2. -- on the x2. i think that is pretty much its. do you guys have any questions? >> does the new weapon have the

warning? >> that warning -- it is best to avoid these areas. are targeting model has always been that the most effective place to shoot is in the back. greater muscle groups. it has always been feasible for us to shoot the upper body. if i get a dart that lower body, i will get one inning -- in the thigh. i need to make that very clear. we did not say shall not, do not. we did it from a controversy standpoint. chief, if you -- after officer has the time and space and back up to make that decision, let's take it out of the controversy. let's take that out of the

equation. the officer does not have that time to make the decision, it does not change the scenario. they can fire wherever they need to get that suspect in the -- into custody. >> you have it in a safety area about where to shoot and are not to shoot. >> it is more about if that did versus safety. the doj said they see no evidence not to deploy the system. >> is there any type of safety issue regarding the elderly? >> if anybody has ever been fishing and they stuck themselves with it, that is what we deploy. it is about a quarter of an inch. >> is it designed to go through someone is wearing a jacket?

>> the purpose is to anchor on. the dart is nothing more than a delivery system. the system has the ability to aarch up to 2 inches. >> is there warning about firing at youth, women, or elderly? >> that is covered by department policy. there has been no medical study. it is typically covered under department policy. that is not something i would recommend to them from installed -- policy standpoint. >> that is all i have. commissioner kingsley: thank you for being here tonight. this data you have provided with -- a steady you have provided us with, it tracks

losses for excessive force claims from 2003 until 2008. 149 agencies. is there anything that of states passed that year? >> i am sure -- it is hard to get those associations to gather data. >> the other part of it, it involves 140 -- 149 agencies and i believe you said you have roughly 17,000 agencies. >> 16,900. this is one example -- in michigan, they are half funding the purchase of their other municipal risk management. i can get a list of those. the purpose is to make sure that you understand it is showing a

reduction in those industries. >> it is such a small population relative to the use that it would be terrific if we could -- if we have statistics that were more expensive. >> are you looking for statistics -- i am not sure i'd understand your question. >> one of the things we are hearing is the exposure of the city to lawsuits as a result of excessive use of force using the taser. this suggests the opposite possibly. >> i can get you more detailed information. it is available and i will ask them to for that to you. >> thank you. commissioner loftus: thank you

for being here. i have to two questions. there is advocacy on both sides. i want your take on some of what i have heard from people who oppose. your houston police department's -- i read in a letter from the aclu that there was an article in the houston chronicle from 2007 that talked about there was no reduction in officer involved shootings or any reduction in people being killed by police. that is a 2007 article. the question is not segment to be argumentative. is this something that you guys have come across? >> i think is important for me

to make sure i am very clear on this point. taser international is not advocating that a taser is a replacement is a firearm. in situations where an officer has capability to deploy any device like ours, an advocate for them to do that. what you're talking about is covered under policy in training. that is something that taser international stays out of the policy rommel. -- realm. what i see in agencies that have deployed this device, i will tell you that i have seen officers deployed in a very dangerous situations and they

have saved suspect lives. i've also seen officers deployed in dangerous situations where it did not turn out very pleasantly. if you think a taser is an apple and apple for firearms, it is not. that does not mean that -- i cannot release speed and depth to why houston has not seen some of those reductions. >> i read there were certain departments that were requiring to have officers to tase themselves. and then there was a departure from that. has that been a part of the

significant number of the need trainings? >> i am a firm believer in understanding what i am not you're telling you about. i would never want to stand in front of this commission cannot figure out what it is about. this was a system that was not widespread in the community. it was not something that law enforcement understood very well. i would have an officer comment. they had seen the older technology. a lot of people have seen that older technology. it did not have the effectiveness of what aour x26 does. that technology did not have the energy capability of contracting muscles. that is their history. we had to convince them that

this is not the same technology. we are at a different place in our evolution. we require our master instructions to follow that protocol. you must experience the taser. you have to testify at about the use of force. we do not have that in our recommendations as part of our training protocols to the department. commissioner dejesus: maybe i was not clear. i have the warning is here. i want to get back to the high risk populations. use on the pregnant, small child, low body mass could increase the risk of death or serious injury.

you should not be used on members of these populations, as the situation justifies. is there a warning? >> the way our environment is today is that we have to warn and everything. warning is different than a policy understanding. a warning is out there to say, at the end of the day, i cannot tell you what is going to happen to a pregnant female. it is illegal for you to go out and do those kinds of testing spirit when we are doing that aspect, we are telling them that is not where we would obviously desire you to use our technology. i understand your point, but it is not a policy. it is a recommendation. >> it is it's a true statement,

but what about low body mass? >> i am not sure what they mean. a very skinny person, we do not have a lot of muscle in that aspect. our systems will not be as effective. >> when possible, avoid intentionally targeting sensitive areas of the body without legal justification. the preferred targets various -- area -- that is what i was trying to get at. this is recommending they do not shoot at the largest mass, that they should from behind. >> i think my statement holds true.

that training bulletin is not a shall not or a do not. officers will have to use 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