>> president turman: my staff's telling me that it is. >> and it runs really well. >> president turman: all right. chief, i'm just going to go on. you can just interrupt when you find that. let's take a little straw poll, if you will. how many -- how many commissioners would adopt the dpa's recommendation to have this at least the coordinator position embodied within the policy along with -- along with -- i'm not sure. are they asking for a specific list and duties within the policy? >> commissioner dejesus: it's not duties, it's just general

oversight. >> president turman: general over sight. how many commissioners would be in favor of that? okay. all right. >> last point for the policy. .7 is also on page nine, superior officer's responsibility. >> i can't hear you, can you talk into the mic? >> yes. the .7, superior officer's responsibility is page nine of your policy, page four of your notes. so this one, i think has actually already been addressed. the dpa wanted language that ensured that they are immediately notified. you will see in your policy that the department has put in pages in serious bodily injury requiring admittance to a

medical facility, the superior shall notify the department of police accountablity, admittance to medical facility wasn't discussed at the working group. >> president turman: why is that? so what does that mean? >> the dpa has a slight issue with that, the constraint of the notification, i believe -- am i saying that right? so as it reads -- >> president turman: i'll call you when i want you. >> the dpa will be notified when a suspect has been taken to a medical facility. >> president turman: they want it broader as to when there's serious bodily injury, they'll be notified immediately. >> yes. >> president turman: see? i went to law school, and i graduated, and i can actually figure it out. >> yes, you can. >> president turman: can you tell me what's wrong with her request.

>> the department wrote the language in response to her concerns, and i thought we had reached conken suspesensus on . the language, when a superior officer's notified of an ecd deployment of serious bodily injury -- >> point of clarification. wait a second. you said medical facility. >> president turman: let him finish. >> all right. >> president turman: and then, we're going to go to commissioner dejesus. you're saying -- so you're saying that that's the same as what she's requesting? >> i'm trying to -- what was the request that the g-- if i could. >> president turman: that whenever there's serious bodily injury, that the dpa be notified, not that if there's serious bodily injury and they go to a medical facility. drop the medical facility part.

>> yeah. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: well, i was asking if there was clarification -- >> president turman: he said he'd drop it. >> okay. that's fine. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: that's fine. >> president turman: all right. let's move onto the -- the appendix. much talked about -- yeah. >> okay. first point on the appendix, page -- this is -- it's the first page of the appendix, and the first point is related to

the number of police commission members to sit on the review board, so the appendix is the accountablity portion. the department will create a review board. the first point as it currently stands, one member of the commission is requested. the stakeholders would like a second member. that second member -- so two commissioners, essentially, on the review board. the reason being is that the department is still working with the city attorney on allowing a member of the public to sit in on the review board until the stakeholders believe that until that is done, they -- they prefer two commissioners. >> president turman: the stakeholders want two commissioners until it's worked out with the city attorney to get a member of the public onto the board. >> yeah. >> president turman: okay. and the department says no? >> no.

the department didn't say no. that's the commission's call. the department said that we are working to incorporate these civilians. >> president turman: okay. all right. commissioners, do you have comments on that? >> nope. >> nope. >> president turman: how do folks feel, just give me a show of hands about two commissioners until we can get a member of the public on the review board? >> i'm the only one. okay. there's three of us here. [ inaudible ] >> president turman: okay.

>> i'm sorry. why did you land on two commissioners? >> president turman: yeah. we'll put two commissioners on until a member of the public. >> okay. i actually jumped ahead. i'm sorry. we just covered .2, so if i can take you back to .1 of the policy. >> i thought you skipped number one. >> i did. i'm sorry. it is the third paragraph regarding reviewing ecd activations that occur during an officer involved shooting. the dpa and coalition on homeless is requesting additional language to that paragraph, to the last sentence of that first paragraph to read, shootings and discharges and will include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. the reason being is given dga

8.11, the fired discharge review board, cases in which a member discharges a firearm, ecd is not a firearm, so it wouldn't show up in that review board. the department believes that additional language would be redundant, especially given that the shootings are reviewed under the fdrb. >> what we're talking about this, can we put it up there so keep can see at home what we're talking about? >> president turman: all right. so, yeah, put it up on the

overhead, yeah, so we can follow it. >> yeah. >> from where you are. >> maybe at home they can see it on tv. >> so the request of the last sentence, that green, it would go discharges, cases in which -- sorry, will include an analysis of the effective ecd

activation. >> president turman: an analysis -- the language is -- would include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. >> so the paragraph would read the incident will be reviewed pursuant to dgo 8.11, investigation of officer involved shootings and discharges and will include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. >> so -- but the comment -- the comment basically says dgo 8.11 and 3.10, the firearm discharge review board only says about shooting, and they said why doesn't it include an analysis of why the tazer was used, as well. if it's going to have both a gun as a tazer, right? >> right, except -- >> go on. >> my understanding of the

department's position, and chief scott, please correct me if i am wrong, is you have the fire discharge review board if an officer fires a gun, and you have this review board for ecd activation. sfl rig >> right. i see that, but this process says, the investigation will include an analysis of the tazer activation. >> president turman: yeah. that's -- that part they're trying to add, though, right? >> yeah. that's consistent for this review board, so i guess i'm not following what the problem is. >> so -- >> president turman: go ahead. >> so let me start with this part. i think it's really important for the commission to know as far as we know, nobody else is doing this -- this type of thing review board for ecd activation, so we are taking it -- that seriously, and hopefully that gives the public some confidence of how serious we're taking it. i don't think anybody else is doing that, but the issue is we

already have an officer involved shooting process if an officer involved shooting occurs, everything is supposed to be reviewed, everything. so if a tazer or an ecd is discharged, and then, that later evolves into an officer involved shooting, that officer involved shooting review board also has to look at the circumstances around the tazer and any other force that's used. what this is saying that they asked by the dpa and some of the stakeholders is that the ecd review board also does a separate analysis of use of ecd. the department's position on that is that review somebody a part of the officer involved shooting review but not to have a separate review board on the same incident to review just a carve out part of the officer involved shooting. it should be taken in the context of the entire investigation and considered all at one because it doesn't make any sense to do it twice and pull the tazer uses out.

the -- i think make a compromise here would be that whatever comes from the firearm discharge review board as it relates to the tazer could go to that e cd review board for policy training and those things, but the department strongly urges the commission to consider keeping that process solid as one process and that's carving out tazers and creating a separate board in that same incident. i think that would not be an efficient way to do that, nor do i think it would add any value to the ois review. >> president turman: so just to be clear, if there's a tazer activation, it's reviewed by this board, but if there's a tazer activation, which is also part of an officer involved shooting, then, the ois folks

review that. is that what this is saying? >> yes. >> president turman: so there's not two reviews -- >> it's just the one, and those issues should be raised at that ois review board. and what i'm suggesting is that can be given to the -- the ecd review board for consideration -- policy consideration specific to the ecd issues, but just have one review, and that's the ois review. >> president turman: okay. commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: i think i now get it, i didn't get it when i read the language. you're going to have the officer involved shooting board review both weapons -- incidents involving both of the weapons. >> yes, sir. >> commissioner hirsch: and so i just think we need to say that clearly somewhere so we know that the tazer use will also be investigated by that same board. >> president turman: well, if it's just a tazer used, it's this board. >> commissioner hirsch: no, it's both. i'm saying when interests ther

and the tazer used, the tazer will also be reviewed by the ois. >> and may i add the chair of the ois board can bring in whatever subject matter expert they need to, so members of the ec board or whatever board the subject matter expert can be brought to the ois review to give that expertise or lend that expertise to the process. >> commissioner hirsch: so my question is, does the language support the concept? [ inaudible ] >> commissioner hirsch: well, the dpa is saying we have to add their language in order for that to actually be spelled out in writing because it's not spelled out now, and if that's the case, i'm in favor of it. if it's already spelled out, that's all right. it's not ois, but your policy on tazers can say the ois --

>> i agree with the what dpa saying. in the ois there's nothing that says we're going to analyze tazers, as well, but i have a different issue. i'm just waiting to get called. >> president turman: okay. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: so i was here when the department of justice was talking to us, and houston, i believe it's the city of houston, they have a tazer review board. they have community members that sit there that analyze these tazer things, and i don't want to lose track if we're talking about putting a community member on this he have are board, we're talking about transparency, having some input in the community. whether it's just a tazer alone or a tazer with a gun, i think the community would appreciate the policy analysis and review, and that was one of the other things we learned from the meeting, what can you do better? they had a lot of suggestions what you can do better. i don't think we need to exclude it because there is no community member on the ois,

and i think if you want tazers to be especially in the community, and you want them to have input and some say and suggestion and analysis and understanding of what's going on. >> first to commissioner hirsch's question, under that paragraph, it says pursuant to dgo 8.11, investigation of officer involved shootings and discharges, so that -- that's the special order that pertains to the firearm discharge review board. so the language here just refers back to that policy. and i don't know if that's explicit enough to you. i understand your point. >> commissioner hirsch: i guess the point is dgo 8.11 doesn't say anything about tazers, so i think the dpa is making a good point. let's have the language that makes it clear what we're doing. >> okay. hit >> commissioner hirsch: yes, sir. we're not talking about parallel --

>> right. >> president turman: commissioner melara. >> commissioner melara: and chief, if i may, i think your intent is to bring this into one review board. >> correct. >> commissioner melara: all of these are going to be brought under one roof. if we're going to define it here is one thing, but the reality is we're going to end up with one review board. >> president turman: okay. so -- so commissioner hirsch, do you have language you want to suggest here or what? >> commissioner hirsch: i think i would buy the dpa's language, understanding that it really means. >> president turman: yeah. read the language to me. >> commissioner hirsch: there's a note here that says dpa suggests adding quote analysis of the tazer

activation. >> and will. >> commissioner hirsch: and it'll be done over at the firearms review board. >> president turman: good for you? >> yes, that's good. it just makes it clear. it's clarity in the language. >> president turman: right. >> i think we already did that one. >> .3 is on page three of your appendix, and two of your notes. this relates to the last bullet on -- under a. and again, it goes back to kind of clarification. the dpa requests that -- oh,

excuse me. not that last bullet. requests an additional bullet be included to -- so it would be in e, you'll see now that it stops at d, and e would include written analysis to include recommendations regarding policies, training, equipment and tactics, as well as see provision sfpd believes that this is redundant as a requirement of written analysis particular tacks that's already included in numbers one, two, and three of this section. additionally, they add the purpose of the ecd review board is to continually review training, policies and procedures as stated in the paragraph four of the policy

section. >> i don't -- i don't -- do you see it's redundant in one, two -- i don't see a redundancy. so exactly where is it redundant. you say it's redundant. where is it? >> it's sfpd's claim. they suggest already included in numbers one, two, and three of the section, so under duties, if you go back to page two, quarterly basis the review board told me they'd review every incident, review ecd data. number two, reasonableness of particular use of force. >> that's just -- >> number three -- >> number two is just the standard on the review.

>> number three, ecd review board's written analysis. ecd activation shall include. it has been pointed out to me that there's a sentence that's been move this had couat could perhaps a little bit more clarifying, that all of the factors will not be present that was in fact in an older draft. so i guess the question really becomes whether you -- again, you want to reemphasize, restate additional language in .e, and again, if we do -- not massively clear, written analysis to include recommendations regarding policies, training, equipment, ta tactics and position. >> so i know we've asked the chief to explain things, but the dpa mentions the department

of justice, the recommendations for the discharge review board. this is a similar -- so you're just making a similar recommendation here that the doj has said we should include in our ois, right, reviews? and i understand you guys went to seattle. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> it spells out everything. >> commissioner turman: it's redone tant -- redundant. is there an issue? >> it's just redone tant. redundant. i can't find it. >> commissioner turman: what's it matter. you're good.

>> okay. i misunderstood you. >> commissioner turman: sorry, last one. >> secretary kilshaw: the last one is on page four. >> this one relates to the 96a report. the dpa requests reinstate paragraph that was deleted.

it stands on the 96a report citing in doing so it would be similar to the sheriff's department and lapds commission report. the department believes if you do appendix not all use of force which is what the code covers and once implemented would be included in the 96a report. so i think it summarizes up whether the summaries are to be included in 96a or not. but again, chief, correct me if i'm wrong on that one. >> commissioner turman: again, the 96a issue we believe is the redundancy. and the purpose of board is to continually review the training

and policy and procedures stated in paragraph four in the draft policy. the 96a appendix deals with a lot of what's in 96a effective july 1st for the state collection standard. we believe not only is it redundant, there's a change in through requires changings -- changes in reporting and better served in reporting change like we're doing with 96a and we'd raernl have that not locked into the appendix. >> commissioner turman: common comments, emergency hirsch

>> commissioner: we don't have a comment. >> commissioner turman: commissioner. >> commissioner: this i need clarification on. i see this provide summary. this is adjusting what type of information should be in the report and it says the report will address it's hard to read this thing -- will address something and recommendations make de-escalation is this saying the type of information that should be in the summary of the report provided to the chief or this commission with specifics? is that something the sheriff's department does now. is that following -- okay. i need clarification on what we're asking here.

>> it provides summaries to the 96a report, provides summaries on ecds. the review board -- the process of the review board will do a lot of that and we're tying this to 96a which we're in the process of retooling senate bill 953. we believe it's already been done but at the review board process. >> commissioner: what i'm hearing there's some requirements one with the state and one with the board of supervisors but also part is what's going to be reported out and that's the part i don't see why we can't include some information of what type of summary should be reported out that includes -- tell me -- whoever put this in green need

to reconsider this. this goes to decision making and de-escalation and use of force and supervision and an agreed upon template. irregardless of what statute is going to require to report i don't see what's wrong with providing that type of information in the summary. >> that's already in the draft policy. what we're suggesting here is we take that same information and apply that basically to the report which is being rec reconfigured. >> commissioner: what's wrong with that? i dont see what the hurdle is? you're already going to give a summary. you're already going to do that. doesn't matter if you have cut and paste it into a 96a report but i think we should include some of this information to be more transparent the that's my two cents.

>> commissioner: may i speak. >> commissioner turman: go ahead. >> commissioner: so i know that it appears duplicative this section we're asking be enow -- enumerated with the language of the 79 96a report and want it retooled with the language. >> commissioner: it's a no-brainer for me. >> commissioner turman: your response, chief?

>> commissioner: we don't feel it's the appropriate place to document that information and the 96a report is a separate reporting process and when the laws change then it impacts this. it's locked into this appendix. the reporting process is a part of the review board process. i don't see a need to restate this in a 96a report. >> so we don't know what the 9 a is going to require i don't want to project it's going to be a hassle. we don't know that to be true. i don't see why we can't have it in here and if there's a problem to putting it in twice if it comes too fruition we can deal with it but i think it's important to list out the type of information we want in the summary report. >> if that's what the commission

directs we're asking it not be in the policy because if we need to change this we have to change the policy. the reporting that the dpa is suggesting is already a part of the review board process. it's separate from the 96a report. >> commissioner: is this something that also came from seattle? i need clarification because i'm not understanding the two different reports. >> thank you. originally, we had requested two different kinds of reports. one we had asked for with the 96a the use of force report. we used the sheriff's example where in their use of force report they provide summaries especially when they use force and tasers and they're brief summaries but it gives more information to the public and commission. we asked the summaries be included. my understanding is we had the

agreement with the department they would provide summaries in the 96a report. so that's one thing and to clarify the amendments that are going on with the board of supervisor with the 96a don't impact use of force. we felt in the agreement there be 9 6a reports with summaries about tasers. that was our request. separate was a request and we have agreement for the review board there would be a report and we're in agreement about the specificity would be but i think right now it looked like we're asking for a two reports but we had specific language that dealt with the 96a. is that helpful. >> commissioner: that helps. that should help the chief if the 9 6a amendment don't use the

use of force policy. >> commissioner turman: commissioner hirsch -- you folks are losing me. >> commissioner: out sounds like the information we want is being reported somewhere. the information you want also in the 96a report. why isn't it sufficient to have it where it exists now. why do you need a separate report. >> commissioner turman: they're two separate things. >> commissioner: i don't understand if as the same information and accessible to the public and the world why do we need to duplicate it. 96a is a quarterly report and it's reported to the human

rights commission and the it gives the same specific to ecds and goes on the public website. so what we're saying is 96a is an administrative code and leave it alone the information will keep it uniform and these are the stats we do for batons, you know, physical control, etcetera. boom, that's it. it looks the same all the way through instead of having summary ecd in the middle or where we're going to put it. you'll have the board report on the website. that's as simple. >> commissioner: will tasers be on the 96a. >> statistically. we're talking about not duplicating that report and putting it in 96a for one single use of force. >> commissioner turman: chief, was there else you wanted to stay. >> commissioner: key word statistically. >> commissioner turman: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> commissioner: he covered it.

>> commissioner: specifically, you say we have 10 of these and two of these were that and three of these were that. one line sentence. i think we're asking for more information than a statistical report that the board of supervisors may be gathering stats on to make an analysis of. i need know if you're just talking about stats. >> commissioner: 96a is stats which should remain stats. the review board will have the summaries which has been agreed upon and will go onto the website for everyone to read. we're just saying keep 96a the way it is, where we statistically do it. here's the report for tasers. >> commissioner: summaries is crossed out and it said findings and report quarterly to the chief of police. summaries are crossed out here. at least what i'm looking for

it's crossed out. if you just want to address that we'll use the taser. >> commissioner: we've agreed to the summary. we've agreed to do the summaries as part of the ecd review board process. >> commissioner turman: who objects to leaving this the way it is? all right. thank you for that. all right. there's issues in the 5.02 as well as the appendix. our straw poll and how we will vote after public comment is on the general order as follows. it will be an as written but use

of electronic weapon. it will be -- we will eliminate the definition of assaultive. we will allow the drive stun load to remain. we will add in the section and take out the department's language and add in commissioner hirsch's suggested language, we will leave as is except we will add the word schizophrenia as an

example. we will -- >> page nine the coordinator. >> commissioner turman: we will add in the coordinator position and role and responsibility and for number seven, i cannot read my own handwriting. >> remove the language requiring admittance to a medical facility. >> commissioner turman: yes. eliminate the language requiring notification only if there's a medical facility. if there's serious bodily injury the [indiscernible] will be immediately notified. when it comes to the review board, we will --

>> secretary kilshaw: item one, use the dpas language. >> commissioner turman: we will use the dpa's language. item number two, we will have two commissioners. item three, we'll add language as suggested by the dpa. and item number four we will leave as-is. with that, commissioners, we will now take public comment on the first item which is listed as item number two the policy of the ddo policy on ecd and the appendix. two minutes per speaker. one at a time, please. members of the public you are now invited.

>> i want to say as a veteran of two rounds of working groups, the use of force and tasers it continues to amaze me how collaborative the process has been and how seriously the views of stakeholders have been taken. in terms of the discussion around the authorized use of the weapon i will say this. i understand the chief's view on consistency but as someone involved in the 5.0 negotiations we were not considering tasers. if one thing that's been proven over tasers being debated is it's controversial and dangerous. there's scientific debate about it and therefore i think it's imperative the policy your developing have tasers in mind.

i frankly can't believe san francisco, the policy that would allow someone involved in an assault which is an unlawful threat to a touching or a verbal intention to assault someone that that would be triggering trays trayser -- taser use. the only defense of that is we'll trust the training and we'll trust the officer's common sense and good judgment. and i'm sure they have good judgment but if there's one job for this commission is to not have the difference. you have to set the policies and choices made. i hope the straw poll holds. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm a legislative aide to the supervisor. the supervisor has reviewed the policy and recognizes the efforts of the police commission

to develop sound policy that is flexible and reflects public interests. however tasers are potentially lethal weapons and we have to be clear on the context. in 2016 the voters asked for more oversight and accountability for sfpd following the scandals through the passage of prop g. supervisor cohen supports the policy but sees it as a step in the right direction to make sure the policy for use of tasers is iterative and we will continue to monitor the development of this important policy. thank you for your continued efforts to ensure the safety of the san francisco community. >> commissioner: thank you. >> thank you for drafting the

policy consistent with the doj's recommendation. i think it resulted in a stronger policy. i appreciate the opportunity to participate and thank you for spending the time this evening on the policy. i think the compromises that have been reached are productive. i want to belabor the comments though i agree with them strongly and i hope it holds on assaultive language. i want to address two issues the first is the drive stun mode. i still have not heard an explanation of a use or circumstance the department would like to use this mode. that is not a pain compliant mode. distraction. this is the first time i've heard distraction as a potential use and i'm not sure what it really means but the chief's explanation with respect do not make sense to me. the only possible circumstance that i've heard this could be

used is as a pain compliance mode. and the second topic is special considerations. we aren't encouraging deadly force here. what we're asking is these are populations likely to die. it's like using a firearm on these people. so that's why we proposed the position the department had tak taken that it should only be used as a deadly threat and let me propose another compromise since that didn't hold the day. the further compromise is tasers should not be used against these populations unless no other intermediate -- unless all intermediate threat option not feasible under the circumstances. in other words -- [timed out] >> commissioner marshall: thank

you. >> tasers should not be used unless no other intermediate use of force options are available. >> against the vulnerable population and add a restriction. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> ms. altman. >> commissioner marshall: good evening. >> first, i'm totally opposed to tasers and they're a torture weapon and i have now received a unanimous vote to appeal the vote as illegal because city hall was shut down that night and it will go to the main committee of the sunshine task force. having said that, i want to say the calm discussions of torturing our people that we act

like this is intelligent and calm when we're talking about tortured. i am appalled at the way humans interact with each other. i keep hearing commissioners say the chief will define the policy. if the purpose is to hold us to a higher standard and you keep saying he's going to -- do we want a police commission because if you're going to be on it please use this as a check and balance and not a submission to the chief. i'd appreciate if you'd pay attention when i speak, commissioner. there's respect, commissioner. you said if we're doing this and that and the police are doing that, where's the time and distance? i doesn't see the crisis intervention at work at all during the killing 99 bullets, 10 officers the other day in the commission and the community is

outraged. utterly outraged. and it was a tragedy. and we're not using this de-escalation as it is intended. and we shouldn't have tasers or think about them until the use of force is actually applied and it has not been and now another child is dead in the mission and we made it like a war zone. one of my daughter's friends lives there with two babies. windows were broken and it was outrageous. where the de-escalation. the first thing they said is we're go to shoot you 10 times. [timed out] >> good evening. my name is terry bora and i've been involved in the mental health community for 45 years as the member of the mental health association and we thank you for the work that have you put in

this. we know this is not easy. we've seen over the years many different changes in policy. i testified on tasers 15 years ago so this is not a new subject to us. we really want to see that officers who are carrying tasers complete the 40-hour crisis intervention training and the 20-hour use of force. that gives them the knowledge of dealing with vulnerable populations. this weapon -- as you heard this evening and as you know, can be lethal on many populations. we feel that the crisis intervention training we hope some day will be able to brag and say san francisco has the best cit team and training in the nation. we're not there yet. but we think this policy could be improved greatly by requiring

any officer who is going to carry a taser be 40-hour c.i.t. trained and have 40-hours in the use of force. >> commissioner marshall: thank you, we received your letter on behalf of the mental health association of san francisco and 40-hour training and 20-hour training are part of the policy so thank you. >> good evening. my name is vivian imperiali and i'm past president of the local and state national alliance on mental illness. thank you, first of all for your work on this. think of a cartoon with lightning bolts around the zapped character about the pain ravaging the body. think of that. in contrast, san francisco had

an intervention team with a phenomenal success rate of calming people. what weapons did they use? their trustworthy demeanor and calm convincing words. we ask that your policy include the requirement that every officer issued a taser must first complete crisis intervention training and that whenever possible, those techniques should be the first response rather than shooting. eventually, in a small city officers may confront someone they know and will hesitate to shoot a taser and inflect inhumane agony. here's a strategy. treat everyone as if they were someone you know. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. good evening. >> good evening.

jennifer friden babach. i want to thank you for thoughtful consideration. we've been very opposed to the implementation of the weapon but given your choosing to move forward on it we want to see careful consideration in the development of this policy. i want to focus my comments around the special considerations and i'd appreciate it if the body revisited this particular point. basically what the policy is saying in essence you're asking officers to use direction on populations that are in severe danger of death when these are used, pregnant women, the fetus will die, folks on psychiatric medications when interacting

with the taser can cause heart failure. we need a higher standard. the original idea is because they're potentially lethal you need that lethal standard before you're using the taser. it's not saying to use a gun, it's saying when you're using this weapon at that higher -- if that's not going to go in terms of compromised language and david's idea is good but in terms of making sure there's no immediate force is used but i want to add to that and point out that the dpa had a recommendation that was not discussed which was around when bodily harm is at risk. that's not necessarily a lethal force but a compromise we need a higher level. these are high stakes and

officers need to know what they are. thank you. >> >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> good evening. i had a nice speech but this went on so long, you don't even need tasers no more. bring them here and let them sit in them seats for two hours, that's torture. [laughter] you could tase me and a wouldn't feel it in my behind. a taser is a weapon. it's a torture weapon. and pain compliance is torture and if you don't think so there's a bunch of pows that will tell you different. i believe this in my heart, we do not need tasers out here. all we need is training and some cops with integrity and morals

and chief, get rid of those tasers. teach the officers how to be more community friendly. we don't need a bunch of young rookies with a brand new weapon who are going to pretend they're fearing for their life and shoot somebody and someone passes away and then have you two lives destroyed. i know you'll rally around the officer and tell him it's justified but it won't be. it will be another person out here that is dead for no reason at all. i think y'all are a great group of people. thank you. >> hello. i'm a human rights organizer at the commission of homelessness.

i can tell you the population that your officers are encountering varies. i meet the 70-year-old white woman homeless and i see the homeless honduran and now we're giving them more tools and we have to be cautious as to how civil rights and we have to raise the standard of how we're interacting with the public. i think it's very important we remove the use of discretion of high-risk folks. we have to acknowledge they're weapons. and i'm not implying that's what's going to happen but we need to push to have higher

standards. i'm going to reiterate this the department needs to consider a taser review board. and we need to understand how the weapons are being used. and i'll be asking we make sure it's only when the subject faces immediate harm. thank you very much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you very much. >> thank you commissioners for your time. my name is kevin ortiz. i wanted to thank you guys for clarifying on calling tasers weapons. that's what they are. the compliance mode say during feature. i don't see the use of tasers against elders and i'll take the officer any day in the ha

hand-to-hand combat and tasers could cause deadly force. seniors are less likely to survive the dry stunt feature and same with teenagers and pregnant woman. it doesn't take into account seniors, children and pregnant women. i hope we can they can me policy clear while the officers are in the force the public has major fears around the police and the weapon will be disproportionately used on the population of color and it need to be determined whether the law is upheld in that matter. thank you for your time. >> commissioner marshall: thank you for yours.

>> hi, my name is victoria and i'm a student at hasting. thank you for having me today. i think we have to first give a moment to the person brutally murdered last week and it shows us right now there's no trust between the people and the sfpd and that will continue to decrease with the use of taser and the only reason we're talking about a policy is because they decide to vote protaser back in september. the policy we're discussing looks bad. after having someone killed by the sfpd last week you can bet when i encounter a police officer i will be verbally resistant to save my life and we