Seriously. Thank you for your time. You know, i just have to address this issue. We began this process of considering e. C. W. s, both with the policy, and then, people came to us and said, dont do the policy and considering whether or not to have them. Start with having them, and then do the policy. Over and over and over again, we heard that, so what did we do . We did what people asked, and now, im hearing all these voices saying well, why isnt there a policy . There isnt a policy because people who have asked for a policy for to have tazers, and then build a policy around it. Do you know how many take this seriously, how many meetings that weve gone to, how many public hearings we have had and by the way, commissioner hirsch is not the only one whos never voted. We never got around to voting, so commissioner hing has never voted on this, nor have i, nor has commissioner melara. We are all taking it seriously. We want to hear what the public has to say, and we have to switch rooms because people wont let us hear what has to be said. It is disruptive, so we come back and try to hear what is being said from the public, from experts, and we cannot hear it. Let us hear what people have to say. Of course i take everything you say seriously. I take everything they say seriously, but i have to hear it, and i have to hear it in a constructive way, and i dont need to hear people answering at me and questioning my blackness or my dayness, or anything else. I know who i am, and i know what i must do, and i just need to hear the information and make the decision. Thank you for your comment. Next speaker. Hi. Im a student from San Francisco state university. Im here to say that San Francisco state students say no to tazers. Weve had our own stake in the issue. I said this at the last Community Meeting in 2013. Our president tried to shove tazers down or throats. We said no, he backed off. What happened in 2015 is that the statewide University Police association then shoved it down or throats for real because they worked it into their labor contract, so were here today to continue our solidarity with our s. S. Community and let us know that we oppose tazers. 30,000 of us oppose tazers. We have passed a resolution through our Student Government that states this very clear. Specifically, sonia melara, you claim to were going to stop questioning individual commissioners. Well, this is my freedom of speech to do that. No, youre going to address us. Thats the rules. No, im going to and im going to find you disruptive if you dont address the commission, so address the commission. Okay, commission, i dont understand why some of you have made efforts to cut the communitys voices out from this debate. I believe that youre putting the field and department of social work to shame. And on tuesday, students came and left 500 out of a thousand plus victims of tazer deaths on your office doors so that you can remember what you all are seeming to forget that tazers kill, and we continue, and that we dont want them, and that we beg you to stop killing us. The only thing you need to stop is your bribed egos. Stop being a puppet of the p. O. A. , of axon, of black rock bank. Whoever votes yes for tazers has been bribed or has some conflict of interest, i believe that. Tazers dont work. They kill. Vote people over profit. Vote no on tazers. Thank you. Yes, maam. Good evening, commissioners. My name is carolina morales, and i am here tonight as the president of the democratic club. I am here to tell you to please dont allow tazers right now. I think we in the club, we actually just had somebody whos part of the community especially gaugement Division Come in to speak to the club on the work thats being done to reform. Weve seen the changing that are happening in leadership. We really commend you for all those amazing changes. Were really concerned about how this can askd special people, who tend to have contact with police. I used to work at Community United against violence, which is the oldest lgbt against Violence Club in the country. I am an immigrant myself, and ive heard a lot of stories of people having difficult interactions with the police, and it gets really scary to have another weapon that even though it is less lethal, its very harmful, right, and its very painful, and we want to make sure that were protecting the community and that were prioritizing deescalation and all of the great reforms that i know youre already working on, so please do consider this. Please dont allow tazers right now in this critical moment, and especially under this federal administration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Any name is gomez santiago, and im also on the board of the harvey milk club. I would have been here earlier, should the building that was a public space not have been locked down according to what i was told by the sheriff. Luckily, an employee of the building was able to let me in so i can come and represent our club tonight. What i see outside is an overwhelming opposition to tazers. Im originally from chicago, although i spent half my life here in the bay area and in San Francisco. What i can say is as someone who is part of the queer and trans community, that the fear of interaction with police is heightened when the arms that they carry are not the words to pacify rather the words to instill fear. By merely staring someone down, but merely not understanding language, culture, Mental Health conditions, it just heightens this opportunity for misunderstanding and for nerves to then preside over interactions that should be deescalated, and so i have seen only people here who are in opposition to this, and i urge you as commissioners, as volunteers, as public servants, to one, open the space, be clear about the process; and second, to make sure that these voices are not here in vain. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Im a member of the San Francisco berniecrats, the dcsf, and the harvey milk club. And all of those clubs are adamantly against tazers. The community does not want tazers. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Next approximate he, please. Hi. Im griffinons jones. Im here to vote against you all introducing tazers to the police force. [ inaudible ] why are we continuing with this narrative . We are told that tazers will be a step forward in protecting officer lives, and the lives of residents who would eyes dii from being shot by an officer, even though there is no statistical rates that a tazer is a proch Lethal Weapon designed to dehumanize and torture people. Reuters documents 2005 incidents in the yunited state in which people died arrefter being tased. This project would require ought to be moved toward the crisis incident veengs Training Program which needs to be given more of a chance if we want the police and community to move forward if we want a Peaceful Community here in San Francisco. Thanks. Thank you. Good evening. Salaryutations. Well, i think the legality that people are talking about is San Francisco administrative code 6715. You were supposed to post that you were going to have Public Comment, and you didnt, and now, you put it on the agenda, which is illegal. Alex nieto, mario woods, Emil Carter Perez lopez, they all would have been dead if you had tazers, all of them. Consider how many times the Police Officers had shot. I believe if moesh two officers if two officers are more to use a tazer on an individual, they would possibly kill them, considering the amount of electricity that theyre going through. I mean, in addition the police arent even using their guns correctly. Mario woods was shot in the nuts. He was shot in the genitalia. When you look at the autopsy reports, he was shot in the genitalia and the back. The police arent even using their firearms correctly, and now you want to give them another weapon to threaten and intimidate people . I mean, just two weeks ago, i was intimidated by a Security Guard to leave the store or he was going to taze me, and this this is your Police Department, this is this is the psychological the way youre going to treat the police i mean, the way youre going to treat the citizens. I mean, we still have those corrupt officers on the police force who called us racial slurs, and now, you want to give them more weapons, and the Police Officers who shot people in the back, like lewis gingora and Emil Carter Perez. Youre opening up another pandoras box by giving these weapons to officers who refuse to follow policy and procedure. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is ellen robinson, and i am a San Francisco resident and a member of the San Francisco chapter of democratic socialists for america of america. Tonight, you are a respected researcher and an epidemiologist tell you what youve heard overwhelmingly from the public throughout this public process, that tazers do not actually reduce the use of guns by Police Officers, nor do they lower the number of Police Officer injuries, but they are used disproportionally on people of color and people who suffer from Mental Health problems just as guns are now. Even chief scott skont tonight conceded that they do disproportionately impact these groups, and he implied that somehow San Francisco would be different, but all of the Accountability Measures that we heard about tonight are applied after the fact, after someone has already been tased, and i dont believe that four or eight hours of training can undo a lifetime of Community Cultural biases. Theres just no justification for spending millions of dollars in public money on something that we know will result in more people being killed, disabled, and traumatized by the San FranciscoPolice Department. Please continue to focus on deescalation, and listen to the people of San Francisco and say no to tazers. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is a graham lewis. Im also a member of the democratic socialists, San Francisco chapter. If youre wondering why this meeting got out of hand, its just because this process feels so hopeless. Ive been at both meetings, and chief scott, you told us, if we get tazers, well do what the community wants, and the community has been very, very clear, undeniably out in huge force against it, and yet you sat up there tonight and made your recommendation, so our elects officials our officials wont listen to us. Its hard, and even worse than that, youre ignoring all the statistics. I dont i mean, im sure you guys have read the reports. I hope you guys have done the research. Tazers dont make us safer. We have a huge body of evidence going against that fact, so youre going against the community, youre going against the facts, thats just really poor leadership. Its shameful. I hope you guys just make the right vote tonight or whenever we vote on it. Thank you. Hello. My name is Dayton Andrews chl im coming from the coalition on homelessness. I think were at a very interesting point in our history where departments across the nation, theyre in a period of transition. Communities are demanding a lot. What was whats so troubling is how it feels like its almost its, like, double speak, right . Like we have these two conflicting concepts in our minds. We constantly hear from the commission we need to hear all the input, we need to hear from these people, we need to quit hearing from these aggressive activists, but we keep coming out the same thing, and they keep saying the same thing, and you keep saying, we should here from more impacted communitied. Well, were here, and were presenting you with our finding, our research, and it doesnt feel like its helping. It feels so hopeless, and folks get more rowdy, and out of control, and you blame us for all of our emotions, and im used to that now. Theres no era that i learned that when i was 15 years old, the first time i was processed. Thats great, and despite all that, i ended up here, and im here to tell you, chief, you need to listen to what the people are telling you. You have so machine ae tools in front of you. I wont even tell you because you know. This is not the way forward. The people are all around you, telling you what you should be doing instead. You have more solutions than you deserve, quite honestly, so please, use what the communitys actually given you and not just go with your own priorities and your own biases. Thank you so much. Good evening. I apologize if im a little nervous. My first time giving Public Comment. My names evan minuteo. I live in glen park San Francisco and im here with the San Francisco chapter of the democratic socialists of america. I think as youve heard from a lot of people, there process has been pretty clearly pretty unfair and undemocratic, all this stopping and starting of the meeting has you know, just makes it harder for people to participate in this process, and i think commissioner dejesus leaving the room to stand with people outside should tell you something about whats going on here. Ill also say on the actual subject of tazers, the United States already has a huge problem with Police Officers killing of black and brown people, and i dont think and a lot of people dont think the solution is to add one more weapon to the arsenal of Police Officers. And finally, because im on the Homelessness Committee of the democratic socialists, that particular issue for me and a lot of people is the the fact that tazers are particularly dangerous for people with existing health issues. We have a huge Homeless Population here in San Francisco, many of whom have those existing health issues, and theyre already being unfairly criminalized and adding, again, one more weapon to the arsenal that will particularly harm some of the most vulnerable members of our community is irresponsible, to please vote no on tazers. Thank you. Good evening. My names tyler. Ive been a resident of San Francisco for about three years. Im also a member of the democratic socialists. I just want to speak really briefly about the process of the meeting. We were down in the overflow room down stairs. I was starting to keep track when Public Comments starting, how many were for and against. I got to zero four and six against, and then, the meeting went into a recess. Those of us that were not in the room, it was very unclear what was happening. For an hour, we were confused. With a meeting with Public Comment, ive never seen this many people wanting to make Public Comments, with this many empty seats. As far as tazer itself, if it does come to a vote tonight, i would just urge everyone to want the documentary killing them safely. I think it gives a really fair shot to the tazer company, which you can see what theyve intended, to have the police used something thats safer than a gun, and you can see the real use, in cities in america. The police were trying to talk to a turman in canada that didnt speak the language, and i think it gives a really clear sense of why these are so dangerous and why so many of us here dont want this through this process or any other, so please vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, commission. My name is john. While im not a resident of San Francisco, im a resident of oakland, i do work here, and i definitely do a lot of business here, as well. I still think that theres a lot of trust and accountability in the San FranciscoPolice Department that needs to happen, and i definitely dont think that theres enough trust and accountability as we can see in all the Community Meetings where 87 of those members oppose these stun guns and tazers, so i really urge you to actually listen to your constituents, listen to those who arent even residents, but, you know, work and do business in your city, and vote against this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Karen fleischmann, justice for mario woods coalition, and the frisco 500, and regular commentator here at the commission. I do want to thank all of the commissioners. I know this is a very difficult position that you are in, that you are basically uncompensated for, and you spend tremendous amount of hours and service to our community, and i know youve done so much work on the use of force policy, and it is having a tremendous impact, and chief scott, i know im not supposed to speak to you directly, but i do really think your leadership is great, and im very pleased that you are the chief of our department. I do firmly believe, however, that now is not the time, nor will it ever be the time to implement tazers in or community when we know we have such a high number of people who are in Mental Health duress and who are experiencing inintoxication, andi intoxication, and i know this is a concern of the commission, that the officers are being called for these Mental Health calls, and these homeless calls, and its not really the right match. We should not be giving them a tool that is going to require them to get close to the person when were asking them to deescalate and do time and distance, and when we know that tazers are most lethal when being used against someone who is in Mental Health duress or who is intoxicated, so i urge you to vote no on this, and to continue our important work in eliminated bias within the department. Im pleased that the bias work group is going to continue to meet and were going to work hard on eliminating bias, and that should be the priority. Look at how much energy is here tonight. We want to rebuild with you. We want to rebuild the trust with the community. This is not the time to get another destructive, dangerous tool to the police. Thank you. Kb evening. My name is daily smith. Im a part of the democratic socialists San Francisco. I also voluntary with the coalition, and i would like to end on a positive note, talking about how i really feel that the reality is you should be spending this money that you would spend on a weapon on crisis intervention training, on deescalation, and you know, actually funding dispatchers dispatch centers and promoting people to get jobs there, but unfortunately, i think its blatantly obvious that this process is is broken, and, i mean, you could say that, but i feel like the reality is it wasnt intended to really hear out the needs of the people and what their concerns really are. Of that 85 of people that said they had concerns, i dont feel its accurate to say some of those concerns were addressed or alleviated. I also feel that the you know, the police have been intentionally deceitful with their presentation of how theyre trying to present this argument at the first, quote, unquote, Community Meeting, which was sketchy, at best, the reality is i did have multiple officers state that the Police Commission and the Police Department was not in talks with axon, but the reality is you all already have a contract with axon for the body cameras. The representative from axon spoke at not only the Police Commission meeting a few months ago, but at the most recent one, and to be quite frank, the analogies that he was using were completely disgusting. The reality is that this turman is selling a product. He is a salesman. He was trying to sell a weapon. He was not trying to ensure Safer Communities, he is not trying to ensure facts. The reality is you need to focus on other areas in order to create Safer Communities and ensure not only officers but the communities that they serve are kept safe, so i implore you to vote no. Hi. My name is evan owski, and im also a member of the democratic socialists of america. Im also cochair of our homelessness working group. So i think its pretty clear what the message from the community is, and is its as the Human Rights Commission pointed out, it is overwhelmingly against tazers, just as it was the last four times that this was brought up, and i dont really see whats changed since it was rejected the last time. Ive been a little bit i hope im wrong about this, but my sense of this process so far as been that its headed towards a foregone conclusion, and you know, the closed door meetings that my colleague mentioned are certainly not helping that impression, and what happened down stairs just now is also certainly not helping my impression of that. I certainly hope im room. I sexual hope you are really listening to what the community is saying tonight, which is that theyre against tazers. And the fact is that there is a trust gap, right, and if the community is going to going to grant the Police Another weapon to use, there has to be trust there, and im just not seeing it. Its going to take a lot a lot of time and effort to rebuild that trust. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. My name is trevor martin. I am the treasurer for the San Francisco berniekcrats. Im also the treasurer fore San Francisco for democracy. Ill most likely repeat what others have said tonight. However, i wont be able to tailor that message, because youre only letting in five people at a time, which i believe is against procedure, but i also think its very cowardly. Theres a rigid dichotomy between what we want to see, which is time and dance, deescalation tactics, and implicit bias, and what we are proposing here today is introducing tazers. There is a dichotomy between Police Accountability and these tazers, in that there is none. You cannot hold these Police Accountable if you look at the restrictions on use, its all subjective. If the subject appears elderly, if the subject appears to be young, appears to be going through a Mental Health crisis or other medical condition, all right, these men and women are not doctors. You cannot expect them to make a diagnosis in a split second before they pull the trigger. There was there was an instance with a young turmaman california Police Officer, but this young man was stopped for suspicious behavior. He was a 14yearold black male, and the suspicious behavior he was taking part in was selfstimdl selfstimulatory hand movements. He had autism, and the police held hem down while he screamed for ten minutes and begged for his life. These people are not doctors, and [ inaudible ] thank you. Next speaker, please. My names ari steveanas. San francisco resident. I have a doctorate degree in electrical engineering. I dont think tazers are appropriate weaponed. I dont think cops need more weapons. I think they needless weapons, and i just want to go on board saying that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My names blake. When i i came in, i heard a very bold Public Statement by the police chief, stating a lot of data that i dont think was i only heard being supported by the representative from axon. Seems like all the other things we heard was contradictory to it. He failed to mention during his Public Comment that his studies received funding from axon while there were actually independent groups. My foyer request that ive submitted has been eventually delayed by the s. F. P. D. Until now. I think whenever i do get the documents, ill see a lot of interesting information about communications with axon and why its been delayed and why you guys might be hiding something, and also, i want to ask you, does anybody here think that the public is in support of tazers . Any one of you all . Can you raise your hand . Wow. Thats great. So i hope you will not vote against the publics interests since you seem to be agreeing with me that the public does not support tazers. In the meeting that you lowesed short a while ago or that you all left, we came up with something that we could do with the 8 million that would be spent on tazers. 24 hour b. A. R. T. , representation for people vasing evictors, more teachers, more deescalation training from cops, free public transit, housing for the homeless. Expabding public health, better bicycle infrastructure, Safe Injection Sites for intravenous drug users. A new bike park. Free bike shares im out of time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. In our august meeting, we took a vote, and we overwhelmingly decided that we wanted to outfit our officers with tazers. We feel its important to support our officers. They need to have the training, but they obviously need to have all the tools in the tool box. They cant do it with what they have currently, and i think we need to support them. Weve been through this issue many times. I feel like im coming here and its ground hog day all over again, and so a decision needs to be made whether to support or, as my mother would say, get off the pot or go in it. So we need to support our officers and do this today. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is rafael trujillo. I am a born and raised resident of San Francisco. I live on Bernal Heights hill, and i am a homeowner, a taxpayer, a voter, a democrat. Im here to ask you to not vote for tazers to grant the San FranciscoPolice Department another weapon in their arsenal. In my belief, i believe that this will only encourage the use of more force. They already have a bucket full of stuff that theyve used on me in the past, and on many. There is the good old reliable billy club, there are many other things that are less lethal, okay . Its a weapon. Its not a tool. If doesnt hit its mark, it escalates the situation in my opinion, and we know that it has to hit the Police Officer whos in charge of this device has to hit the mark, and we know that all the policemen in this situation in this room, even, are not marksmen, because they dont carry that patch that allows them to say that they are marks men, okay . Theyre not. So if you think a yes vote is in my best interest as a city and county taxpayer, homeowner, longterm resident, maybe challenge any of you to see how much longer your familys been in here this city, youre wrong. No, you dont vote for that in my name. Please, vote no to tazers for the Police Department. Next speaker, please. Im general with the democratic socialists of america. I was raised general, and i stong leo pose tazers for cops here in San Francisco. I think that if you represent folks at all, you can see that, like, this is a pretty wide selection of folks who have chosen to spend their friday night at city hall with you, and we dont want tazers, so if you have any intention of representing people who live here in the city, you should really vote know on tazers. We dont need more weapons for folks who continually kill people with no reason. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hey there. My name is darby thomas. Im with the democratic socialists of america, im the cochair, and im here to say vote no on tazers. Overwhelmingly the public has repeatedly, not just in the last few months, in the last decade, in the last 13 years, the public has come out against the s. F. P. D. Getting tazers, and i dont know about you all, but i have it in me to do this every friday, so that s. F. P. D. Does not get tazers, because what happens is theres zero trust between the community and the people that are there to serve us. Its really, really messed up what the situation is, and tazers are not going to be the way we solve it. Ive lived in soma for four years. Im now in the mission not too far from soma. What i see is tons of homeless folks getting harassed and assaulted and brutalized by our police, and knowing that most 911 calls are for people experiencing Mental Health crisis means that i know that tazers are going to be used against those folks than people who look like me. What we need is not to spend 4. 5 million on weapons because the problem is so obviously the fact that we need housing, we need health care, we need so many other enriching services. We do not need more weapons that maim and kill us. I can tell you, im going to do this on every friday. Thank you. We wont be here every friday. Hi. Im gilbert bernstein. I wanted to speak a little bit about this in relation to 911, and other possible uses of the money that could be spent on tazers, so my understanding from a 2010 report is that there are 30911 calls daily for Mental Health 911 calls daily for Mental Health crises, and not only that, 911 is under funded, and theyre providing direct Mental Health through that service. Simply, if this money could be put instead into 911 staffing, that would be something that would keep a lot more residents safe. In addition to that, all of the use of force logs in the department, to my knowledge are still just kept on paper. We have no digitized form, which is accessible through the open data portal. This money could be put toward that, which could be used in far better public decisions thats informed by data, so those are two recommendations for how this money could be better used. Im not sure i really have much else to add. Thank you for being here this late. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is jason prado. Im here with the democratic socialists of San Francisco. Im a property owner, im a software engineer. Im here to ask you to please vote know on tazers. In the soma district where i life, theres a large Homeless Population, but the main way i observe the San FranciscoPolice Department is assisting in the relocation of the Homeless People on my street. Im quite sure that if our police get tazers, theres going to be an ugly new dimension where the police are going to be using tazers, so yeah, i really urge you to vote no on tazers. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. Good evening commissioners. My name is nick, and ive lived in San Francisco for more than 30 years. I have Great Respect for the Police Department, but i think there are many problems, chiefly among them are accountability, use of force, and the relevance of the you know, one of the experts testified earlier he has great patience to wait all these hours to probably repeat what he said before, which is the weapons that you will athe studies have been done on do not offer obsolete tazers that are no lopgnger made or sold, and the new ones which you would be voting on tonight have had no studies done on them, so you are voting, really, about a black hole, i think. But so what concerns me the greatest about the whole issue is accountability. I dont think i think were so far from getting reliable, trustworthy standards of accountability in the Police Department that you should certainly vote know on tazers for the foreseeable future, and i as earlier speakers have said, i hope this doesnt come back again. This is not the way to run a Police Department, which is supposed to be peace officers and not officers who are causing distrust and could be seen as war officers. I urge you to take very seriously the vote you are taking tonight. It will have ramifications for many years to come. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next speaker, please. M. My view is that i believe that violence begets more violence, and that force begeets morbegeets more force. Id like to see more training be done on deescalation and understanding Mental Health and social issues, and i really feel that tazers is not an answer to having less violence, i think it will em bolden Police Officers to shoot first, ask questions later, that they will not hurt anybody by using their tazers, and thats not the right way to go, and i urge you to vote know. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners, president turman, chief scott, intern director henderson. Thank you. Its been a long night, and you all have put a lot of work no this issues, as well as have other community members. Im barbara attard. Im past president of the over sight association of law enforcement, and im also speaking on behalf of the Lawyers Guild this evening. Im also a Second Generation resident, and my grand kids are fourth generation residents. Im here again concerned that were talking about purchasing tazers for San FranciscoPolice Department. San francisco has had the tenacity and insight to fend off tazers. This is the fifth time in how many years . Im also concerned that statements we heard earlier that tazers reduce officer injuries and injuries to members of the public, because the studies that are being cites are studies that have been on the tazer x26. What were looking at purchasing is a tazer x2. There are not theed studies on that weapon. In the letter that i wrote you, i talked about issues that have come up in houston regarding that weapon. Officer was injured, three people were shot after tazer failures. Im also concerned about the process tonight, after an overreaction to a speaker, the meeting was shutdown, and those of us who stayed in the room heard many insightful speakers. I hope they had the patience to come and speak before you tonight. I heard this morning on the radio that 911s a problem thank you, miss attard. All right. Sergeant davis, im told that there are no more speakers in the hallway, is that correct . [ inaudible ] okay. Okay. Any Public Comment further Public Comment in the room . Two more speakers in the hallway. Theyre people that spoke already. Yeah. One more speaker. Good evening. Tracey from meet i can media alliance, and its five hours later in a different room. Good evening. I can barely remember what i want to say, but let me start out with some basics. Youve got a study, 50 cities, 2009, university of california in San Francisco. What did it tell you . It tells you bh cities introduce tazers, the rate of Police Killings go up, the rate of use of gun fire and firearms go up. Thats what happens 50 times over 50 cities, so this idea that were moving to something thats less lethal or that Police Violence is going to go down, its not the case. Tazers get used largely on unarmed people. They get used on people with Mental Health problems, they get used by people on people who are in emotional distress. They get used on victims of police brutality. You have 272 suggestions to work from. You dont need to obsess about just this one. Work on some of the others. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Im informed that there are no more speakers. Hearing no more Public Comment, Public Comment is now closed. All right. We are on the item the item we are on, secretary item 1 e commission report, question do questions, comments, and possible action. All right. To begin this portion, could i please ask that sergeant vigil, mr. Lionisio, mr. Brave, dr. Zhang, and commander walsh come forward so that they can be prepared to answer commissioner questions so that we can move this portion forward, as well. Are we okay. Commissioners, are there questions . Lets take this one at a time. Please use your yeah, button. Mr. Ong hing . Mr. President , are we asking our questions of am i now to ask questions of all the speakers or are we going to concentrate on one speaker . Go on head and ask whatever questions you needed to ask. Okay. So this is my time to ask questions. Correct. Okay. Let me begin with mr. Brave. Yes, commissioner. Mr. Brave, i wrote down something that you said, and it was that and tell me if im misquoting you, that the best way, when when theres a potentially violent suspect that the best way is to take away any volitional control of that person, is that correct. To say it correctly would be to take away volitional control for him to continue to be an immediate threat. Thats when the tazer should be used . Thats not the only time, but that is the optimal time. Wouldnt you say that the optimal thing to do at that point is actually to engage in deescalation techniques . Thats okay. First of all, the two are not mutually exclusive, and yes, if the officer can engage in deescalation techniques, that would be the positive thing to do. However, if the person is an immediate threat that cannot be otherwise the threat be reduced or eliminated but you concede that the first thing they should try is deescalation, time and distance. If the situation permits, yes. The other thing, its been established that some of the speakers here are actually as volunteers, but its clear, youre actually on the payroll of axon, correct. Im salaried employee of axon, and they are paying my expenses to be here tonight. And are you now or have you ever been a shareholder in the corporation . I have receive Stock Options. Ive never purchased any stock, but over the years ive been affiliated with them since 2002, i have received Stock Options from the corporation. Thank you. Sergeant vigil or vigil . Sir. So your testimony with respect to not the new model, correct . Correct, the model that we carrie. Thank y car why carry. Thank you. Thats all i have for you. Dr. Zhang. Yes, sir. Your studys been cited over and over again, and i understand the qualitative difference between your your study, quantitative and others. Let me ask you a question. Whats your response when you hear a person say id rather be tased than shot with a gun . I think its obvious that it is a tazer is less lethal than a gun, but the situations in which a gun would be used versus a tazer are completely separate. One would not be asking to use a tazer in a situation where theres lethal force, as far as i understand it. Therefore, if youre using the tazer in a situation where theres not lethal threat, then, youre taking all of the risk of sudden death without any with less benefit, so, you know, acknowledging that its less lethal, but its not nonlethal, youre taking all of the risk in a nonlethal situation. Right. And you standby your studys finding. Right, and ill highlight a few points. One, it was peer reviewed, which means that it was reviewed by doctors and scientists for methodology, but i will acknowledge its a sevenyearold study and not eightyearold study on a weapon that was the x26, which was not at debate right now, so what we can do is use those lessons in designing policies to, perhaps, mitigate some of the risks that we saw in our study. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. President , i are we, at this time, also i do have some questions for mr. Lionisio, but can we ask questions of the let me look at the agenda the budget analyst. Certainly, if they are still here, which i dont think they are. Theyre not. Well, i find it well, i find it a little bit disturbing that i cant ask questions okay. Well, its not my fault. Right. I understand that its not your fault. But you can ask our director the specific questions. Im sorry. Id rather not. Can i go to im sorry. One second. She said shes available by phone . [ inaudible ] well, lets go to mr. Lionisio, then. Lets go to that while hes talking. Mr. Lionisio, i dont know if youve had a chance to look at the budget analysts report. I did, yes. And it basically, it was a simple calculation that was done. It was take the number of folks potentially that are going to be authorized, and in this case, potentially up to 1900 members of the Police Department and multiply it times the weapons and then add in a few pretty clear costs. I ran the oakland program. Yes. And when you looked at the budget that was put out by the budget analyst, what additional things do you think should be have been added to that to the budget calculation . Well, by their own admission in the report, theres several i. M. s that they felt that they could not calculate. Now, that doesnt mean, and they didnt say that that doesnt mean that those werent real costs, they just didnt have the ability to calculate them at that point. The other thing i thought was lacking was the the numbers that they or the calculations that they had for training. I think they would be considerableably more training dollars that would need to be spent in order to effectively train the department, have the developing a program Training Program having that Training Program postcertified, administering that Training Program. Addition thats just for the online officers. Theyre talking about zp thand they talked about having about 20 different instructors, which i think is a minimum. I have ten stations. In my recommendations, when i was asked some budget questions, i said two to three, i think would be minimum of smes, which would be subject matter experts, instructors, people who had been through armor courses, things like that, because of the geography of the city, and because these things are going to be out there 24 hours a day so thats going to be a substantial figure. That would be a substantial figure. She did allude to something that they thought might be added but she didnt have the ability to add, and that was the cost of training supervisor. Yes. And the collection and evaluation of data. Why do you even have to do that . Well, it as it turns out, from my own personal experience, theres a lot more training that needs to be done than just how to use this weapon. I think ive shared this with the commission on other occasions. In oakland, at one point, i believe we had 17 different Training Programs that we had certified by post. One was a supervisory program, because supervisors need to go on scene when they start to investigate these things, and need to understand the investigatory process. They need to understand what is important with this particular weapon and what separates this weapon from other uses of force, so it it turns out that you dont just go through a certification class and come out knowing you may know how to operate the weapon, but it doesnt necessarily mean that you know all the the the kind of nuances of how to investigate a tazer use or a c. E. D. Use. The other thing that added considerable cost, which, when we started out, we didnt even realize that this was necessary, but we quickly found out, specialty training for tactical teams, for canine units, for evidence technicians. We even had a Training Program for the dispatchers because of the way the our responses were structured. If it was something that met certain criteria, if the 911 call met certain criteria, then the dispatchers it was almost like a a modified e. M. D. System emergency medical dispatch system, where they would go through, and if certain keywords or there were certain questions that were asked. Right. They would make a determination, and they would automatically send a supervisor, they would automatically dispatch fire, they would automatically call for medical. Right. Im actually going to cut you off in the interests of time. Sure. But i get the idea, but youre beginning to sound like its an overwhelming it had many elements to it. Your program had many elements. Its very complex. How did that get reflected in the departments budget. Well, thats interesting. In he can on land, because of the complexity of that program, and i believe to this day i dont know if they still had this, but i was the only program in the oakland Police Department that had its own separate budget, and so i had to go