>> hi. my name is veronica fimbres. i'm a registered nurse in the state of california for 15 years. >> are you speaking for dr. zhang? >> i asked him if i could speak. >> you can come back during public comment. >> well, he's being setup. >> you can come back during public comment. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i'm sorry about the presentation updates not having updated, but i'll just go by my previous slides as a guide, but i did want to highlight that -- some of the critiques of our previous studies. so what can we learn from real world experiences? i think in medicine, we -- the gold standard for bringing in intervention for a drug to the public is a controlled human clinical trial, and that wouldn't be ethical with a tazer because it's difficult to replicate the real world situations, so in lieu of that, we can perform epidemilogical studies in terms of real world use, does it result in increased sudden death? does it result in fewer officer

injuries or fewer suspect injuries, and our study in 2009 look looked at that by looking at 500,000 arrests. we did find an initial spike in sudden death after the first year. that was midgated after the first year down to 50% higher but still higher than the baseline. we found an increase in officer shootings in that first year, and we found no difference in officer shootings. now critiques have been put forth in that study, saying it's an out lier, and it is, but we've put forward two times more arrests than other studies have, put another way, to put in reference -- we studies 500,000 arrests, as perhaps

compared to the doj studies. secondly, we did not have specific files available to look at every single death; however, autopsy studies have been shown to have a correlation with cardiac arrest in tazer related sudden death. third, the -- one of the biggest critiques of our study came from tazer themselves, which right after our publication, attempted to bring us to federal court to release or research documents and thankfully, the federal justice denied their motion. and so i think what -- what can we learn from these -- these epidemiological studies? there's a risk for sudden death, but there could be some policies that we could put

forth to try to minimize some of these risks. i've seen many of the policies put forth by the commission in their proposed policy has followed many of my guidelines with the exception of the use of aed's by all police officers who use the tazer. in my opinion to save a cardiac arrest immediately, you have to have the potential antidote available immediately, which would be the aed, and finally, i would say this is an opportunity to have a transparent registry of all uses of force including the tazer to account -- to allow for independepartment research, to look for whether there is an increase or decrease in these events, and whether or not on bol at this point would harm or help san francisco residents. thanks for your time. >> and i believe last but not least expert presentation is commander walsh, is that

correct? >> correct. >> and for members of the public, i'd like to announce that commander walsh's presentation was made available today to the commission office. there are copies here, it is available on-line, and you can see it there, and copies here. >> good evening, commander. >> good evening, commissionerture turman, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson, members of the public. this is -- right. yep. so the question keeps arising why we brought this up. the chief -- i won't belabor the point. this was originally brought back up because of the d.o.j. study. the reason i have this slide is because there's been a tremendous amount of argument is why are we doing this now

when we have 270 others. i believe if the d.o.j. gives us a recommendation, it shouldn't be decoupled from the recommendation that they asked us. 272 recommendations were asked to be reviewed, implemented contemporaneously. this is part of the d.o.j., it's not separate. our stakeholder group, by the d.o.j. also asked us to bring forward, i just want to acknowledge them. we have listened to their concerns, their viewpoints. they have added great value. i just want to give them a little bit of credit and note that they have been very present and they're very passionate, and they're very informed. the four pillars that the chief talked about -- policy, training, supervision, and oversight, again, i'm not going to belabor the point. we are working on the policy. it is not done. if you vote tonight, we will move forward with this with the stakeholders to get to a policy that the commission and the public finds to be

practical, operational, and most importantly showing that everybody had a say in it. as far as training, supervision, and oversight, the chief has already said that we will have all this. we will train to the policy, we will train not just to having this device. everything is coupled with our policy. 5.01, the use of force that has been lotted and brought forth and uses a national model is going to guide this device, this weapon, the tazer, so it should, again, not be characterized as falling outside 5.01. every use of force, we have an investigation that goes from the sergeant to the lieutenant to the captain, and then comes down to risk management to be reviewed. it's also reviewed by the bureau chief of the officer, and it's also viewed by the academy. and lastly, oversight and accountability. we will monitor the use of force. we publish these facts, we make sure that we have everything available, that it's

public, and that it's transparent. if we find things, we also have the d.p.a., we have the commission, and again, the public will have outcry if we're not following a policy and we're not credit ektly usiek -- correctly using this device. so i just want to move into four areas that have been brought up consistently. there are many more, and i'm not ignoring them, i just believe that these are more important. the c.e.d.'s and death rates, the death rates, and finally, c.e.d.'s are unreliable. so first off, i've been in conversations with the memphis police department. they are the gold standard, the model that we follow. we call it the memphis model. everyone calls it the memphis model. roughly the same amount of personnel: 1,310 officers. 280 are c.i.t. trained. only their

c.i.t. trained officers carrie tazers. this in fact would be contradictory to the fact that c.i.t. deescalation cannot be used with a c.e.d. the model agency only he equips their c.i.t. officers with this. to compare, we already have 793 officers trained in the memphis model. secondarily, 1,050 officers in our c.i.t. field use of tactics force training. now remember, that is a ten hour course in c.i.d. deescalation and all those tactics, coupled with the new d.g.o. 5.01, and lastly, the basic academy gets the ten hours of training as the regular officers who are out in the street, but they also have their entire block of training in use of force that post and the department demand. so a lot has been talked about c.i.t., that the only people we

dale with are people in country sis, or it's been implied or people with substance abuse problems. there is a criminal element. there is an element of people in society who we sometimes come in to contact with that we must arrest, that mean to hurt people or cause damage. these are memphis's numbers. if you look in 2015, 16 total deployments, nine of which were not c.i.t. at all. these are actual physical deployments. follow that up, there's a reversal. 21 were c.i.t., 11 were not. again, there is a whole population that law enforcement comes into contact with that is not within c.i.t. and lastly, you can't see the numbers, but it's a reversal, again, i believe, roughly to 21 and over. next slide. this question comes up, what about time and distance? what's the difference between optimal and effective? optimal, perfect, close to

perfect, as best as you can get in the human world. effective; it works. it works in the situation. maybe it wasn't necessarily optimal. what do we have now? we have e.r. i.w.'s, good for 15 to 60 feet, bean bag shotguns. o.c. spray puts us within six to 10 feet. baton, let than 3 feet. with the exception of the e.i.w. which would be a personal deployment, we are in the danger zone everyone talks about. if we have to make an after when deescalation and tactics fail, we must move into that zone. injury and death rates, and a very hotly debated topic. you've heard numerous speakers, and i appreciate dr. zhang. next slide, please. so 2014-2015 fiscal year, worker's compensation, san francisco started tracking

physical assault claims by officers. the number's relatively small: 50. in 2015-2016, we have 150, 2016-2017, 1 09. when you look at the numbers below, that is money that the city is paying to officers who are injured in physical attacks. these are not every physical assault, these are the assaults that put officers off work. when we break these numbers down, if you break them, depending on which study, between 20 and 70% reduction when c.i.t.'s are used properly, 70 may be way too high, 20 may be too low. i am not guaranteeing any of those numbers, i'm just giving you the baseline and the ceiling. next slide, here's where our mon numbers come in from worker's

compensation. if c.e.w.'s are introduced based on the study, we will see some decline in injuries which translates to days on the street, which translates back to money to be used for other resources. it's a finite resource. next slide. to date, those are the days of work officers have missed. those are days when officers are not in patrol cars, investigating crimes; more importantly, those are the days they're not preventing crime, those are the days that they are not helping somebody. those are the days they may not be saving that life. we need to keep our officers on the street. next slide. the numbers. reuters came out recently with their numbers. you have to read the report.

every number is somebody's life, a loss of a family member, a member of our community, and this is tragic. this is perspective. i will never, ever walk away from saying a life should be a number. it is not. for perspective, reuters says they could only come to the number 153, and generally it was in the larger mosaic of force over 30 years of study. next slide. 8, same thing. that is the last five years of in custody or arrest relates deaths in san francisco. only one of those deaths had a reportable use of force. we do not have c.e.d.'s. law enforcement, unfortunately comes into contact with people who pass away from agitation, from the stress of the fight, from exertion, under lying medical conditions. eight lives lost.

headlines, they grab everybody's attention. sometimes they make the debate, sometimes people think they're the fact of the debate. this article was given into the police commission website. i tried to research as many as i can, i use this as an illustration. top headline when the incident happens, 55-year-old turman died after a police confrontation when they fired a weapon. lastly, if you can see the bottom, there was no probe marks, did you penetrate the skin or the clothes. that's the follow up. tragic loss of life, c.e.d. used. was it a cause of death? not likely. a.e.d.'s, that's how many we have in our cars already. we've been training on them for decades. it is part of post, it is part of the l.e.d. academy. one last thing, i know i'm a little bit over. lapd bases theirs on trigger pulls of the tazer, not a whole use of

force. everybody has been skipping 2016, i've been waiting for it. it's been in public. they've increased to 58%, with 54 more incidents, 24 more trigger pulls, they're up 66% rate efficacy to get that 5% jump. i realize my time is over. i'm happy to answer any questions going forward. >> thank you, commander, and thank you to all the individuals who testified as expert witnesses. we ask that you please stay because commissioners will have questions for you later. madam secretary. >> item 1 c budget and legislative analysts report, cost of report used by s.f.p.d. >> good evening, commissioners.

i have reuben holiber here. we just did a report at the request of supervisor fewer -- at the request of the police department on implementing tazer, so we really looked at testing cost, equipment costs, there were things that might end up regarding costs that were part of the policy or part of the risks, but we would really have no way of estimating those at this time, so we include them as a potential cost but not something that we can quantify. the san francisco sheriff's department uses tazers, so when we looked at cost, we look at what they actually cost them to purchase tazers, and so their cost perunit, including the gun, the four year warranty, holsters, cartridges, batteries, was about $2300. sort of looking at how we understood the policy, that we understood that this mainly would be given to police officer's with crisis intervention training at the time we wrote the report, we

identified 705 officers, so for a total equipment cost, that would be about 1.6 million, but if you look at sort of the mandated staffing level of the police department, if this were really to be given to everyone in the police department, the actual equipment cost would go up to about 4.6 million. now, this doesn't include replacement cost. we estimate that being at about 10% a year. i believe mr. lionisio's here. we had used his costs for testing options, because it's the only one we could identify, so we looked at -- because there would be a need to test tazer or c.e.d.'s as they're brought in, so we used his numbers for estimated testing devices, we thought about 25, 20 to 30, so the range would be about 675 to 700,000.

the other thing it does require the defibrillator in the patrol vehicles. my undering is they have those in the cars, and they have a live of about eight years, so with the defibrillator policy, we know there would be a cost of may i approa approach -- maintaining it. for standard 40 vehicles, it would be about 640,000. training costs, again, this is something that we looked at, the sheriff department's cost. we estimated about 20 instructors with the police department, with initial training costs of 8700 for the 20 instructors, and 4500 by annual replacement. now our understanding from talking to police department staff is there would be some-tsh some of the training would be incorporated into the overall training budget, so we're not exactly looking at

new training costs for police officers. we also know that the police department does not routinely backfill with overtime if a police officer's removed from an assignment to go to training. however, we felt there was a productivity cost here, if a police officer is in training and not, you know, in the field, so not knowing how many hours under the staff policy there would be for initial training, we estimated that the training cost for 735 police officers would range from about 200,000 to 400,000 for the initial training, and then about 200,000 for annual refreshment training, recertification training. the policy, as we understand it, would provide for -- if there is an incident with the c.e.d., that the individual be transported and assessed in an emergency room. we made an estimate just based on the experience of other cities and based on population, that the range of incidents

would raping frnge from 70 to year. we took an average of 102. these are actually the city costs for transportation and e.r. visits. e.r. costs, there's five scale visit. these are the lower end of the scale, so we assume that sort of medical costs would be about 274,000 peryear. there would be other implementation costs. we can't quantify them without knowing and understanding the implementation plan. there are police officers that would need to be trained in supervision and evaluation. there would need to be training for defibrillators used, and then, just general oversight, and again, without knowing what the policies -- how they would be implemented, we can't really quantify that. there's also currently a budget for data collection and storage related to body cameras, how the use of c.e.d.'s would

affect that, we can't quantify, but those are potential costs. the other cost that gets talked about is the risk of lawsuits and major injury, and really, we could not find this in presentations here tonight that talk about the risks in terms of being able to sort of quantify the legal risks to the city, we really are not able to do that because there really isn't data out there that we could work with. there's been a discussion about the reuters study. again, we can't really base any information on that study. they did identify some payouts. these are payouts from a municipal government or a police department. there's a potential risk or potential cost to the police department, but we don't have any data. so just sort of a brief summary. we looked at the low end of the cost just for the implementation, the information cost, the basic training cost, of about 2.8 million in one time costs. this is what we

estimated being 700, 705 officers with c.i.t. training. if the entire police officers were trained or given c.e.d.'s and trained in the use, we estimate that would be up to as high as $8 million, and then, annual costs would range from about 400,000 to about 750,000, and if you have questions, we're available. >> okay. please stay around for additional questions from commissioners. [ please stand

to do sign-in sheets, we're not sure exactly of the number of folks, but we imagine that it was over 160 at bill graham and over 120 at city college. those meetings were about being able to hear community input, and trying to make sure that some of the folks that typically wouldn't be coming out to those meetings, i was able to engage and partner with the bar association. i do want to recognize and thank julie tran and yolanda jackson about coming to sunnydale in. willie brown community center that is surrounded by public housing sites to engage with folks that based on what the community had shared would be most likely to be impacted by the use of tasers and just want to get their feedback. we did another group of young

people to hear from them. so overall, sentiment social security from what we gathered from all four of those community meetings, 85% of the folks that were participating had concerns about the use of tasers and what that would mean, and folks spoke very strongly about their position. another 12% were optimistic and believed it would be beneficial, and then there was another 3% that basically thought that we weren't in a place to make a decision or had other ideas that didn't fit into the other categories. within that, the areas of concern they hope regardless of whatever decision you all might make, thaw take into consideration which at every single meeting, the highest issue and area of concern was around community safety, was around de-escalation, what that's going to do to the practice and the strategies that you've been pushing and whether

you'll move away from that, signaling and communication, this idea, folks felt like it was misleading to say that tasers would be used instead of a gun, because that is not it. they wanted clarity around that. and other issues around really wanting to make sure that the commissioners were hearing what community had to say. 16% around ethics, unclear guidelines, and they thought there was definitely, we heard on several occasions conflict of interest to have a potential vendor being participatory in the process, and then financial with regards to the cost, and that they really thought that the city should be listening to what community would like to see funding spent on versus committing such a large amount for this. so the other pieces in terms of optimistic and beneficial was just again this idea of postponing the decision, and that folks felt like the police officers needed to have more options and that this would

serve with regards to that. i will say that we did hear from several folks on both sides of this, that they felt like at the first meeting, some of the folks that we had helping to capture comments did not capture everyone's comments. and i want to say one of the things that i'm really committed to and the police were great about is this was not about having police facilitate. for me it's an opportunity to engage with community and have community lead that. and sometimes maybe they didn't measure up to what it is that folks wanted, but again, these were people that are going to be impacted, that live in these communities that represent those folks that were facilitating that. sometimes it's really hard when i say i want to do anything with the police to get community to actually be a part of the process. so there were some -- probably some missteps. we did the best we could, and we really want to make safe spaces. sometimes that did play out and we heard back from folks that they felt they were not in a position to speak up much that's why we always offer index cards or opportunities for people to

share their thoughts where they don't have to worry about doing it openly. but you know, that's something we want to continue to work on. so from forum one, again, these are the breakdowns in terms of the four buckets where we saw that folks had concerns and wanted to be addressed. and i'll say again as we go through this, community safety was always the largest concern. at this particular one, the idea around ethics came up, and that again is about the conflict of interest, about whether it's humane or not, and the use of those, and then we actually see a higher percentage with regards to financial allocation. so for forum two at city college, you can see again community safety is the largest area of concern, that communication this time around was the second highest with regards to concerns, and then the financial allocation and ethics were about equal in terms

of the comments and feedback that we got. so the meeting or the focus group or gathering that we did in sunnydale, that for me was really about making sure that we were going into community and getting with folks that may be otherwise would not even know this was happening and that you were having a vote. and i think what trounled me the most is this communication and signaling. and so these are young men of color, predominantly that participated in that conversation, and so this was the one time where we didn't see community safety as the largest bucket. i would encourage you all, you have the report, and i believe it's probably online as well. in there, we shared some of the comments that came from those young men, and so that has been my biggest concern is just the perception and relationship between community and police and how as we do these things we're going to address that, because there were definitely feelings

from those young people, you know, and again i say young people. it's relative. they were maybe in their 30s. some of them, but that those young people felt like it didn't matter whether the police had guns or tasers. it was going to be all bad for them. and so that's the thing that concerns me the most, that as we do this work, maybe we should talk or focus on how we change those peraccepticeptions so whee go into certain communities, they don't think it's going to end up with somebody being physically harmed. but i'll say there was on there were a couple of folks who were optimistic or felt like it would be beneficial. this came up in other meetings where they asked if police had had the c.e.d.s or tasers, would that have saved the life of mario woods which is something i know folks didn't want the police were like we couldn't engage on that, but that was in their mind a way to justify it. then the group in petrero,

community safety with people in this group, 13 to 18, 19-year-olds, 42%, that was the largest issue in there. then we saw it with communication. we saw an increase in optimism or seeing the benefits, but i'll say again, as we share in the report that what we heard from them, it was really conditional. they were optimistic and they thought it would be beneficial, because they thought really they were saying they had to choose between a gun and a taser. if they had to choose between them, they would choose the taser. that was their -- again, my concern and my issue is they are just resigned to the fact that they were going to have to choose between these two things, which i think, again, is sad. and then i will just end with this idea of ultimately, it is your decision, and it's really difficult to sit in these spaces and places of power and privilege and to keep our bias in check. i actually had to work really

hard with my staff and folks to help me make sure that i was not trying to paint a picture one way or the other, but that i was really trying to eligate -- elevate and raise the voice of community. and sometimes that's really difficult, right, for folks sitting in these spaces where you actually have the power to make the decision, and you have the privilege to be in a space where you have access to expert, and you have this education and probably think you know what's best, but the thing that we really have to wrestle with is our bias and not get locked into our privilege and make sure that however we can, we incorporate whatever you decide to do, that you respect and validate the voices and opinions of community and that you are true to that so that folks don't feel like it's a waste their time to come to community meetings. i wanted to make sure that what was there was captured and that it was shared with you all and the commission could hear and understand what the community's

concerns were. again i recognize that it's not something that you necessarily had to commit to and that you didn't necessarily have to receive the report. i just think it's really important to give that space to validate those voices and think about as you move forward no matter what your decision is, that you respect community voice. thank you. >> thank you, director. okay. commissioners, before we begin our own questions, comments, and possible action items, i would prefer that we take public comment at this time, because that might help inform us in our questioning and in anything that we may do hereafter. if there's no objection, i'll ask to take public comment on

item number one. we'll start with you. if you would like to give public comment, if you accountcould lin that side of the aisle behind that gentleman with his hand up. thank you, sir. are you ready, rachael? >> yes. >> hi. i'm coming here as a nurse, but also i'm the first transgender officer in the history of the city and county of san francisco, and also a green party gubernatorial candidate. the first thing i would do as governor of california would be to block the use of tasers and pepper spray. i wanted to say this from the chemical compound of being a human being, our bodies are electrical. we work off of electrical

impulses. while i'm standing here, my protons, atom, neutrons and for some of us our morons are working. [laughter] >> i wanted to talk about the fact that at rest, we generate a hundred watts of energy in the human body. in order to start a heart, if the person is out cold, to start a heart, you need at least 360 is the max joules or watts per second used on the human body to restart a heart. that means that tasers that have 50,000 watts start the heart or break the heart down, and the muscle mass for 139 times more than it takes to start a heart. nobody deserves that to their body. if you have a person with a pacemaker, you're going to knock them out and kill them.

if you have a person that has comorbidity factor, other things going on in their body, it's going to rock them out. i think that it's very important that we look at the physiological aspects, and i was glad that dr. tang was going to speak about it. when you have electrical impulses that are killing your tissue, cause you to fall out, hit your head on concrete or wherever, then you're going to have concussions and other things going on. the human body cannot stand that much -- am i over time? >> thank you. [clapping] >> folks, i'm going to ask that to keep this moving -- this meeting moving along that you

express your agreement with your hand gestures rather than clapping or snapping of the fingers and to be less disruptive. i believe that supervisor fewer is here. she's been waiting and had a report issued for this particular hearing. i'm sorry, sir. i'm going to take supervisor fewer next if you don't mind. supervisor. >> thank you very much, commissioners. good evening, commissioners. i'm sandra lee fewer supervisor of district one. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak before you today in opposition of the adoption of conducted energy devices most commonly known as tasers. i strongly feel that passing a policy tonight to adopt the use and adoption of c.e.d.s is irresponsible and shortsighted. the san francisco police department has only completed 81 of the 272 recommendations from

the department of justice, and while many of the recommendations are being addressed now, they have not been completed. also to test the policy without first adopting strict guidelines and procedures that align with the warnings of the c.e.d. manufacturers and the san francisco community is simply foolish. these weapons are widely considered nonlethal which is simply not true. even taser now uses the term less lethal because they know what we all know is that they can be lethal. in fact tasers is eight pages describing restrictions on its use such as they should not be used to pregnant women, older individuals, people with heart conditions, mentally ill people, et cetera. how will a police officer know before they discharge a taser? it also recommends not shooting in the chest area, which is completely contrary to how police officers are currently trained to discharge firearms. police officers are currently

trained to aim at the sternum area, which is where the target is placed during firearms practice. it is the cause of my concern i requested a report from theet budget legislative analyst to better understand the cost of taser implexionation. there was not enoughida data to the true cost especially concerning liability. i don't like being in opposition with the chief on this issue. i respect his leadership. however, this time as an elected official responsible for the public safetying of all san francis franciscoans, i feel i must speak out. we can invest in training that includes incorporating time and distance when determining if a situation requires lethal means. we can invest in training that utilizes de-escalation techniques and strategies, jurisdictions that invested in c.e.d c.e.d.s and de-escalation have seen the use of tasers

dramatically. it's without having conducted intensive training in de-escalation first. i think we have turned a corner in our police department. approximately 800 officers or c.i.t. certified, over 900 officers have received c.i.t. and use of force training. officer use of forces also down. i think we continue on this good work to deliver to san franci o francisco franciscoans. you might know that my husband was a police officer for 35 years and retired in 2012. he was a 5-time medal of valor recipient. also my two brother-in-laws are still currently police officers, and my uncle was the first chinese police officer to serve the city of san francisco. sadly, he passed away two days ago. taser also has a warning that c.e.w.s include chemicals that can be hazardous to the health of officers.

look, i want to keep officers safe too. i ask you razz commissioners to reject the idea that c.e.d.s will sekeep san francisco safer. i ask you to vote no. [applause] >> there will be no clapping. please do your hand thing. no clapping. sir. yes. >> yes. my name is harry. i have lived more than half of my life in san francisco. when people want something that's bad for the city and money is involved, they'll stop at nothing to get it. after five tries to get tasers, why are we still pursuing this? why is it before the commission? why is this wasting people a time? why do we have to be here instead of doing something productive? is it to increase police obje object -- accountability. we know that adoption of taser will be financially lucrative to

tasers' lucrative owners. it'll be a disaster for our city bringing an incorrigible stain ever death. even the death of one person is significant. do you want to be responsible for these injuries and deaths. any commissioner with a shred of social conscience will vote against adopting tasers. i really hope they don't bring this back again if it's defeated. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is magic altovenn. i want to say the lawyer mr. brave mentioned the u.n. the

u.n. declared this a weapon of torture ten years ago f he believes in that, he should not be for tasers. for 13 years, the police commission has supported the people's demand that we do not allow tasers to be used by the s.f. police. the special attention and priority that has been given to tasers is counter to the whole process we are in to change the culture of the police department. the goal is to reestablish trust in the police by moving towards all-possible forms of de-escalation and a responsive, compassionate approach to the challenges we face. the revision of the use of force policy was an about-face to the previous focus on stages of escalation. there's a growing acknowledgement that most incidents happen to the most vulnerable in our population. all 22 recognize dangers of the taser listed by axon are on to protect them from lawsuits so that we would be sued instead. we were moving in the right direction until malara has

pushed in every way she can to force the approval of tasers. not once has melara stated she was open to listening to the public. all the efforts to build trust would be seen as hypocritical if you fail in your duty to fully implement the use of force and report back at its efficacy. we want healing, but the truth is when someone you love is killed, there's not a day that is not darkened by that loss. justice and resultant change towards a compassionate approach towards our most vulnerable at least gives the bereaved the knowledge to know that we are doing all we can to make sure it doesn't happen again. let us not be caught in intellectual minutia and not forget that over a thousand people have died from tasers. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm 70 years old. i was born and raised in this city. for a lot of you police officers who are sitting there, i was part of that source that got you as a police officer, because when i was first coming up, san francisco police department was lilly white. there were no blacks. there were no women. there were no chinese. there were none of those things. but i'm digressing. let's get pot point in in fact. we're standing again at the crest of history. which side are you commissioners going to fall on? which side are you going to be noted in our history books in our city when the people of san francisco continually tell you no tasers. and again and again and again

and again you keep coming back with this idea. our community, my black community, sees this as a torture treatment for my community. we do not see this as any kind of safety anything. the only way it'll be used is to torture my people. i say that tasers must go. period. no ands, no ifs, no buts. one other thing is that really bothers me about the use of tasers is that once you're shot with a taser, you're on the ground. you have no muscle control, and the first thing that the police say is stop moving. how in the hell are you going to stop moving when you are getting hit with a taser? then they apply more pressure. it is torture, plain and simple. stop this. now.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is maria christina gutierrez. i'm a member of the frisco five, the black and brown united against police murder, and mothers on the march. i would like to ask those of you who are thinking about endorsing tas tasers to please try it on yourself before you make that decision. for the same amount of time and the same amount of energy that was given to the last person that died due to taser. then you tell me. second thing, you want to hear from the experts? you should try to bring those people that have been tased, that have suffered the consequences of that. they are experted. they suffer the consequences of that feeling of being tortured. you talking about tasers in order to save ma-mario woods' life.

tell me tell but oscar grand. the police man who told him said he got confused between the gun and the taser, and he killed oscar grand. you're talking to me about giving another instrument, another weapon to torture our people. i went on a hunger strike for 17 da 17 days demanding yesterday for our people. i went on a walk for 95 miles from san francisco to sacramento the last two weeks demanding justice for our people. we go every friday in front of the khan demanding justice for our people. what i do hear from you guys? you want to give another weapon to these killers? the police are out of control, brothers and sisters. it's out of control in the whole country, and in this city. and it's up to you for this police commission to do something to stop that from happening.

you are not addressing the real issue here. it's not about whether you give him another weapon. it's whether you stop them from abusing. >> thank you. thank you, ma'am. next speaker, please. >> the community are being terrorized by the police. >> next speaker, please. >> able to speak in this place just like the other expert that you brought in. >> next speaker, please. [crowd yelling] [gavel] >> next speaker, please! next speaker, please! >> you are afraid of the truth. i ask for you the commission to stop it. you can stop this police and tell them to let me continue. >> next speaker, please. >> i have two more minutes,

please. >> next speaker, please. >> next speaker, please. >> longer than i did. and you did. >> next speaker, please. next speaker, please. >> the police commission allows this to happen. it's the police commissioners allow the policeman to do this. why don't you allow me to finish. >> don't touch her. >> next speaker, please. >> don't touch her. >> ladies and gentlemen, if i do not have a next speaker within one minute, i will adjourn -- i will recess this meeting. what? >> behind them. behind them. >> you can clear the room. [chanting] [chanting let her talk]

>> clear the room. >> chanting by the crowd let her talk] >> i find this -- disruptive. clear the room, please. [chanting let her talk] >> i find this conduct disruptive. clear the room, please. [chanting let her talk] >> okay. . >> ladies and gentlemen, i find this conduct disruptive.

please clear the room. [crowd saying no] >> clear the room. >> by endorsing torture in this room. >> two more minutes. >> torture the people. [crowd chanting and yelling] [crowd chanting shame] >> she gets two more minutes. you all about fucking listen.

. >> commissionerture turman, we're back on the record with open session, and you still have a quorum. >> everyone's here? >> correct -- i'm sorry? >> all right. ladies and

gentlemen, after finding that the disruptive conduct was widespread and warnings did not succeed in deterring that conduct, i determined to clear the room, and i am now here after determining to do the following: i will readmit persons not involved in the disruptive behavior and a limited number of speakers serially. we will take five persons at a time to address the body, okay? with that, public comment for two minutes shall continue. let's take the first five members of the public. >> good evening, commissioners. >> president of the bar association of san francisco is

before us. good evening, madam president. >> thank you, mr. president and commissioners, thank you for having us. mary baldwin. i'm the president of the bar association of san francisco. you are all familiar with the work that the bar association has done on this issue and has presented to you over the past two years. our criminal justice task force has studied this issue closely. it's made up of prosecutors, public defenders, prime criminal defense attorneys, law enforcement, judiciary, civil rights attorneys, mayor's office, and academics, and i emphasize that to emphasize the broad range of viewpoints and perspectives that makeup that task force and that brought those backgrounds to bear in this careful study of this issue. the task force produced two memos. you have them. the most recent was done on september 18th of this year.

in presenting the findings to the board of directors of the bar association, the board of directors voted unanimously to not support the use of tazers, and we sent you a letter to that effect. i just want to emphasize, you know, what can we add to you here tonight in you hear a lot, and we heard a lot down in there when you guys were gone. what we can say is the studies do not support the claims. i understand this is a tough decision, i understand there's a lot on both sides, but when you look at the evidence on both sides as our task force did, the evidence is not there to support the use of tazers, to enforce the public safety or as a form to enhance officers' safety. it's probable to enhance liability. we're lawyers. that's something we look at, and it's a real concern. by manufacturer's warnings, it's

going to shift liability to the city, so overall, i just want to say the bar association very much welcomes the chance to participate in this dialogue, and we thank you for your decision. >> i just want to say one thing to the bar association. you sent us a letter dated september 17th, saying 8,000 members of the bar. i'm a member of the bar association, have never received an e-mail about this, and more importantly, most lawyers i'm speaking with don't agree with you who are members of the bar association. we understand you funded some of the opposition, which is fine, however, i think there's a lot more to it. there's two sides to this story. i felt that your report was one sided. it embarrassed me as a attorney, and it embarrassed me as a member of the san francisco bar association. >> i'm sorry to hear that. the san francisco justice task force is a very prominent group, members within our membership, from the mayor's

office, the public defender, and the d.a. it's a broad scope of representation -- we don't always -- we have 8,000 members of the our views don't speak for every one of our members, of course, but all of our board of directors voted to approve the report. >> including board members from the district attorney's office? >> ma'am, ma'am. i want to thank you. i'm a member of the san francisco bar association, and i work closely with a lot of your people, and we are he aall lawyers, and i want to thank you for all the hard work you've done, and for the analysis you gave us, not only for case law, but that studies, and this was what it was about. it took a lot of your time, a lot of your effort, and i want to commend you and your board for looking out for san francisco, and i don't want to think that this one member represents all of this commission, and i want to thank you for all of your work. >> thank you for all of your work. >> thank you. next