Undermine that would presumably been in the vacuums and thorough and exhaustive briefing this is legal and feasible and doable and an intent or distinct possibility but it is more of an afterthought as one potential argument why this is a problem and when he pressed the owner on this particular issue it was clear i dont know, there really see any real desire to do that development i dont see this is a situation are where the laboring are undermine the housing and clear to me this doesnt meet for the proponents of landmarking that stopping the development is not their goal there is no goal to develop that lot beyond what is there so im comfortable supporting this landmarking and ill make a motion to for the record that with a positive remedies. Supervisor peskin i was going to ask to associate myself with the finding made in the ordinance that is before us that was introduced by supervisor farrell and would add a friendly amendment it be sent as a report. He said that. That concludes my remarks. I too represent the southeast part and dealt with landmarking of trees unlike this case ive seen neighbors from moving forward and this is not the spirit of the intent i do believe the neighbors are generously in love with the tree and happy to support the motion that is this committee and madam clerk will be supported unanimously please note it shall come out of Committee Report without objection this motion passes. Any other madam clerk, is there any further business before this body . Theres no further business. Were adjourned thank you pilaties. Its a creation, an old regimen of exercise. Really based on core engagement and core structure and core development. We do a lot of exercise in developing that and think about lengthening of the spine and our muscles. If youre a runner, if youre into kayaking, martial arts, cycling pilates are for you. Programs are variety year around at various locations and to learn more come to the please silence all Electronic Devices. And can you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Commissioner president loftus im not thank you, sergeant commissioner president loftus commissioner turman commissioner marshall commissioner dejesus commissioner mazzuco commissioner wong commissioner wong is in route and commissioner serlina have you a quorum and greg suhr the police chief and director the occ joyce hicks. Thank you sergeant id like to welcome everyone to the wednesday, may 4, 2016, Police Commission meeting i do have to start that meeting acknowledging the place were in as a city were here every once to do the work and there are still a lot of folks grieving and concerned and feeling like all the work were doing still isnt enough together is about continuing this work in actor and doing the work youll see the agenda from university of california, San Francisco to updates on collaborative reform to how were we keeping our streets save and the commission is doing the work and acknowledging there are a lot of folks still in pain and grieving and that for three and four no way just reaffirms why i do this service. Thank you lets go ahead and call line item. Commissioners for the record item 4a one the presentation of the First Quarter felt finding and recommendations n focusing is taken off the agenda. It is just the last report. Item one adoption of approval of the minutes minutes for april 6th and 20th of 2016. Colleagues you have in your packets minutes any correction to the minutes. Is there a motion . Second. Second. All in favor, say i. I. Public comment. Oh, any Public Comment on the minutes. Hernandez o hearing none, Public Comment is closed. That item passes southeast. Item 2 consent calendar receive and file action sfpd occ document protocol for 2016 a report from the occ that indicates compliance between the department and the occ the department i would note has done an excellent job in producing the documents any questions on this matter. Any Public Comment . Hearing none, Public Comment is closed. Another motion all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . That item passes sergeant, next line item. Item 3 Public Comment the public is welcome to address the commission on items not on tonights agenda but within the jurisdiction of the commission. Please direct your questions to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or departments or occi personal. Two minutes. Okay please direct your questions to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or departments or occi personal. Under Police Commission rules of order neither the Police Department, occi or commissioners are to respond to the questions Police Commission should enter into debates and please limit your comments to 3 minutes, please. 2 minutes. Thank you good evening and welcome. Commissioners ray hart for San Francisco open government. Two weeks ago when i was here he was pubically accused of violating the mayors policy on harassment either the president has not read those and didnt understand that is protected classes my comments didnt fall under this is nithsz or know and choose to federal and local accuse any in public on television of violating the mayors policy im owed an apology i didnt violate the mayors policy if i dont ill file a complaint under the sunshine ordinance for subpoena pressing Public Comment to pubically denigrated and undercut my standing as a member of the community and my right as a citizen to make Public Comment and inflame people against me i only said Something Like that that tilts on the bore which i read in dozens. Ill. Of literature. Im going to let you finish i want to hear everything you have to said. The same unique was used at me at the Library Commission and accused of violating the policy i didnt and end up in the estoppel with the Library Commission being heard on tape saying i know 12 people that could buyer him. So basically Public Comment in the city i have miff the mayor was found in violation of e racing his calendar i think was a great big deal. Part of any obligation to insure any comments made that could be often to a protected class and women are you make sure i indicate that is not the opinion of this commission so that anybody here an employer or member of the public feels weve infringed on their Voting Rights next item, please. Good afternoon commissioner president loftus and commissioners im former police compared a nature San Francisco born and raised and past the half century mark im here to say congratulations chief even this is difficult times to reiterate what i said Property Line and pubically said i watch colonel our the last 25 years and had the privilege of working with you in the Mission District i know how to much you care and watched you when you were the Commanding Office and gave gave the respective to our communities congratulate you 5 years have been difficult but i know we will see you complete your task as you had a job and will do that commissioners, i ask you utensil start to think outside the box understand that we all have those prerockets but now is one of the most difficult times in the history of the city and the Police Department the man that is sitting there with the stars cant do the job alone so you have prerequisites i understand that is like being in a little box but push against the sides and think outside the box never said i expect anyone to violate dlus but things you can do i wish you well and make sure this city whole and bring the trust and confidence in the Police Department. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. Good evening thank you for the smile and welcome peter yeah. I went to remind ive been here before the statement in the least of me was a reference to the animals and the School Systems and churches never teach the children that a long time people einstein and jesus and Martin Luther king and hundreds and hundreds of beacons because murder included the animals were in a nation full of turmoil in a city that is has turmoil is like a rose that is ready to bloom i stopped down and given they gave me a piece of my mind at the mission the protesters oh, it is about brown and black what go you know the corrupt people that maintain the power by the colored i said wake up i came down also to award chief suhr the captain cojack award for maintaining under adverse politics and tootsie role cops sent to the Mission Street soon and in regards to the stickerers i didnt hear of a fast people put on weight and drinking chocolate shakes. Everyone get two minutes at any rate well follow the rules youre next youre next go ahead finish. I really want to get a chance to hear from you and if you dont chanting . I dont get to hear from everyone. Hey guys i want to hear from etch of i want to hear from etch of you you want to hear from everyone we will adjourn and youll not get our time well adjourn and we will recess and youll not get your time do you want to talk to us do you want to talk to us two minutes no, no two minutes do you want to be heard. Do you want to be heard. And everyone gets two minutes even e everybody gets two minutes i want you guys help if you want to participate if you want to participate okay. Were in adjournment until we can do this not adjourn well take a recess and not to do the work chanting we have an overflow room call the next line item. Shut up were attending a meeting well keep on going well resume Public Comment you cant hear me in our shouting people low resume Public Comment ill explain were going to make sure there is an overflow room we want to hear from everyone weve con it before hold on one second i want to make sure we hear from everybody sergeant an overflow room overflow room 416 is the overflow room and people can leave on this so many so i wanted to make sure we need to fix that thank you. So sergeant make sure the tv is on we want to make sure it is on hey i appreciate that we all need to keep your cool only so many seats not up to me not up to me. Okay. Guys. Listen up i got confirm the tv is on the room not up to me but the sheriff how many people can be about the room i want to hear from you not up to me. chanting it you want to lingo the overflow room or well have to have another recess and i dont get to hear from you. I want to hear if ever be two minutes at that time, you know how to goes. Two minutes at that time, and lets do it guys we can do this. chanting we can resume Public Comment they and then hear the congestion you can give up your seat and someone can come in give up our seat well make sure that people get to come in and take a seat thank you 4 15 4 15 all right. Sir youve given Public Comment. Oh, i am sorry you more time left. schant i dont get to hear from you. My request of the people that want to be heard we want to commend hear from you. chanting make sure we dont get to hear from anyone this is you can view Public Comment and give up your public seats thats the solution. chanting . How about lets do. Lets do. You guys want to be heard chanting . All right. Well come back to hear if everyone but we have to be able to hear from each speaker thank you lets try 24 one more time, sir. You have to continue to let those folks in okay. Well go first okay. Yeah. Okay. We commissioner president loftus were back in session thank you, everyone for your patience to be here to continue this work we were where we left off many general Public Comment well continue everybody gets two minutes ill welcome the next speaker. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. Two minutes. Commissioners youve heard this before tasers are lethal weapons of torture in the face of corporate lies about the technical concussion device device that cant be repeated dpufrz repeated lies about tasers it operationally is fuel for the row nation theyve documented hundreds of people have been killed by tasers the Homeless Coalition presented to the Police Commission has evidence wherever a Police Department gets tasers that Police Department use of gun shootings increase dramatic and it is an circulation of violence in the Police Department a recent baltimore son in depth report which i gave you a copy officially for the record at the loose meeting and im going to quote from that you stated a first, this appeared in the march 16 a first Data Analysis of all tasers incidents in Maryland Police agencies are predominantly use those against suspects with no medal threat in hundreds of cases over a 3 year Period Police didnt follow widely accepted recommendations legal and policing experts worry about this is as increasing number of departments outfit for officers with stun guns a tasers used by Police Officers nine hundred and 4 times a day on average. Thank you, sir next speaker for general Public Comment good evening ms. Brown. Its been a long evening but as usual im here to or here to talk about my son Aubrey Abrakasa like to use the overhead any son Aubrey Abrakasa what was mshtd august 14, 2006, and let me make sure they got it i have something wrong with it does it its there. Oh. Thank you. Well start our time great. What happened to it was so big. Okay. Thats fine as i said before there is a 200 and 50,000 award issued by the Mayors Office for the to catch the perpetrators that murdered any son mothers day is coming sunday and im not feeling that good about it it will not be a mothers day for me i dont have any child my only son that should be bringing me some flowers i dont have that so im here still keeping his memory alive and case alive this is a cold case now as i said everyone knows who killed any son i bring up and carry the thing that was George Gascon he mentioned i know who killed my son the da knows who killed my son but nobody it doing anything about it these are the names theyre on my sons case and when George Gascon said he know,s who killed my son thomas han billion peculiar paris moffett and jason thomas and Anthony Hunter and Marcus Connor one is in jail i dont know if hes out i fight for my child but several unsolved homicides that is what im left with for mothers day my son laying on a generous and his moll mother standing over him 23 anyone asks me i want any son back thats what i want i know its not possible but thats what i want thank you ms. Brown if anyone has information about the murder of Aubrey Abrakasa an unanimous tip line 415 5754444 thank you and. Next speaker. General Public Comment. Good evening and welcome. Hello so its been a long time since i came to speak improvements you im nina parks born and raised in San Francisco and worked with you guys on any initiatives something im here to address the issue of the hunger sticker and the fact theres been no response probation officer get them on the agenda addressed some of the needs respect it is kind of hard to deny there is something very, very wrong structurally; right . Because even after we pass the general order that laid out the Community Values and partnerships 3 laid out training that laid out all those things we have more issue worse it started in the community that we even started to draft that the inning side station the dispatch and the officers that shot out the windows we were doing policing work so when the general orders like a meeting at the Caesar Chavez middle school and how were working towards that means training and communitybased training i came to educate the officer to to address the officers not only one responsible on one person with that note being put to bed and implemented you guys not having commerce at Balboa Park High School commissioner president loftus said the general orders say in their in enforcement by the Police Commission and there was no clarification i have it on video no clarification afterward for the community was left with so none knows what is what you dont say a consensus how we 130e7d to know who is supposed to hold a what of its the case none knows everyone has to go obviously we have a facility i didnt system no accountability what do we do. Two minutes. Everyone and everyone has two minutes. Okay. I hear you and if there the was a clarification ill talk about it im not beyond making a mistake ill followup on what that was and happy to clarify okay. Next speaker. Mr. Crew. Good evening and welcome. Thank you call your attention to first report ghirardelli principle on use of force this came out you should be proud San FranciscoPolice Department is is a significant notice principle 9 talks about the time and distance and not rush with force ill talked about that before on the table it says it requires officers to create distance and time to create a report were only a dogger to ourselves chief suhr is quoted talking about as a nobrainer easy to follow absolute rules and nobrainer said in d. C. A conference the chief Financial Officer executive and weve not had a situation where a person is only a danger to himself and 10 weeks later it happened the policy that was issued 4 times in 5 years a simple easy to follow nobrainer absolute rule was obviously not followed and ruled in a traechlg tragically loss of life the officers acted appropriately and said we need tasers ive been asking for transparency in the sense of speaking simple truth the way the chief did in washington, d. C. For the reports around the country a nobrainer easy to follow absolute rule what is said in d. C. To a group of Police Chiefs on a National Report needs to be said in San Francisco clapping. it is dangerous excuse me excuse me. It is dangerous for the confusion to remain out there officers read the newspapers they hear with the poa says ive been talking about the need for accountability we shouldnt be surprised those are happening. Ill save the discussion for the use of force policy. Next speaker. Any further general Public Comment. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. Good evening and director hicks and chief suhr im barbara im a Police Officer accountability consultant i worked at occ with the berkley Police Commission and the auditor on a san jose and the president of the National Association for civilian enforcement i too other people here to speak about accountability it is the responsible of those in office you as commissioners the mayor, to hold the chief audible and to hold the responsibility of the police force to hold officers audible not any responsibility to come to the Police Commission for a long time i feel the city is in crisis the mario woods shooting shouldnt have happened the officers have a range of techniques and not killed mr. Woods with over 20 bullets after the woods shooting chief suhr cycled the university of california, San Francisco rules and required the officers put time and space is between the folks and another person was killed within thirty seconds of officers arriving at the scene chief suhr as defend the officers and lied with the description of the incident no accountability by chief suhr two tech message were message were recorded bids da and the public defender has recorded issues and now again, the chief and poa are demanding tasers a weapon that is associated search warrant hundreds of deaths even when used as directed if their misused the numbers are up i worked at san jose when 7 people died after tasers were used the numbers of people dying at the hands of police didnt go down i want to share an ad i wrote thank you next speaker. Good evening and welcome. Post and a supporter of hunger stickers more importantly im a mom and im too hearten broken celebrating mothers day reflective on the mario woods matter obtain alex mother and lou wife and children on the mom of lopez you, you the 7 of you could fire this man, you could hold i am audible and you could institute the reforms that are necessary to change the daufkz of policing in the city what more evidence is required the first time i testified before you was the evening of january 20th in a career of attending public hearings ive never seen a group of Public Servant bailiff with complete animosity towards the oversight a hundred officers with their guns bull their way to the microphone and make their testimony and shout thats how we win show of force like a gang of thugs is that note alarming does that note alarm you if thats the way they behave in front of you in front of the press and the community what are redoing on the street where nobody is watching them the second time i testified was the evening of april 6th i said another Police Killing is imminent and i urge you to take responsibility of reforming this department seriously the next day i was walking down the street and pops up on my facebook the Mission Police station struck again, when i saw the video. Thank you. You are responsible. Thank you, thank next speaker. clapping. good evening and welcome. Good evening. Im giving you notice that is part of a campaign to replace this board with a democratic justice and reparation the problem that the San FranciscoPolice Commission composed of choose by the board of supervisors and failed to rein in a cop who purposes a cover that protects Police Terror to give people of color and the board applies the pressure with the commissioners, on that motion giving the San FranciscoPolice Department green light for wrongdoing awhile up holdings the status quo with selfrespective and selfdefense it is the mission of campaign for Police Commission of justice to create a democratic Oversight Board that will issue accountability transparency and justice thank you. The pleasure being all yours. Indeed. Next speaker. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Thank you for your patience ill bill ham 12 year resident of San Francisco chief suhr you really should go ; right . clapping. starts with you but what we really need from you guys aside from getting out eve here reform the way we train our police we need to change the curriculum at the Police Academy more time on constitutional law and more time spent on dealing what people with mental issues; right . Use of force not only in our country is out of hand weve seen in the youtube era and see Police Officers all over the world apprehend folks without the university of california, San Francisco we use of force we need to start at the Police Academy we need academy policing we need to change the psychologist of the next generation of Police Officers thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Can you put the mike down. One week after learning in cnn a 6yearold boy inaudible by any chief Financial Officer the superintendent asked the police chief refrain from using tasers frofrom students. John and peter were involved with what happened to the man that was whatever you want to call it they were focused on the science and medicine around that and node interested in what heaped mr. Butler that of those an interesting change we knew the therapy say was on multi discharges to at least 5 discharges but southwesterly suddenly we have butler and only 3 discharges and a cardiac ari was not on methamphetamines he was a drunk guy on a bus so heres the next one. In dispute on any thought or anything his arm in the air and said im going to tasers you. We heard on the other recording you can hear the words conversation battery and then you hear multiply screams 339. And when i went out there and went around stanley and tried to get over they they wouldnt let us to the curve to him and threatened to tasers and throw us in jail arne wife. Okay 33 Stanley Harlan breaks any heart he takes his views hard here you see that all played out on video. 39 in route area williams 38 minutes after. Within a minute or a minute and a half youll see his respirations and this poor young man is dying. White male semiconscious semi unresponsive. And was all stood there and watched stanley die those officers stood around there and the nothing. Heres the one i put together myself and when i look at the Darrell Turner case i was absolutely appalled turner case was extremely important case no other restraint other than the tasers was involved a direct chest shot it came out of the backroom wearing an undershirt darrell knocked the standoff the considerate as this is happening officer dobson pulls up and you hear 2 from outside he comes in you see clearing on the tape hes pulling the tasers before he know anything and dearly is standing in the corner you see it a dobson walks up to him and darrell is standing there you see the tasers and dobson pulls the trigger 4 or 4 feet and dearly does the walk. Straggles you follow it on the different cameras and as and collapses off camera two cameras on the each of the front doors. Then you can see what the timing is before the Fire Department and the paramedics show up and then they take him out in the journey and hes dead. They were getting effects from the tasers discharges on a swine model that indicated that cardiac captured cardiac capture being the precursor to the cardiac arrest. This is from the experiments we see okay. Thank you further Public Comment come up. Heres the 9 dvds thank you, sir. Thank you, sir next speaker. Good evening and welcome. Hello this is my name is silvia johnson. And theres a lot of things that has to be done and so we think get rid of the tasers i mean those lazer have been attacking younger people and some of these equipment probably were handmaid i think that we need to get more i should have a long time this is one of the plans of the devil try to scare everybody and it is all a scar and shes trying to tell you a bunch of crap that isnt there he knows that he this is his will to create a bunch of crap there is a lot of things we need to do underlie and the freedom we had already and trust is back because hes the only person that is da stated that knows the drought what his plans are hes scared of because he knows it will be soft banner and i said this a long time you know a streak some other things that you have didnt make sense and i realized it has thank you thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome. Claudia stevens i have nothing to say about chief suhr my daughter was murdered 6 years ago and 6 years the prestation officers handled the Domestic Violence against my daughter eventually murdered by james mitch and this is the 911 call when i was on with the california 2 two years i was on with the dispatcher and licenses to 6 officers respond to the part time and catch him and put him in cuffs and i called to her, she got mad they hang up i looked for 10 minutes a female and 3 offers a baby shower james had a gun in here mouth and james was free and hit like this and i asked for 6 years i called the Police Commission i was r Planning Commission i was lied by the officers im the captain im the chief thats bull and as a mother i found my daughter hit her ten times with the baseball bat and her murdered happened in marin her crime happened here and all sfpd and you know there is nothing going to bring her back but im here because you know something is going wrong here and as a former Police Officer not necessarily to pull a gun with four other partners and empty the whole magazine four of them i dont know maybe i dont know check or something but i know that my daughter it is a crime she was underserved im sorry ms. Stephens im sorry this happened i want to tell you also a senior investigator her from well it is up to you but shes here to take the complaint i can offer someone if the Police Department. I would invite the investigator to practical make yourself available any further Public Comment . Good evening and welcome. Hello my name is james and today id like to talk about leadership theres so much hurt city right now and so much pain and very little trust towards the San FranciscoPolice Department you saw that earlier today, you see that in front of the Mission Police station with the hunger stickers and important step in the healing process is to replace the police chief a change in leadership will show the community that we as city leadership are serious about accountability this commission needs to discuss what the city needs a police chief and what this city needs in Police Leadership that it is one thing to fire the police chief but what comes next and so this is something you can do you can put a review of leadership and leadership accountability on the agenda for the next meeting. clapping. and whether or not the commission believes that chief suhr should be fired thats a question that you will have to answer at some point but the first step is Start Talking and talking in public thank you. Thank you for your comments thank you. Next speaker. clapping. good evening and welcome. Good evening im sorry joses perez we dont need do tasersy have a heart problem and a tasers you know so we shouldnt have no tasers but Something Better to you know like the a long time with the video they showed the way to come down you know save person or could find other ways we dont need tasers please no tasers okay. Thank you, mr. Perez clapping . Next speaker good evening and welcome. Hi good evening here i am again spoken to you so many times it seems like im speaking to tonedeaf areas no common sense the community is unhappy a reason for that and as far as the solution the form yeah, its net but the first thing is for chief suhr to go not only for the murder but the track record if my resume were like chief suhr i wouldnt get promoted and now the highest paid conceiving if the country and as far as or more lets say it the hiring process needs to be reformed you know there Small BusinessPolice Officers should be required to say have a degree i want to police for more wellrounded and trinity why does the public have no say in the requirements of hiring mr. Marshall said if chief suhr goes well not find anyone better if thats the case were screwed think about it clapping. and i mean, ill pleading with you to use your intelligence like the mraith it is really aggravating and insulting our intelligence you dont have to listen to this abuse we dont like to sit here and be placated chp ill directing your attention to page 5 of the letter to mayor ed lee he sat with gregory one of the reforms we talked about you have been vocal and youve raised this with the kids that worked with us through bullet around a difference force on february 19, 2016, the last bullet is all procedures for conducting backgrounds checks for candidates that fits the description i want to clarify that to which who we have had a number of Public Comment incorporated to the reforms you can not take my word by hold us audible to accomplishing that thank you for coming and offering ceded solutions that we need to act on. Next speaker. Sorry if i is that letter you mentioned on the website is it pubically available. Yes. It is thank you my name is tammy bryant i was here the night mario woods was shot and killed i was shocked and heart broken what happens there is a shooting he didnt know the details i was disappointed to go last time to the forum with the pet adoption and the chief was there i wanted to here be open and i dont think there is anything Security Risk within the synagogue one of the best protected place i think this daily force is without merit i could have dealt with mario woods no weapon you talk to people theres a since itch humanity a connection with people didnt have to circulate to violence and were not hiring people that are motivated by love im also here in support of 5 im really, really bothered theyve not eaten for two weeks and something needs to happen im a mother and grandmother it bothered we a lot everyday and their sorry their questions and concerns need to be addressed the training of recruitments is key were recruiting from the community and like i said recruiting people with a heart theres a lot of good officers but some that shouldnt be Police Officers im so disturbed about the text message those words should not be out of any bodies mouth that is disgust overseeing officers have to go i dont care about statute of limitations and the values are not important how theyre on the street when he profile and arrest when you arrest and and the brown and black face the consequences i dont want to be here thank you, ms. Bryant. Next speaker. clapping. dr. Marshall wants to clarify of the banish of the text messenger there are 8 that are pending appeal before the wrlz and the jurisdiction of the commission but 3 out of 4 officers textmessaging are no longer officers with the San FranciscoPolice Department they were facing termination with this commission and retired or reassigned one with a pending trial before us so. Next speaker. Yeah, thats. Next speaker. Hi my name is a alicia im here first, i want to start off with a little bit of history you may not remember our money day Police Departments the history comes from slavery slave catchers the slave catchers reformed their roles and are to be the sfpd the o pd at next door understanding we know that in oakland and San Francisco when black folks were fleeing from the south they were a call put out to white folks from the south and other regions of the country to join what they call the Police Department to stop those black folks from existing in the bay area from existing in what we know and open San Francisco that history is not far away that history is at least in my family alone you only have to look back two or three generations to look at folks who are the folks fleeing from the south to look at the black folks the ones being patrolled by the descents of slave catchers so one of the things i struggle with ask that were investing resources in Police Training and if we can invest resources in the descends of slave catchers not stop the sickness of gentrification and all the Police Murders why can we not fire commissioner president suzy loftus why can we not support the lives of the under stickers if thats not that far off for us to invest why not invest in the community thank you. clapping. any further general Public Comment hearing none, Public Comment is closed. Sergeant as chair so many people are here to talk about and this stakeholders are waiting a long time ill advance item number 5 move item 5 to the next item and then sergeant kilshaw to call discussion on university of california, San Francisco and draft of energy discussion. Ill invite everyone in recruiting in this department to stay this is the question of the direction well go in are were going to go in shawl circulate or go in should if reasonable there are key queasy well be deciding i will in my invitation. Its 23450i9s invitation for you to stay that is the meat of reform this is the work my invitation ill ask the amps the coalition on homelessness and the stakeholders that helped us, please come up well start this discussion now it is really important so colleagues you have started off by thanking all the various groups that participated inch named the coalition of homeless at the table the da the Blue Ribbon Panel and ta Police Officers association the Bar Association a representative from the Mental Health working group with the crisis sfwreej participate some young people that worked us through is cf i colleagues you have those documents documents we set on defenseless 9 to reopen university of california, San Francisco policies in the department this is the result of that conversation you have hundreds of pages of recommendations on where we should go ill direct your attention to a letter from may 2nd from the the Bar Association they indicate that the stakeholder met 3 times 6 hours at a time and they feel passionately about the positions were here to talk about them ill walk you through though the major issues and start off as a guide with the Bar Association letter with a big picture of the outstanding issues ill ask that since folks are waited in members of the Stakeholder Group want to take the 5 minutes on the front end and skai say what you want to say well then have our discussion in Public Comment after so thats my invitation come on up. Good evening. Good evening okay. Im spur tired jennifer freedom book of the coalition on homelessness so thats correct so much for thank you for your time on this work that im really feeling optimistic that well be able to make some really positive changes in the department general orders and the work the pd is doing we kind of have you know a lot of agreements and what is put forward our general areas where wed like to push in a certain direction especially around the use of minimum versus reasonable we firmly believe that the use of word reasonable and reasonable force is a step back beyond the current policy and bipgz brings us to a level that didnt talk about the accountability we prefer the use of the words minimal or necessary throughout the document so thats been the general order 5. 01 but applies to the 0 one point one that language is referred to the second piece is around the use of verbal deesclation we firmly believe that the general orders should be about the officers shall use verbal deesclation and practical we firmly believe that gives the officers enough flexibility in the situations where verbal deesclation is not practical but a strong indication of the preference when it is safe and feasible thirdly, around Crisis Intervention Team im emphasizing the word team we have all along had the position that the crisis intervene team general order Small Business considered along with the other 3 general orders in the directive because theres so much over laptop between the different areas and were of the position in terms of the Crisis Intervention Team wear making a lot of progress and a lot of positive things happening especially, since during this year in 2016 but we were a long ways to go by the end of the year we were at 15 percent but another 5 but another 75 percent needs to be implemented to really truly have an actual team where theres a take cattle plan experts on the team team that go out and try to contact the family members and do all the work that is happening in certain locations within the Police Department now successfully and so on the times not happening we want to make that uniform and on one case if there was an approach where there was a Team Approach there would have been time and distance one of the key members would have talked to the key person not in risk and they would have been able to tell the officers his brother was a block away all those things could have hoped happened that we see a lot more work that needs to be done on the Crisis Intervention Team he could spend more time of the analyze that needs to be done on the Crisis Intervention Team well be meeting with the chief and the next is the electronic control weapons we opposite the use of those weapons not appropriate to introduce a new weapon at this time and increase the not only the in custody around the state when their introduced but the doubled the officerinvolved shootings and the replacement for a gun no data . That out so we reject that notion and want the department to go in a different direction and the other one around the data. We have everyones represents in writing so thank you jennifer anyone else from the Stakeholders Group miriam director hicks do you want to i want to underscore one driving force around Data Collection and other about the university of california, San Francisco we cant analysis what is working if we dont know what happened across the country a fix under the 5. 011 there be clear a clear agreement about there will be Data Collection on the website and older and quarterly and posts those fixes are easy and so thats one thing weve been clear and ive given example of this how to collect the data that goes a long way to see what is working and not working other things wanting a gun at an individual this Police Department has the opportunity to follow what another Police Departments do one acknowledge how terrifying and set the right standard not just safety it is the standards where the over believes that things will circulate the officer needs deadly force or serious Bodily Injury so again, you can set the right standard and training the department dont that but incorporate it into this section and other things a huge difference between middle and reasonableness and if you look at all of the material all the materials that the 21st Century Policing everyone is talking about a minimal university of california, San Francisco meaning deesclation at the center when we talk about reasonableness were taking a step back background i ask you to use the language it is what the community is pleading this department to do what the department in theyre old and actually currently incorporate the best part into this d go a few other things restricting shooting another cars the departments are doing it again, a nobrainer i know the department ive heard chief suhr and other fully agree it is should be restricted and looking at what happened across the country when it was restricted and the shootings at cars go down and the potentially of individuals injured when officers shot at cars is great i urge you to do that and proportions outlet is by the time we got dot third drafts the language was missing i urge you to look at the draft language we offered and to incorporate that lastly theres case law about what an office when theres university of california, San Francisco what are some factors that should be looked at i urge you to look at the case law especially around the California Supreme Court case of hayes many laws Law Enforcement look at not just the moment of a shooting but the officers Decision Making and look to see from the officer was interest a potential to do other things and so they look at the whole conduct to see when the university of california, San Francisco was reasonable this department should be doing that and analyzing and looking at the the moment from an interaction and evaluate what went right and wrong the hayes decision is using that board lens and urge the university of california, San Francisco policy incorporate that and other 9 circuit decisions with with analyzing the university of california, San Francisco appropriately and thank you for your time to listen to us all and im ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. And offer research and whatever he can do to help. Youve worked tireless miriam i have one question one of the questions that i saw from some of the Police Officers groups was that codifying the exact categories for university of california, San Francisco interest there was a sense that will change with local and state and federal legislation i imagine you look at that those are standard that would be required and that it is possible that the we cant control other municipalities. Talk about youre certain not one of the situations where the dojs is changed and end up being something, something that slows down. Some of the categories has to do with with how Police Officers should be interacting with the mentally ill were truth trug looking this my name is the time for the departments training some of the decisions so why not incorporate them into 5. 01 the hayes valley the California Supreme Court has been around it is a civil case that makes this Department Better other departments look at the entire sequence of events if we looked at a commitment to deesclation and other ways to use minimal force look at the entire scenario we should look at it from the beginning to the end of the California Supreme Court in looking what reasonable force in that regard we have 4 cases around for a long time and those are factors that the courts are using in 1983 why not do the best we can do and other Law Enforcement agencies are incorporated those factors as well. Thank you ms. Miriam commissioner dejesus the proportionality language i got this case letter from the Bar Association late yesterday afternoon i plowed through that in here said the language is disappearing and people realized that was disappearing and informed the City Attorney the City Attorney was not part of working group do you know who was returning did drafts by the City Attorney and why did they change the language. Im not privy but other meetings no City Attorney that was at our meetings and contributing information at the meeting. This is something that mission should consider we did the policy and gave it to 9 working group my understanding from the third mooefrg then when the working group realized the City Attorney was chavrng a changing the language there was other language missing and im not sure what the City Attorney took out i find that disturbing and who is taking this and making the changes weve not looked at the and why not tracked so the working group knew that someone took to the to the City Attorney to evaluate the changes we need to talk about that i dont know if they changed anything. We know exactly what changed i agree commissioner dejesus we set the policy and the City Attorney advised us so were here to talk about if we agree and want to change back im in agreement that it is clear there were some department indicated indians the department when asked where the changes came from they said the attorney i appreciate about the drop out you brought to your attention there are decisions you flagged them for us i appreciate you bring that up commissioner dr. Marshall. Many miriam im not a lawyer help me with many hayes valley case was that a california. It is a California Supreme Court will case. So part of issue a lot of the issued is the constitutional standard she keeps on telling me again officers fear for their safety and the suggestion is broad when applied and a lot of feel as a Community Standard you know minimal or reasonable how does this hayes valley thing replace or clarify that or how did does that fit into the picture. With the hayes standards the California Supreme Court said in a negligence Law Enforcement evaluating whether or not an officer used reasonable force not moment but the entire sequence so that you look at the Decision Making of the officer from the moment the contact started to see at each a way of freezing each frame difficult officer use good tactics and good Decision Making at the beginning of the interaction and all the way through the interaction to that in part an opportunity to look to see from the officer set in motion a situation where his or her was forced to use deadly force because of not considering others options a way to look at the Decision Making and tactics for the entire course of conduct the California Supreme Court was saying that is a way to look at in a can i feel lawsuit of 1993 you look at the entire course of conduct. It didnt replace. No, it didnt replace. The constitutional standard which is ladder and used as a i think i understand what youre saying how this all fits together thats when all the cases for example, the los angeles Police Department i use them as as example so much of their data in the reports were in like that when they review their commission reviews the use of force what it appropriate when the officer drew their weapon and the tactics before that led up to the actual shooting and evaluate the shooting and look at it each frame whether the officers use of force was ream for discipline sew also to see what went right and wrong and their Training Division then does a full analysis to see was the officers Decision Making and ultimately shooting a gun or tasers was that in policy but it is the entire course of conduct that is i mean our agencies recommended that for years then the hayes valley case came out and continued to recommend this is a Better Department to analyze the entire course of conduct to see what went right and wrong. And this is heart beating but i mean lets face it this constitutionality standard of the officer has the right to do xyz hes fear for his or her safety is broad that way and a lot of people dont thinks have you seen cases around the nation where this use of hayes i think that is a california case has. Can we do that. That particular to be able to look at the entire force of conduct i would argue theyre looking at the entire course of conduct and because theyre the entire course of conduct the opportunity to improve but it is also officers can put themselves in situations they themselves have created or circulated situations that didnt need to be circulated thats part of what the courts looked was there an opportunity to do Something Different in 2, 3, 4 period of time were carefully landmarking at deesclation and other alternative transportation it becomes essential to that. And people are begging for something to close the gap i i mean obviously policies and procedures but constitutional pieces outs there it is a constitution thing people can i have a right and something to close the gap youre saying that this is something that is being looked to do it thats what i hear. Thats one piece. Right. Right but this is one piece there are many pieces the other critical component weve been talking about deesclation and using alternative take i can see other than force if those alternative transportation take i can see and declarations are framed as should where an officer has a lot of lewd as an officer shall when feasible that puts in at the core pieces that enable us to royal minimally an force but at the same time give the officers the opportunity when it as fast moving situation and one cannot deescalate their own fear and what is whats happening in the situation those facts and circumstances are considered so it is theres a balance there. I understand im just trying to get because again, people go back to the law i have a constitutional right thats the thing out there i appreciate that. And dr. Joe weve talked about that and theres a constitutional standard a Community Standard this is the role that commission has in setting the policy and tasers are a california case and the lapd changed their policy and appreciably it can change the areas of discipline and we dont decide whether it is in and out of policy we had had discipline on the balk end but we think this is one of the mechanisms theyve used to increase accountability and situations you might fall under graham vs. Connor but you dont fall under the police San FranciscoPolice Department policies and therefore through there is discipline as a result thats up front and it is understandable there is resistance but the standards of this community. So. Thank you. Commissioner mazzuco. Thank you, ms. Miriam you made a comment about what is is a strong general order of shooting at vehicles for and against we have a strong general order the commission put in place under rare circumstances shoot at moving vehicles but letting the public know we have the most restrictive policy the officers are not to put themselves in situations to fire on a vehicle on the only time if theyre in a situation the vehicle is coming at that correct. With all due respect this is not the most strike policy a time the bludgeon as issued. Im not talking about the policy now. Itself respectfully disagree if you look at new york and other jurisdictions where there are no exceptions and my concern is that i look at the number of times officers have shot at vehicles in San Francisco there are a number of cases and, in fact, because there are these expectations they have been shootings an officer was shot other a friendly fire and as you well know shooting at a vehicle will not stop the vehicle, in fact, endangers other individual in new york in 1972 over one thousand shootings at vehicle incidents when they imposed strict no exceptions the number was recused by twothirds and now a hundred a year so across the board is recommending a in exception policy so i again, i urge a no expectation policy. Were limited to the one six and the numbers of shooting has gone up with the new policy. Thats where commissioner i was looking at the status and 2011 i dont have it in front of me but several shootings at car im sorry job have the status but in 20114 out of 8 were shootings at cars where an officer was injured were licking they have been few pedestrians shot. 2014 and 2015 thats where we are at. If i pull there was some in 2014 so it is a continuing problem and thats why i urge us to have no strikes shootings. The policy the department is mirror n y pd. Were pretty strike and reference to minimal university of california, San Francisco versus reasonable reasonable youre an attorney that carries a lot of weight within reasonable expectation of privacy search warrants whether or not this is reasonable cause to do a search i know in medical progressives and professionals whether or not it is reasonable given the standard of care and whether or not theyre liable any other discussion will reasonable versus minimal it looks like the totality youve mentioned reasonable any question is there is a rip been reasonable can we use the language minimal but reasonable use of force would that 0 through off the balance. I dont think so weve talked about reasonable use of force and this is the most minimal formals under graham versus connor and across the country and part of what was said repeatedly 3 reports thats the baseline thats what the low standard is we luckily have progressed with different era were looking at how we treat people across the board especially individuals who have been mentally ill and need a greater standard a minimal residence on force not under the obviously reasonable stated that is when a when shootings are justified even when this is an individual with a blaltd weapon not a commitment what we can do to better ourselves thats part of this whole movement use mandatory language have deesclation at the center and thoughtful communication at the so that that is truly a minimal residence on use of force sloping as opposed to a standard we lived with it and questioning why do we live with the standard and clearly a Community Outraged it has brought together the best thinking of the police chief we all, do better across the country and minimal lets move far beyond that obviously reasonable is minimal lets move beyond that is is not just minimum alisa miller but all the other another components if that way i appreciate situation i think that is two of ill flag the 1995 version was the minimal use of force this not a place were making not one of the huge changes but consistent with the value that the department held for sometime commissioner dejesus. Right i dont know if you got this commissioner mazzuco but came out last week, a article on use of force a power point they go over the ground steps theyre telling us about and basically theyre saying that the minimal threshold standard it the drive for a higher standard and the language the officers understand it is not what we can do but can you use deadly force or absolutely have to when the decisions are up to that significant issues we can clarify it and make that stronger and that we should so i forgot actually, i put my name up f there a white ago. Well back to the City Attorney i want to know at some point who is taking it to the City Attorney and why. I dont know from the department chief do you want to Say Something the commission has a question about the City Attorney involvement. As prove as the commissioner president loftus suggest track version through one through 3 a draft proposal for this commissioners consideration. I went through every single note and didnt see anything that the City Attorney made the change maybe provided a different draft when i think so from this letter the stakeholders changes and they were informed the City Attorney made those changes but points with the draft show me. I dont have those what im saying whatever the old language it is still in the track changes and thats for your consideration to arrive at the final version. The original question who took this to the City Attorney and why. Weve had the City Attorney involved from version one all the way through version 3. Were the stakeholders involved with the changes. Obviously they recorded they were told that. They were told at the Third Session not the process. The City Attorney was involved in version 3. I wanted to say i just want to know why were going to the City Attorney and not being tracked like the changes that the people see the changes i dont see the working group was working i want to know who was doing that. I want to thank the Bar Association for the tellers work i know you with guys and occ he know the aclu he would say put this together and addressed the ordinances a fair point to transparency a good thing to our point chief 3 reverberations we can change them back here we are other questions for many miriam i have a feeling we might call you back up i know i saw other folks here anyone else miriam were you, you representing the j and anyone else from the Stakeholder Groups i know there were a number of groups yes, sir. Oh, great come on up. Welcome you have 5 minutes. Good evening. Im kevin an society with the Law Enforcement or louis one of the 7 Law Enforcement advising this Blue Ribbon Panel on the pro bono and asked to attend the stakeholders meeting. Welcome kevin. Thank you to the commission for the Blue Ribbon Panel a voice we were grateful to attend the members of the committee and wear grateful to provide our input in the comments there were two things we said to flag we wanted to express as other comments the strong support for the shall mandatory the core of the deesclation we that that in our explanation of the shall language was the best fit for the commission trying to reach and the second was our comments only the comment control weapon policy initially we provided a red line to that policy provided in our materials upon further consideration yesterday an email to the the stakeholders saying we decided to withdraw our for the for that red line and instead order to our initial position that were taking no position on the actually text of the proposed cb order the reason we returned to the earlier position we believe the panel buildings the policies rewarding the use should be addressed from the use of force division it took a lot of sustained interviews with experts and study to develop our recommendations on the use of force policies we felt there was not enough time in the timeframe to conduct the xaef review of the cd policies a lot of data from oath sources and a lot of different studies we didnt feel we have at capacity to effectively and comprehensively claim that so our recommendations no position on the text itself and the use of this separately so the stakeholders can have more time to fully evaluate the litter on the cds. Okay. Thank you. Any questions so some of the people at home youre talking about the tasers the panel is not taken a position on the tasers we have should 53 this separately. Yes. Commissioners thats right. Were trying to call that Electronic Devices otherwise were given for airtime. No position here separately. It should be considered separately and no stub active comments on the body of the policies itself we submitted that earlier and they decided to submit that without enough time to be able to learn there is i believe still in our supporting statements a red line to disregard that position. We want to atrocity to you guys in this case of there anything important. Commissioner wong. Weve been pushing how do you respond the argument there is a circulation of forced model it is the cbc y how you consider that separate from the use of force. I think that would have to be considered if at a at a later date a decision to implement the cds it would have to work within the framework of use of force policies that commission develops now in doing them together much more time to study the deesclation with the team and the stakeholders have not had enough time to study we didnt want a situation the policies were not given levels of study and considerations youll have to look at the cds in light of broader use of force but establishing what that doctrine should be the first step and the cds is a specific method he if i did in the new general order landscape. Pushing it further what makes the cds different from the other alternative transportation to use of force within the document. I think were asking for be concerned differently commissioner wong weve heard on potential Health Hazards the effect on compliance with the policies theres other departments that have other departments to look at i know the Blue Ribbon Panel and the Bar Association task force that operated in a similar fashion they examined an achieve research of literature and given that i can only speak for the Blue Ribbon Panel we looking at a use of force model spent months and speaking to subject Matter Experts and asked to join the stakeholders and we didnt have enough to side that examination for cds perfectly possibly based on the model we could take a stance but not the time to integrate the research ousted there and commissioner dejesus. I echo that i favor that i wonder youre probably not going to be able to answer that, we had a meet and care of with the poa regarding the use of force im not why we do that is that because were adding a new weapon or cd with the meeting and care of if by the spread out that with the use of force exception be exempt. The City Attorney can answer that. Whatever a change of working conditions that triggers and meet and care of under the policy and spate and depicting from other departments other cities and counties sea Police Departments that diesel with the act we have our own provisions that talk about the procedures that more complicated by in addition there is other areas wall the tax bargaining that means even if you have a barking right to implement a policy you have to bargain over the effects essential a lot of complicated i gave you a condensed question and hopefully that answers your question it is not easy. Thats a legal answer if i ever heard one im an attorney thank you, ms. City attorney and any questions for the Blue Ribbon Panel thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Great so any other members of the Stakeholder Group no so here guys for you will have you watching at home im sure you poured over the 22 packages from the stakeholder we have verdicts up on the web and includes comments so the commission asked the shareholders where where reasonable minds differ i assume reasonable minds let us know we have 22 pages of comments i want to thank and my proposal thank you to the Bar Association they got us to the 17 page memo from their prospective lays out some of the big picture issues for this commission to weigh in on and in looking at the best way to structure the conversation i propose we do march through those i think most of issues that have been raised by he did stakeholders thus far come up in this memo and if not we can ill ask all the colleagues to pull up any comments on the 22 pages again for people watching this is has been a process and important for the commission to have time to discuss these issues that have been raised im going to without objection wait so the first is this is just you know straightforward the important paragraph consistent language and goals we want to commend let you guys know this portion talks about theres a suggested introductory paragraph that the language in the first version was preferable and need to be strong to set the course so they indicate here they recommend we frame the goals of each order and specifically use the language that the dojs the language this is goal for improvements and Community Oriented policies and procedures and professionalism while taking into account the best practices and current and research and Community Expectation now sergeant kilshaw just to be clear this language is posted on our website to the feedback all the comments okay. So this comment is not new to other folks watching the stakeholders this is a suggestion we change the language of introduce paragraph so you know for my purposes i think that signaling the division and the fact this is a this policy what it means is very broad and to have that consistent with the copies Office Language around the collaborative reforms is important i dont know if folks want to weigh in my recommendation we web we create a version of this not including the introductory paragraph it is strong and the United States it in the right direction. We have to go back to dollars the comments the paragraph by the occ and the aclu with the change of language. Yeah. Were talking about 5 point zero one. I agree with the whole paragraph. You have to speak into the mike. I agree with the whole paragraph silvers the working groups paragraph and again colleagues, were not not having to finalize it but and request we have an investigation that used that language. Anyone have any objection or want to discuss that okay. Lets move on to 2 we can come back but this is brought up by two folks and from the Blue Ribbon Panel im sorry is it mr. Benedict. And this is about incorporating the millennium reliance on support ill flag that as you know from reviewing all the materials this is universally opposed by the poa and all the peg groups am i right about that sergeant kilshaw. Okay. The we should talk about this email persuade by a number of packs what ms. Miriam was talking about not the least is minimal reliance im not interested in taking steps back i certainly can understand if there was an area that if i was wearing a City Attorney hat and my job concerned about liability ill see the argument that is you think reasonable the question is about the policy and stated and minimum force is what San Francisco expects the officers to use this is expect do you want to discuss that commissioner turman. Im in total agreement why would we step back from the standard and living up to the minimal all those years. We have been patient so many papers sometimes the microphone is too far away. Ill totally agree with you commissioner president loftus why take a step back minimal a one did policy and living up to this is certainly not a time to step away in fact, the time to do more to live up to that we should definitely raise minimum and incorporate that into our goals. Dr. Marshall. I concur with commissioner turman thats the magic word minimal it is minimal is the word everybody is looking for. To clarify we know when you look at the footnotes were talking about footnotes in the paragraph. Okay. So i think that on to give voice to the prospective regarding this item lets see were looking for i want to pull up the the stakeholders to make sure we covered and considered minimal use of force secretary kilshaw direct me to which comment rblthsz all the peg groups in the poas. 5. 0 one. Stakeholders minimal force. It would be. Item number 3 . Okay it starts on page 2 and goes to page 3. Item sorry items 3 and 4. Okay. So just so we you know, i will is ive said this before the amount of time people spent a lot of time so we have a number of groups weighing in the poa and the asian presiding officer and the others with the term reasonable force they opposite minimal force they dont require that but not what the law requires the course is officers to use this reasonable thats the court those members of the Stakeholders Groups say the purpose only one of any groups opinions and there is dense criticism so i think that we will beneficiary by the people from hearing in the United States department of justice sow were not making a decision but signaling the direction i hear the concerns i think the direction is so is there is a standard that the law requires and a standard that the commission would require and since this has been the policy of the department there are areas discussion we certainly are not doing this to jeopardizes the officers safety that makes this consistent were not changing anything to okay. Anything further on a minimal versus the use of force this is the consensus we have to have another option that gives us minimal force throughout the document . Yeah. Just a clarification the next paragraph is that when it says usf wants those unnecessary reasonable. Separate. Okay he agree. Okay. All right. Now lets go to incorporate mandated language concerning the officer are the deesclation and other tactics that was covered by the stakeholders that were able to stay tonight and this is really the portion where were talking about whether officers i think the current version says should rather than shall in driving the officers duties with the deesclation and other tactics i understand not dissuasion discussion with the stakeholders part of the reason everyone was in the room but to listen and go back and forth the recommendation is from the ocii and usf was that deesclation shall be used with feasible so and safe so there was a recognition i know inch heard this is the suggestion is for the deesclation but the answer full stop but this commission has an opportunity to very clearly set the direction we expect the officers to deescalate with safe as opposed to to should some think that is not a significant difference but in the policing world i know that shall means something significant but i know that the language was designed to the suggest there are instances ab an officer can do something beyond circulate any discussion colleagues. The language shall. Shall this feasible. I see a couple of words here. I agree the mandatory the groups recommend it is mandatory we need to give them direction leaving them up to them. So the recommendation is when feasible officer shall decirculates and it increases the consideration the words of policy that reflect that comment number 7 on page 4 of the Stakeholder Comments on the dojs 5 any any further discussion . Okay moving forward incorporate a restricted shooting at policy i think we discussed this new york Police Department i understand is the version the goal standard what we adopted; is that correct chief. Yes. So that has a i understand that thats the language we u d used. 5. 02. No correction; correct . So not much time to extend on that. Restricting shooting on vehicle policies. Thats the vehicle. Right was that a page 3 number 5. Okay. So including proportionality a component a number of comments that deal what proportionality a number of areas the part of benefit commissioner dejesus as a a policy matter to identify concepts well get those changed throughout. Its in the document were all on different page numbers the argument the large 2016 per report explains the concept of proportion i would is whether the Police Policy is in 89 outlet of the circumstances to achieve the unlawful aim not due for proportionality it is a key i would say pillar to the jerry of use of force not only the force proportionate to the threat but proportionate to the underlying incident that was going on so do folks want to weigh in weve heard from ms. Miriam that proportionality is critical a critical pillar i understand that sergeant unskilled shaw direct us to the areas that is significant opposition from this offers association and from the peg groups direct us to the specific arguments. For 4. 01 the Stakeholder Comments page 5 item. 01 the sta comments page 5 item5. 01 the st comments page 5 item 10. Telling me approximately again the comments on page 4 item number ten and. Okay. Colleagues ive listed the position and heard from the stakeholders again to be fair the we have received documents that indicate that the poa has issued issues with the section of proportionality have two desperate opinions that the summary it maybe minor but an officer by a make reasonable force to make arrests and all situations officers can use deadly force what are the principles of proportionality and the department is only has with an acceptable use of force element and then you talk about the coalition on homelessness too this is you know this is one i certainly think well benefit from the u. S. Dojs obviously were not interested in jeopardyizing but preserving the sanctity of life chief you want proportionality. Well again you know the department and i had significant over and over in the proposal proportionality is key to everything were talking about. Okay. Go ahead. So i was reading this staff report when i read proportionality i read the report is ties into what did swat people do they estimate and take tactical decisions and analyze it it ties into analyzing you come up with was the use of force proportionate to the act in front of you a tool to analyze something it talks about what the critical positions making questions are that you analyze theyll know what to do ill say when i read this that make sense. So right the national Decision Making model came out of the United Kingdom it talks about they continue work to spinning the model and it approval of the minutes around the hub core values and sanctity of life and proportionality integrity blah, blah, blah at every step of the unfolding evident and sometimes spun in a split second a instant evaluation when it came from back eating it was renamed the Critical Thinking model and certain spokes added as the group. A training for the officers so it is in the burdensome so your lead officers and its training a learned thing about the way you on. It is great, great idea im looking forward to the department of Defense Department of defense. Other people are thoughts i want to whats your recommendation on that particular one. My recommendation is that we obviously proportionality im inclined to change the language to reflect that and go back to the earlier version the department put forward that with that said, we have an opportunity for the concerns there are critics certainly of this approach and i think what we want to make sure we can make the case to everyone involved this direction promotes safety of everyone and i think that i want to dof so weigh in and given the clear a clear line were concerned about safety the doj the only ones that have not weighed in on the timeline move to the front and give them our version and, yes they have all the materials well share that commissioner wong. Confusing given the earlier decision of reasonable versus here not to have the same language what is coming up whether well change reasonable. Youre talking about the necessary versus removal. In the version of deproportionality are we using the reasonable standard or am i on the wrong version. Direct me to where you are well talk. Im looking at the most recent verse. The issue this is the challenge theres a recent version it includes language accepted after the third meeting some of the proposals to change it youll not see the language in the draft the purpose we can get a draft reflecting the changes and evaluate them. Okay. When you see a reference you can follow to the footnote and sergeant kilshaw can answer questions and note 10 it is regarding minimal versus reasonable that proportionality were still proportionality is for proportionality is 10 that footnote talks about the concept of proportionality if you look at footnote three and four and 19201910 and 8 these talk about minimal versus reasonable and unreasonable versus unnecessary and shall we just identified the first time it was used and that throughout the entire documents anytime you see those positions apply instead of noting it every single time. Thats why we were assisted basically free tech assistance but the bar of associations while there are general things that fit into the bucket. Thank you. Lets keep going our and on this 5 my recommendation is that we do use the originally proposed language the same version for another version goes back to the original position that was changed and sent by the City Attorney changed it we want to go back and reflect the original intent the proportionality 23 from the doj that will help us follow discussion go ahead and. Youll hear from other stakeholders that are not here tonight and everybodys information we have them fully considering. What im saying that was discussed tonight and on may 11th they may come. Absolutely the other portion folks will be able to see exactly the language and weigh in with w0 Public Meetings and a by reason of more time if folks are watching well have time to weigh in item 6 officers to point a firearm when they feel serious Bodily Injury. This goes in terms of an officer Public Health a gun an officer any draw and be ready to draw theyre double arms if they believe that a person is in fear of serious Bodily Injury they should not at that particular time a higher standard into that and again, ill say while that might be trained to the call is for increased other so if its a standard it makes everything consistent with the hayes case not doing any service so not make it clear how serious this is and there is a clear standard to your point commissioner dejesus when this is authorized do folks want to weigh in on this item. Yeah. I i think there is again another area where we do know there are other departments new orleans and wood and ocean boulevard have adopted this officers dont want us to just try something thats not tried elsewhere this is a policy in other jurisdictions again, i that this is important we hear in domgs. President i didnt see any indication of standard in this one i see different departments was there a post recommendation. Im looking at number 6 here. I dont know that. Something about what Council Recommended im curious. Sergeant kilshaw yeah come up miriam. Ive not seen this addressed this particular issue when i looked at across the country i pulled up and found do Law Enforcement agencies that have a higher standard and certainly our agency was motivated to look at the higher standard because of cases we had where individuals had an gun pointed out at them this was not justified and the esteem. I didnt feel that way when a gun was pulled on me keep on going. I look at los angeles so much material has theyre double standards and theyve specifically incorporated a standard because of concern of the fallout of what it does when officers inappropriately draw a weapon it can escalate and force a situation i didnt see them look at that specific aint can we ask the d o jfshgs weigh in and take a position on this also. Okay. Yeah. Absolutely. Again you know id like to do that by towards a higher standard. This is a position we didnt excluding include this. Sergeant kilshaw was there discussed under 5. 2 the shareholders comments page 5 number 11. Okay. So for folks following at home confirms that we heard from nobody can say it better ms. Miriam to change the los angeles the poa and latino poa and others opposed and state the law doesnt support it and the situation will escalate the poa states while he know the use of force is he question the department has made it a reportable use of force. So any body want to discuss that. Position. Let me see i mean the way im reading this the case law wear trying to deal with the case law marrow and the codes no officer shall point a firearm at a person unless there is a substantial risk the situation rises to lethal force. I think that is that los angeles is not currently in the draft; is that right. So this obviously is another incident to have the domgs weigh in include in another version to look at that. Id like say so. Yeah. And again those are up for so we can look at the totality of the policy moving on provide the next big picture big item came up was providing the infrastructure to identify the Crisis Intervention Teams and First Responders to Mental Health crisis calls into collect data and review the data to calls. So here you know im. Staff is question about this. We really pushed it how far are we from what the folks in here are are asking weve pushed since you know years now so is there a gap between. My presentation not tonight we have a presentation but there is a gap. One. So the gap is between theres been progress with the training but the Team Approach is something that everyone is working on with the draft tying to figure it out. And you want to know bad actor the perks you know two heads are better than one. So achieve the question we dont have the policy but it makes sense to reference it, it is confusing sort of like the bulletin the 2011 bulletin trying to put it together i recognize that you cant include it of its not where it needs to be i dont know if you want to weigh in. Its not a problem refrj the d gi o well have it in advance of those four orders. And look to our report all right. Ill move on. Before you more often a second part of. 7 they talk about the crisis templates is that something we talk about. In fact, they capture the data and information. I think the chief i think youll direct that in your discussion what the commissioners are referring to the data it is 3 page form called the crisis form. My presentation about our conversations with seattle. Yep so thats sergeant kilshaw. How do you want to address item 7 one of theyre double 5 sorry 5. 01 theyre double Stakeholder Comments page 5 number 9. 4. 01 Stakeholder Comments number 4. Is that how you want to i see 10 and 11. On page. 01 Stakeholder Com number 4. Is that how you want to i see 10 and 11. On page5. 01 Stakeholder Co number 4. Is that how you want to i see 10 and 11. On page54. Is that how you want to i see 10 and 11. On page. Is that how you want to i see 10 and 11. On page 5 and so 5. 01 Stakeholder Comments page 5 comment number 9. I got this is the one i printed out. Yeah. He got the one printed out last night. Okay. So number 9 is San FranciscoBar Association occ recommended 9 specific procedures and training with the sfpd offers the training is i think the answer there is assert kilshaw modesty require this is not this is a work in progress any request to work with ms. Miriam is identify the language to the chiefs pt about cit cross referenced if those are on the track necessary need to giving us us a version this reflects that should reflect what is accurate. Okay. All right. Okay everything is bearing with us okay. Thank you next item on our number 8. Commissioner turman. 8 and this is an officer use of force includes consideration for the officer tactical effort up to the use of force and ms. Miriam can you step up please. And up please ms. Miriam because of the additional questions by the way, i believe and looking at the hayes case it is not by any means limiting the things and adding to it but lets look at the continual situation from the beginning how do we get to the point we decide the actual ended incident is an reasonable use of force we cant get there without examining the circumstances and the decision decision makering have the verdict a point we can have a decirculated it is important do you have any thing further you want to add. I totally agree so that under 5. 01 one looks at the factors that should be vaetdz to understand that youre looking at the officers Decision Making and the tack i can see and leading up to the. Commissioner marshall you have questions thats setting the floor and didnt mean you cant build on this is important. I like it we take into account at the entire supreme of what happens to that particular use of force how do we get to that situation. Sergeant kilshaw. So this is does as commissioner president loftus come up in two plays 5. 01 and Stakeholder Comments number 16 on page number 7 it goes from page 7 to page 9 and then in 5. 01 a copy and paste of that number sorry sorry ill find it here number 6 on page 3. Now so we give equal time in hearing from the opposition was there that number of 18 in opposition there have i think. Number 16. No 18. Why have the poa has reached the case of anything further. And one of the stakeholders meeting ms. Miriam brought the san diego the poa brought up bryan versus be mcfear son but in the letter on may 2nd they did have opposition in theyre double Stakeholder Comments. I dont see it. But. I dont see theyre double comments do you recall theyre double comments ms. Miriam. Ill have to go quite frankly at this point they were actually agreeing with the occ and a moment of humor that laughter pursue the poa and occ were. Believe me miriam come on. We laughter the bryan versus mcfear son giving more factors to look at in that situation the ninth circuit did the officer look at other tactics available before use of force or the actions the over took a moment in time the poa was agreeing that is hsa thats a useful case and factor to use. So theyre double comment in 5. 2 is not alleged cases included but more to theyre more to in their comment what should be list in oconnor versus reasonableness not specific to whether each case is listed as to limit it to im just reading it quickly that factors in Graham Connor which are i think that in and of itself well, i, understand the position and certainly keeping in mind if i was in a position of representing someone that is subject to discipline i can understand but the law is ever changing not something that is locked in i think the question we have is whats the direction graham versus connor an 1989 case it is standard foe and certainly is you know the the law of the land i guess the questions are we doing everything we can to create a standard for officers in terms of training and procedures and everything that accounts for the fact that the Community Expectation around use of force that theres a big gap a big gap there and so ill be inclined to do as commissioner turman can do and include the reference to the broader point and not limit it to graham versus connor were not doing a service to the officers thats the ultimate standard but another standard we should hold ourselves accountable that maze makes a healthy sustainable career to do everything to avoid legal force theyre not in disagreement in theyre double opinion to the factors that ms. Miriam has included the one factor theyre opposed to tie in the list is proportionality thats theyre double argument and you want to take proportionality out of the list of factors. Okay. So weve covered that got it. So on this looking do we very specific language the following provisions should be asked for the determination of reasonable so one through 4 so sergeant kilshaw add this to another version of the policy i think as any question ms. Miriam drafted it and for consideration. One through 4 footnote. Im sorry 16. Footnote 16. Okay. Talk about watching about sausage being made okay 10 regularly report this time oh, did we skip 9 all right. Dr. Marshall provide a response in an incident with a weapon where a person has mlk issues and use of force thats hard to know we have guiding provisions for supervisorial response and the person in Mental Health crisis and the officer believes sixth use of force the current d o g didnt include. Page 4 item f. Footnote and response. I remember the law man the version assert has to respond to the scene a sergeant to respond to the scene with an edged weapon. Any weapon or dispatch buildings theyre going anyway. To respond to a weapon. And supervisor will start that. Ms. In memoriam have a question ive not thought of yet. You havent thought of. I have to ask you to question. Under 5. 02 at least the last version subject to the weapon other than firearms so most of the the supervisor will be called for a wedged edged. Our concern with the obvious that someone with a firearm we wanted to supervisor to be called to the scene like 2 is written 234089 explicitly say for a firearm a supervisor will be called our concern was have that be explicit. Was there opposition can you point to the opposition i imagine there is. Number ten. Number 9. Is it 5. 02. Its not written it is more with the language that was used. Look the stakeholders comments the 5. 02 pages 8, 9 and 10 on pages four and five. I apologize so theres a d b right now standing policy raw but a supervisor respond to a call with any weapon. A d b with a department. I want to make sure it is incorporated into 5. 02 i thought it was losing my mind it is a standing policy. Sergeant kilshaw. Any conflict point chain of command in the supervisor has the i highly ranking supervisor. At this stage the concern was get a supervisor to the scene and i mean, theyll been times when supervisors are cit but i think youre raising an issue that will be worked out within the department. If i can jump in sometimes the highest cit officer might not be a highranking officer so someone without the skills were were talking about edge weapon any weapon an actual weapon this is just supervisor comes to call with a weapon. Correct me if i am wrong ms. Miriam many section we worked on this section a few times it was about how to deescalate so the thought of santa fe calculating when an officer encounter a person without a firearm talking about it in this 5. 02 use of force so this section talks about a person armed with other than a weapon than a firearm and goes into the requirements to deescalate you can see theres a reference to 5. 01 rothman numerous subject armed with a weapon it takes you back to how we did a lot of this referencing to 5. 01 not a duplicate of 5. 01. It was trying to incorporate the concept of deesclation am i right. Right. Right how do we incorporate deesclation into this one when a person didnt have a weapon and got it. Sounds like there could be language to reference wee bit were talking about having a supervisor respond to the scene in the category so if that language can be craft there are drafting ordinances youve raised them if you can recommend those and potentially work with ms. Miriam the intent is simple. Any type of weapon and were dealing with firearms. But the concept of decollaboration when someone has a firearm you know thats what were trying and. And no trying to deesclation with the firearm. A use of force order which is 5. 01 and second one 5. 02 use of a firearm you crossreference them but we dont want to lose the intent where a supervisor always responds to a scene 10 report of the use of force you know how i feel about data we can use more. I i get it things can change. Im compelled it does indicate how seriously we take collecting the data and evaluating the data i dont know what folks think about that. I agree. Not in the d go right now. No, its not okay a so thats 10 can we add that language and the benefit of having a version with all the languages everyone that is weighed in and given thoughtful feedback and looked at this with another thought come to Public Comment and let us know what you on we want to make sure there was so much good discourse ill open it up colleagues make sure we went through and covered the minimal use of force and didnt cover a few things ill go back to but we talked about shall deescalate and go into d c ws and go over those we talked about the data and Public Health a gun and no shooting other cars and proportionality and one other things commissioner dejesus wanted to raise was the issue of unnecessary versus reasonable if you want to take that up. I also want to add restraint. It is putting on 22 since the bar is the collision on housing and the occ its getting late for me but proposed in the lastly draft i agree i stands most people dont allow this is Something Else we should add for discussion. Okay. Show me the footnote is talks about the unnecessary versus unreasonable. Page 3 and 5. 01, item 4. And 5. 02 some of those and 5. 02. The usf wants to use the words unnecessary and unreasonable necessary is kind of a pawned with a requisite and reasonable is more logical sequence is depends on where number 4 we find where that starts we want to change it, of course, well, actually that first forgave 5. 01 i think well not use that paragraph anymore right well change the first paragraph and i mean the bigger question it appears youre talking about the general reference. Right. Right so the changes will not doorway. So again reasonable is what the brian cases and the usf says necessary and more of a prerequisite as mandated. This where i get this i dont know the difference 24 7 unnecessary and reasonable if someone feels strongly from one of the groups it is what. Sandra do you remember the discussion. You should come up to the mike. I guess i think reasonable i understand a lot of reasons to be clear the policy of commission versus what the legal they can be different theres a gap of the what the communities been but reasonable is a term of art and unnecessary versus unreasonable i want more information. A lot of folks on what the contentious of that could be. With the difference between unnecessary that was actually an aclu position i dont feel that i could address the difference in terms of unnecessary versus i know they felt adamantly about necessary and unnecessary so well, like i crossed it out to see how section e to intervention to one of the things the comments officers have intervention when they remarkably building another officer is about to use use of force and is awfully want to say officers will intervention when they building that an officers is about to use unnecessary force use of force so it is a term of art i get it but when i looked up the word it is a prerequisite and mandated and the other one is logical. Chief suhr. I think every situation is going to be subjective the reasonable person is outside work hard looking in you only know when youre in those situations to keep that particular piece which it is reasonable make sense and to what some person not there decided weeks arrest months or years later what they preserved while in the middle of it were doing proportionality that is through the order what people between would see as reasonable seems to be more consistent of the spirit everything has to look proportionally reasonable. Can the doj weigh in. This process is more organizing you know a version a few versions we can look at it and overlay it with the doj but there are issues we have to make it an option. Commissioner wong. My guess with the aclu is trying to do unnecessary is the opposition of minimal; right . So what they will say if an officer uses more than the minimal force there should be a duty to intervention otherwise there is a gap to use minimal force and what is reasonable force thats how i read it unnecessary is the opposite of the minimal standard and we want to move away from minimal reliance what is required and thats where unnecessary is the oops oppose of what is required or necessary is the opposite of what is required. Yeah. Okay. So we can keep that as an open question then the car rotted well. A post mandated trained option we did to for a compromise we slide it it will be justified where the other option is lethal force not where it used to be akin to essentially a baton youll use it with the next option of a firearm. Commissioner president loftus. Did kirk weigh in on this anyone. On the car rotted. On the reasonable i mean the necessary and the one were talking about. Perfectly example pe r f. They wanted to ban choke holds but the car rotted response is not a choke hold and throughout the whole perfectly report they speak to minimal. The other one you want to have me followup on sergeant kilshaw. What is circumstances you need to point a firearm at someone. Point okay. Can i ask a clarification a second section that says use of force must be reasonable and quotes a 35 a the group. Into the mike. The group want to critical decision framework for all circumstances that use of force might be needed im sure we addressed that. Im sorry commissioner some of the group. Thanks for the clarifies and some of the group pointed out putting a 35 the presiding officer is makes it need not desist by reason of resistance or threat that person is arrested is quotes the law and it says contemporary to the obviously it contradicts the statement we put in and talked about the critical Decision Making so something to address for the record section 2 b and then have the word criteria we need to talk about that because it seems contradictory we want minimal force thats the law i dont know if this is what we want. I know that is a big issue of concern at the working Group Sergeant and a big discussion about the old penal code section that was important to the groups is there anything you want to remind us of and on the list of you know checks following up with doj whether including that language contradicts the direction and the added language. The poa and others peg groups position it is the law in the current policy we have and they pointed out that while this law is in place the officers are trained and i on deesclation and the law at the same time and then they came up with a compromise possibly moving this language to the section that includes the fourth option. Ms. Miriam if you want to speak to this the aclu and the public defenders and the Bar Association and the occ seize the language as the principles of what the department is trying to accomplish in the revised policy aclu buildings this language a archaic and in what the department is trying to chief i quoted this officer is contrary to the policy and how the officers found it confusing to the officers to use the principles of deesclation seems like a lot going on in that particular section and if you read it. It seems to in a gait what youre setting back forgot. I think on this one sergeant put this think on the list of doj to weigh in an area that the law being what it say we obviously the law is the law our policy didnt change but are we clear on who what is expected. I was by a to say the law is the law i dont want our policy to run afoul of the law as is policy as discussed tonight clearly demonstrates to the officers that expectation but again ill submit to what you said the law is the law. Okay. He lets get ill put this on the list and i dont think anyone is in the position to make this fractious this is what the some of the groups are saying this is where it should be instead of 835 so well talk to them about it and get clarity. This is like i have a question in terms of chief i saw the presentation on the National Division making model and the question is do you see utility in spelling that language out in this policy and more important to have the concept were in the weeds but the d go there are unit orders and training orders and a way to say the question to set the course. What is critical in my mind i think that is precedent in this order as in our core values we have proportionality and sanctity of life and other parts of this so it is critical to have the core critical Decision Making model spelled out and the the the law of the land and the training we need to train the officers as to how to spin that model through the course of Decision Making. Commissioner wong. Im reading it right. I think were mixing apples and oranges whether or not an officers is subject to the penal code by using reasonable force and selfdefense the rest the policy has to do with with the respective to how they treat folks not subject to criminal liability i think this section states the law is an officer is being subject to criminal penalties and thats the law they can use reasonable force and selfdefense while making an arrest it is confusing were mixing the criminal standards with we we want as a departmental policy. Theres a section if theres a law a section as to what the law it is so in the law section we know what the law is. This is really out of place i mean it seems to me i dont know where they suggest to go it completely contradictory. So the goal for it to be clear well go back to weve gotten some technical folks including the department of justice theyre double recommendation could be to lay out the law in this particular area with potentially criminality and talking about whether it is in policy or administrative thats adds to the list additional items that commissioners want to obviously a number of comments other items that have monopoly been covered this far . On 501 and 502 before we move on to the other issues. I dont know if we there was a sentence that people wanted to put in there i think i see no, i got that im sure im sorry number 3 force options i thought there was 19 comment number 19 on page 9 so right above force option; right right before that the aclu want the policy to list the specific standards for the officers can use specific force options the bar opposed the law simple to ocean boulevard theyre double impractical and each section has a use of force option and it referred to all options can you address that. Yeah. Heres the thing my recognition for the perfectly materials there is a movement away from the use of force continuum and the critical Decision Making model your constantly looking at the treat and what happened youre not continually moving up but assessing im not i understand there theyre double point but the directive this policy to get away from that and to train and teach the officers to make go decisions bans the threat and reassess and all those kinds of things. I agree the continuum framework but we still have it in here we start with under forced option physical controls and b substance and the continuum is in here it didnt say use 1, 2, 3, 4 but i guess when i look at it could. We listed in a sentence with comments used to be with numbers. Hierarchy autopsy right to get away from the continuum but explain each one they need a section so. Yeah. So were falling back into the continuum. Ill note we dont have to discuss 5. 0101 all the comments weve covered through the other policies. So automatically. Okay move on to the oc w we have this is different a bureau order not a d go weve gotten feedback from the coalition on homelessness now i will make sure to state that the record is that they believe that we should table this discussion to a at a later time but theyre double position theyre double against it; however, we got comments so did i fairly represent that, sir. Dont confuse your comments for an agreement to do them or do them now; right . Okay. With that said, thank you for your comments lets go through this so theres a position we have the occ sf bar and dirs and the aclu is opposed the the o fj and the asian poa are in favor the cds and would like the policy expanded could include outline patrol members so as currently written the currently bureau order is limited to officers who are in the Tactical Units known as specialists. Two different groups specialists are assigned to operations but special training with the Tactical Unit and 70 specialists and approximately thirty members of swat were talking about one hundred members that get the most training in special weapons and tactics this is another tool and treated as a special weapon. Okay. And sergeant kilshaw for people following this the general before we go into some of the questions the general restrictions on the policy itself ill pull it up here. Yeah. The county policy is drafted the poa whats worksheets it for all patrol officers make sure it is clear. It is broenld into 3 categories 3 sort of categories authorized use when an officer can use and when a person is armed with an weapon other than a firearm like a blunt weapon and processed an immeningitis threat have not safety of officers and in the second case an aggressive suspect proposing a safety athlete thats the authorized case offers need special considerations using the eds against people that are showing Substance Abuse they need to closely that monitor those people if theyre using and then the series of prohibited uses and so those are nonetheless a person is armed with a firearm theyre not allowed to use them on a person that is only a danger to themselves a female that less pregnant and children and subject who positions activity results in collateral injury with automobile or motorists or a subject that is passively resisting or sprayed with flammable chemical agencies and again to prevent a subject if using against a subject that is attempting to destroy evidence prohibited from using psychology oozed a escort device in the drive stun mode and subjects handcuffed or otherwise restrained. Excuse me we got feedback but the molds according to the poa you shouldnt prohibit the sun mode this is considered a less lethal use of force and causes less injuries sergeant kilshaw did that come up. It came up in one. In the discussion. It did this is on page let me find that page number 2 of the Stakeholder Comments number 8. Questions poa by officers not using the stun modes that is a letters use of force in the approach. Okay. Thats an open question. I dont know if that is true or not. So let me just again on that question also other feedback we did get open this policy was to include cit a reference to cit i would suggest that is consistent with the rest keep on going commissioner dejesus do you and im waiting until our deny. The coalition an homelessness recommended we include stronger language that says c e d are weapons and c e d causes fatalities and the risk of use is can be fail it is transparent to officers thats one recommendation ill definitely be open to a version that constituent that language i dont know about thoughts on that i think the point is an important one. But if they want a way to give input into the matter. Theyre double recommendation we not adopt tasers but gave us feedback to discuss and very it is an entirely different landscape and an entirely different direction and vision and i think its become an upon us to make some decisions and this is one of them. We havent had any input from anyone else. There has been an invitation to but as a pay and again folks we are able to decline and i respect that but our job is to set the invitation and ask for that support. I think it is incredibly helpful. We are incredibly moved by the process and the information that we have gotten. We provide Technical Support on this. That is welcome there still is time. But it is our responsibility to make a decision is taken away and that does not work for me. Under the mandate that they had 6 hours 3 meetings in 18 hours and i thought we were going to get stakeholders in this order . And, they were. The Previous Commission voted twice against tasers and it was a very lengthy commission that i was part of and that is what made that different this is a decision that was previously made and i do not want to read that it. Apparently, it was considered and not adopted several times before and that is what makes it a little bit different then other pieces at this point. It seems like this is a much bigger piece than just adding in a verbal deescalation or just modifying the language a little bit this is a fairly large discussion that needs to be discussed a little bit. I understand your suggestion but when we have voted on tasers in the past and if i vote on tasers again i will not vote for them. This commission has voted for the use of force since 1965. At this moment in time since what we know is this a tool that makes sense . Yes or no . No one is requiring you to say yes we can have that debate or that discussion because the commission 8 years ago said no. I think that is not what the people of San Francisco are asking us to do. I dont think you are seeing the entire picture. For me i dont want to cut up and compartmentalize. I agree with dr. Loftus and dr. Marshall and this wasnt past the 2nd time that it was brought forth on the agenda. But i agree it is a discussion we need to have about what is minimal and that is our goal but each level before that is minimal compared to the next level and comparatively the use of tasers is minimal force if you compare it to the next level which would be the lethal force of a firearm. Were asking these officers to make this decision based on when theyre on the street. And were asking them to detain the use of force and with addisons of the equation. We are talking 100 officers versus 24 officers and it is something that we need to discuss. We will and also again we have passed this on to the doj for a recommendation. Recommendation. Commissioner marr. I agree that this is something that we need to have a discussion about beforewe make a decision because we are equipping these officers with a tool that might help them to make a less lethal decision if they have to make one so to me it is a nobrainer at this point. Especially as we consider it within the general context of reengineering and use of force. Commissioner . We are setting up here with no expertise, we have reports we have articles we have laws that were reading that week can understand it we have this draft thing we can change this and change that and we dont know where this came from. We dont have any caselaw or anything to help us through this. We we are given a draft and we say lets change this sentence in the sentence and then we have a laufer tasers. I do not know what the best practices. I dont know where this came from. I do not know where this came from. Dr. Marshall . 1st of all i just want to say that my vote to want to separate is not a vote forward. Is not one way or another. Number 2, if it comes down to it folks will come in here like they always have. Its not like youre not gonna get that. Youre gonna get that before we take a vote anyway. Thats what i dont get. Youre going to hear all of that. Its just whats happening up until this point. But they had a chance to do that and you best believe it comes down to it you will hear all of that. We asked for that and they didnt want to do it. I just want to say that we sit here is a commission and we see everything thats going on and one could say that if there were ceds present way that we have the incidents that we have today. This is not a life or death situation. A lot of people oppose these issues and i respect their opinion but we have officers that are put in positions where officers have to make a decision on their left without a firearm. I think that we should not use this ifpeople are onlyaggressive or violent i think that it should only be used if they have a weapon. I want to thank pres. Loftus and thank the stakeholders and this is some great stuff around use of force. We have another meeting coming up and i dont want to spend 3 hours talking about tasers again. Thats why want to separate out the discussion. You know its going to happen at the end of this meeting, right . Were just going to have common and commenting comment about tasers but we have this other important stuff. Want to get this stuff done 1st and then separate out the other discussion. I understand its part of the whole package but were to be overwhelmed at the next meeting with just tasers and thats what were going to do. People want to come and have discussion about tasers at this meeting. I have a box in my closet a taser box. Its like the record is significant. Im not moved by the idea that we can avoid Public Comment. And thats not what i think you meant commissioner long but im not moved by that comment. I think people may have to support tasers but at this point i recall shortly after mario woods was shot going to the coalition and going to the department and i remember people weighing in and people may weigh in but i can control whether or not people can weigh this in. Im often accused of speeding things through but i dont think im speeding this through i just think we have to separate this thing out. Mr. Marshall . Just to be honest with you i have had this has been agenda is like 55 times, right . I have heard every single argument every single time but i just dont want to do it again. I dont think we need to stop this. Depending on what we do i dont know for to get to that or whether or not religion dies a further discussion this week but in terms of the next app we have a meeting next week and if we do not get through this but it looks like we will get through itit may not be on next weeks agenda but were back on june 1st it weve got 2 meetings june 15 and june 8 and that will be before the final adoption just everybodys clear. I would like to suggest that the cit working group made a recommendation that we talk about the cit training. Commissioner marshall if you have information about the cit working group i am open to that and also references with the defibrillator that seems to make sense to me. Then, there is a comment by the coalition on homelessness that the policy could mentioned that Homeless Individuals and people on medication may have an adverse reaction to having the cid used on them. And Homeless Individuals frequently have compromised health which often puts them at risk. So, there is a suggestion that the language that we have used in our committee does not accurately reflect something that we know about particularly Vulnerable People and my recommendation would be that we use very specific language in the coalition on homelessness. And again this is just something for you to consider. Again all of the groups would recommend that everyone has a teaser and its not my recommendation on that just like everyone else and i think that weve gone through the feedback on that. Is there any other issue on the policy that folks want to suggest or anything that you want to edit for consideration. When i was 1st concerned about this it was when we were using it in situations wheres someone has a weapon and in my opinion the officers should do what theyneed to do with their training for other techniques and do what they need to do at that point. It may surprise some people but i think that that should be an option. Can you direct me to where that language is . Commissioner, if i could, that was in a situation where if a person size or if an officer were to engage a physically superior person and was losing the battle then they could use a firearm. That would be under item number 2 and no one is more concerned with that and everybody in this room including the commission and again i saw this as an option available and like i said on part 1 the weapon used with a firearm. So, item number 2 says the item would only be used if the person has a firearm and only in they feel in danger of their life can they use the firearm. Anything further on this matter colleagues . Okay, the next step is that i will work with sgt. Kilshire and our staff to see where we need some input and we will make sure that we get that up on the website and share it as quickly as we can and certainly share it with all the commissioners and then the doj is going to be sharing with us those recommendations and we get those in writing we will make those available. Then the question is in terms of agenda rising and i can work with the Commission Staff as to when we can look at them and i dont know if that will be next week and will have to speak to them about that but certainly members of the public we are not voting on that until weve had 2 Public Meeting so in terms of your schedule that that will happen until the 2 Public Meetings have happened sometime in june and then sometime after that time that will appear on the agenda for discussion. There is a lot of they should and they may in here and maybe you should say shall and every [inaudible] and the other part is about the cattle prod if youre close enough to use the cattle prod youre close enough to subdue them. So i think you should look at that. It will all go to the doj. So thank you. So, maybe you could give it back again. If you want to i have it. Okay we will do Public Comment. Any Public Comment on item 5 . Come on up. Welcome. [indecipherable] thank you next speaker. Good evening at mr. Crew and welcome back. I just want to quickly clarify in the brief time that i have im sure it is unintentionally but we did not get input on the tasers. We didnt get the impact on the draft but i read the input and it was very clear. And their very specific reasons we have an Early Intervention system is apparently not working now and if you have officers that are using tasers you are not tracking data so it should not be used in that environment. That data should be out there now and uses of force. It was promised 8 months ago and you have made the policy by even on the carotids we dont have the data on carotids. We need to be able to tell the public the very positive efforts of deescalation will lead to more uses of force. Especially in the position of the doj. 5 years ago that should not have been used. It should not be used to incapacitate the muscles because the delivery is incomplete. Thats why they call it torture. [timer dings] thank you mr. Crew and we will clarify that the cattle prods will be prohibited and that requests will be added to the Police Association group. Welcome back sir. No tasers are nobrainer. Theres no reason for tasers. You should use the net. There is no torture in it. And then once you use the net the officer does have to go over and start kicking them or hidden with a billy club either. You can easily go subdue them with 2 or 3 other officers and then no one dies. What bothers me about all of this is we have psychopathic cops that go out and shoot people and what do they say . He had a gun. Mario woods no not mario woods for Kenneth Harding was just one of them. Whether the officer did or didnt know he got down on his hands and knees and then they turn around and cover up and say a cell phone was a gun. No lies, lies, lies, lies. These psychopathic cops need to be removed and it needs to stop. And then the way they covered up kevin hardings murder, awful. Next speaker. Welcome back. Thank you again. Barbara latard. I am stunned once again thank you for your review on the use of force. I think itshelpful to suggest that each of these will be analyzed separately because youre revising your use of force policy and as commissioner said youre changing some of the language. Looking at tasers and bringing in a new weapon you need to have a full hearing on that. Are you going to once again bring in the doctors from the community. Its really important that you hear what they have to say and is really important that you look at the cd that you received tonight. Its very eyeopening and really important. Anyway, i think its outrageous to fold the ecd into the use of force policy and i think youre doing us all a disservice and as john said you are going against the policy and you are writing you are going against the policy thereby including this very dangerous weapon and i recommend that you would consider. Thank you anymore Public Comment on item number 5 . Welcome back. I do not know how you have any doubt that bringing tasers in would be anything but a completely new way for the police to practice Law Enforcement. It would no longer be that they would be peace officers. They would be war officers. I just want to read this here. This is from the article in the Baltimore Sun and said that the stun analysis in maryland found that nearly 70 were noncompliant. And that was when the state started collecting data through 2014 and it goes against everything that you say you are trying to do by bringing tasers into the department. They do not represent deescalation they represent escalation. I dont know how the chief could describe them as nonlethal they are not nonlethal. Something that kills people is not nonlethal. You are contradicting everything that you stand for if you bring them into this department. You will keep wasting all of this enormous effort that you are putting into deescalating and stopping the killings. They kill people. [timer dings] next speaker for Public Comment on this matter . Hello Jennifer Fremont with the coalitioni just want to make some comments on how this is looked at throughout the countrythese are being developed without any medical oversight and without looking at the impacts of what these weapons are. This is something that shuts down your neurological system and it does have a medical effect. Just like the [inaudible] and then they didnt put the blame on themselves but on the departments it took these on. Then they use this line that they were using this as a substitution for a gun and study using a gun they would use this as was mentioned earlier and we talked about all the municipalities and what the incidence of bin and around the country we have found that municipalities have stopped using tasers and what they found is the use of guns increased after they took these weapons away. So we know that after their introduced the use of guns increases if there now were starting to find out that ifthere taken away that theres still an increase. I dont think that police work is going to happen at the end of a wire. Thanks. [timer dings] welcome back mr. Perez. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is jesus and i work with a lot of Homeless People and there are people that are Homeless People that have nerve conditions in heart conditions in if these are to hit them they are going to die. This will just be like a new toy to them. Its just a neutral way and we dont need that. We do not need any tasers here. Thank you sir. Any other Public Comment on this matter . Okay Public Comment is closed. And colleagues we will continue to talk about this next week and it will probably be sometime after that and in the meantime sgt. Hillshire will make the edits and then we will have 2 versions to share the version that we have now and the one that is edited and then we will make decisions after we see what the doj s so now we will take a personal break and then we will keep going. We will take a fiveminute break and we will come back at 11 35. We can get another draft that reflects the changes we want to see or so. By and i briefly. Commissioner president loftus requester back in open session it item to allow the chief of police to talk about the recent police 0. 86 and crisis intervention and update for the professional Standards Bureau in regards to the bureaucracy organization and save streets for all quarterly First Quarter 2016. Good evening, commissioners and public very quickly comments were made in Public Comment ive got through to as far as we concentrate on hiring from San Francisco we have had good diversity numbers with debris diversity numbers in the one hundred and i believe 87 or 98 recruits and commented we want to be a department that looks like San Francisco one speaker said some confusion as to what is responsible for holding did officers account a general orders i know the commissions knows that is very, very clear any misconduct or violation of policy comes to that me if i building that is to be adjudicated whether investigated by the poa or the allegations sustained i can give up to 10 days suspension anything i believe will be more deferring of 10 days i defer to this discipline and we hold the officers audible and after the closed session and open session where the department believe the discipline speak exceeds my authority i briefly want to speak to the Fourth Amendment demonstration and the captain of the mission station is monitoring that some confirmations have been and some supervisors and mayor has been to the commission station a medical group that looks at at the situation to make sure that nobodys in out of harms way and making sure that people are hydrated and continue to observe that and facilitate the First Amendment so my piece were in contact are assault riffle kevin is one or our tactical officers to back to new york to work with the departments to arrive at the new training and reengineering and use of force and bring that back one of the things he poke to that i and others talked to commissioner president loftus was there about Crisis Intervention Team responses so very quickly they do in assault riffle and utilize the contact and cover training where offers have focusing on direct engagement with the subject atrisk theyre required to operated from minimal closer and asked to identify the positions of reasonable safety they communicate with the subject is that officers is a identify safety and encouraged to adjust theyre double position and tactical repositioning for security to include disengaging a subject and detaining and remaining from a safe distance to reengage the existence with the subject when tactically sound and speedy recover and how to promote deesclation and apply the 3 s model think and control and subject engagement and a solution tactical with a minimum use of force and use the engagement techniques with the open model with the openend model and next steps to communicate promote subject compliance and learn the body positioning skills and promote the subject compliance with the understanding of the individual a small team takes tactics and real communities based were working on to form trying to use rc it and forms and together with the former that is in seattle to arrive with the cover Response Form and working with the proposal operations and the officers of the chief of staff structure the watch schedules at the station to begin the station trainings while we do the training on the use of force we cant ged get this done fast enough by bio annually but regularly has often as we can eve if so in the parking lot to get the officers to work as teams and get the Crisis Intervention Teams so with that, that will close any portion in the interest of getting through that and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. But we have people that ill bring up captain hart for an update on collaborative review status at Bureau Organization for the professional standards. Good evening i have 37 comments no only one a full flight terms of the panel theyll work every week to schedule possible Community Engagement and possible lance sessions meeting with people in the department outside of the department to come up with the final recommendations that are going to came into from the Collaborative Reform Initiative i brought an 8 page document to put on line and the sfpds website which is copies here but that the explanation of collaborative reform going through the exact the goals and areas that will be addressed including email for any questions or comments or feedback San Francisco all one word dot t. I. D. A dot gov. So thats that we have a new sergeant that is helping to pass out the work and working with the cfo of the department in order to get funding to for the training to get out to the department that will support the training and so forth. Colleagues you have sorority on some units it is great to have it in writing i was referencing the 6 page ploy to the mayor and laying out the funds it is great to see that on a number of instances ive heard tonight youve been here so long a deep concern some protests around the idea that the change is happening i think that were having i to come to the commission and encourage the department and make that known public i know that is a late hour i dont know how many people are watching but it is important we doing everything we can to make sure that the people understand the scope and scale of some of the work colleagues, any questions for the captain. Im seeing the primary purpose to build the trust with the community we serve are we are doing something specifically to address the process long term met with the folks coming out for the protests or going to the station or specifically we need to there trust in relationship building. Yeah. Theyve done 3 be listening session and found that helpful in some ways and other ways to engage the community theyre double currently coming up with new ideas how to engage youth and other parts of community that may not pa be out at a microphone at a public hearing but were shown up at Police Commission meetings and last nights forum on california street and definitely maximizing theyre double time but the fulltime staff in their bringing in 14 to 18 experts that are Law Enforcement experience that sat in the seats you currently sit in and bringing in the best practices and really driving down the questions there are civilians and Law Enforcement and ways it there that engagement what you are saying so that has not stopped theyll are here formulateing a plausibleness you have people to talk about the data question we asked you to come back is that moving forward you youve listed there is stop data on the website any information about your inquiry about the concer raised by recent reports about consent. We were directed to do a deeper dive for the overlay in determining there was a corelation between trends and the reason that officers are asking people to have consent to search vehicles and agendized next wednesday and any further questions for captain hart. Thank you for your patience captain. Sergeant, next line item. We have to the presentation are for the city streets for. Quarreling report for 2016. Thank you captain your awesome. I have karen lie your in fact, in the Traffic Company we have the data we have were prefrnt and commander maddox regularly presents were fortunately to have her commissioner president loftus is aware we are champed for a period of time. Well, you said it not me. Were doing better thanks to karen. Karen you the power of data all the advocates theres a perception but things are moving in the right direction this is how good data supports good work. With that, well get started. Okay. Colleagues ill remind you this is a resolution from a few years ago we regularly get updates it seems like they were just here a few weeks ago. That is the first slide vision zero principles basically support the vision zero polar in essence is our enforcement strategies some of the things we regularly do of course, educating the public and greener the traffic laws and part of the chp on Traffic Safety operation we continue to monitor data and Law Enforcement towards reaching vision zero goals specialized enforcement operations mostly the same youre familiar with our grant Bicycle Safety operation and pedestrian operations save routes to school and Safety Operations and dui enforcement operation and joint enforcement operations with the chp one thing we did last year 4 serious vehicle collisions on city streets no deaths or injuries related fortunately but a substantial you mulch Property Damage and damaged a few vehicles on the streets it is a larger problem we conducted with a chp and during the operation two vehicles were towed one for not having brakes those are operational commercial vehicles day to day and were going to continue to do those operations were trying to be preventive so something didnt result in death citywide traffic violations issued by the quarter one during the First Quarter of 2016 to 24 thousand plus visitations we are issued with the thousand plus focused on the 5 violations with 37 percent total in the city and Traffic Company maids strides to reach our 50 percent by focusing on the 5 richmond is 61 percent and terryville 63 and mission at 40 and park 42 and english side and traffic is 41 percent a lot of the stations are making a significant goal. Youre the captain of traffic go back. Thank you. Command maddox is working at the other stations to improve the percentages and captain yip and others and captain mceachern fatten and terryville and liquifies up the transformers theyve moved and district level focus on the 5 and citywide total focus on the 5 violations issued 2015 quarter one versus 2016 quarter one in january 1st, 2016, to march 31st i 2016 thats quarter one a total of 9 thousand plus focus on 5 violations have been issued compared to 2015 where only 7 thousand plus focused on the 5 issues so substantial increase this year our red light stop sign violations pedestrian right away was generally the same the first one decreases by 21 and that was red light violations and stop sign violations decreased by 12 percent our speed violations were up 19 percent and failed to yield long term this is incredible percentage drivers door by one thus plus percentage i can only speak to what y with increased were helping mta implement a number of new traffic changes and some of the changes are turns grid turns so it end weve been out supporting theyre double effort and additional enforcement i suggest some represent the enforcement we do something with a Traffic Company and additionally it is too early to tell only the First Quarter theyre responsible for the doctors thats our hope ultimately citywide traffic violations issued by unit and mode you can see 97 percent were issued to motorists one point 63 percent issued to pedestrians and one. 3 issued to bicyclists. Collisions by degree 2016 we had a rough First Quarter had 12 fatalities total 3 from a single contributor collision that was the dhp incident on city streets, there were severe injuries total of 50 no change and a decrease of 2 percent a complaint of pain 47 and decreased 8 percent saving issued severe injury collisions 2016 total of 10 vehicle or excuse me 10 fatality incidents with 12 victims 3 were cited two over active and 5 no charges in the case no charges ill get to it again with the serious injury we dont charge the responsibly parties is at fault the. You meant the injured parties as yes. The injured parties. For the 50 serious cases 22 were cited and 2 open and 22 not charged and again, a couple of those were hitandrun with no suspect information the party was at fault and in two cases medical conditions there were the cause quarter one traffic fatalities again as i said 12 total victims drivers there were 2 that were 17 percent of total fatalities passersby there were 3 represents 25 percent fatalities, pedestrians were 7 that represents 58 percent of the total fatalities that charges to 2015 total of 4 victims two drivers, one bicyclists, one pedestrian and the only good news in quarter one this year there were no bicyclists were pleased about that note again with the total number unfortunately i will say this because we do pursue the data and analysis the data 5 of the 7 pedestrian victims were aged 60 and above this year i think that is important to lay back to 2015 the total of the year 11 of the 20 pedestrians were aged 60 and above thats a substantial portion thats why we focus on Senior Centers and seniors congregate and obviously schools are for this speaks to that enforcement. Last slide collision map on the map that indicates fatalities occurred citywide each district had a fatality with the exception of inside. Do we have any questions. Captain that is comprehensive colleagues, any questions for the captain. Yeah. Commissioner melara i wanted to ask if you knew why in the tenderloin there seems to be compared to the other stations lower on automobile violations and more on pedestrians. The violations. I know there is a lot of foot traffic in pedestrians in the quarterly in the tenderloin i know that in some afternoons and if the daytime a lot of people in the street whether that lends to jaywalking or other violation based on the data that seems to indicate. We have more fatalities; right . In this particular case the tenderloin had one. One. Yeah. One. Commissioner. Actually, i take that back two they had two. Theres an interesting status only one stop sign in the tenderlo tenderloin. So stop signs in most of the other district focus on the 5 and shouldnt say they only had one but when we originally did the survey the triangle that was the tenderloin now they get all of Market Street so they change because tenderloin the largest and San FranciscoSmall Business commission have a number of issues with the citations and working with captain maddox. I understand i mean it is so congested people walk around like i drive that area a lot so but i was wondering. There are certain streets there is less traffic during the daytime and obviously las vegas worthy and north and south get more traffic and the east and west and tenderloin sometimes in the daytime not on tucker or eddy as you get closer to Market Street. Captain cesarean its lovely to meet you your awesome thank you for doing that and your concerted forecast this is incredible results i know its late our tired i have to say this is peer prevention is safety lives i appreciate youre staying and introducing us to karen. The i next quarter. Chief suhr. In closing i want to thank into captains and karen for being here my last comment this has nothing to do with we have a line item in our budget for 25 net gun pilot i know we talked about that so were actually trying to color this option. Oh, the nett net other opt the net. Thank you very much. Im glad to hear that i was thinking about that ive seen the net it looks effective and sergeant, next line item. Item 4b occ to allow the director to report on the activities and make announcements. Director hicks thank you for your patience welcome. Good morning commissioner president loftus. Oh, you got to say that. And chief suhr. Members of the public. Wow. With the consent of the president will defer my recent activities report to next week. Oh. clapping thank you. Sergeant, next item. That got a round the applause. Commissioner president s report and discipline reporting and commissioners report commissioner dejesus to give an update on the e i s i. Captain led the training and occ and members of the public of the active working group it was incredible it was really i think exceptional for captain hart to open up a space to talk about what it feels like to be an officer and the reflection on the perform where we want to get better and it is so powerful and essential part of what were trying to do and i dont know, there is enough understood about the pressures and stress and strain ill encourage every commissioner to go for a couple of hours i think that will go a long way and commend you captain for your leadership in bringing that program and supporting that that background really lays the foundations you understand all the change that is before us in the interest of preserving that wellbeing of officers that is really at the core of all of this change and so i want to thank you first year that. And then discipline reporting we can add this to another agenda but two things one id like to work with the occ on we do the discipline report on the back end which provides a level of information about discipline but not anything on the front ended weve learned from the public a concern which discipline is filed and theres no sense no knowing what exactly the category is id like to work but on the new report i wanted to let you you know we can talk about that and tell you right now it is first time there we go and the second thing so thats it thats all i have to say the last thing i was inviting the mission station and spoke with 3 out of 4 hunger stricters and talked about what is going on and others did the same were obviously trying to get us to a better place colleagues anything you want to ask . inaudible . Sergeant, next item. Oh. Im sorry. Lets be clear San Franciscos had to move her car shell talk next and 4 d identification of items for future agendas colleagues anything to add to the agenda right now. Okay can we get a report back on the body cameras. Yes. Yeah. Sergeant has that schedule. Sergeant, next item. Public comment on all matters closed session excluding outline comments whether or not to hold this in closed session. Whether or not to hold item 8 in closed session hearing none Public Comment is closed. Sergeant, next line item. Vote on whether to hold item 8 administrative code action. Do i have a motion all in favor, say i. I. Opposed . That item passes were in closed