>> 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

want the mayor to keep his word. the question is trying to make sure he does not allow for prop h which say complete abuse of labor rights by the p.o.a. and continue to work out the words of this one. we can't agree on words for a paper on the policy. we're not near how police officers will be using the deadly weapons on the street. and the reason why chief is bringing up a report from canada opposed to the report saying that tasers are a lethal weapon are because every report in this country shows that when police departments have tasers, deaths go up. thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> thank you. i'm a resident at the tenderloin

i have recently housed a long tenure of homelessness. as part of my recovery i are received a certificate in mental health services and now make minimum wage. as a person in the front lines of mental health i had to receive crisis intervention training for the homeless population with mental health problems. i know how to de-escalate them and now how to keep them from becoming violent for the situations we're in. in are alienated from the treatment of medication to have stable and productive lives they're more likely to be in crisis and come in contact with law enforcement. crisis are often responded to in ways that escalate the problem.

an untrained officer creates a situation. if the officers response is to subdue a mental health patient with force they put everyone at risk. officers must be required to report the efforts that they take to de-escalate a situation before any use of force. the reporting should be required for the use of these weapons should require the officer to delineate the efforts they took to de-escalate before they tried to control the situation with the weapon. i think it's important that they respond to mental health crises

in a more appropriate way. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> i'm evan mclaughlin and it's a pleasure for here discussing the conditions under which are san francisco residents will be electrocuted by police. i think it's clear de-escalation tactics are not being used and implemented. and it's clear that the implementation of tasers will only make the problem worse but here we are. so if san francisco police are going to be armed with tasers we need to be clear the list of people under special consideration -- this say list of people who will be killed by a taser. so the people who are saying this should only be used in the case of deadly force are trying to stop these people from dying.

i think it should be taken extremely seriously. as part of a larger problem when we're expecting police officers to fix the problems we see here in san francisco and across the country but what tools do police officers have to fix the problems? do they have mental health services? do they have jobs? do i -- do they have jobs? they have a baton, police car and gun and now a taser. i hope we all leave here understanding that we not only need to make sure that there are clear restrictions on when this new weapon can be used but we need to shift the way we think about how police are supposed to be utilized and i would like to agree the most important thing is for our current mayor to take

a stance against proposition h. >> commissioner marshall: good evening. >> thank you, kevin benedicto and a stakeholder on behalf of the blue ribbon panel. we'd like to thank the commission for the consideration of these topics and want to focus on a specific issue also raised which is crisis intervention team training which i know is an important point the commissioner raised and voted on in november. it's worth noting the current language on page one only requires the department's use of force policy and crisis intervention team team tactics training. we believe the clearer language is the one suggested by the dpa

and support the bar association which changes just 11 words saying officers who have successfully completed the 40 hours of crisis intervention team training and the department's 20-hour use of force policy update and the crisis intervention field tactics training and training authorized to carry ecds. and after completing the training would ensure all officers operate from the same baseline of training and also that incentivized take the training to have the weapon at their disposal. i'd like to say we support the removal of the language of assaultive and as well as the amendment proposed by commissioner hirsch. thank you very much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you.

good evening. >> good evening, julie tran and behalf of the bar association. i was a member of the use of force working group. i can tell you as mentioned, we considered tasers to be a separate issue to have its own policy should it ever be enacted. i agree with him on that. we're one of the last cities to adopt this weapon therefore we have the opportunity and responsibility to learn what other cities have not learned as we have undertaken this important research. everybody's worked hard on this. this say messy process. i really thank the commissioners for looking at what's been submit and working hard on this together. some great additions have been suggested tonight. thank you for that. there's a couple things i think we might have missed. one, the 40-hours as suggested

by kevin benedicto and we overlook overlooked i.e.d.s. it didn't hit your list, president thurman but we added the slides from dr. hing showing seconds truly matter and only officers with an i.e.d. in their vehicles have access to one and the recommendation, i believe on page three, paragraph five is to request one if they think they're going to be using one. we are dealing with many vulnerable people in the city. that's why that language restricted -- this is the one situation where you do use a taser instead of a gun. it's the only situation because using a taser on this vulnerable population will likely result in their death and if you don't have an a.e.d. then we're in trouble so let's make sure we

are paying tension to the warnings from the company and protecting citizens going forward. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> hello. gilbert brenstein. i work with democratic socialists and other groups. i want to speak to two things. first is the question the chief brought up on intermediate use of force and classifying tasers as intermediate use of force. the stunt drive mode in particular is often involved in killings, needless killings with tasers such as nate grier in east bay and hayward. i think the intention of the proposed language and other people's comments is that tasers

be treated as a category between intermediate use of force and deadly force and they're a last line with intermediate chief of force and i understand they were used instead of punching someone to get someone off of you which means they're not an alternative to guns. they're proposed as an alternative to all the other forms of immediate use of force. the second issue, real quick, is about the protected populations in psychiatric issues and proposed language if the subject appears to be having a mental health crisis covers a large number of additional cases. you should be able to expect officers to do that because they receive training and they impose

5150s. they're already being asked to assess. >> john crew. i want to focus my comments more on the context for a second and less on the specifics about what happens after you adopt this policy and i want to thank the other people in thank you for the time and attention you spend on this and the chief's involvement and stakeholders. there's the saying you don't want to see the sausage get made but i disagree. the sausage takes better if you do it in public. you're making a more informed decision. officers for justice has been sitting here the last three hours because they care about the communities they serve and yet the p.o.a. cannot do us the courtesy of coming and engaging on the policy. i think i heard the commissioner saying about conferring after this.

two years ago when you started the use of force reform discussion the aclu said there's a case on point. you do not have to meet on confer on policy reform. d.h.r. said we don't have to but we want to and you adopted the policy in june 2016, people said speed this up, you don't want to get stuck in endless meet-and-confer and six months during the time period the p.o.a. launched a campaign attacking the officers by name and went after the department. during that process they launched a political campaign and in the end they didn't agree and they sued. you voted and they lost three times in superior court. they're now in appellate court. the court has ruled you don't have to meet-and-confer on this. why are you doing it on a taser policy when they're holding a gun to our head saying give us what we want or we'll spend

$500,000 on prop h. do not allow p.o.a. to manipulate them so all this is hanging until election day. thank you for your time. >> i'm john perez, this is my first time in front of the commission. i'm working at the coalition of homelessness. for this to be a responsible transparent conversation you need to acknowledge the introduction of the taser to san francisco will inevitably kill vulnerable people from san francisco the city has failed and i'm talking about just stun drive mode and what it means for the vulnerable san franciscans you will murder with tasers is disgusting to me. i feel the disgust in the room and will grow as the murders

stick up. it's important you commit to not murdering those vulnerable individuals. we must it -- look at it with clear language and process. thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> good evening president turman, director henderson. i too appreciate all the work you've done on this policy. i disagree with the decision to arm officers with tasers. i appreciate your policy states that each use of taser will be investigated. there was some discussion of public reporting on taser use but not the specifics. this weapon has been controversial and to ensure transparency i urge that you report publicly how many times

tasers are used, whether the use was in policy whether the taser was effective. how many cycles were used in each incident and the demographics of people tasered. i also want to acknowledge today the amazing show of courage and commitment that we saw in young people who walked out of their schools to protest guns on our streets and calling on our legislators to stand up to the bullying n.r.a. i want to acknowledge our chief for standing up to the bullying p.o.a. i thank the commissioners not afraid to stand up and create a strong policy and take a stand against proposition h. thank you so much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. good evening, ms. brian. >> good evening, commissioners,

chief and director of d.p.a., kelly brian from the western decision. i like to come when i have upbeat and positive things to say and i've had good interactions with police officers but there's a couple things that have concerned me lately. the other day there was a police suv and had a man inside who was very upset and the officers seemed intent to get him in the car and i kept yelling at him time, distance and space. they seemed to back off the one thing that changed the dynamic it was a black man and when a black officer showed up the dynamic changed so it's good to have culturally competent people to these situations but i was disappointed. at the same time, people who saw the incident and what was going on witnesses were being allowed to leave while the police officers were talking to each

other and i'd like to see police officers talk more to the public about what they saw. i feel like the incident in the mission was another incident where no time, distance and p e pace -- space was employed and this was heartbreaking. i want to say i support the human rights commission recommendations. i think it's really important young people, children, youth are safeguard and protect from this. so i think the discretionary populations that are high risk will end up hurt and killed. i hope 40 hours of c.i.t. training and 20 hour of use of force training should be mandatory and renewed and should be refresher training. the tasers still make me nervous and oppose them and hope you implement them slowly and carefully and keep working on the time, distance and space with the officers because some have the message and some don't and it's scary.

thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. any further public comment? >> tom gilberti. e ers tasers are weapons. the last time i was at the board of supervisors chamber i remember the film a man presented for tasers and there were two men in each other's face and taser took one person down and that's not appropriate need. anytime you're that close to a person you can stick a taser there's an alternative. they also used the example of two officers holding a man down on the ground and another man pulling a taser out. if two officers are hold man or a woman or anybody down, a taser

is inappropriate. i would rather see you grab a rope and tie the gentlemen's feet up. tasers are close encounters. we could use alternatives instead of the taser that are much less -- that can do damage. i would like to see how many tasers pulls versus guns drawn. the tasers should -- by definition, reduce those shots. if it's not the tasers are not being effective. i'd also like to make sure that we have -- when we deal with the

tasers we have a racial response who's getting shot. thank you for your time. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. any further public comment? >> good evening. michelle brathers candidate and i live here in san francisco. proposition h policy for the use of tasers by san francisco police officers would override civilian oversight and force the city to spend millions on the dangerous weapons and undermine the use of force policy. the san francisco police officers association, who have opposed every single major effort to reform the sfpd ponied

up $80,000 for this proposition h, why? so some egos can be puffed up more? is that it? we don't need more weapons. where is martin? are you here? why aren't you talking with him? he is pushing for these things. 27% of the sfpd live here in san francisco. that was by last estimate that means the rest of them don't live in our city or share our values as san franciscans. we don't want tasers, we never have but that got lost in the equation. i would love it if the commission could bring martin halloran here and have a discussion with him. it's time. well overdue. thank you. [please stand by] .

. >> because the more displacements of our communities come in to enforce that town, it's like an alien trying to enforce or occupy a community that they don't know, and the only way to respond to that is with negative response because they don't know how the community functions. and without the neighborly love or know-how, they're not going to enforce laws or policies to hopefully deescalate a situation that does not result in a person's death or permanent disability because of misuse. thank you. >> president turman: thank you. any further public comment?

seeing none, public comment is now closed. all right. commissioners, so we have set forth the policy that is before us, including the amendments as discussed. i'll entertain an appropriate motion at this point. >> okay. could i -- okay. i move that the commission approve general order 5.02, including appendix(a) as revised by the commission based on the straw poll taken on each item discussed. >> president turman: okay. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> president turman: seconded by marshall. all right. discussion. commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: i need a clarification now on the hours of training that are

required. i heard you say that there are a 40/20 hour training fiermt. >> president turman: right. >> commissioner hirsch: i've also heard that there are not. >> president turman: the traini training that is notes in the policies are a 40 hour and 20 hour course. >> commissioner hirsch: okay. thank you. >> president turman: commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: i just want to add the bar association brought up about the iad's being in the car. i know that's part of it. i saw an e-mail about it, is that something that we're doing, chief, that we're starting to equip all of our vehicles at this point. >> we have the funding, so in the implementation phase of rolling this out --

>> so by the time we roll this out, every vehicle will have an iad. >> commissioner dejesus: point of clarification, i think the bar association was worried that everyone would have tazers. police on horses, police on motorcycles, everyone was going to have an iad. the question was, if it's foreseeable, can they request a squad car with an iad, that's another little sentence that they're going to have because there's a lot of officers -- >> i think when we discussed this, we said that when this happens, the officer will call on a supervisor, and they will be bringing one because the fact is you can never foresee that you're going to use -- and if you're on a bicycle, you're never going to be carrying one. >> commissioner dejesus: let me just say something. we used to say the same thing for a commissioner --

>> president turman: the clarifications are over. step back to the list. commissioner ong hing. >> commissioner ong hing: i'm not sure how you want to handle this issue that i want to raise, mr. president. it could be on another straw vote. i do want to revisit, either as an offering as an amendment or as digression into another straw vote, the special considerations section given the -- the compromise language that was raised by -- by mr. rizk and miss friedenbach. >> president turman: okay. why don't you propose that and see if that's successful. >> why don't we take a motion on this. >> president turman: well, why don't we hear what he has to say, because we may want to add

it. so -- hi so -- >> commissioner ong hing: so if you turn to the page on special considerations, which is page six of what we have. >> commissioner dejesus: okay hi. >> commissioner ong hing: i believe that the department understands that -- that there's a heightened risk of an adverse reaction to the use of these weapons on certain subjects because that's what the first sentence is. and it begins, officers shall be aware of the possible heightened risk of an adverse action from the use on certain subjects. the problem is from there on, from there on, it's advisory, so it doesn't actually have any -- any strength. and so what i would propose is that the next sentence be changed: officers are prohibited from using the weapon on such subjects, and there's where i go to the

language that was proposed: unless no other intermediate use of force is available, something like that, so that we understand that the concern that the chief had, it was eliminating the possibility of an intermediate use of force. we say that, that we acknowledge that it can be done, but it be directive that officers are prohibited from using unless no other intermediate use of force is available. >> president turman: okay. so -- >> commissioner ong hing: and one more thing to add. that would be consistent with the next -- right under that, that's part one, right, on that page? part two, which is right under that is officers shall not use these weapons on handcuffed or

restrained persons unless the subject's behavior causes intermediate risk, so it would actually be consistent with part two of that section. >> can i ask a question. i need to hear an example of how that would work because i'm picturing a pregnant women that's creating a danger to people around here. you're saying you don't want a tazer to be used, but you're saying a club could be used. >> commissioner ong hing: no. i'm saying in thosition situations where she's creating a danger to other people, then, it could be used. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner ong hing: short of that circumstance. >> commissioner hirsch: so isn't that the case now? that's the policy that we're about to adopt now? hing hi >> commissioner ong hing: no. the policy is something they might consider, but it's not a mandate that they use it. >> commissioner dejesus: second the motion. >> president turman: it's not a motion.

>> commissioner dejesus: i'm sorry. second the amendment. >> president turman: we're going to take a straw poll on that. all in favor of -- generally take a straw poll on whether or not we would be interested in -- substitute in the language that commissioner ong hing has suggested for the -- a special consideration as it relates to vulnerable populations? let me just see a show of hands if you would be interested in adding that language in. okay. all right. so next, director henderson. >> i just wanted to clarify, again, on that training. i think there's a misunderstanding in the 1(b) section. >> president turman: i'm sorry. we're voting here. [ inaudible ] >> president turman: all right. commissioners, any -- any -- any comments from commissioners? >> commissioner hirsch: yes.

i'm still hearing from the dpa that our language does not include 40 hours of c.i.t. training. that includes only the field tactics training which is 20 hours. i'm voting on this with the representation and the belief that it's 40. >> president turman: and that was the representation that i got at the -- at the stakeholders group, and that's what i specifically said should be included. what is -- what is the position of the department? >> the department -- the department does not object to the 40-hour training. who can argue with more training? >> president turman: you what? >> who can argue with more training. we can't object to that. >> president turman: so the training now the 40-hour training and the 20-hour training. >> commissioner, i don't believe it spells it out. >> president turman: it doesn't say 40 and 20, but the two trainings, i understand, are 40 hours and 20 hours. is that correct? >> that is correct. it doesn't state that. >> president turman: it doesn't state the number of

hours, but that's what they are, is that correct? >> that's what they will be, yes. >> president turman: do we need it to specifically say 40 and 20. >> commissioner hirsch: no, that's what they are. >> president turman: all right. >> commissioner dejesus: 'cause when i asked that question, i was told they were only going to do the 20 hours c.i.t. training. >> president turman: there are two trainings. one's a 40 hour, and one's a 20 hour. all right. any other commissioner comments? director henderson. you had a button on. >> it was. it was about the training that you just clarified on that issue. 40 hours for c.i.t. >> president turman: all right. i have a -- i have the motion to approve dgo 5.02 and appendix(a) to that dgo as

revised specifically through the amendment process of this commission. based on the straw vote. before we go on thto that, i de an amendment. we have no duty to meet and confer with the p.o.a. on this, so that language is struck out. what the department has to do is them, but this commission has no duty to send this to the -- to the p.o.a., and i don't -- you know, what the department does is what the department does, but i don't have to approve -- i don't need the p.o.a.'s permission, and i have -- there's state law that says i don't -- case law on this, so i am not approving a measure that says the p.o.a. has to meet and confer on. what the department has to do, what they -- the agreements they've made, that's on them. there's no agreement by this commission to do that. so that part, struck out.

do you accept that amendment? >> commissioner hirsch: i second it. >> if it's legal, yes. >> president turman: do you want me to call -- do you want me to call mr. crew up here and read the -- >> no. i don't. city policy -- >> president turman: the department can do what the department has to do. i'm telling you what the commission has to do. we don't have to send anything. >> you're the chair. thank you. >> president turman: all right. do you accept the amendment? >> i accept it if it's -- as i said, under legal terms. >> president turman: mr. crew, do you have the case citation? >> no. >> president turman: i want the record to be clear. >> thank you, commissioner. i don't have the case on me. it's san jose police association. you have a copy filed by the

aclu and the bar association. there was recently a leigh agu california cities case file that says this was decades of cases. >> president turman: thank you so much. so is it accepted? >> accepted to me. >> president turman: commissioner, is the amendment accepted? >> i accept it. >> president turman: all right. thank you. >> should we strike that? >> president turman: roll call vote? [ inaudible ] >> president turman: okay. do we need a roll call vote? roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion to approve dgo 5.02 and the appendix as revised by discussions and based on the straw vote as taken by the

commissioners -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: the motion passes, 6-1 with commissioner hing in the disent. >> we are done.

>> president turman: okay. secretary kilshaw, comments to the commission. >> report on recent police department activities including weekly events, major crime trends and announcements. >> commission, i'm going to keep this very brief. >> good. >> basically, i will start with our crime statistics, and we're -- this is as of march 14th. good news to report in terms of how we are starting out compared to this time last year. we're 31% down in shootings, or shooting victims. we are -- sorry. wrong numbers.

strike that. strike the -- let me make a correction. we are 8% down in homicides -- i mean, 27% down in homicides. we have eight this year, as opposed to 11 last year. we're up 1% slightly on assaults, and we're up slightly in terms of human trafficking cases reports, six opposed to two last year. property crimes we're down 33 is, burglaries down on motor vehicle thefts. we're up slightly 2.4% on arson and larceny thefts. i'd also like to say with significant effort and collaboration on our auto burglary effort, we're actually 18% down year to date on auto burglaries. that's encouraging news, considering the past year of how we ended up in that category. special events, we had the student protest today that went

well with no problems reported. this coming saturday, there's a st. patrick's day event, and a traffic safety operation with the ots grant, and that's actually happening tonight and on the 22nd and 28th, and that'll focus on bicycle pedestrian safety. this past week, we had our town hall and our most recently officer involved shooting. a lot of comments and passion from the community. we'll take those comments, and that definitely will be many of the things that we heard from the community will be considered in terms of the policies and the issues that were raised. and it was a very, very well attended event with over 200 people, and we appreciate that the community was there to speak and let us hear from them, so that concludes my report. >> president turman: any questions for the chief?

>> i'm going to report, i went to the sametu. >> president turman: all right. next. >> clerk: item eight, dpa director's report. report on recent dpa activities and announcements. >> several announcements -- no, i don't. i don't. my candidacy or pending candidacy has gone to the board today. it'll be referred again next week. in that time, my new investigators have come on board. i'm excited about them. they were here for tonight's meeting for the first time, coming to a police commission. >> and they ran away. >> they were here for a long time. welcome to police commission, mbpa. i also have my chief of staff is here, thank you so much for your work. some of the other investigators were here tonight, too, in case

anyone has any information for the dpa or complaints to make with my office, we are here and present. that's it. >> president turman: thank you. director henderson. any questions for director henderson? director henderson, i was unable to attend the rules committee meeting because i was -- this afternoon, but i heard some reports, and if anyone has not had a chance to read the six-month report from the dpa, i urge them to do so. you have made tremendous strides since taking the office. i wish i could have been there to support you. i did send someone to speak on my behalf. thank you for the tremendous work that you and everyone in your office has been doing on behalf of us. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> president turman: next item. >> clerk: item 1-c, reports,

commission president's report, commissioners' report. >> president turman: okay. i just had one small report. i just want to get this out. we will not be voting on item three. we will not be taking up item three, and i'm not about to make a political statement of any sort, but i do want to say this. i have heard some reports as of late from different news media and other folks. we as commission sat together and chose smart, progressive reforming independent minded chief who is doing a fabulous job. he stepped out and made a decision that was tough to make. his decision is not reflective of a lack of care of officers or the people of san francisco. it is about judgment, it is

about diligence, it is about overall care for this department and this community. i cannot thank you enough for the year-plus service that you have given the city and county of san francisco. i cannot thank you enough for all the things you do. now as plainly seen tonight, you and i don't always agree, and they should hear some of those, you know, regular meetings you and i have. they would really be shocked to hear that you and i don't agree, but what i do agree with is your ability to make informed decisions to standup and take the head, to do what is right, to call it out when you think something's wrong, and that's what makes you a great chief, and that's what makes me hope that you are in san francisco for a very, very long time. thank you for your service.

[applause]. >> president turman: there'll be no clapping. all right. >> i'd like to thank the commission for that. i thank you for the entire commission. i definitely -- i and the department appreciate what you do, as well, and your support, so thank you. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: so i want to echo. i want to thank you, commissioner turman for also being brave and letting the public know what we're doing here, rather than the hyperbole that has been put out in the public. but i was your representative. i did go to the monday night meeting in the mission, and it was the first time that the public heard that 99 shots were fired by ten officers into this trunk of the car, but what was very disturbing to the neighborhood was it was a two-door, and so there was a teenage girl in the back seat, so she did exactly as instructed. put her hands up, but couldn't

get out. she was sitting in the back seat when 99 shots were fired, and the mother was there and the teenagers were appalled that no one helped her get out of the car. they were taken aback by how quickly things happened, the shouting, shouting show your hands or i'm going to shoot you. no deescalation. they were really pointing out our own policy and saying wh e where's deescalation. they were very, very upset, but some of the things they said is, you know, we cannot heal from the trauma if you continue to inflict trauma in our community, and it's like every time we're getting to a point where we're changing policy, we're working with the community, we're trying to be collaborative, the scab gets

pulled off, so there was a lot of hurt, a lot of anger, a lot of shock about how this thing went down. people testified that their homes were shot, windows were broken. mothers had kids hiding in the bathtub because of the number of bullets that went down, the destruction of property in the middle of a very highly congested mission district. so they wanted to know, you know, thiey criticized us, the criticized dpa, and how do we ensure that the use of force policy is really being enforced, and how is it being enforced? the community policing dgo, and they went through it, and part of the thing is the community's willing to help train the deescalation, who could have helped, who could have translated sooner if that was the issue. i have to tell you it was very emotional. there was a lot of great

comments that were made, a lot of insight that were made, and those are the things that we need to hear. that's my report. >> president turman: thank you, commissioner. any other commissioner reports? thank you. next line item, please. >> clerk: item 1-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future meetings, action. >> president turman: commissioners, any items we need to schedule? okay. >> clerk: and just for members of the public, the next commission meeting westbound next wednesday, march 21st here at city hall in room 400 beginning at 5:30 p.m. >> actually, commissioner dejesus brought up something very important that we need to

make an announcement. as you know, we have a police commission staff, we have sergeant ware, we have sergeant kilshaw, but officer ryan jones of our office are proud to announce that he and his wife are the proud parent of justgen rye justgen -- justin ryan jones. congratulations, and i'm sure you're home watching us today. >> president turman: with that, public comment on items, i'm going to call it 1-a through d. seeing none, public comment is now closed. all right. next line item, please. >> clerk: item four, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but

are within the subject matter jurisdiction. speakers hard address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners and dpa or police personnel. neither police or dpa personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and dpa personnel should refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. >> president turman: all right. understanding that it has been a long night, and we have pulled our hair out, and we have gone through this policy several times, is there any public -- general public comment on items not on the agenda? >> tom gilberti. 99 bullets is a lot. it reminds me of mario woods

with their five officers in that position with their guns drawn that we don't want to see anymore. i hope we can work on that. i hope we can work on that. the police are -- have a -- have a tough time. we just -- on the television within the last few days, we had a jaywalker who was killed. that rubs off on everybody. that's tough. i live in south beach ma reari apartments, and there was an episode today at south beach marina apartments. somebody was pulled in by the police. from what i understand, there were, like, 60 officers surrounding a gentleman who was trying to hide from the police. i didn't hear about it. first i heard about it was in the elevator coming down to coming here. and this supposedly happen around noon.

i heard the helicopter, and then, i heard a siren. i heard nothing else. so in that regard, if that happened, if that's true, congratulations for the police for not causing more of an alarm and causing more -- creating a situation that's more tense. i agree on -- on the tazers. >> president turman: tazers have already been discussed. move on. >> we need -- we need better. we need better. i would like to see how many -- deaths from tazers are going to happen. >> president turman: sir. >> and i would like to compare that with the number of deaths that we have when we had the keratoid procedure. we have made a -- we have made a mistake. thank you. >> president turman: thank you. any further public comment?

okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. secretary kilshaw. >> clerk: adjournment. >> president turman: it comes about an hour and a half earlier than i anticipated. >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> president turman: all in favor? thank you, ladies and gentlemen. this meeting is now adjourned. .

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> i wanted to wish you a best wishes and congratulations the community has shifted a lot of when i was growing up in the 60s and 50's a good portion of chicano-american chinese-american lived in north beach a nob hill community. >> as part the immigrant family is some of the recreation centers are making people have the ability to get together and meet 0 other people if communities in the 60s a 70s and 80s and 90s saw a move to the richmond the sunset district and more

recently out to the excelsior the avenue community as well as the ensuring u bayview so chinese family living all over the city and when he grape it was in this area. >> we're united. >> and growing up in the area that was a big part of the my leave you know playing basketball and mycy took band lessons and grew up. >> (speaking foreign language.)

>> allergies welcome to the community fair it kicks off three weeks of celebrations for the year and let's keep everybody safe and celebrate the biggest parade outside of china on february 11th go best wishes and congratulations and 3, 2, 1 happy enough is enough. >> i grew up volley ball education and in media professional contrary as an educator he work with all skids whether or not caucasian hispanic and i african-american cumber a lot of arrest binge kids my philosophy to work with all kids but being here and griping in the chinese

community being a chinese-american is important going to american school during the day but went to chinese school that is community is important working with all the kids and having them exposed to all culture it is important to me. >> it is a mask evening. >> i'd like to thank you a you all to celebrate an installation of the days here in the asian art museum. >> one time has become so many things in the past two centuries because of the different did i licks the immigration officer didn't understand it became no standard chinese marine or cantonese sproupgs it became so many different sounds this is convenient for the

immigration officer this okay your family name so this tells the generations of immigrants where they come from and also many stories behind it too. >> and what a better way to celebrate the enough is enough nuru with the light nothing is more important at an the hope the energy we. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> relative to the current administration it is, it is touching very worrisome for our immigrant frames you know and some of the stability in the country and i know how this new

president is doing you know immigration as well as immigrants (fireworks) later than you think new year the largest holiday no asia and china those of us when my grandparents came over in the 19 hundreds and celebrated in the united states chinese nuru is traditional with a lot of meani meaning. >> good afternoon my name is carmen chu assessor-recorder i want to wish everything a happy new year thank you for joining us i want to