tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 26, 2018 5:00am-6:01am PDT
supervisors but also part is what's going to be reported out and that's the part i don't see why we can't include some information of what type of summary should be reported out that includes -- tell me -- whoever put this in green need to reconsider this. this goes to decision making and de-escalation and use of force and supervision and an agreed upon template. irregardless of what statute is going to require to report i don't see what's wrong with providing that type of information in the summary. >> that's already in the draft policy. what we're suggesting here is we take that same information and apply that basically to the report which is being rec
reconfigured. >> commissioner: what's wrong with that? i dont see what the hurdle is? you're already going to give a summary. you're already going to do that. doesn't matter if you have cut and paste it into a 96a report but i think we should include some of this information to be more transparent the that's my two cents. >> commissioner: may i speak. >> commissioner turman: go ahead. >> commissioner: so i know that it appears duplicative this section we're asking be enow -- enumerated with the language of the 79
96a report and want it retooled with the language. >> commissioner: it's a no-brainer for me. >> commissioner turman: your response, chief? >> commissioner: we don't feel it's the appropriate place to document that information and the 96a report is a separate reporting process and when the laws change then it impacts this. it's locked into this appendix. the reporting process is a part of the review board process. i don't see a need to restate this in a 96a report. >> so we don't know what the 9 a is going to require i don't want to project it's going to be a hassle. we don't know that to be true.
i don't see why we can't have it in here and if there's a problem to putting it in twice if it comes too fruition we can deal with it but i think it's important to list out the type of information we want in the summary report. >> if that's what the commission directs we're asking it not be in the policy because if we need to change this we have to change the policy. the reporting that the dpa is suggesting is already a part of the review board process. it's separate from the 96a report. >> commissioner: is this something that also came from seattle? i need clarification because i'm not understanding the two different reports. >> thank you. originally, we had requested two
different kinds of reports. one we had asked for with the 96a the use of force report. we used the sheriff's example where in their use of force report they provide summaries especially when they use force and tasers and they're brief summaries but it gives more information to the public and commission. we asked the summaries be included. my understanding is we had the agreement with the department they would provide summaries in the 96a report. so that's one thing and to clarify the amendments that are going on with the board of supervisor with the 96a don't impact use of force. we felt in the agreement there be 9 6a reports with summaries about tasers. that was our request. separate was a request and we have agreement for the review board there would be a report and we're in agreement about the specificity would be but i think
right now it looked like we're asking for a two reports but we had specific language that dealt with the 96a. is that helpful. >> commissioner: that helps. that should help the chief if the 9 6a amendment don't use the use of force policy. >> commissioner turman: commissioner hirsch -- you folks are losing me. >> commissioner: out sounds like the information we want is being reported somewhere. the information you want also in the 96a report. why isn't it sufficient to have it where it exists now. why do you need a separate report. >> commissioner turman: they're two separate things. >> commissioner: i don't understand if as the same information and accessible to the public and the world why do we need to duplicate it.
96a is a quarterly report and it's reported to the human rights commission and the it gives the same specific to ecds and goes on the public website. so what we're saying is 96a is an administrative code and leave it alone the information will keep it uniform and these are the stats we do for batons, you know, physical control, etcetera. boom, that's it. it looks the same all the way through instead of having summary ecd in the middle or where we're going to put it. you'll have the board report on the website. that's as simple. >> commissioner: will tasers be
on the 96a. >> statistically. we're talking about not duplicating that report and putting it in 96a for one single use of force. >> commissioner turman: chief, was there else you wanted to stay. >> commissioner: key word statistically. >> commissioner turman: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> commissioner: he covered it. >> commissioner: specifically, you say we have 10 of these and two of these were that and three of these were that. one line sentence. i think we're asking for more information than a statistical report that the board of supervisors may be gathering stats on to make an analysis of. i need know if you're just talking about stats. >> commissioner: 96a is stats which should remain stats. the review board will have the summaries which has been agreed upon and will go onto the website for everyone to read.
we're just saying keep 96a the way it is, where we statistically do it. here's the report for tasers. >> commissioner: summaries is crossed out and it said findings and report quarterly to the chief of police. summaries are crossed out here. at least what i'm looking for it's crossed out. if you just want to address that we'll use the taser. >> commissioner: we've agreed to the summary. we've agreed to do the summaries as part of the ecd review board process. >> commissioner turman: who objects to leaving this the way it is? all right. thank you for that. all right. there's issues in the 5.02 as
well as the appendix. our straw poll and how we will vote after public comment is on the general order as follows. it will be an as written but use of electronic weapon. it will be -- we will eliminate the definition of assaultive. we will allow the drive stun load to remain. we will add in the section and take out the department's language and add in commissioner hirsch's suggested language, we will leave as is except we will add the word schizophrenia as an
example. we will -- >> page nine the coordinator. >> commissioner turman: we will add in the coordinator position and role and responsibility and for number seven, i cannot read my own handwriting. >> remove the language requiring admittance to a medical facility. >> commissioner turman: yes. eliminate the language requiring notification only if there's a medical facility.
if there's serious bodily injury the [indiscernible] will be immediately notified. when it comes to the review board, we will -- >> secretary kilshaw: item one, use the dpas language. >> commissioner turman: we will use the dpa's language. item number two, we will have two commissioners. item three, we'll add language as suggested by the dpa. and item number four we will leave as-is. with that, commissioners, we will now take public comment on the first item which is listed as item number two the policy of
the ddo policy on ecd and the appendix. two minutes per speaker. one at a time, please. members of the public you are now invited. >> i want to say as a veteran of two rounds of working groups, the use of force and tasers it continues to amaze me how collaborative the process has been and how seriously the views of stakeholders have been taken. in terms of the discussion around the authorized use of the weapon i will say this. i understand the chief's view on consistency but as someone involved in the 5.0 negotiations
we were not considering tasers. if one thing that's been proven over tasers being debated is it's controversial and dangerous. there's scientific debate about it and therefore i think it's imperative the policy your developing have tasers in mind. i frankly can't believe san francisco, the policy that would allow someone involved in an assault which is an unlawful threat to a touching or a verbal intention to assault someone that that would be triggering trays trayser -- taser use. the only defense of that is we'll trust the training and we'll trust the officer's common sense and good judgment. and i'm sure they have good judgment but if there's one job for this commission is to not have the difference. you have to set the policies and
choices made. i hope the straw poll holds. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm a legislative aide to the supervisor. the supervisor has reviewed the policy and recognizes the efforts of the police commission to develop sound policy that is flexible and reflects public interests. however tasers are potentially lethal weapons and we have to be clear on the context. in 2016 the voters asked for more oversight and accountability for sfpd following the scandals through the passage of prop g. supervisor cohen supports the policy but sees it as a step in the right direction to make sure the policy for use of tasers is iterative and we will continue to monitor the development of
this important policy. thank you for your continued efforts to ensure the safety of the san francisco community. >> commissioner: thank you. >> thank you for drafting the policy consistent with the doj's recommendation. i think it resulted in a stronger policy. i appreciate the opportunity to participate and thank you for spending the time this evening on the policy. i think the compromises that have been reached are productive. i want to belabor the comments though i agree with them strongly and i hope it holds on assaultive language. i want to address two issues the first is the drive stun mode. i still have not heard an explanation of a use or
circumstance the department would like to use this mode. that is not a pain compliant mode. distraction. this is the first time i've heard distraction as a potential use and i'm not sure what it really means but the chief's explanation with respect do not make sense to me. the only possible circumstance that i've heard this could be used is as a pain compliance mode. and the second topic is special considerations. we aren't encouraging deadly force here. what we're asking is these are populations likely to die. it's like using a firearm on these people. so that's why we proposed the position the department had tak taken that it should only be used as a deadly threat and let me propose another compromise since that didn't hold the day.
the further compromise is tasers should not be used against these populations unless no other intermediate -- unless all intermediate threat option not feasible under the circumstances. in other words -- [timed out] >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> tasers should not be used unless no other intermediate use of force options are available. >> against the vulnerable population and add a restriction. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> ms. altman. >> commissioner marshall: good
evening. >> first, i'm totally opposed to tasers and they're a torture weapon and i have now received a unanimous vote to appeal the vote as illegal because city hall was shut down that night and it will go to the main committee of the sunshine task force. having said that, i want to say the calm discussions of torturing our people that we act like this is intelligent and calm when we're talking about tortured. i am appalled at the way humans interact with each other. i keep hearing commissioners say the chief will define the policy. if the purpose is to hold us to a higher standard and you keep saying he's going to -- do we want a police commission because if you're going to be on it please use this as a check and balance and not a submission to the chief. i'd appreciate if you'd pay
attention when i speak, commissioner. there's respect, commissioner. you said if we're doing this and that and the police are doing that, where's the time and distance? i doesn't see the crisis intervention at work at all during the killing 99 bullets, 10 officers the other day in the commission and the community is outraged. utterly outraged. and it was a tragedy. and we're not using this de-escalation as it is intended. and we shouldn't have tasers or think about them until the use of force is actually applied and it has not been and now another child is dead in the mission and we made it like a war zone. one of my daughter's friends lives there with two babies. windows were broken and it was outrageous. where the de-escalation. the first thing they said is we're go to shoot you 10 times.
[timed out] >> good evening. my name is terry bora and i've been involved in the mental health community for 45 years as the member of the mental health association and we thank you for the work that have you put in this. we know this is not easy. we've seen over the years many different changes in policy. i testified on tasers 15 years ago so this is not a new subject to us. we really want to see that officers who are carrying tasers complete the 40-hour crisis intervention training and the 20-hour use of force. that gives them the knowledge of dealing with vulnerable populations. this weapon -- as you heard this evening and as you know, can be
lethal on many populations. we feel that the crisis intervention training we hope some day will be able to brag and say san francisco has the best cit team and training in the nation. we're not there yet. but we think this policy could be improved greatly by requiring any officer who is going to carry a taser be 40-hour c.i.t. trained and have 40-hours in the use of force. >> commissioner marshall: thank you, we received your letter on behalf of the mental health association of san francisco and 40-hour training and 20-hour training are part of the policy so thank you. >> good evening. my name is vivian imperiali and i'm past president of the local and state national alliance on
mental illness. thank you, first of all for your work on this. think of a cartoon with lightning bolts around the zapped character about the pain ravaging the body. think of that. in contrast, san francisco had an intervention team with a phenomenal success rate of calming people. what weapons did they use? their trustworthy demeanor and calm convincing words. we ask that your policy include the requirement that every officer issued a taser must first complete crisis intervention training and that whenever possible, those techniques should be the first response rather than shooting. eventually, in a small city
officers may confront someone they know and will hesitate to shoot a taser and inflect inhumane agony. here's a strategy. treat everyone as if they were someone you know. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. good evening. >> good evening. jennifer friden babach. i want to thank you for thoughtful consideration. we've been very opposed to the implementation of the weapon but given your choosing to move forward on it we want to see careful consideration in the development of this policy. i want to focus my comments around the special considerations and i'd appreciate it if the body revisited this particular point. basically what the policy is
saying in essence you're asking officers to use direction on populations that are in severe danger of death when these are used, pregnant women, the fetus will die, folks on psychiatric medications when interacting with the taser can cause heart failure. we need a higher standard. the original idea is because they're potentially lethal you need that lethal standard before you're using the taser. it's not saying to use a gun, it's saying when you're using this weapon at that higher -- if that's not going to go in terms of compromised language and david's idea is good but in terms of making sure there's no immediate force is used but i want to add to that and point out that the dpa had a
recommendation that was not discussed which was around when bodily harm is at risk. that's not necessarily a lethal force but a compromise we need a higher level. these are high stakes and officers need to know what they are. thank you. >> >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> good evening. i had a nice speech but this went on so long, you don't even need tasers no more. bring them here and let them sit in them seats for two hours, that's torture. [laughter] you could tase me and a
wouldn't feel it in my behind. a taser is a weapon. it's a torture weapon. and pain compliance is torture and if you don't think so there's a bunch of pows that will tell you different. i believe this in my heart, we do not need tasers out here. all we need is training and some cops with integrity and morals and chief, get rid of those tasers. teach the officers how to be more community friendly. we don't need a bunch of young rookies with a brand new weapon who are going to pretend they're fearing for their life and shoot somebody and someone passes away and then have you two lives destroyed. i know you'll rally around the officer and tell him it's justified but it won't be. it will be another person out
here that is dead for no reason at all. i think y'all are a great group of people. thank you. >> hello. i'm a human rights organizer at the commission of homelessness. i can tell you the population that your officers are encountering varies. i meet the 70-year-old white woman homeless and i see the homeless honduran and now we're giving them more tools and we have to be cautious as to how civil rights and we have to raise the standard of how we're
interacting with the public. i think it's very important we remove the use of discretion of high-risk folks. we have to acknowledge they're weapons. and i'm not implying that's what's going to happen but we need to push to have higher standards. i'm going to reiterate this the department needs to consider a taser review board. and we need to understand how the weapons are being used. and i'll be asking we make sure it's only when the subject faces immediate harm. thank you very much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you very much.
>> thank you commissioners for your time. my name is kevin ortiz. i wanted to thank you guys for clarifying on calling tasers weapons. that's what they are. the compliance mode say during feature. i don't see the use of tasers against elders and i'll take the officer any day in the ha hand-to-hand combat and tasers could cause deadly force. seniors are less likely to survive the dry stunt feature and same with teenagers and pregnant woman. it doesn't take into account seniors, children and pregnant women. i hope we can they can me policy clear while the officers are in the force the public has major
fears around the police and the weapon will be disproportionately used on the population of color and it need to be determined whether the law is upheld in that matter. thank you for your time. >> commissioner marshall: thank you for yours. >> hi, my name is victoria and i'm a student at hasting. thank you for having me today. i think we have to first give a moment to the person brutally murdered last week and it shows us right now there's no trust between the people and the sfpd and that will continue to decrease with the use of taser and the only reason we're talking about a policy is because they decide to vote protaser back in september.
the policy we're discussing looks bad. after having someone killed by the sfpd last week you can bet when i encounter a police officer i will be verbally resistant to save my life and we want the mayor to keep his word. the question is trying to make sure he does not allow for prop h which say complete abuse of labor rights by the p.o.a. and continue to work out the words of this one. we can't agree on words for a paper on the policy. we're not near how police officers will be using the deadly weapons on the street. and the reason why chief is bringing up a report from canada opposed to the report saying that tasers are a lethal weapon
are because every report in this country shows that when police departments have tasers, deaths go up. thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> thank you. i'm a resident at the tenderloin i have recently housed a long tenure of homelessness. as part of my recovery i are received a certificate in mental health services and now make minimum wage. as a person in the front lines of mental health i had to receive crisis intervention training for the homeless population with mental health problems. i know how to de-escalate them
and now how to keep them from becoming violent for the situations we're in. in are alienated from the treatment of medication to have stable and productive lives they're more likely to be in crisis and come in contact with law enforcement. crisis are often responded to in ways that escalate the problem. an untrained officer creates a situation. if the officers response is to subdue a mental health patient with force they put everyone at risk. officers must be required to report the efforts that they take to de-escalate a situation before any use of force. the reporting should be required for the use of these weapons should require the officer to delineate the efforts they took
to de-escalate before they tried to control the situation with the weapon. i think it's important that they respond to mental health crises in a more appropriate way. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> i'm evan mclaughlin and it's a pleasure for here discussing the conditions under which are san francisco residents will be electrocuted by police. i think it's clear de-escalation tactics are not being used and implemented. and it's clear that the implementation of tasers will only make the problem worse but here we are. so if san francisco police are
going to be armed with tasers we need to be clear the list of people under special consideration -- this say list of people who will be killed by a taser. so the people who are saying this should only be used in the case of deadly force are trying to stop these people from dying. i think it should be taken extremely seriously. as part of a larger problem when we're expecting police officers to fix the problems we see here in san francisco and across the country but what tools do police officers have to fix the problems? do they have mental health services? do they have jobs? do i -- do they have jobs? they have a baton, police car and gun and now a taser.
i hope we all leave here understanding that we not only need to make sure that there are clear restrictions on when this new weapon can be used but we need to shift the way we think about how police are supposed to be utilized and i would like to agree the most important thing is for our current mayor to take a stance against proposition h. >> commissioner marshall: good evening. >> thank you, kevin benedicto and a stakeholder on behalf of the blue ribbon panel. we'd like to thank the commission for the consideration of these topics and want to focus on a specific issue also
raised which is crisis intervention team training which i know is an important point the commissioner raised and voted on in november. it's worth noting the current language on page one only requires the department's use of force policy and crisis intervention team team tactics training. we believe the clearer language is the one suggested by the dpa and support the bar association which changes just 11 words saying officers who have successfully completed the 40 hours of crisis intervention team training and the department's 20-hour use of force policy update and the crisis intervention field tactics training and training authorized to carry ecds. and after completing the training would ensure all officers operate from the same baseline of training and also that incentivized take the
training to have the weapon at their disposal. i'd like to say we support the removal of the language of assaultive and as well as the amendment proposed by commissioner hirsch. thank you very much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. good evening. >> good evening, julie tran and behalf of the bar association. i was a member of the use of force working group. i can tell you as mentioned, we considered tasers to be a separate issue to have its own policy should it ever be enacted. i agree with him on that. we're one of the last cities to adopt this weapon therefore we have the opportunity and responsibility to learn what other cities have not learned as we have undertaken this
important research. everybody's worked hard on this. this say messy process. i really thank the commissioners for looking at what's been submit and working hard on this together. some great additions have been suggested tonight. thank you for that. there's a couple things i think we might have missed. one, the 40-hours as suggested by kevin benedicto and we overlook overlooked i.e.d.s. it didn't hit your list, president thurman but we added the slides from dr. hing showing seconds truly matter and only officers with an i.e.d. in their vehicles have access to one and the recommendation, i believe on page three, paragraph five is to request one if they think
they're going to be using one. we are dealing with many vulnerable people in the city. that's why that language restricted -- this is the one situation where you do use a taser instead of a gun. it's the only situation because using a taser on this vulnerable population will likely result in their death and if you don't have an a.e.d. then we're in trouble so let's make sure we are paying tension to the warnings from the company and protecting citizens going forward. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> hello. gilbert brenstein. i work with democratic socialists and other groups. i want to speak to two things. first is the question the chief brought up on intermediate use of force and classifying tasers as intermediate use of force.
the stunt drive mode in particular is often involved in killings, needless killings with tasers such as nate grier in east bay and hayward. i think the intention of the proposed language and other people's comments is that tasers be treated as a category between intermediate use of force and deadly force and they're a last line with intermediate chief of force and i understand they were used instead of punching someone to get someone off of you which means they're not an alternative to guns. they're proposed as an alternative to all the other forms of immediate use of force. the second issue, real quick, is about the protected populations in psychiatric issues and
proposed language if the subject appears to be having a mental health crisis covers a large number of additional cases. you should be able to expect officers to do that because they receive training and they impose 5150s. they're already being asked to assess. >> john crew. i want to focus my comments more on the context for a second and less on the specifics about what happens after you adopt this policy and i want to thank the other people in thank you for the time and attention you spend on this and the chief's involvement and stakeholders. there's the saying you don't want to see the sausage get made but i disagree. the sausage takes better if you do it in public. you're making a more informed
decision. officers for justice has been sitting here the last three hours because they care about the communities they serve and yet the p.o.a. cannot do us the courtesy of coming and engaging on the policy. i think i heard the commissioner saying about conferring after this. two years ago when you started the use of force reform discussion the aclu said there's a case on point. you do not have to meet on confer on policy reform. d.h.r. said we don't have to but we want to and you adopted the policy in june 2016, people said speed this up, you don't want to get stuck in endless meet-and-confer and six months during the time period the p.o.a. launched a campaign attacking the officers by name and went after the department. during that process they launched a political campaign
and in the end they didn't agree and they sued. you voted and they lost three times in superior court. they're now in appellate court. the court has ruled you don't have to meet-and-confer on this. why are you doing it on a taser policy when they're holding a gun to our head saying give us what we want or we'll spend $500,000 on prop h. do not allow p.o.a. to manipulate them so all this is hanging until election day. thank you for your time. >> i'm john perez, this is my first time in front of the commission. i'm working at the coalition of homelessness. for this to be a responsible transparent conversation you need to acknowledge the introduction of the taser to san francisco will inevitably kill
vulnerable people from san francisco the city has failed and i'm talking about just stun drive mode and what it means for the vulnerable san franciscans you will murder with tasers is disgusting to me. i feel the disgust in the room and will grow as the murders stick up. it's important you commit to not murdering those vulnerable individuals. we must it -- look at it with clear language and process. thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. >> good evening president turman, director henderson. i too appreciate all the work you've done on this policy. i disagree with the decision to
arm officers with tasers. i appreciate your policy states that each use of taser will be investigated. there was some discussion of public reporting on taser use but not the specifics. this weapon has been controversial and to ensure transparency i urge that you report publicly how many times tasers are used, whether the use was in policy whether the taser was effective. how many cycles were used in each incident and the demographics of people tasered. i also want to acknowledge today the amazing show of courage and commitment that we saw in young people who walked out of their schools to protest guns on our streets and calling on our legislators to stand up to the bullying n.r.a. i want to acknowledge our chief for standing up to the bullying
p.o.a. i thank the commissioners not afraid to stand up and create a strong policy and take a stand against proposition h. thank you so much. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. good evening, ms. brian. >> good evening, commissioners, chief and director of d.p.a., kelly brian from the western decision. i like to come when i have upbeat and positive things to say and i've had good interactions with police officers but there's a couple things that have concerned me lately. the other day there was a police suv and had a man inside who was very upset and the officers seemed intent to get him in the car and i kept yelling at him time, distance and space. they seemed to back off the one thing that changed the dynamic
it was a black man and when a black officer showed up the dynamic changed so it's good to have culturally competent people to these situations but i was disappointed. at the same time, people who saw the incident and what was going on witnesses were being allowed to leave while the police officers were talking to each other and i'd like to see police officers talk more to the public about what they saw. i feel like the incident in the mission was another incident where no time, distance and p e pace -- space was employed and this was heartbreaking. i want to say i support the human rights commission recommendations. i think it's really important young people, children, youth are safeguard and protect from this. so i think the discretionary populations that are high risk will end up hurt and killed. i hope 40 hours of c.i.t.
training and 20 hour of use of force training should be mandatory and renewed and should be refresher training. the tasers still make me nervous and oppose them and hope you implement them slowly and carefully and keep working on the time, distance and space with the officers because some have the message and some don't and it's scary. thank you. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. any further public comment? >> tom gilberti. e ers tasers are weapons. the last time i was at the board of supervisors chamber i remember the film a man presented for tasers and there were two men in each other's face and taser took one person
down and that's not appropriate need. anytime you're that close to a person you can stick a taser there's an alternative. they also used the example of two officers holding a man down on the ground and another man pulling a taser out. if two officers are hold man or a woman or anybody down, a taser is inappropriate. i would rather see you grab a rope and tie the gentlemen's feet up. tasers are close encounters. we could use alternatives instead of the taser that are much less -- that can do damage. i would like to see how many
tasers pulls versus guns drawn. the tasers should -- by definition, reduce those shots. if it's not the tasers are not being effective. i'd also like to make sure that we have -- when we deal with the tasers we have a racial response who's getting shot. thank you for your time. >> commissioner marshall: thank you. any further public comment? >> good evening. michelle brathers candidate and i live here in san francisco. proposition h policy for the use of tasers by san francisco police officers would override civilian oversight and force the
city to spend millions on the dangerous weapons and undermine the use of force policy. the san francisco police officers association, who have opposed every single major effort to reform the sfpd ponied up $80,000 for this proposition h, why? so some egos can be puffed up more? is that it? we don't need more weapons. where is martin? are you here? why aren't you talking with him? he is pushing for these things. 27% of the sfpd live here in san francisco. that was by last estimate that means the rest of them don't live in our city or share our
. >> because the more displacements of our communities come in to enforce that town, it's like an alien trying to enforce or occupy a community that they don't know, and the only way to respond to that is with negative response because they don't know how the community functions. and without the neighborly love
or know-how, they're not going to enforce laws or policies to hopefully deescalate a situation that does not result in a person's death or permanent disability because of misuse. thank you. >> president turman: thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. all right. commissioners, so we have set forth the policy that is before us, including the amendments as discussed. i'll entertain an appropriate motion at this point. >> okay. could i -- okay. i move that the commission approve general order 5.02,
including appendix(a) as revised by the commission based on the straw poll taken on each item discussed. >> president turman: okay. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> president turman: seconded by marshall. all right. discussion. commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: i need a clarification now on the hours of training that are required. i heard you say that there are a 40/20 hour training fiermt. >> president turman: right. >> commissioner hirsch: i've also heard that there are not. >> president turman: the traini training that is notes in the policies are a 40 hour and 20 hour course. >> commissioner hirsch: okay. thank you. >> president turman: commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: i just want to add the bar association brought up about the iad's being in the car. i know that's part of it.
i saw an e-mail about it, is that something that we're doing, chief, that we're starting to equip all of our vehicles at this point. >> we have the funding, so in the implementation phase of rolling this out -- >> so by the time we roll this out, every vehicle will have an iad. >> commissioner dejesus: point of clarification, i think the bar association was worried that everyone would have tazers. police on horses, police on motorcycles, everyone was going to have an iad. the question was, if it's foreseeable, can they request a squad car with an iad, that's another little sentence that they're going to have because there's a lot of officers -- >> i think when we discussed this, we said that when this
happens, the officer will call on a supervisor, and they will be bringing one because the fact is you can never foresee that you're going to use -- and if you're on a bicycle, you're never going to be carrying one. >> commissioner dejesus: let me just say something. we used to say the same thing for a commissioner -- >> president turman: the clarifications are over. step back to the list. commissioner ong hing. >> commissioner ong hing: i'm not sure how you want to handle this issue that i want to raise, mr. president. it could be on another straw vote. i do want to revisit, either as an offering as an amendment or as digression into another straw vote, the special considerations section given the -- the compromise language that was raised by -- by mr.
rizk and miss friedenbach. >> president turman: okay. why don't you propose that and see if that's successful. >> why don't we take a motion on this. >> president turman: well, why don't we hear what he has to say, because we may want to add it. so -- hi so -- >> commissioner ong hing: so if you turn to the page on special considerations, which is page six of what we have. >> commissioner dejesus: okay hi. >> commissioner ong hing: i believe that the department understands that -- that there's a heightened risk of an adverse reaction to the use of these weapons on certain subjects because that's what the first sentence is. and it begins, officers shall be aware of the possible heightened risk of an adverse
action from the use on certain subjects. the problem is from there on, from there on, it's advisory, so it doesn't actually have any -- any strength. and so what i would propose is that the next sentence be changed: officers are prohibited from using the weapon on such subjects, and there's where i go to the language that was proposed: unless no other intermediate use of force is available, something like that, so that we understand that the concern that the chief had, it was eliminating the possibility of an intermediate use of force. we say that, that we acknowledge that it can be done, but it be directive that officers are prohibited from using unless no other