when people abide by virtues and picking the right path and doing the right things for the common good. national unity shall come to be in realization. when they treat holiness and moreality as being important, take mercy, we shall be able to enjoy the prosperity of a strong and wealthy nation. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> this demonstration is going to show the city and the state of california the best way to assist in the federal court system. as it stands right now, the federal court system says that aliens as a group generally do not have the right to counsel as a government expense and administrative removal

proceedings under the 6th amendment and immigration law. the 6th amendment right to have assistance to counsel and removal in the case of indigent person is in alien terrorists removal courts, my advice to you, the best way to take care of business in the federal system is to incorporate section 504 of the rehabilitation act which has been structured to require the appointment of qualified representatives for aliens who are not mentally incompetent or able to represent themselves in removal proceedings. this has been all the way up to the supreme courts who have repeatedly declined to find that aliens have a 6th amendment right and counsel at

government's expense and removal proceedings. conflict. in the case of tang versus as cot, section 354 of the federal supplement, pages 1113 and the case versus reno, attorney general during the clinton and bush administration, all ruled in favor of the 6th amendment. my advice to you is to use that section 504 the best way to get it into the federal court system. if you don't, you'll get denied. you're wasting funds. i make this look easy, but it's hard to come up here [bell ringing]. >> co-chair: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. i'm calling on a delay on the

special municipal election only to add a special referendum to repeal the taser measure, the use of unnecessary deadly force and other moving parts. mr. jesus, name has been called. jesus has brought him home. for decades, i have been following officer involved shootings. mr. gary of the ffpoa have been showing a pattern of racist motivation and made remarks in the examiner on black americans with power. he recently said, chief scott is a shield for the city hall and don't know how to do the job, when chief scott took a stand against taser measure. this is to blemish chief scott's record. here's a question. is gary using his relationship with officers spewing out racial bile infecting members of the ffpoa and expanding? usurping the authority and

circumventing the law to avoid criminality that has been manifested when it comes to the use of unnecessary force and overkilling of suspects through the years. this is not a lawless city, but a city of law. no one is above the law, no one is below the law. it's time for not only an independent investigation on the san francisco police officers association, but a vote on so many moving parts. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm a work site organizer. i would like to thank all of you for your leadership in considering the resolution calling on television and abc operated station of the walt

disney company to deliver a fair contract to kgo television employees. they work in the city of san francisco on front street and many residents of the city. the reporters and anchors we represent are dedicated to their craft and committed to delivering broadcast journalism to the people in san francisco and the bay area. the reporters and anchors we represent have bargaining priorities, including securing company benefit and delivering fairer more equitable working conditions for part-time and freelance reporters and identifying genuine solutions to increasing workload demands. as little progress has been made since bargaining began, we thank the board for considering the adoption of the resolution and supporting our broadcasters who deliver quality local, and national news to the san francisco community. we thank you all and labor

partners in this campaign. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, bob butler, i'm a reporter. this is strange for me to talk to you here. i'm also on the national board of sag and on the national broadcast. we represent actors, singers, recording artists, many reporters, radio personalities, we have 26 units bargaining units in the market, abc, kgo, abc has been a long time signatory and a relatively peaceful relationship, but like many companies they want workers to do more with no additional pay. the company wants the reporters to be more active on social media. they want the anchors to run their own teleprompters and they're withholding paid family

leave and child bonding leaf. per negotiations all companies cry poor, about this is abc, which posted third quarter revenue of $2 billion. i want to emphasize that disney abc has been a long time good employer and still is for the members, but i believe passing this resolution will help us reach an agreement that will improve working conditions and compensates laura anthony and the people you've seen giving you news and sports for years. this is the awkward part, i would like to thank supervisor peskin for the resolution. i thank the board of supervisors. >> if there are any other members of the public who would like to address the board, please come up. >> good afternoon. my name is eric, i'm a resident

of san francisco sunset district. i'm a high school social science teacher and anti-nuclear activist with beyond the bomb, an organization dedicated to ending the threat of nuclear weapons. the cold war officially ended andes 25, 1991 with the dissolution of the soviet union. we forgot about the threat of nuclear weapons posed over the next couple of decades, but now that threat is back with a vengeance. russia claims to have developed evasive nuclear weapons and trump is calling for expansion of our own nuclear arsenal and capabilities. in this context, our own president engages in a twitter war with the brutal dictator over whose nuclear button is bigger. the nuclear threat today posed today is real and terrifying, but we can decrease the threat. we should support the authority of the president launching a

strike without approval from congress. second, we should show this administration from the local to federal level we'll not stand by while this presidential administration reverses the progress that every president has made toward eliminating nuclear weapons and the threat they pose. it is imperative we end the unchecked authority but that unchecked authority ends us all. i ask you to please pass the resolution introduced earlier by supervisor tang. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi, my name is yasin i'm with beyond the bomb in the mission district and under the impression that a resolution was introduced. we have 800 nuclear weapons.

the man who has sole authority over that in the white house makes me extremely nervous. he can decide to do a first strike that impacts millions of lives. i think that is why a resolution from the local level calling on legislation and pushing our congressional delegation to -- right into the mic. it's something -- nuclear weapons are something like me are told will be taken care of by somebody else, that i shouldn't care about it and that's why i think a resolution of this kind is so powerful. it place as value on diplomacy and human life and this resolution supports legislation that takes into account how the weighty decision to use nuclear weapons is something that no one person is equipped to make a decision on. we see this more than ever. while i'm excited about the idea

that the u.s. will engage in talks with north korea, i know if things don't go the president's way, he may want to retaliate. right now there is nothing stopping him. all of us in yellow here today, are pushing for the passing of this resolution. if sf passes the resolution they'll be joining many other states, cities, college campuses and organizations in trying to tie the president's hands in stopping us from plunging into nuclear war. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, thank you for listening. i'm terry, i'm a senior advisor to the plow shares fund, a san francisco based nonprofit that works to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear threats. women, surprise, surprise, have led and are fighting for a safer

and more egalitarian future in our lives and nuclear security is no different. our current policies present a grave threat to the world, particularly to women. trump has no doubt heightened this threat, but in reality we've been living under a nuclear pat arcy since the beginning of nuclear weapons. when plans are made, women are left out of the conversation. when had nuclear bombs are tested, women are birthing the babies with defects. and when the trump administration low yield nuclear weapons is discussed, it's only women who ask what happens after that bomb drops? i want to say this. i want to say that we are busy building an inclusive national security and foreign policy with a more diverse range of perspectives that are not

dominated by men and that i fully endorse the resolution condemning trump's nuclear recklessness and voice support for hr 669. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. hello. i'm will. digital communications manager for plow share fund, san francisco based nonprofit working to reduce and eliminate nuclear threats. i work with terry. it is striking that even in the world's greatest democracy, one man has the power to eliminate in a matter of minutes. nuclear war is not unthinkable. in fact, we need to think about it. we need solutions that reflect our values. we need to democratize the decision-making process and that starts with action at local

level. current launch authority completely contradicts the checks and balances that the founders created in 1787. at this juncture, the trump era, san francisco can lead the way into a more just future. current u.s. launch authority predates the trump administration, however, president trump's rhetoric has brought answers to the matter. -- attention to the matter. he has the weapons and the authority to destroy north korea, even absent an attack. since the cold war, the nuclear launch procedures have been designed for speed, not democratic decisions. as president nixon observed in 1974, i can go back into my office, pick up the telephone and in 25 minutes, 70 million people will be dead. congress alone has the power to

declare war under the constitution. congress must have the that's right when it matters most. the decision to start a nuclear war. if this resolution passes, the san francisco will add its name to a growing list demanding a check on the president's authority to start nuclear war. san francisco has proven it can be a leader. leadership on gay marriages, one recent example of this real power and responsibility. >> hello, my name is dr. robert gold, for identification purposes i'm director of health professional outreach and education add ucsf school, reproductive health and the environment but i'm here speaking tore physicians for social responsibility. i'm the former president of the national organization and president of the local san francisco bay area chapter and we represent thousands of

physicians and health professionals concerned about nuclear weapons. we have shared with the international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war, the nobel peace prize in 1985 for our work to eliminate nuclear weapons and i want to salute supervisor tang for introducing this very important resolution. we know from the masterful work of eric, command and control, that there have been dozens if not more episodes where we as a planet came to the brink of extinction because of the threats of accidental nuclear war. this has been reinforced by dan else burg's doomsday machine which underscored the severe dangers we face, including the fact that a regional nuclear war can lead to the nuclear winter on our planet that would cause up to 2 billion people around the planet to die of malnutrition from the nuclear detonations.

for these reasons, we join many of the organizations here in supporting this very important resolution. i'm a grandfather of two kids this city, but it's not just my own grandchildren i care about, i care about the future of the planet. it's important for san francisco to make a stand here and support hr 669 and take presidential authority from firing off these nuclear weapons with no further controls. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm patrice sutton, scientist as ucsf. i'm speaking as an individual. i'm also echoing the other comments you've gotten speaking in support for hh 669 and also thanking you so much for paying attention that issue. it's such a huge issue and i know you confront so many issues in terms of all the problems in our city. i've lived here since 1982, but

it really does warrant your timely attention. i wanted to particularly support the -- you're support of 669, because it can have a lot of national implications in terms of san francisco speaking up on this. the idea that anybody should have the power to get us into a nuclear war seems so crazy, but it's also really among leaders in the globe who have thought about this issue also does not have resonance. there was a -- in 2006, there was a weapons of mass destruction commission that was headed by hans blitz and it had such illustrious people, switch as rick perry, former secretary of defense, on it. they were looking at the issues reeled to ha 669 and i wanted to

quote. so long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. and i will just say that they said that the -- nobody should have the power to launch this, it's very undemocratic and thank you for your support. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is todd snyder, i'm going to echo the previous speakers and urge you as our public representatives and our voices to strongly support supervisor tang's resolution. i only want to say there is ample precedent for this. cities like boulder, colorado, san francisco state student union have all passed resolutions demanding a check on the president's authority to launch a nuclear attack. please do the right thing, be the leaders you are, the trailblazers, and stand up for the resistance and keep us safe

from this unchecked authority. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm here to tell you i'm living in a society -- >> sir, please speak directly into the microphone. >> i'm living in a society with rules and regulations means a lot, but what has happened, we follow the rules and we're screwed. i'm the taxi driver. i bought it 30 days ago, now i can't make my expenses or pay my bills. this is happening last 5, 7 years in the city. i want you to be a voice and do something about this taxi industry. there are 70 medallions we brought it for quarter million dollars and the price is zero now. why? über is ruling the roost without any rules. i want you to put this thing on the agenda that you can discuss

the 700 me dallion owners who are working day after day and in the end, they get $30-40 a day. do you think anybody can live and survive in this city? again, this is happening right under your nose. nobody brings this to your notice. i want you to think about it and consider to at least pay attention to this plight of me dallion owners. there are three kinds in the city, those with three, are fine. the other is the medallion that costs $15,000, they're fine, but we bought it for $250,000. and i make almost like $100-120. we'll have to keep coming on this again and again, because i want you guys to put this on the agenda because we're hurting. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is nam. i'm an owner, too. value for $250,000. couple of years later, he sold for 125. some people got it for 125. they started like one year before me. it's a big difference. a discrimination. in one year, $125,000 cost me more. i have three children, children in college, one in school, i cannot afford to make a payment. our business is really bad. because ed lee's brought in über and lyft. no one -- buses, all the public people that come in here giving big speeches.

ok, medallions. how about new buses with the money? and what happened to us. they dumped thousands of über lyft. and who do you empty those cabs, we find nobody. so think what happens. we want to bring $125,000, don't do double standard. they sold some $125,000 and making payment. so the only thing we're going to -- bring it to $125,000. otherwise, we're going to bankrupt. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is ejas.

this is a great place, driving taxi, i didn't know it was being made over here. so i am also a taxi driver to who bought the permit for,000, but i was supposed to get for free, but they closed their door for me. i think i have been dropped my 29 years of service. and whatever i made had been ripped off from me. the sense of to buy the permit for $250,000. i have four kids, two are in the college, one in high school, one in middle. my daughter comes to the state university every day. i work until 10 p.m. and i barely take $100 for myself. and my daughter spent $20 out of that. nobody is taking any action seems like in the city, that everything is smooth, everything is cool, everything is going along fine.

taxi drivers are being killed day after day financially. i think the people who are talking about the nuclear bomb that has been dropped five years ago on the taxi drivers. they are talking about the future, we're talking about the present. please, do something. we think that we are immigrants, that's why there is this kind of discrimination going on about us. when i heard that the immigrants values over here, how you people honor the immigrants and the people of color, i got little my wife might be heard. and i hope my wife should be heard. i have a -- to your people. and my humble request, please do something, bring it on the agenda -- [bell ringing]

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, madame clerk, president breed, ladies and gentlemen of the board, i ask for your resignations. you violated our oath of office. you swore to defend the constitution. yet you operation of city-wide case management community focus, here city wide, a joint project for the san francisco campus of the university of california. city-wide is a city and county assertive treatment provider, as such it is responsible for involuntarily medicating and performing surgical procedures on resume do dentist of -- residents of the city, disabling them permanently. city wide also denies its patients freedom of medication, freedom of association and the right to petition the government with grievances all guaranteed by u.s. constitution amendment

one. city-wide perpetrates unreasonable searches and seizures with warrants. city wide denies its patients the right to confront accusers. city wide denies its patients the right to jury trials guaranteed by constitution. city wide compacts cruel and unusual punishment from its patients in violation of constitution amendment 8. city wide uses medicine to control its patients unnecessarily because it offers them no avenue. city wide denies its patients equal treatment and you the law. you're knowledgeable of the violations, yet you do nothing to prevent them, therefore you have violated your oath of office. i ask for your resignation. back to you, madame clerk. >> clerk: thank you for the comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board. >> president breed: any other members of the public who would

like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. items for adoption without reference to committee. >> clerk: items 14 and 15 considered for adoption. these can be considered or severed and considered separatelily. >> president breed: supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i'd like to sever item 15. >> president breed: ok, madame clerk, call item number 14. >> item number 14, urge kgo to engage in good faith negotiations and swiftly reach a fair contract with the screen actors guild american federation of television and radio artists members employed by kgo. >> president breed: same house, same call, the resolution is adopted unanimously. item 15, motion authorizing prepping of written opponent

ballot argument and rebuttal ballot argument for the submittal to voters. >> supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to amend this motion. i'm seeking authorization as a proponent of the argument. there was a little bit of a mixup, but the clerk caught it. i want to thank the clerk for catching it. very important. also would like to add authorization to prepare the opponent argument for the taser ballot initiative? please stand by.

-- late miss jennifer gonzales, on behalf of supervisor peskin, for the late mr. david bushnel, and mr. kenneth chi fong, and milton jones. this brings us to the end of our agenda. any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today. >> we are adjourned. thank you, everyone.

>> the clerk: commissioner i'd like to call roll. [roll call]

>> the clerk: you a quorum and with is the interim president. >> good evening, welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco police commission for wednesday march 14, 2018. before we get started i'm going to make some changes to the agenda for efficiency purpose. i see in the audience a large number of people. we anticipate a large number of speakers from the public on item two. which is the discussion and possible action for draft department general order 5.02 the use of electronic controlled

devices including appendix a and device of the review board for purpose of engaging in the process with the police officers association. for the item i'll take it as the first item on the agenda. we will not be doing item three. that item is coming off the agenda. so i am going to start with again, united stat -- aga again -- -- item two with the

use of rec tronic control device and we'll limit it to two minutes to treat everyone equally. i'm confident with the large number of speakers everybody will be able to have their say. again, we're taking item three off the agenda. please call first item. >> the clerk: reading >> the clerk: [reading item two] >> okay. members of the commissioner, so as you know, the commissioners assigned to electronic control

device commissioner melara sat in on the meetings and i attended a few myself. as you know overly several months they met with different stakeholder groups to come up with through a collaborative process a policy to govern the san francisco police department's use of electronic control devices, ecds. also to develop an electronic control device review panel. we heard different measures and provisions. since that time, our policy has been formulated which is in your pact.

we were able to come to terms through some in the policy and there are seven outstanding in the aed heism the appendix in the review board and there are four outstanding. also within your pact are notes from the department as to the position and the seven outstanding items to the appendix as well as you have received letters in your packet which were hand-delivered as well as e-mail from the mental health association, dpa, the aclu, the bar association of san

francisco the safer policing initiative and i believe -- >> human rights. >> the human rights commission. thank you. veep of the expansion of the seven within the actual policy still in dispute. additionally to the commission. commissioners, this is how we will conduct te review. i'm review the seven items outstanding. at the each of each outstanding item, i will not take a poll, i will take a straw poll as to each position on each item. and then we'll do the same for the appendix. at the end of that, we will then

take public comment on the actual items and then we will vote on the policy based upon concerning the winner of each point straw poll into the policy. is that clear? so let's begin, members, with the first item in the policy. department general order, 5.02, which is use of electronic control devices. our first issue is the term electronic control devices. it is the view by certain organizations, the dpa,

coalition on homelessness, bar association and aclu the preferred term should be weapon not device. their position is tasers use the term weapon. weapons convey more gravity a stronger sense of seriousness to the officers and public. the department's view is that the preferred term is device because the service's department uses it as does the ucsf, police department, bart and many other law enforcement departments use device. the city attorney advises it is to use the term device with consistency with other law enforcement agencies operating within the city.

officers already have a sense of gravity and consequences for using anything provide them as a tool. so, that is the first issue. electronic control device, electronic control weapon. >> i think we should stick with the term device because it's consistent with what the sheriff's department is doing for litigation purposes. again, there's no need for to us recreate the wheel. i prefer we stay with the term device. all the other agencies participating are playing a game of semantics. let's just stick with device. >> okay. commission melara -- >> actually, me. >> we're on a different monitor. >> sorry about that.

does yours say melara. >> they both say melara. >> commissioner hirsch. >> in this case i feel consistency runs into credibility and to have credibility with the public we need to be honest about what it is and it's a weapon. we'd never call a gun a device or a knife a device. we'd never call a baton a device. i think folks expect us to be fair and honest and a call it a weapon. >> thank you, commissioner hirsch. commissioner de jesus. >> i have to agree with commissioner hirsch. if the manufacturer calls it a weapon that's what we should call it. i may have been called a device many years ago.

i think the taser company has changed its name and called it a weapon and we should do so too. >> commissioner: any other comments, commissioners? -- i can take a straw poll. it's just a straw poll so i don't need a roll call vote, correct? >> the clerk: that's correct if you just want a poll that's not an action item. >> can i get a sense, please, by a show of hand as to which commissioners would vote to call this a weapon? thank you. the next issue is issue number two.

so i'm going call on my fellow commissioner hirsch for item two. >> i just had a request we skip item two for now and move through the other items. when we come to item -- >> why don't we go to item five? >> no, four. >> commissioner: okay. we're going to item number four now and then we're going do two following that. as per commissioner hirsch's request. i'll let you take item four. go ahead. >> i found a lot of the language in item four on several sides -- >> commissioner: would you say with the item is.

-- >> i find it confusing. >> commissioner turman: so item four is resisting an officer's attempt to detain or arrest a subject. go. >> commissioner: i have language they would like to suggest that we substitute for those four bullet points currently in the draft and i'll just read it. an officer may activate the ecd when subject is armed with a weapon other than a firearm such

as an edged weapon, blunt object and the subject is causing immediate physical injury to a person or threatening to cause injury when there's a reasonable believe that subject has the intent and capability of carrying out the threat. i use the word person -- we don't need to add officer, a person covers everybody. i have two copies i can pass out but that's it because i think they otherwise have to be available to the public. >> secretary kilshaw: are you going number one and then -- >> commissioner: i'm taking the language already there dealing with an armed weapon. >> secretary kilshaw: i got that. >> commissioner: but i'm limiting the use of a taser to when the subject is causing immediate physical injury to a person or threatening to cause immediate physical injury and

there's the thought the person has the ability of carrying out that threat. that's all number one. the next one is the exact same language without the armed weapon. instead of assaulting or battering or displaying an intent to assault or batter, i couldn't follow that and frankly i could think of a scenario where we would not want somebody to have a taser used again him or her but they would still fit within that language. for example, if somebody is sitting against the wall and an officer is trying to arrest that person and the person sitting down says i'm going to kick your [bleep] that's an intent to assault or batter a person. i don't want a taser used in a situation like that and if we start thinking of examples that

meet outside the appropriate use but meets the language we have language problems. what i'm suggesting for two is use causing immediate physical injury or threatening to cause when there's a reasonable belief the subject has the intent and capability of carrying out the threat. for number three, i would leave the language and violently resisting and i doesn't find the language after that to be helpful. four i found to be unnecessary since i think it's covered in numbers one, two, and three. >> commissioner turman: okay. so what commissioner hirsch is requesting is that we rewrite this section h, beginning at

number one. an officer may activate the ecd when a subject is -- he would like those sections to be rewritten in the manner in which he is suggesting. now, i would remind we should accept language sept -- except for number three in this pattern and the rationale for why three would change for aclu recommend one circumstance for authorize u use when there's immediate physical injury to the officer

or another person or threatening to cause immediate physical injury to the officer or another person under circumstances which cause the officers to be relieved the subject has the intent and capability to carry out that threat. vastly like number three -- or one of the points commissioner hirsch is advocating. the coalition on homelessness requests the policy used is standard, risk of bodily injury term. the dpa recommends only one all-inclusive circumstance for authoriz authoriz authorized use for the behavior will cause bodily harm. one circumstance.

they recommend adding even in the above threshold even if it's met, officers are prohibited from deploying an ecd unless another option will be effective in eliminating the risk of bodily harm and two, deescalation and/or crisis intervention techniques will not be enough in deterring bodily harm. all these notes have been available to you folks for a few weeks and you should have them in your packets as well. now, minor changes in one of the four authorized uses would make it no longer mere 5.01 and to suggest he had its for

authorized use recommends an officer may acted -- activated the ecd when there's an immediate threat to the public, himself or officers. or assaulting or battering the officer for another person or verbally or displaying an intent to assault the officer or another person or actively resisting the officer in a manner that threatened the safety of the officers or another person or exhibiting actions likely to result in serious bodily injury or death to the public himself or the officer. the above four circumstances will be further covered in training along with definitions and legal terms. the department believes this policy should reflect and

reinstate guidelines and guidance in direct in 5.01 to mitigate confusion. they also have concerns using the term bodily harm as it is not defined in the california penal code. the argument requiring officers to reassess deployment of forces is already taken up in djo5.01 and the department believes the stakeholders' recommendation of officer meeting two thresholds prior to using the ecd is inconsistent with 5.01 as the department does not require the use of former continuum. now, let's take comment on that.

let's start with commissioner ong hing. >> commissioner: thank you, mr. president. and you can see on page 6 under part j3 which refers to suspects that are fleeing. and in that circumstance the department's own words are if the suspect is fleeing and doesn't pose immediate threat of harm to officers or public the use is prohibited. i think the intent of assault

encompasses what commissioner hirsch is proposing. >> commissioner turman: commissioner marshall. >> commissioner: i'm confused. you said most had been agreed upon. >> commissioner turman: i said consensus reached. >> commissioner: and we're looking at items that didn't have consensus. i'm trying to figure out -- >> commissioner turman: that was the one that was not -- there was no consensus on one. >> >> secretary kilshaw: some of the stakeholders want one all-inclusive and the department wanted to change one word in number three because the department wanted to change one word in that but it's the whole section.

>> commissioner turman: all right. commissioner mazzucco. >> commissioner: thank you. i'd like to ask the chief you referred from different stakeholders who are mostly attorneys and community group members. i need it hear from those out in the street it's a big difference when you're dealing with somebody on parole fighting with you versus those of us who sit behind desks and look at legal standards. i'm going to ask the chief what's your feeling about the change that commissioner hirsch made?

>> commissioner: i want to say while the chief is reviewing this, commissioner mazzucco, i agree. >> commissioner turman: let him review it. quiet.

commander walsh, can you come here for a moment? >> i think the biggest issue for the department is we're trying to stay consistent with the other djos particularly 5.01. it redefines basically assaults and restricted the language to physical injury. i know this is for the purpose of clarity but officers are training -- when we train the

entire department on a general order that is a good general order with the use of force and the language in the general order i think should be consistent with whatever we're going to come up with with the language. otherwise you're going to have -- it's more confusing for an officer and i'm talk from an end-user perspective, consistency matters and this is the category of incredible force i think the language should be consistent with the language that speaks to intermediate force and this goes beyond that and i understand the commissioner hirsch's point of view but is not consistent what we're training in terms of assaultive behavior which is what this is.

>> commissioner: thank you, chief. >> commissioner turman: commissioner melara. >> commissioner: i just wanted to make sure that as we're contemplating all of these different pieces that are not -- we have not come to an agreement on, i would like for us to ask the chief to give his input because he and his department is the one that's going implement these changes. we're only providing guidance on the policy but not on the implementation piece. and so i would want to hear from the chief on all of these or the department to ensure we're not putting something on the table that is not going to work. >> commissioner turman: that's why i gave it to you commander walsh. thank you. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: can i have the language back, please. i do