►
From YouTube: Committee on Government Operations on April 9, 2021
Description
Docket #0369 - Ordinance restricting the use of
chemical crowd control agents and kinetic impact projectile
B
A
All
right
everyone
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
started
good
afternoon.
I'm
city
council,
lydia
edwards,
chair
of
the
committee
on
government
operations.
It
is
friday
april
9th
and
we're
here
today
for
a
virtual
working
session
on
docket
0369,
restricting
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
kinetic
impact
projectiles.
This
matter
was
sponsored
by
councillors
of
ricardo
arroyo
and
andrea
campbell
and
was
referred
to
the
committee
on
march
3rd
2021.
A
Similar
legislation
was
passed
by
the
city
council
on
december
16th
2020
as
docket
0811,
which
was
vetoed
by
former
mayor
walsh
on
december
31st
2020.,
in
accordance
with
governor
baker's
march
12th
executive
order,
we're
modifying
certain
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
law
which
allows
us
to
do
our
jobs,
but
also
balance
the
public
safety
needs
of
the
day.
The
public
may
watch
us
for
a
working
session
via
live
stream
at
www.boston.gov
city
council
dash
tv
and
on
xfinity
8,
rcn,
82
and
verizon
964..
It
will
also
be
rebroadcasted
at
a
later
date.
A
Written
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
ccc.go
boston.gov
and
will
be
made
part
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
counselors
quick
review
of
the
legislation
and
who
is
here
today
and
then
we're
going
to
go
straight
into
the
working
on
the
I'll.
Have
the
lead
sponsors
excuse
me.
I'll
have
counselors
make
some
very
brief
comments
if
they,
if
they
choose
and
then
we're
going
to
get
to
work
on
the
on
the
com.
On
the
excuse
me
on
the
language,
I
just
wanted
to
note.
A
The
administration,
or
at
least
the
boston
police
department,
said
the
administration
is
not
here.
They
were
invited
to
be
here
today
and
they
did
show
up
in
last
year's
working
sessions
and
hearing
this
legislation
will
limit
the
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
kinetic
impact
projectiles
by
the
boston
police
department
and
other
law
enforcement
officers
in
boston
during
lawful
protests,
demonstrations
or
other
gatherings
involving
10
or
more
persons.
A
The
on-scene
supervisor
also
authorizing
use,
may
must
have
personally
witnessed
the
violent
acts
or
destruction
of
property
and
determined
that
other
methods
of
de-escalation
will
not
be
successful
before
the
use
of
these
crowd
control
agents.
Two
separate
warnings
must
be
given
at
least
two
minutes
apart
over
a
loudspeaker
system.
A
A
Violations
of
the
ordinance
could
constitute
an
injury
for
which
a
per
any
person
may
institute
proceedings
to
enforce
prevailing
individuals
would
be
entitled
to
recover.
Travel
damages
that's
three
times
the
amount
than
their
actual
damages
participating
in
the
on.
Well
again,
as
I
noted
the
administration,
excuse
me,
the
boston
police
department
is
not
here
today.
I
have
on
the
acting
mayor.
Janie
was
part
of
the
city
council
at
the
time
and
voted
in
the
affirmative
for
this.
A
So
I
don't
want
to
say
administration
now,
because
that'll
be
a
confusion,
so
acting
mayor
janie,
I
believe,
is
in
support
of
this.
The
boston
police
department
is
chosen
not
to
be
here
today
joining
us.
Our
as
guests
are
rason
hall
who's.
The
director
of
racial
justice
program
at
the
aclu
of
massachusetts
and
attorney
geoff
bureau
who's
from
the
national
lawyers
guild
of
massachusetts.
A
We
will
allow
for
them
to
speak.
I
am
but
afterwards,
I'm
going
to
after
each
one
of
the
city.
Councilors
can
say
a
brief
remarks
and
I
will
introduce
them
in
the
order
that
they
have
come
in.
I
have
counselor,
of
course,
counselor
arroyo
and
councillor
campbell,
who
are
the
lead
sponsors,
counselor,
savvy
george
councillor
bach,
council,
brave
and
councillor
flaherty
and
councillor
mejia.
Have
I
missed
any
of
the
councillors
very
well
counselors
we'll
go
to
the
lead,
sponsors,
counselor,
arroyo
and
counselor
campbell
for
any
brief
remarks.
A
This
is
still
a
working
session
and
and
while
the
the
boston
police
department
may
not
be
here,
I
did
bring
along
the
veto
letter
and
the
reasons
in
the
veto
letter
from
what
I
believe
is
them
and
and
former
mayor
walsh,
and
we
can
discuss
aspects
of
that.
If
anybody
in
the
working
session
wants
to
do
that,
but
honestly
yeah,
it's
it's
a
disappointment
to
to
be
we're
ready
to
work
and
we're
ready
to
to
do
and
put
in
good
faith
and
work
on
a
piece
of
legislation.
It's
I'm
really
disappointed.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
you
did
an
excellent
job,
summing
up
sort
of
what
this
ordinance
does
in
sort
of
the
purpose
of
this
ordinance
to
protect
civilians
and
residents
from
objects
and
projectiles
that
may
actually
be
lethal
in
this
city
have
actually
been
legal
in
the
past
some
history
on
this.
Just
for
folks
who
may
be
tuning
in
to
this
as
their
first
working
session.
This
was
an
ordinance
that
was
introduced
june
17th
of
2020.
B
B
We
added
a
90-day
implementation
language
so
that
this
doesn't
take
effect
immediately,
but
instead
takes
place
three
months
later
or
or
specifically
90
days,
and
so
we
then
had
a
second
working
session
december
13th,
and
then
this
was
voted
on
by
the
council
and
passed
eight
to
five.
We
reintroduced
this
ordinance
in
february
of
this
year
last
month,
and
this
is
our
first
working
session
in
this
official
capacity.
I
have
spoken
to
the
administration,
the
mayor's
administration
currently
on
this.
B
She
is
in
support
of
this
she
being
mayor
janie,
and
they
intend
to
sign
this
legislation
if
and
should
it
reach
their
desk
again,
and
so
that's
where
it
remains
there.
I
I
see
this
working
session
as
an
opportunity
to
hear
from
colleagues
from
from
activists
and
activists
advocates
on
this,
but
that's
that's
my
understanding
directly
is
that
the
mayor
supports
this
voted
for
this
and
will
sign
this
if
it
reaches
the
desk.
C
Thank
you,
counselor
edwards,
and
thank
you
to
my
co-sponsor
counselor
royal
on
this,
and
also
thank
you
to
my
council
colleagues
that
supported
this
legislation.
The
last
legislative
cycle
right,
not
everyone
did,
and
there
were
participation
by
many
who
really
spoke
to
the
importance
of
getting
this
passed.
I
know
council
braden
shared
personal
experience
with
this.
That
was
extremely
powerful.
It
was
frankly
a
piece
of
her
story.
I
did
not
know
so
it
was
from
very
powerful
hearings
and
working
sessions.
C
So
thank
you,
councillor
edwards
and
your
team
as
well
for
shepherding
us
through
that
process,
and
so
I'm
excited
for
this.
Obviously,
I
hope
more
council
colleagues
will
support
this
reasonable
piece
of
legislation
and
we've
said
from
the
very
beginning.
It
is
reasonable,
it's
not
an
absolute
ban.
C
Many
who
shared
very
painful
stories
of
being
harmed
by
some
of
these
tools
during
peaceful
protest,
so
thank
you
to
the
residents
who
showed
up
and,
of
course
thank
you
to
our
organizational
leaders,
jeff
and
rason.
You
guys
have
been
here
since
the
very
beginning
offering
up
very
helpful
and
constructive
feedback.
So
thank
you
as
well
for
the
partnership
in
this
work
and
just
really
appreciate
all
of
you
on
the
zoom
right
now.
So,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Council
edwards
thank.
C
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
madam
chair
and
thank
you,
council
arroyo
and
campbell
and-
and
I
have
to
say
you
know
I
I
had
hoped
we
would
have
what
we
our
first
vote
in
favor
of
this
would
have
been
successful,
and
one
thing
that's
unfortunate
about
that
is
that
somerville
has
beaten
us
to
the
punch.
I
think
and
passed
this
legislation
last
night,
so
we
don't
get
to
claim
to
be
first
in
the
region
anymore,
which
is,
I
think,
unfortunately,
I've
shared
before
I.
D
D
I
think
there
are
other
ways
I
think
every
every
weapon
is
convenient
when
you
have
it
in
your
hands,
but
there
are
always
other
ways,
and
I
just
don't
think
that
I
think
this
is
far
too
indiscriminate
and
I
got
a
little
bit
of
tear
grass
in
my
eyes
myself
when
I
was
down
and
the
may
31st
situation
in
my
district,
and
I
just
I
think
it
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
it's
something
that
our
department
should
be
using.
So
I'm
I'm
strongly
supportive
of
this
legislation.
D
I
do
have
in
the
spirit
of
the
working
session
front.
There
is.
There
is
one
provision
that
somerville
changed
in
their
version
of
this.
That
has
to
do
with
the
legal
liability
to
the
city
that
I
do
want
to
raise,
madam
chair,
but
I
won't
do
it
in
the
intro
remarks,
but
it's
a
small
thing
and
I
and
like
I
said
I
I
would
I
would
like
us.
You
know,
if
not
to
be
first
anymore,
to
be
to
be
soon
on
this
front.
So
thank
you.
E
E
It's
not
banning
these
weapons,
but
it's
asking
for
a
very
judicious
and
and
careful
consideration
of
when
they
should
be
used.
So,
given
my
not
my
direct
experience
in
northern
ireland,
but
growing
up
in
northern
ireland,
where,
when
these
weapons
were
used
wholesale,
like
over
a
period
in
the
70s
and
80s
120
000
rubber
bullets
were
discharged
and
15
people
were
killed
and
hundreds
maimed
many
of
them
children,
young
people-
I
really
feel
this
is.
This
is
something
that
we
need
to
address.
Thank
you.
F
F
That
was
one
of
the
big
questions
I
had
as
to
when
things
start
to
break
down,
there's
an
expression
that
you'd
rather
be
looking
at
it
than
looking
for
it
and
for
folks
to
have
to
sort
of
regroup
and
in
a
short
period
of
time
they
may
actually
lose
further
control.
And
then,
through
the
chair
to
the
makers,
would
they
consider
in
the
definition
section
to
include
a
definition
of
peaceful
protest,
because
I
think
this
there's
been
a
difference
of
opinion
as
to
so
what?
F
What
is
a
peaceful
protest
and
what's
not
a
peaceful
protest?
And
I
think
we
have
parameters,
or
at
least
the
police
have
parameters
as
well
with
respect
to
this
ordinance
as
to
when
is
it
remaining
a
peaceful
protest?
And
then
when
does
it
cross
the
line?
And
then
when
do
or
when
does
the
need
arise?
For
the.
G
Mejia,
thank
you
to
the
chair
and
to
the
sponsors
for
bringing
this
ordinance
to
the
council.
Again.
We
fully
support
this
ordinance
last
year
and
look
forward
to
offering
off
full
support
again
this
year.
There's
not
much
else
to
be
said
that
hasn't
already
been
said.
Members
of
our
office
were
at
countless
protests
last
year
and
narrowly
escaped
being
gassed
or
shot
at
with
rubber
bullets.
We
don't
allow
these
weapons
to
be
used
on
the
battlefield,
so
I
don't
know
why
we
would
use
them
on
our
streets
and
on
our
own
people.
A
Thank
you
so
counselor
to
the
lead
sponsors.
I
didn't
know
if
you
wanted
at
this
point,
I
would
let's
just
go.
I
don't
know
line
by
line
and
just
go
through
it
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
this
and
and
get
to
work,
because
it
looks
like
again
as
my
as
my
colleagues
have
already
stated,
it
was
an
eight
to
five
vote.
That
included
also
acting
mayor
janie,
who
will
has
already
indicated
she
will
sign
this
last
year.
A
A
A
A
The
first
was
intrusion
on
the
police
commissioner,
statutory
authority
that
noting
that
the
police
commissioner,
has
cognizance
in
control
of
the
government
administration,
disposition
and
discipline
of
the
department
and
of
the
police
force
of
the
department
and
shall
make
all
the
full
rules
and
regulations.
So
this
this
ordinance
was
apparently
in
violation
of
that,
at
least
that's
the
reason
for
the
veto
from
mayor
walsh.
J
A
National
guard-
and
so
there
was
a
concern
with
that,
and
then
there
was
a
conflict
with
the
commissioner
statutory
authority
over
discipline
specifically
disciplining
of
officers,
and
it
seemed
that
that
also
violated
the
statutory
statutory
control
of
the
police.
Commissioner.
So
those
were
three
of
the
issues
that
warranted
the
veto
for
mayor
walsh,
so
going
to
purpose
anyone
concerned
or
have
suggestions
for
the
section
on
purpose.
You
have
your
hand
raised
jeff.
Did
you
have
something
to
say.
A
Please,
please,
okay,
now
we're,
in
definition,
counselor
clarity
has
asked
for
a
definition
of
peaceful
protest
before
we
go
into
yes
or
no
on
that
or
whatever
I,
I
guess,
I'm
I
I'm
genuinely
confused
about
what
you're
asking
us
to
do
and
why
counselor
flaherty
you
want
a
definition
for
peaceful
protest.
What
what
because
protests
can
could
be
all
sorts
of
things
and
it
could
be
intended
to
be
one-
could.
F
You
just
let
me
understand
your
goals:
yeah
we're,
obviously
we're
putting
our
shoes
in
the
and
we're
putting
ourselves
in
the
in
the
shoes
of
the
officers
on
the
scene
right
and
we're
telling
them
what
they
can
and
can't
do
under
certain
situations,
but
we're
not
necessarily
defining
the
situation
and
what
we
see,
or
at
least
what
we
saw
was
that
we
saw
what
I
think
intended
to
be.
A
peaceful
protest,
got
out
of
control
and
then
turned
into
non-peaceful
protests.
F
I
guess
give
them
sort
of,
I
guess
the
barometer
of
when
it
crosses
the
line,
or
at
least
let's
define
what
a
peaceful
protest
is
and
then
when
does
it
deteriorate
into
non-peaceful?
I
think
that
would
be
helpful,
particularly
if
we're
going
to
be
enforcing
the
ordinance
or,
if
someone's,
going
to
challenge
the
ordinance
from
the
very
get-go.
I
think
we
need
to
describe-
and
maybe
you
know
folks
have
an
opinion
on
that
again
through
the
through
the
chair
to
the
sponsors
or
to
jeff.
A
J
So
counselor
flaherty
there
are
in
fact
exacting
definitions
in
here.
It's
in
section
two
section
c
I
mean
under
exemptions
and
exceptions.
It's
specifically
says
that
they
are
authorized
to
use
these
weapons
once
an
on-scene
supervisor,
witnesses,
specific,
ongoing
acts
of
violence
or
destruction
of
property,
and
the
supervisor
has
determined
they
cannot
be
controlled
or
quelled
through
any
other
methods.
So,
whether
it's
a
demonstration,
a
basketball
game,
a
protest
or
anything
else,
if
an
officer
on
scene
supervisor
witnesses
ongoing
acts
of
violence
or
destruction
of
property,
they
can
be
authorized
to
use
these
weapons.
J
B
B
We
made
one
amendment
to
this
version
from
the
last
version,
which
is
we
removed
that
part
where
we
specifically
stated
what
the
commissioner
was
supposed
to
do
as
a
as
a
disciplinary
measure,
and
so
we
removed
that
from
this,
and
now
that
conflict
does
not
exist
in
this
document.
As
I
understand
it,.
A
A
D
A
H
Thank
you,
counselor
edwards,
council
edwards.
I
just
want
to
ask
you
know
what
is
the?
What
would
the
status
be
if,
if
we
have
a-
maybe
I
should
know
this
answer,
but
if
we
have
a
temporary
police
commissioner
or
we
don't
have
a
or
we
don't
have
a,
we
have
an
acting
police
commissioner.
Is
there
any
difference?
H
A
F
A
I
have
a
question
on
definitions
and
I
want
to,
and
it's
more
also
clarifying
to
make
sure
we're
clear.
I
know
we
say
other
law
enforcement
officers
right,
so
that
would
include
you
know
when
we
have
mutual
aid.
We
discussed
this
right
if
everett
or
some
other
police
entities
were
to
come
in,
but
the
definition
of
law
enforcement
officers
can
be
so
broad
and
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it
would
include
also
potentially
ice.
A
It
could
include
when
you
talk
how
big
is
law
enforcement
officers
yeah
I
mean
I
can't
I
wouldn't
assume
it
includes
any
of
the
like.
For
example,
the
licensing
board
has
like
officers
that
goes
into
restaurants
and
stuff
and
takes
away
their
liquor
licenses
and
stuff.
We're
not
could
this
definition
be
so
broad
that
it
includes
them?
A
D
Obviously
we
can't
do
something
we
can't
do,
but
to
the
extent
we
can
like
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do.
So
I
mean
that's
a
drafting
thing:
it's
not
it's
not
really
a
hill.
I
would
die
on
because
I'm
not
sure
it
matters
either
way,
but
I'm
just
flagging
that
that
issue
did
come
up
and
that
was
how
they
dealt
with
it.
In
the
legislation.
J
There
is
some
authority
to
regulate
other
law
enforcement
officers,
so
the
definition
is
intentionally
broad
to
cover
anybody
who
is
authorized
to
enforce
laws.
There's
a
1999
sjc
case
in
which
it
the
sjc
says
that
a
police
officer
lacks
authority
to
act
outside
his
or
her
jurisdiction
unless
specifically
authorized
by
statute.
J
The
implication
of
that
is
that
when
they
are
operating
within
the
city
of
boston,
under
the
authority
of
the
boston
police
department,
they're
subject
to
the
same
statutory
mandates
as
any
boston,
police
officer
would
be
now
if
they
are
operating
in
boston
under
their
own
authority.
If
it
was
ice
and
not
under
the
control
of
the
bpd
and
not
under
the
control
of
any
other
boston
law
enforcement
agency,
then
we
would
the
city
would
not
have
the
authority
to
regulate
them.
J
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
the
state
police
in
massachusetts
rules
of
conduct
their
own
rules
of
conduct
says
that
members
shall
obey
all
laws
of
the
united
states
and
of
any
county
state
or
local
jurisdiction
in
which
the
members
are
present.
So
they're
they're
required
by
their
own
rules
of
conduct
to
obey
the
rules
in
the
city
of
boston.
A
I
think
I
don't,
I
don't
think
the
I
think
I
answered
the
the.
I
don't
think
the
issue
isn't
controversy
is
as
much
anymore.
I
was
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
broad
it
was,
and
it's
intentionally
broad
counselor,
royale
and
counselor
campbell
council
block
brought
up
some
like
that
clause
about.
Is
that
something
you
would
be
open
to
care
about.
B
B
A
E
B
I
believe
in-
and
somebody
else
may
speak
to
this
with
more
authority
on
this,
but
I
do
believe
that
in
some
situations
where
they
are
short
on
officers,
cadets
do
get
called
to
protests
and
things
of
that
nature.
But
I
think
it's
possible
that
rason,
hall
or
jeffrey
fury
will
know
better
on
that.
But
I
do
believe
that
cadets
at
times
are
at
protests
and
demonstrations.
That's
correct.
E
I
may
be
nitpicking,
but
I'm
just
you
know,
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
level
of
training
and
and
preparedness
to
deal
with
a
stressful
situation,
and
I
know
they're
not
supposed
to
be
deadly
weapons,
but
they
are
an
occasion.
So
it's
just
a
question.
I
have
in
my
head
about
about
the
level
of
training
that
a
cadet
might
have
to
use
this.
These
rarely
used
weapons
because
we
don't
use
them
very
often.
B
A
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
section,
which
is
section
c
restriction
on
the
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
kinetic
impact
projectiles
subject
to
the
limitations
set
forth
in
paragraph
two
below
boston,
police
officers
and
other
law
enforcement
officers.
Working
in
the
city
of
boston
shall
not
use
kinetic
impact,
projectile
or
chemical
crowd,
control
agent
against
any
person
or
persons
engaged
in
a
protest,
demonstration
or
other
gathering
of
any
kind
involving
10
or
more
more
than
10
persons.
A
Right,
okay,
has
there
been
any
question
about,
and
I
please
I'm
not
trying
to
make
this
difficult,
but
the
use
of
chemical
agents
and
the
impact
on
pets,
families
seeing
eye
dogs
in
as
much
as
the
because
we
do
have
an
injury
section.
If
I'm
blind,
if
I'm
at
a
protest-
and
if
this
is
used,
my
seeing
eye
or
my
aid
dog-
I
don't
know
if
I'm
using
the
correct
language
could
be
injured.
So
this
there
would
be
no
rights
for
me
for
my
pet
or
for
am
I
correct,
I
mean
you've
only
defined
it.
B
That
seems
valid
to
me
and
I
guess
jeff
and
rason.
Is
there
a
way
we
could
do
that
because
I
think
that's
a
valid
thing.
You
depend
on
them.
There's
there's
actually
laws
against
other
people
harming
somebody's,
and
I
don't
know
what
I
don't
know
if
it's
utility
dog
or
what
the
term
is,
but
there's
laws
against,
causing
them
harm
that
are
stricter
even
than
just
what
happens
if
you
abuse
an
animal,
so
I
don't
know
how
we
would
approach
that
because
I
do
I
agree
with
you.
This
is
simply
focused
on
persons.
J
I
think
that's
correct
there.
There
are
three
sections
that
really
deal
with
injuries
and
the
first
one
it's
under
section
d,
two
any
violation
of
this
ordinance
constitutes
an
injury.
So
it's
an
injury
not
necessarily
to
a
person.
It's
an
injury,
then
any
federal
or
state
statute
that
would
apply
to
injuries
to
dogs
could
be
brought
under
this
as
well,
and
it
says
any
person
injured
or
harmed.
J
A
B
J
J
That's
how
the
court
often
interprets
it
that
if
you
list
something,
then
you
have
intentionally
left
out
the
things
that
you're
not
listing,
and
that
would
narrow
the
effect
and
protection
of
the
statute.
So
I
would
caution
against
listing
specific
statutes,
it's
intentionally
written
so
that
it's
a
broad
definition
of
injured
or
harmed.
B
All
right,
so
with
that
caution,
I
actually
would
follow
that
caution,
because
I
I
have
found
that
to
be
true
in
the
past
as
well,
that
they
see
language.
That
is,
we
had
this
when
we
were
talking
about
the
rules
at
that
last
video,
where
we
were
trying
to
figure
out,
is
it
the
exception
that
they
say
these
things
in
terms
of
city
council
rules?
So
I
don't
yeah.
A
A
A
J
J
A
H
A
A
Yeah,
let
me
just
quickly
finish,
but
this
I
see
the
language
specifically
says
has
personally
witnessed
and
has
determined
cannot
be
controlled,
so
that
person
that
one
person
who
might
be
at
a
protest
may
not
see
someone
acting
foolish
to
me
not
being
part
of
the
protest
but
acting
foolish
right.
They
may
not
see
it
or
they
may
or
or
the
section
of
the
protest
that
is
becoming
uncontrollable,
but
unless
they
see
it,
there's
no
way
that
this
could
happen.
Yes,
council,
royale.
B
So
I
would
say
one
of
the
things
that's
come
out
of
the
police,
bpd
overtime
hearings.
I
know
council
mejia
myself,
I
know
councilor
back
have
raised.
This
is
the
ways
in
which
bpd
formulates
who
goes
to
these
protests,
how
they
determine
the
size
and
level
of
their
response,
and
so
just
on
that
first
point
about,
if
it's
a
big
protest,
I
think
it
would
stand
for
reason
that
they're
sending
multiple
deputies
just
based
on
the
fact
that
they
get
to
determine
that
themselves
internally.
B
If
it's
something
that
rises
to
that
occasion,
then
there
certainly
would
be
time
for
an
officer
to
arrive
to
authorize
this,
because
if
we're
talking
about
property
destruction
and
it's
ongoing
and
they
believe
this
is
what's
something
that
they're
going
to
need
to
do,
then
I
do
believe
that
the
the
amount
of
time
required
for
them
to
respond
to
that
would
be
present.
But
I
would
just
say
in
terms
of
how
many
are
present
and
how
many
are
there.
B
A
J
J
B
That
makes
the
most
sense
to
do
that,
and
I
think,
if
you
lower
the
rank
of
that,
you
then
sort
of
diluted
that
chain
of
command
of
who's
actually
authorizing
something
that
is
indiscriminate.
That
is
not
able
to
be
targeted
specifically
on
a
specific
person
and
can
cause
a
life.
The
entire
purpose
of
this
was
to
create
something
where,
if
they're,
making
that
determination,
it
is
being
signed
off
by
the
highest
levels
of
leadership.
Not
you
know,
we
have
this
question
about
cadets
and
things
like
that.
I
believe
we
have
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
captains.
B
B
J
A
A
And
in
terms
of
was
there
any
express
concern,
I
mean
this
is
sad.
I
I
want
to
be
very
clear.
The
reason
why
I'm
doing
this
is
because
I
want
people
to
see
the
boston
city
council
work
through
this
language
and
watch
us
and
know
that
we
are
trying
to
do
the
most
practical
thing
that
balances
the
jobs
of
our
law
enforcement
officers,
which
we
do
value
and
the
safety
of
the
public
and,
if
they
choose
not
to
be
here.
For
that
conversation,
I'm
doing
my
best
to
make
sure
that
conversation
still
happens.
A
A
Are
you
talking
about
people
trying
to
isolate
or
trying
to
move
or
trying
to
do
whatever
other
de-escalation
methods
within
the
their
training
to
the
lead
sponsors
jeff
assange?
The
language
I
mean
is
that
no
other
reasonable
methods
of
de-escalation
will
be
successful.
What
do
you
mean?
What
are
you
talking
about
when
you
say
reasonable
methods
of
de-escalation.
B
Well,
I
can
speak
to
this
part
directly.
The
reasonable
methods
of
de-escalation
was
taken
almost
word
for
word
by
the
guidelines.
Boston
police
department
uses-
and
it's
also,
I
believe,
in
the
state
policing
one
that
they
did
though
rason
and
jeff
can
tell
me,
but
that
exact
language
is
what's
in
the
state
police
bill
and
also
in
the
bpd
guidelines.
I've
always
told
because
I've
been.
B
I
have
been
asked
this
question
by
law
enforcement
when
I've
spoken
to
law
enforcement
about
this
bill
about
what
necessitates,
I
can
tell
you
a
number
of
different
things
that
I
think
would
be
reasonable
methods
of
distillation,
which
would
include
the
warning
system
that
we
put
here,
but
I
know
that
they've
been
trained
themselves
personally
bpd
in
methods
of
de-escalation.
I
couldn't
possibly
begin
to
list
all
of
the
ways
in
which
I'm
sure
they
use,
including
things
like
tone,
warning
isolation.
B
K
I
guess
I
echo
what
council
royal
said:
I
have
to
jump
by
3
30,
so
I
just
wanted
to
name
that,
but
to
your
point,
counselor
edwards.
Yes,
I
respect
the
fact
that
you
want
to
go
through
the
language
again,
but
I
just
want
to
also
say:
we've
done
this
right.
We
did
it
at
several
hearings.
We
did
it
at
several
working
sessions
where
some
folks
from
the
administration
or
department
participated
at
other
moments.
K
A
A
This
is
the
warning
system
that
we
discussed
before
those
two
separate
warnings
over
a
loudspeaker
system
directing
the
person's
involved
and
gathering
to
disperse
after
ensuring
that
people
have
a
way
to
exit
after
warning
is
issued
b,
notifying
all
who
have
been
affected,
that
a
failure
to
disperse
will
result
in
the
use
of
specific
kinetic
impact,
projectile
or
chemical
crowd,
control
agent.
That
must
be
announced
and
c
notifying
all
who
who
could
be
affected
and
that
the
specific
kinetic
impact,
projectile
or
chemical
crowd
control
agent
will
be
deployed
within
a
clearly
defined
period
of
time.
A
J
A
A
Okay,
any
violation
of
this
ordinance
constitutes
an
injury
and
any
person
may
institute
proceedings
for
injunctive
relief,
declare
declaratory
relief,
rid
of
mandanis
mandamus
and
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
enforce
this
ordinance
and
action
instituted
under
this
paragraph
shall
be
brought
against
the
city
of
boston
and,
if
necessary,
to
effectuate
compliance
with
this
ordinance.
Any
other
governmental
agency.
Subject
to
this
ordinance,
the
lead
sponsors
would
like
to
keep
out
any
specific
name,
ordinances
that
deal
with
pets
right.
No,
no
calling
out.
B
Yeah,
I
don't
want
to
limit
limited,
and
I
do
agree
that
harm
to
me,
at
least,
if
I
were
legally
arguing
a
harm
losing
a
service.
Animal
would
be
something
that
I
think
would
meet
that
threshold
or
have
even
having
harm
conducted
to
that
animal.
Even
if
I
did
not
lose
them
in
life
that
any
harm
I
would
see,
is
construed
to
myself.
A
B
A
Quote
me
quote
the
lead
sponsor.
Excuse
me,
council,
roy
or
councillor
campbell
number,
three
in
any
civil
or
criminal
action
brought
under
any
state
or
federal
statute
or
constitutional
provision
arising
out
of
the
use
of
force
by
any
law
enforcement
officer
within
the
city
of
boston.
The
prohibition
contained
in
section
c
of
this
ordinance
shall
be
deemed
to
be
clearly
established.
Law
of
the
city
of
boston
and
any
violation
of
that
prohibition
may
be
considered
unlawful.
A
Any
person
injured
or
harmed
as
a
result
of
a
violation
of
this
ordinance
may
bring
an
action
in
any
court
of
confident
jurisdiction
seeking
damages
reasonable
attorneys
fees,
court
costs
and
any
other
relief
that
the
court
may
deem
appropriate.
A
prevailing,
plaintiff,
injured
or
harmed
by
violation
of
this
ordinance
shall
be
intelligent
to
cover
damages
the
amount
of
three
times
or
actual
damages.
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
construed
to
limit
any
individual's
rights
under
state
or
federal
law.
D
Yeah
thanks
council
edwards,
this
one
and
and
I'll
just
say
definitely
kind
of
maya
culpa.
I
did
not
note
this
when
we
voted
on
it
last
time
and-
and
I
only
noticed
it
in
in
prepping
for
this
hearing
going
back
and
reviewing
what
summerville
had
passed
last
night.
I
I
do
with
the
ways
and
means
hat
on.
Have
some
concern
about
us
prescribing
trouble
damages
in
an
ordinance
against
ourselves?
D
I
don't
think
that's
something
we
do
anywhere
else,
and
my
concern,
of
course,
is
that
when
we
pay
damages
they
come
out
of
the
operating
budget.
They
compete
for
city
dollars
with
everything
else,
and
obviously
we,
the
councilors
passing
this,
are
also
have
this
fiduciary
responsibility
to
the
city
of
boston
legally,
and
I
I
think
it
would
be
a
very
unusual
step
for
us
and
and
and
I'm
not
concerned.
D
I
think
you
know
it's
sort
of
like
leave
that
to
the
judge
like
if
a
judge
thinks
that
you
know
the
there's
been
an
egregious
abuse
like,
then
they
they
step
in
and
do
that.
I
haven't
had
any
concerns
about
the
prior
sections
with
the
police
because,
frankly,
I
would
love
for
this
to
be
a
ban.
So
it's
not
about
kind
of
us.
D
I
I
want
this
to
be
enforced
as
fully
as
possible,
but
when
I
think
about
what
the
cost
is
to
the
city
of
boston,
the
idea
of
prescribing
against
ourselves
trouble
damages
strikes
me
as
as
not
a
good
precedent
to
set,
and
it's
and
when
I
looked
at
the
somerville
thing,
this
is
what
threw
it
up
for
me.
Somerville
got
rid
of
that
section
for
and
instead
actually
I'll
just
very
quickly.
Madam
chair
share
my
screen.
If
that's
okay,
just
because
I
think.
A
K
D
So
they
they
left
all.
We
have
the
same
one
two
three
and
five
is
down
here
but
like
for
four
they.
Basically
they
said:
okay,
yeah,
you're
gonna
have
it's
gonna,
have
all
the
normal
stuff
for
violations
and
then
also
obviously
individuals
of
the
right
of
state
and
federal.
So
what
what
they
didn't
do
was
basically
prescribe
against
themselves.
D
All
the
things
like,
oh
yeah,
we're
gonna,
owe
you
attorney's
fees
and
court
costs,
and
I
mean
obviously
we're
always
going
to
owe
them
anything
that
a
court
deems
appropriate
and
then
the
trouble
damages.
So
I
just
I
mean
I,
you
know
that
in
in
their
in
their
case,
I
think,
for
similar
reasons
from
the
city
sort
of
solicitor
side.
They
were
like
you
know
this,
just
isn't
something
that
we
do
where
we,
where
we
put
ourselves
on
the
hook
financially
like
this,
and
we
sort
of
leave
it
up
to
the
judges.
D
A
J
So
there
are
a
couple
of
issues.
I
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying,
counsel
bach
a
a
court
cannot
award
multiple
damages
unless
a
statute
authorizes
it.
As
councillor
arroyo
said
it
could
be
a
may
and
leave
it
up
to
the
judge.
At
that
point,
they
also
a
court
cannot
award
attorney's
fees
and,
in
all
of
the
federal
civil
rights
statutes
to
protect
people's
civil
rights.
J
J
A
Just
just
to
kind
of
move
the
question
this
along
no
offense,
counselor
bach,
I
know
counselor
me
he
is
waiting
patiently
to
get
in.
It
seems
like
in
order
to
then
under
somerville.
They
may
have
to
go
under
additional
civil
rights
legislation
or
some
other
legislation
as
well
if
they
were
to
get
those
other
damages.
But
I'm
gonna
go
now
to
counselor
mejia.
G
Hi,
yes,
I'm
just
curious
and
in
terms
of
I
don't
know
how
controversial
this
will
be,
but
I'm
going
to
throw
it
out
here,
there's
a
working
session.
We
can
figure
it
out,
but
instead
of
the
the
lawsuit
being
against
the
city,
can
it
be
against
the
individual
officer
and
let
them
know?
Okay,
okay,
I
look
at
all
those
heads
shaking
up
in
there
letting
me
know
because
that
way,
if
they're
having
to
take
individual
responsibility,
then
they
would
know
how
they
are
going
to
show
up
so
that
we
wouldn't
be
having
this
conversation.
A
G
I
know
that
that's
the
whole.
I
just
think
that's
a
whole
separate
conversation
that
we
should
explore
at
some
point
in
terms
of
accountability,
and
I
would
urge
counselor
arroyo
and
counselor
edwards
to
think
about
this
as
a
2.0
measure
in
the
future
for
us
to
explore
what
accountability
looks
like
because
I
think
that
that
will
probably
prevent
things
like
this
from
happening.
D
Yeah,
just
I
would
say
I
mean
to
counsel
me
his
point.
Obviously
that's
been
a
big
part
of
the
debate
over
qualified
immunity
and-
and
I
think
I
think
it's
it's
a
really.
It's
a
really
good
point.
Counselor
mia.
That's
that's
why
what
I'm
saying
is
I'm
coming
from
a
ways
and
means
place
on
this
because
it's
not
like
the
people
who
are
accountable
financially
is
the
city
of
boston.
So
if
somebody
you
know,
if
somebody
really
screws
this
up,
then
it's
the
city
that's
liable,
and
I
think
we
are
balancing.
D
I
mean
I
totally
take
jeff's
point:
there's
got
to
be
sufficient
financial
benefit
to
the
lawsuit
for
people
to
be
able
to
bring
that
to
enforce
the
ordinance
and
and
make
it
so
that
behavior
like
changes
and
that's
important.
The
flip
side,
of
course,
as
jeff
knows,
is
that
then,
when
you
get
a
major
award
with
all
of
the
attorneys
fees
and
every
you
know,
and
the
multiple
years
of
attorney's
fees
and
then
you're
also
talking
about
trouble
damages
that
is
a
major
hit
to
the
city
and
the
city.
D
A
You,
council
bach,
thank
you
section.
Five.
All
violations
of
this
ordinance
by
any
offending
member
of
law
enforcement
shall
be
reported
in
writing,
including
the
name
of
the
offending
member
of
law
enforcement
to
all
city
of
boston,
government
agencies
and
departments
which
have
any
oversight,
responsibilities
for
the
boston
police
department
and
to
all
state
agencies
which
have
any
oversight,
responsibilities
for
law
enforcement
agencies
or
departments.
A
Such
reports
shall
be
a
matter
of
public
record
to
be
published
at
least
annually
by
the
city
of
boston,
and
all
such
reports
shall
be
made
freely
available
upon
request
by
any
member
of
the
public
council
mcgee.
I
think
that
this
is
a
direct
response
to
your
concerns
about
overly
aggressive
officers,
in
that,
if
they
have
been
found
to
violate
they
will
their
name
will
be
public
law
enforcement
agencies
at
the
city
of
boston,
around
the
city
of
boston
and
the
state
will
all
have
it
and
anybody
could
have.
A
I
Thank
you
I
just
hopefully
counselor
mejia
can
hear
this,
but
the
the
reporting
system,
the
statewide
reporting
system,
will
be
the
post
system
or
the
peace
officer,
standards
and
training,
which
is
also
responsible
for
collecting
information
about
police
misconduct,
and
you
know
they'll
have
a
record
of
it.
Depending
on
how
egregious
this
incident
is
or
what
that
officer's
history
of
misconduct
is
they
could
begin
proceedings
for
decertification?
I
A
Thank
you
severability.
This
is
kind
of
foreign
language,
any
portion
of
proportion
of
portion
or
provision
of
this
ordinance
is
declared
invalid
or
unenforceable
by
court
or
competent
jurisdiction
or
by
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
The
remaining
provisions
shall
continue
in
full
force
and
effect
effective
date,
and
then
this
is
the
90-day
language
that
counts
that
we
discussed
last
time.
A
A
No,
I
want
at
any
time,
even
if
we
find
that
there's
no
violation.
I
just
feel
that,
because
of
the
the
the
as
you
described,
it
eloquently
the
indiscriminate
way
in
which
these
weapons
are
deployed,
we
should
always
know
why,
even
if,
ultimately,
we
determine
the
person
was
well
within
their
rights,
the
officer
was
well
within
their
rights.
B
I
think-
and
this
is
where
there's
certain
instances
in
in
courts
where
the
absence
of
evidence
that
you
should
have
is
considered
an
act
of
that
the
evidence
is
actually
taken
at
the
in
light
against
you.
It's
it's.
The
lack
of
having
something
you
should
have
actually
means
that
it
must
have
been
bad,
something
like
that.
I'm
butchering
that
language,
but
rason
and
jeff
I'm
happy
with
that,
but
you
might
be
able
to
sort
of
you
do
civil
court
stuff,
obviously
much
more
than
I
do.
How
that
how
that
works
in
those
courts.
B
B
A
Cell
phone
footage
of
other
people,
thank
goodness
some
people
had
it,
but
the
fact
is
that
we
didn't
have.
I
mean
we
have
a
lot
of
allegations
and
the
police
were,
you
know,
have
things
thrown
at
them,
and
I
said
this
before
it'd
be
great
for
us
to
just
have
the
footage
to
see
could
justify
that
some
of
the
action?
I
don't
know.
A
B
J
I
I
think
it
might
be
difficult
to
make
it
a
violation
you
certainly
could
put
in
that
it
has
to
be
maintained
and
made
public
within
a
period
of
time.
Councilor
arroyo
has
corrected
a
negative
inference
could
be
drawn
against
any
police
officer
who
doesn't
supply
this,
particularly
if
they're
required
to
maintain
it
and
supply
it.
I
And
I
think
currently
that's
a
stumbling
block
with
body
cam
footage,
because
a
lot
of
officers
who
work
these
details
or
these
protests
or
gatherings
of
their
own
overtime
and
their
agreement,
is
that
they
don't
have
to
wear
bodybuilding
cameras
for
overtime
assignments.
It's
only
on
regular
duty,
so
we
would
there
might
be
officers
who
are
there
on
regular
duty,
but
the
overwhelming
majority
of
officers
who
on
may
31st.
They
were
there
on
overtime,
and
so
there
are
very
limited
amounts
of
body
foot.
G
B
J
A
J
A
I
so,
instead
of
get
going
back
and
forth
on,
you
know
those
kind
of
discriminators.
It
looks
like
we
agree
on
the
overall
concept
right,
so
I
can
go
back
and
forth
with
the
counselors
on
some
language,
and
I
can
also
reach
out
directly
to
jeff
and
rason
to
make
sure
that
that
language
is
finished.
I'm
also,
I
mean
I'll
see.
If
I
can,
it
looks
like
that
would
be
the
only
thing
we
oh
further
research
on
the
on
the
contract,
language
and
body
cams
in
general.
B
Just
a
thanks,
sometimes
when
I
start
these
sessions
I
get
so
like
worked
up
to
get
to
the
work.
I
forget
to
say
thank
you,
so
I
want
to
just
make
sure
I
say
thank
you
to
the
madam
chair
for
her
thoroughness
and
making
sure
that
you
know
there's
some
real
good
thoughtfulness
there
to
service
animals
and
just
these
different
angles
that
I
really
appreciate
that
you
take
and
then
in
general
to
my
co-sponsor,
andrea
campbell,
councillor,
campbell
who's
really
helped
lead
on
this
and
and
jeffrey
and
respond.
B
This
wouldn't
be
possible
without
you.
I
know,
somerville
beat
us
to
it
and
like
counselor
bach
that
hurt
me
personally,
I
felt
very
upset
about
that.
I
was
grateful.
They
did
it,
but
I
felt
a
type
of
way
about
that
and
so
at
a
minimum.
We
have
some
better
language
in
here
in
some
places
than
they
do
so
we'll
have
that
forever,
but
you
know
we're
beating
cambridge
at
least
so
there
you
go.