because it said -- they give the command three times, and all of a sudden the person isn't in compliance and that's how the rule was written, to administer the taser. it's really a torture device, you know, it's in that context. you know, if the -- if the person -- you know, if there's a safety issue, you know, where the officer's going to tase somebody, and protect themselves, but i'm seeing where it's not combative situations, where you know, the officer gets angry because he doesn't you know, instant compliance. this is america, some people think they're freer than they are. they think they can do had a they want and they'll get electrocuted for it. there was a 14-year-old girl on youtube that it pierced her skull. these are dangerous

weapons. and they harm a lot of people. man, you know, and after delving into the local homeless population and what's going on here, i see this -- like a routine systematic harming of women where -- i don't even know how to describe some of what i've seen but it's been disturbing, and you know folks need to wake up. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissions. my name is nick passcello. i've inquired about the agenda for this meeting a number of times and was told the chief would be presenting a report on tasers or as you're calling them less lethal weapons. i haven't heard such a report, if there is such

a report, i believe it would be covered by sunshine, and i would like a copy of it. i believe tasers are an instrument of torture, and engender fear and not respect for law enforcement. i've seen presentations here, i think it may have been two years ago, i don't think anything has changed in the technology or in the reports on the use of tasers. that indicate that the use of them, in extremely rare circumstances, might help law enforcement. but the risk is so high, of people being killed by these instruments of torture, this would be a terrible mistake for the department to implement this equipment. i would like to see whatever report exists on the subject. i am still very confused about where this

commission is going with this matter. and i wish you would clarify that for the public, for the citizens, and not implement tasers. >> thank you. commissioner turman. >> commissioner turman: let me clarify this so that everyone understands. this meeting has never been advertised as, never agendized as the chief or anyone else presenting a report. there is no report to present. this is about the implementation of a revolution by the police commission, about the process of studying tasers that we are trying to put into effect. no one is trying to exclude the public. there is no shadowy process going on here. we are not moving forward with tasers or anything else without

public input. we have received research and information, most of which have been previously presented at this commission meeting. and to the extent anyone feels like information is being kept from them, believe me, i am not in that business, and i don't sit up here for that purpose. we're here to engage -- we're here to set a process by which this commission voted on, prior to me even being on this commission, to study this issue. and because of that resolution exists, and because that resolution calls for interaction and engagement and meeting with the public, it is my mandate to make sure that happens. the chief is going to comply with that. the commissioner are going to comply with that. and we welcome your comments and your information about that. we have never, up here, said report. i've only heard report out there.

there is no report, as of yet. >> thank you, commissioner for clarifying that. next speaker. >> i would add also thank you for clarifying that. thank you. >> i just want to add just to make sure we're clear that there -- while there isn't an official report, the department has done research which is what i was thanking the chief for, they have done research on less lethal openings and other taser policies so there is research done by the department in the last 30 days since we had our last big debate on tasers and this is research commissioners are reviewing and we will be discussing this with the public so there is research out there. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is -- bowler. i've lived in san francisco for, i don't know, since 1958. i came because i feel

very strongly about the use of tasers. my experience with them is as a member of the public, learning now, and then, and then, and then, about people who have died as a result of being tasered. i want to say that the name of this item, studying less lethal weapons, is a misnomer. they are more lethal because the assumption is made that they are not lethal. i don't see there's any way around that. and one of the examples that i remember -- i don't remember everybody else probably does remember the names of the people, of the man who was tasered by mistake, new year's eve.

the officer thought he was reaching for a gun -- for the taser, and got the gun. his assumption was that the taser would not kill the victim. i strongly object to putting into play, in the hands of our officers, a deceptive tool that results in unintended murder. and that's what it is. and i would like to suggest that the subject be dropped immediately. no further research is needed. thank you for your attention. >> thank you for coming this evening. next speaker.

>> good evening, commissioner. -- from aclu of northern california. i won't be up here as long as last time. i just wanted to thank the commission and the chief for their attention to the taser issue and i'm glad to see the studies have been ongoing. we echo the concerns we had last time and that we presented in the letter and hope those are continually brought up in discussions that continue around tasers and the research. i'd also with issue to the race reporting unfortunately i didn't get here in time to see the entire presentation so i look forward to getting a copy of that powerpoint. but i appreciate the attention to that issue and echo the center for juvenile criminal justice's concerns, especially with respect to past data reporting. if there is any way that we can figure out how to go back a few years, you know, or as long as we can and get some of that back data, that would be entirely helpful to

those of us that do policy advocacy work and who rely on those numbers. i also wanted to echo what cjcj said in this realignment data collection is so important throughout the state and especially from local law enforcement. there are certain things i've heard i think from the commission or the press that are misunderstandings about the way realignment has been working and perhaps the rise in crime, who's committing courtrooms, and who is being released from prison. what we need is really strong numbers so we all have a good sense of what's going on here, and that people in the press are not relying on sort of generalizations about data. so that applies to data on race, as well as many different forms of data. we want to have the best technology possible and the best data reporting system as possible. i think a lot of us, we're shocked to find out about this issue, given that we are in san francisco, sort of the heart of the center of technology in the

nation. so to know that smaller counties in rural california have been reporting proper data and statistics on hispanics while we're not because we don't have the equipment was quite shocking. i'm glad we're paying attention to that issue aened going to get those systems unified. and i look forward to seeing how that plays out. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is nan, and i'm -- wasn't going to really speak tonight, but the second lady that really, really wants you to now deal with prostitution in drug deals, i thought you might want a countervoice perhaps. these are sometimes called victimless crimes. certainly a city as san francisco is not

going to be a city if there is prostitution i would recommend you guys work at legalizing this whole system and stop playing games. there's a awful lot of game-playing going around but legalizing drugs and stopping the war on drugs would really loosen up a lot of police time to deal with way more important stuff. and i don't think we should just hand out drugs to everybody, but -- well this is for another time in case this subject ever gets off the ground, there are people sincerely working on stopping the war. okay. back to tasers. you heard about the deaths. i more concerned about all the injuries. and there's tons and tons of injuries. and since we haven't managed to get a single payer medical system going who is going to deal with all the lawsuits that are going to come from all the people that say i'm not able to support myself because you shot me with

this. and this -- i've heard claim that there's a lot of lawsuits in other cities where -- that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on taser systems, and then they had to lock them in the closet because somebody has a lawsuit going. these are all things that need to be considered. the best way to spend money might be on training everybody, the cit would be a really good start to actually have the training in place for a couple of years to see how that affects everything before you consider finding the magical non-lethal weapon, perhaps martial arts training would be totally appropriate. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, commissioners, and chief, and director. thank you. my name's colleen and i am -- work with homeless youth alliance.

i just wanted to say that i really appreciate what was said about the willingness for the subcommittee that's going to be doing the research around less eatingal options to work with the community. i hope that when you've heard today from the community related to thinking that we were maybe going to be hearing some of the results of the research or analysis, some of the research that was going on, and the disappointment about not hearing that, really as a message that we really want to have a dialogue with you, and we're excited to have that dialogue, and we feel like it's vital and necessary. it's really hard to have a dialogue in three minute, two minute public comment time. so i'm glad that that research exists, and has started. and looking forward to the time when you can -- when we can collaborate with you on that. homeless youth alliance

will have a lot to say about less lethal options, and less lethal ways -- less harmful ways that our police department can interact with homeless youth on the streets. and i know that a lot of the people that i work with in the community have information that they want to share about those things in the way that that could affect their constituents. so i just want to say that we're looking forward to continuing this communication with you, and looking at the research, and we want to be part of the discussion. so thank you for that. good night. >> thank you very much. next speaker. public comment is now closed. next line item. there you are. come forward. >> well, i definitely think that the community wants you to stop this process of coming up with some notion that you should have the police officers have

tasers. so a police officer, he has access to like a gun, a shot gunn, a baton, pepper spray, and his physical training. and now you want to give him another weapon. and these -- you know, it's potentially fatal. my -- cases that i've seen with this is that the taser can be used if more as a torture device to continually shock people. i would like you to see more mental health training, like deescalation training, and also if you want to do physical training, you've got like the -- mar system where you can be trained to disarm someone who's actually holding a gun so you don't have to shoot them. some of the cases, it just gets outrageous because people are unarmed and they're getting shot by police

officers. and i'm not in support of the officers or anybody else having more weapons. i would like to believe that, as people who are supposed to be representing the systems -- the citizens that you would want less weapons on the street, not more. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. please call the next line item. >item. thank you. >> hi, commissioners. really appreciate your hearing this today, and clarifying what happened to what i understood was going to be the chief's report on this. there's some misinformation out there about that. so i want to clarify something.

cit does not mean crisis interception training. it means crisis intervention teams. in memphis, tennessee, they have an elite squad of police trained in deescalation techniques. and it's a matter of pride that the police are allowed on this squad. and they're allowed on the squad because of their record in talking down people in mental health crisis, without killing or hurting them. this is an incentive to not use force, not use weapons. so i think it's very important to stress the t in cit means team, the

team effort, to stop people from being damaged. and i think this is an extremely important -- i said last time that i talked, that i would like to see deescalation skills evidenced on the part of police officers, long before there's a use of any kind of weapon, lethal or non-lethal. so, again, thank you for having this hearing. it's a very important. thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you for coming. public comment is now closed on this item. dr. marshall. >> vice president marshall: i want to make a comment -- >> [inaudible] >> dr. marshall. >> vice president marshall: i don't know how it came about that it was misconstrued what was going to happen tonight but we will be clear exact -- i'm sorry, we will make

every effort to be clear about what exactly is agendized next time we have a report by the commission. because it was not -- it was misrepresented for some reason. we'll make every effort to be clear on what this process really happens the next time we have. because i understand the next time we have 60 days, we're going to have another one then. we will be very clear as to what happens -- what is going to happen that evening because apparently some of you were confused about you we'll do our best to make sure it's clear. >> excuse me, sir. you may not speak unless you're up to the podium and at the appropriate time. we're not allowed to engage the community unless they're in fact even during public comment we're not allowed to do it, unless of special circumstanced. >> general public comment, which it is not. >> we're not going to engage the public when they shout out and when not the appropriate time. call the next line item which is no, 2 which is

general public comment. this is general public comment to items that have not already been discussed or not on the agenda tonight. >> general public comment, the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda. but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. upon speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or occ personnel. under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police or occ personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to three minutes. >> thank you. mr. hartz. >> ray hafortsz, director of san francisco open government. i'd like to point out a number of things that happened. the last item was being broadcast on the sfgtv

as general public comment, which it was not. there were also periods of time when the broadcast was cut off, and therefore speakers who wished to speak to the commission were not put on sfgtv and i think both of those are wrong. if there is one thing citizens of san francisco would probably believe, it would be that members of the san francisco police department would respect the law. i know from my own experience that belief is often not true. the legal division of the sfpd understands both the california public records act and the sunshine ordinance, but seems to have no belief that those laws apply to the department. members of the division have been uncooperative, evasive, and dishonest in the handling of public records requests. in acomplaint against the chief before the sunshine ordinance task force has yet to be heard, i believe that a representative will appear, who will be equally uncooperative, evasive, and perhaps

dishonest in responding to the complaint. honest and/or open communication from the sfpd including members of the command staff is something i have learned not to expect. i would think the police chief and the police commission would find this unacceptable. i will probably be proven wrong. every agenda you put out says know your rights under the sunshine ordinance and yet when an individual knows their rights and insists upon those rights they not only don't have them respected but they have to drag you to the sunshine ordinance task force at which time someone who did not engage in the behavior shows up, to try to explain it away. the people who actually do things don't show up because they know they were in the wrong and they don't want to be on the public record having to admit that they were wrong. so they simply just don't show up. your police department,

legal division, knows the california public records acts. i'm not going to be in a position saying they don't. they also understand the sunshine ordinance. they just have no belief that it applies to them. in this particular case that i am taking the ordinance, they he violated the law at least six different ways before they finally said, oh, well this paper is exempt from disclosure. the good thing about it is what they told me, which turned out to be dishonest, they also told a deputy city attorney when i petitioned the supervisor records for release of the information. i think it's disgraceful that police officers, in a legal division, will not follow the law. the simple fact that you want to hunker down and ignore the fact you have an obligation under state and local law is unacceptable. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> so i was talking with the chief off line because i wanted to make it as transparent as possible to the public since there is public concern about what's been done between the last time we had a taser report and now, so i defer to the chief on this. >> so the 90 day -- the resolution passed prior to me becoming chief was that there be a 90 day working group, if you will, between the occ, the commission, and the police department, to gather all the other less lethal options in addition to taser, and to try and arrive at a policy by which less lethal option could be adopted, or considered. so the data that we're speaking of is a compilation done by commander ali of all the other less lethal options that other police departments use in addition to the taser which is open source information, and then a

draft policy that's a compilation of other police department's taser policies with the addition of there was a doctor that spoke here from ucsf that suggest that certain cautions be included. that is also incorporated into the draft policy. the third piece of information is a schedule of dates that i would be available for public meetings that are not the -- the only public meetings that can happen. those are just the ones that i -- and i may be able to make additional meetings but those are the ones. so that's the depth and breadth of the information that's here. right now, i only unfortunately have hard copies of it but i'm happy to make it available to the public through the police commission, if you would just give us a little bit of time. i can, without the list of other options, again, those are available on line, they're all

commercial vendors. so the information that we would make available to the public would be the dates, the draft policy, with the appendices, and a list of the items, abtdz then anybody's welcome to research those on line. >> vice president marshall: thanline. -- >> president mazzucco: thank you for clarifying that. public comment. >> yes. less lethal weapon is very clear to us, who have been tasered before, as i was, is deescalation. >> president mazzucco: nis general public comment on items that were not covered. i apologize. so we can't talk -- >> okay. i just want to commend briefly on the fact that -- a lot of -- command about the chp officer who tragically died this week. and i find it disgraceful. you might be surprised to hear me say that. but the loss life is always tragic and we

mourn along with you. >> president mazzucco: thank you. for public comment, items not included. >> again, i didn't get to say what i wanted to say, but everyone knows who i am. i'm back again. august 14 of this year was my son's anniversary of his death. i've been fighting for the last five and a half years. and this is something i'm going to be doing for the rest of my life. i don't know what else to do. i still have no justice. i still have no closure. all i want is a little bit. something needs to be done. it's not just about my son anymore. a lot of young men are dying every day. i just had another one die on -- down the street from my house shot three, four five times in the chest. imagine us seeing that

and hearing that every day on the news that we've got to get inand watch the news every day and be scared for our children to walk out the house and go to school. i'm afraid every day. i will fight for my son in life, and i'm fighting for him in death. at this point, i'm not caring about my own life. i'm not going to commit suicide, no. but i would -- if that day, i would have ran in front of those bullets to save my son because my son should have been burying me, not me burying him. it's sad that we've got to continue to do this and i've got to continue for coming down here. i'm not blaming anyone who killed my son. the mayor said he know who killed my son. da and the police know who killed my son. it's in the papers. this is not out of my own mouth. this is being said by the mayor, the former mayor. so if you know who killed my son, why is that a slap in the face to me. i feel like it's a slap

in the face to me but you tell me you know but you're not working with me. i walk around with these pictures every day. where amount i going to put them, in my living room on top of the fireplace. we have no venue for my son or any other young person that's been murdered out here, whether it be a young person, adult, child, it doesn't matter. how long are we going to have to do this. this is a medical condition. i have post -- distress every day, when i've go the to turn around and watch my back or watch my children's back. anything's going on and i am tired of it. i'm tired of crying. i have my days that i cry and just weep out. now i've go the to use that and go to 850 brient, two to three times a week and sit on the stairs, under the hot sun, rain around cold weather to bring justice to our children that are