►
Description
Docket #0811 - Ordinance restricting the use of chemical crowd control agents and kinetic impact projectiles
A
A
A
A
A
Vietnam,
right,
I
know
some
people
have
some
time
crunches,
so
why
don't?
We
start
probably
at
10.05.
That
gives
two
more
minutes
for
other
colleagues
to
get
on
and
anybody
else
and
then
we'll
just
go
from
there,
we'll
probably
to
make
this
as
efficient
as
possible.
I'd
ask
for
people,
since
this
is
our
continued
conversation
about
this.
I
would.
I
would
ask
people
kind
of
use
their
remarks
as
opportunities
to
direct
the
conversation,
not
generally
to
speak
about
what
they
think
about
this.
A
A
D
A
We
have
the
bpd
here
right,
superintendent,
ken
kevin
excuse
me
goldrick,
wonderful,
thank
you
and
then
we
have
from
national
lawyers
guild
and
aclu.
Also
here
to
the
co-sponsors,
were
there
any
other
expected
speakers
or
organizations?
I
know
we
had
the
doctors
last
time,
but
right
now,
aclu
nlg
bpd.
A
B
A
A
This
matter
was
sponsored
by
counselors
ricardo
arroyo
and
andrea
campbell
and
was
referred
to
the
committee
on
june
17th.
The
committee
held
a
public
hearing
on
docket
on
this
docket
on
august
10
2020.,
in
accordance
with
governor
baker's
executive
order,
modifying
open
meeting
laws.
We
are
having
this
working
session
on
zoom.
This
allows
us
to
balance
our
duty
to
represent
and
work
for
the
public
with
public
safety
concerns.
As
of
due
to
the
pandemic,
the
public
may
watch
this
meeting
via
live
stream
at
www.boston.gov
city
council
dash
tv.
A
A
At
the
hearing
on
august
10th,
the
committee
heard
from
deputy
superintendent
kevin
mccoldrick
bureau
fueled
billed
services
from
the
bpd
superintendent,
william
ridge
bill,
the
bureau
of
field
reserve
services,
bpd
rasan
hall,
director
of
racial
justice
program
of
acluma
massachusetts.
Excuse
me,
dr
rohini
yuhar
physicians
for
human
rights
and
jeff
durr
national
lawyers
guild.
The
committee
discussed
injuries
trauma
resulting
from
these
agents,
bpd
specific
weapons
protocol
and
experience
with
the
use
of
these
agents
and
eyewitness
reports
of
use
of
this
agents.
A
In
recent
months,
public
testimony
was
heard
from
individuals
who
experienced
or
witnessed
the
use
of
crowd
control
agents
in
boston
during
recent
black
lives
matter.
Protests
concerns
were
raised
about
the
ordinance's
waiting
period
and
lack
of
exceptions
for
exigent
circumstances,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
the
lead
sponsors
and
have
again
my
my
reminder
to
my
colleagues.
A
This
is
a
working
session,
and
so
we've
already
heard
generally
about
this.
So
let's
get
to
work
as
part
of
your
introductory
remarks.
I
would
love
for
you
to
direct
what
work,
what
questions,
what
concerns
you
have
specifically
about
this
proposed
language
we've
also.
My
colleagues
who
are
here
today
include
the
co-sponsors
counselor
royal
councillor
campbell
councillor
flynn,
councilor
bach,
councillor
braden
and
counselor
janie
myself,
it's
a
chair
so
without
further
delay,
I'm
turning
it
over
to
council
arroyo
and
then
councillor
campbell
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
just
up
front.
I
have
a
hard
stop.
Unfortunately,
I
could
not
move
something
that
I
had
at
noon,
so
I
have
a
hard
stop
at
11
55,
but
I
believe
that
counselor
campbell,
if,
if
we're
still
ongoing
at
that
time,
counselor
candle
is
one
capable
of
carrying
on
in
terms
of
the
ordinance
itself.
I
don't
think
that
much
has
to
be
said
that
has
already
been
said
in
the
hearing
in
august.
B
Any
number
of
people
can
be
in
a
crowd
and
if
there's
one
agitator
or
one
issue,
that
the
boston
police
department
believe
that
they
have
to
use
these,
these
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
or
kinetic
impact
projectiles
on.
We
understand
that
there's
no
way
for
them
to
specifically
say
use,
tear
gas
on
one
person,
and
so
with
that
in
in
the
way
that
this
is
put
together.
B
The
hope
is
that
we
can
get
a
warning
issued
that
we
can
have
clear
delineated
steps
of
de-escalation
and
when
it
is
appropriate
to
use
these
kinds
of
weapons.
You
know,
I
think
we
have
already
spoken
on
the
fact
that
this
new
convention
bans
this
in
warfare,
and
so
these
are
already
weapons
that
really
we're
already
understanding
that
they're
at
a
level
of
danger
to
the
public
that
they
should
be
a
weapon
of
last
resort.
I
don't
think
that
bpd
disagrees
with
us
on
that.
B
F
I
will
say
personally,
I
believe
we
should
ban
weapons
like
tear
gas
and
rubber
bullets
from
ever
being
used
against
civilians,
but
I'm
hopeful
that
we
can
pass
this
ordinance
in
the
immediate
work
to
further
demilitarize
our
police
after
these
regulations
are
already
codified
to
protect
our
residents,
which,
of
course,
include
police
officers
from
harm
and
from
injustice
at
future
protests
and
large-scale
events.
Again,
council
royal
kudos
to
you
and
your
team.
You
know
I
know
my
team
has
been
back
and
forth
with
your
team.
F
We
don't
do
this
work
alone,
so
I
definitely
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
them
and
madam
chair
your
team
as
well,
for
guiding
us
through
the
process
and
through
this
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
leadership
too,
so
looking
forward
to
getting
into
the
weeds
and
and
getting
to
work.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
want
to
thank
the
proponents
here.
I
I
was
in
the
common
trying
to
help
folks
find
their
way
home
after
the
tea
closed
on
the
may
31st
protests
and
got
a
little
bit
of
of
sting
from
tear
gas,
edible
news
sort
of
wafting
down
the
street,
and
I
was
quite
far
back
from
where
it
was
used,
and
I
just
think
that
I
mean
to
me
things
that
are,
as
council
arroyo
said
not
allowed
by
the
geneva
convention.
H
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
this
as
a
working
session.
We
had
a
very
thorough
discussion
in
in
the
summer
about
this
issue.
My
own
preference
would
be
to
ban
these
weapons
altogether,
but
I
understand
that
if
we
have
really
clear
guidelines
for
their
use
as
a
method
as
a
method
of
last
resort,
then
that
would
be
good.
So
let
us
let
us
work
on
drafting
the
language
and
thank
you.
C
Yes
good
morning
so
and
thank
you
to
the
makers
for
bringing
this
issue
to
the
council
during
the
protest
after
the
murder
of
george
floyd,
I
spent
my
evening
driving
into
downtown
boston
to
pick
up
protesters
because
the
trains
were
shut
down
and
the
police
responded
to
the
crowd
of
peaceful
protesters
by
firing
tear
gas
at
them.
In
terms
of
how
I
plan
on
directing
the
conversation
my
interest,
will
folk
will
be
focused
on
how
to
make
this
ordinance
stronger
and
more
accountable.
C
We
need
to
think
about
the
social
and
emotional
and
traumatic
impact
of
those
who
have
been
targeted
and
and
and
impacted
by
this,
and
what
accountability
exists
to
to
those
folks,
and
I'm
not
sure.
Probably.
This
is
not
my,
I
don't
know
if
this
belongs
here,
but
I
just
think
there's
something
for
us
to
think
about
is
the
social
and
emotional
traumatic
impact
and
the
residue
of
of
being
targeted
by
this
and
the
responsibility
we
have
to
to
help
support
these
folks
through
that
journey.
J
A
And
I'll
just
conclude
noting
I
appreciate
counselor
arroyo's
summary.
This
is
about
dispersing
methods
and
the
tools
and
resources
that
we
give
or
the
standards
that
we
give
to
the
bpd,
and
so
this
is
a,
I
think,
a
comprehensive
conversation
with
stakeholders
at
the
table
to
come
up
with
a
way
that
this
is
going
to
be
implemented.
A
I
want
to
be
clear,
though
this
is
strictly
refer
for
the
public.
This
is
strictly
about
the
moments
in
protest
and
large
gatherings
that
these
alternative
means
are
not
we're
not
discussing,
for
example,
with
this,
with
an
arrest,
we're
not
talking
about
individual
back
and
forth
or
if
there
should
be
alternative
non-lethal
means
used
when
dealing
only
with
one
person
or
only
in
one
moment.
So
this
is
strictly
about
specifically
large
gatherings
and
the
standards
that
we're
going
to
use
when
this
is
implemented
or
not,
so
I
will
now
turn
it
over
again.
A
We
have
three
organizations
here
represented.
We
have
the
national
lawyers
guild,
we
have
the
boston
police
department
and
we
have
the
aclu.
I
will
fir
as
this
is
impacting
the
boston
police
department
and
their
their
day-to-day
I'd
like
for
them
to
go
ahead
and
speak
to
their
thoughts,
concerns
or
suggestions
for
the
language.
Then
we'll
turn
it
over
to
the
aclu
and
the
national
lawyers
guild.
K
Good
morning,
good
morning,
thanks
for
coming
to
join
this
conversation,
so
as
we
as
we
discussed
previously,
there
are
some
issues
with
the
ordinance
that
that
we
would
like
to
to
weigh
in
on
first
of
all,
some
some
of
the
ways
laid
out
initially,
I
would
just
like
to
highlight.
I
can
just
go
point
by
point
very
briefly.
So
law
enforcement
in
boston
has
not
used
these
devices
to
disperse
lawful,
peaceful
demonstrations.
K
Second
point
is
irrefutably:
they
are
safer
than
firearms.
That's
that's!
It's
kind
of
a
interesting
point
to
put
into
a
to
put
into
an
ordinance
that
they're
thought
to
be
safer
than
firearms
that
they
refutably
are
prolonged
doses
to
exposure
in
a
crowd.
Control
setting
is
extremely
unlikely,
so
I
don't
think
some
of
the
cdc
information
is
particularly
relevant
to
that.
You
know
the
environmental
impact
it
talks
about
the
the
impact
on
on
the
environment
of
these
devices.
K
I
would
suggest
that
the
environmental
impact
of
burning
vehicles
and
a
small
forest
worth
of
plywood
every
time
there's
a
plant
demonstration
is
not
particularly
beneficial
to
the
environment
either.
So
I
I
think,
that's
minuscule
to
the
point
of
not
really
being
relevant
about
the
environmental
aspect
of
it
crowd.
Control
tactics
are
targeted.
That
would
be
0.6
relative
to
this
ordinance
with
respect
to
children
in
the
elderly
being
particularly
vulnerable
they're
also
vulnerable
to
unchecked
violence
in
in
a
crowd,
control
setting.
You
know,
as
far
as
the
1925
geneva
protocol
prohibition
goes.
K
You
know
that
was
obviously
that
seems
to
me
a
logical
fallacy
to
me
that
we're
comparing
one
to
another
that
authority
is
not
particularly
relevant.
Obviously
1925
was
in
response
to
the
world
war,
one
use
of
that
type
of
gas
that
you
know
that
oc
wasn't
invented
until
some
50
plus
years
later.
So
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
we-
I
don't
know
what
relevance
that
particularly
has.
K
But
you
know
it's
an
odd
thing
to
put
into
an
audience
from
from
my
perspective,
but
you
know
I
I
just
don't
see
the
relevance
in
that,
but
to
discuss
some
of
the
comments
from
today
from
concert.
Royals
mentioning
kinetic
weapons
are
aimed
are
not
aimed
at
a
particular
person.
They
are
that
their
kinetic
weapons
are
aimed
at
a
particular
person.
People
are
highly
trained
not
to
have
a
crowd
impact
on
it.
I
understand
the
point
relative
to
so
say
oc
or
ces
gas
relative
to
this
point
about
the
escalation.
K
That's
always
attempted
we
always
try
dialogue.
We
always
tried
the
escalation.
We've
been
more
specific
about
including
the
escalation
into
our
operational
plans,
but
it's
always
been
and
is
way
more
than
90
percent
of
the
time.
A
successful
aspect
of
what
we
do,
as
evidenced
by
we've,
sent
some
data
to
you
about
the
number
of
times
that
these
riot
control
agents
are
used
and
it's
an
extremely
rare
occurrence.
I
can
go
in
detail
on
that,
but
I
think
the
documents
have
been
provided.
I
can
ask
if
you
want
to
ask
questions
about
those.
K
K
If
we
ban
one
tool,
then
how
do
we
deal
with
the
ramifications
of
of
what
we
fail
to
prevent?
So
if
we
ban
an
effective
tool
and
violence
continues
unchecked,
what
fills
that
void?
Is
that
void
going
to
be
filled
by
vigilantes,
as
we've
seen
in
kenosha?
Is
violence
going
to
spiral
out
of
control
and
impact
innocent
people,
as
we
saw
in
charlottesville?
I
mean
there
is
there's
another
side
to
this
risk,
so
so
we're
this.
This
ordinance
is
taking
away
a
proven,
widely
used
tool
in
the
u.s
and
other
developed
countries.
K
K
What
happens
when
we
don't
use
this
tool
and
we
don't
prevent
this
type
of
violence
and
it
spirals
out
of
control
and
innocent
people
are
harmed
by
the
violence
that
ensues,
I
mean
that's
a
real
risk
and
that's
something
I
think
needs
to
be
considered
so
specific
to
the
restrictions
in
the
ordinance
discusses
two
two
warnings
with
two
minutes
in
between
and
call
it
30
seconds
a
piece
for
the
the
warnings
themselves.
We're
looking
at
about
five
minutes
to
to
wait
before
we
employ
proven
effective
means
at
crowd
control.
K
This
is
particularly
problematic
when
we
have
two
crowds
that
are
antagonistic
towards
each
other.
Are
we
naive
enough
to
think
that,
in
the
crowds
of
thousands
of
people,
nobody
is
armed?
Do
we
do
we
want
to
allow
five
minutes
of
unchecked
or
inefficiently
checked
violence
when
we
have
proven
means
of
controlling
that
violence?
K
You
know
I'd
be
curious
as
to
what
the
metrics
were,
that
settled
upon
two
warnings
and
the
time
in
between
and
and
and
one
of
the
variables
you
know.
Time
is
an
important
variable
when
we're
trying
to
control
trying
to
control
violence
and
that's
what
this
is.
What
this
refers
to
this?
This
is
not
something
that
we
employ
against
peaceful
demonstrations.
K
That's
just
a
falsehood.
That's
been
that's
been
put
out
there.
I
don't
know
what
other
police
departments
do,
but
I
know
what
the
boston
police
department
does
and
these
tactics
are
not
used
against
peaceful
protesters.
You
know,
councilor
mejia
mentioned
that
that
peaceful
protesters
were
subjected
to
cs
and
noc,
and
she
I
realized
she
mentioned.
She
was
going
in
to
pick
people
up
so
apparently
it's
not
there.
That
was
not
the
case.
I
can
assure
the
council
that
that
was
not
the
case,
so
you
know
that's.
K
It
just
leads
me
to
question
what
it
is
we're
trying
to
prevent.
We've
shown
that
this
is
extremely
rarely
used
used
as
a
last
resort.
As
indicated
you
know,
the
council
wants
us
to
be
a
a
tool
of
last
resort
and
I
would
say
the
data
shows.
The
data
that
we
presented
to
the
council
shows
that
it
is
a
tool
of
the
last
result.
So
you
know
I'll
I'll,
just
I'll
just
reiterate
and
obviously
I'm
available
for
questions,
but
I'll
reiterate
my
point
that
if
we
take
away
an
effective,
safe
tool,
what
fills
that
void?
A
Thank
you
and
I
see
council
roy.
I
do
see
that
you
raised
your
hand.
I
just
want
to
be
kind
of
direct
in
terms
of
the
the
response.
In
summary,
first
for
the
super
deputy
superintendent,
deputy
superintendent,
while
the
colleague
my
colleagues,
several
my
colleagues
mentioned
that
they
would
like
to
remove
this
all
together.
I
think
council
royale
made
clear
at
the
very
beginning,
and
the
ordinance
is
very
clear
now
that
it
is
not
intended.
Nor
does
it
is
it
written
in
a
way
to
remove
those
things.
A
A
No,
no,
no
super
deputy
superintendent,
your
overall
response
or
the
bpd's
response
to
this
is
what
we're
seeking.
But
I
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we're
talking
about
in
the
working
session
were
pointed
on
the
language
and
so
that
when
you
got
to
the
points
about
the
language
specifically
and
there's
the
practical
reality
of
how
you
do
your
job,
that
those
that's
the
facts,
those
are
facts
of
you.
A
A
What
I
understand
the
goals
of
this
ordinance
is
to
be
clear
about
how
you
come
to
that
decision
of
it
being
last
resort,
how
we
come
to
the
decision
or
the
process
to
make
sure
that
people
are
warned
that
this
is
about
to
happen,
and
so
we
got
down,
and
I
really
appreciate
you
getting
down
to
the
timing
right.
You
said
it's
about
five
minutes,
and
these
are
conditions
that
don't
make
sense
for
a
five
minute
kind
of
buffer,
which
is,
you
could
have
different
protests,
a
side
b
side.
A
You
could
have
all
these
different
kinds
of
things,
and
so
I
think
what
I'd
really
like
to
know
and
again
apologize
counselor
roy,
if
I'm
taking
too
much,
but
when
it
comes,
is
there
a
warning
or
procedure
or
de-escalation
kind
of
movement
or
process
that
you
are
okay
with
codifying
the
bpd?
Not
you!
My
apologies,
not
you
specifically.
K
K
You
know,
there's
an
incident,
I'm
not
sure
where
it
was,
but
one
person
was
part
of
a
particular
group
and
was
set
upon.
I
think
it
was
somewhere
in
the
west
coast
and
shot
and
killed
because
he
was
separated
from
from
another
group
and
and
one
group
targeted
him.
So
you
know
those
types
of
things
things
unravel
fast,
but
in
strictly
the
crowd
control
process.
K
And
you
know
if
those
people
are
caught
up
in
people
wanting
to
burn
cars,
to
create
damage
and
and
hurt
people
with
young
kids
in
that
car.
We
need
effective
tools
in
order
to
extricate
people.
From
from
that
situation,
you
know,
would
it
be
wise
to
tell
them
to
park
their
car
and
wait
five
minutes
until
we
can
employ
oc
or
or
do
we
have
a
judicious
use
of
oc?
Let's
say
some
officer,
not
even
you
know
we
we
tend
to
talk
about
the
these
billowing
smoke,
clouds
of
oc
and
and
ces
gas.
K
That's
typically
not
where
it
is.
It's
typically,
an
officer
with
his
personally
issued
can
of
oc
that
can
effectively
can
effectively
have
a
crowd
move
away
and
we
can
get
people
out
of
there
and-
and
I
would
just
point
out
one
other
thing-
that
this
is
not
the
wage
written
is
not
specific
to
demonstrations.
K
It's
it's
ten
people
or
more,
and
you
know,
unfortunately,
I've
been
at
very
large
bar
fights
and
house
parties
where
people
are
intoxicated
and
people
are
being
violently
assaulted.
Oc
is
a
very
effective
way
of
stopping
that
kind
of
harm.
When
you
only
have
two
or
three
police
officers
there
and
saving
people
from
being
beaten
or
otherwise
threatened
with
harm,
and
it
can
involve
more
than
10
people
so
that
that
language
is
also
problematic
for
me,
but
primarily
the
lack
of
exception.
K
A
G
A
K
K
We
also
have
partners
that
come
into
the
city,
many
of
them
who
very
graciously
at
the
expense
of
other
municipalities
and
and,
of
course,
the
state
police
help
us
out
as
well
they're,
they're
trained,
very
specifically
also
so
so
this
kind
of
intervenes
and
and
the
process
of
controlling
violent
crowds
and
and
adds
sort
of
an
artificiality
to
how
it's
done
I
can't
be.
I
can't
be
sure
what
the
reaction
will
be
from
some
of
our
voluntary
organizations
that
help
us
out
if
they
are
going
to
have
to
deviate
from
their
training.
K
What
liability,
what
risk
are
they
incurring
by
using
now
a
non-standard
approach
to
crowd
control
because
of
an
ordinance,
and
they
are
also
obviously
subject
to
found
to
have
done
something
that
is
illegal
and
in
violation
of
an
ordinance
when
they
are
acting
in
good
faith
relative
to
their
training
and
crowd
control
tactics?
So
that's
that's
another
concern.
You
know
kind
of
supplementing
an
ordinance
for
for
training,
experience
and
judgment.
A
Thank
you
very
much
superintendent.
So
what
I'm
gonna
do
now
is,
and
I
see
jeff
you
raised
your
hand,
but
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
my
the
counselors
first
for
their
questions.
Specifically
this
kicking
off
with
the
co-sponsors
and
then
what,
before
we
have
other
invited
guests,
asked
questions
of
the
police.
I
do
think
it's
important
that
the
national
lawyers
guild
and
the
aclu
present
their
positions
and
suggestions
on
the
language
before
so.
We
know
you
know
jeff.
A
If
people
are
just
tuning
in
they
don't
know
who
you
are
what
you
stand
for
so
before
you
go.
Ask
the
questions.
That's
all!
So,
in
order
of
arrival
we're
starting
off
with
the
co-sponsors
and
again
I'm
going
to
encourage
push
and
move
you
to
get
to
the
questions,
love
politicians
we
like
to
talk
a
lot
but
we're
gonna
move,
and
so
I
will
put
you
on
a
timer.
We're
gonna
start
with
three
minutes,
so
counselor
arroyo
feel
free.
B
B
K
B
That's
not
an
orderly
dispersal,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
would
call
it
normally
dispersal
and
that
itself
could
lead
to
more
injuries.
But
as
we
talk
about
this
specifically
with
the
warning
portion
of
this
with
the
timing
for
the
warning,
the
reason
that
you
know-
I
think
you
said
five
minutes,
because
it's
two
minutes
and
two
minutes.
The
reason
for
that
is
if
the
goal
is
to
have
a
dispersal.
If
the
goal
is
to
have
a
cessation
of
activities,
they
should
be
entitled
to
be
told.
B
These
are
the
these
are
the
things
that
are
going
to
be
done.
If
you
do
not
disperse
so
that
people
who
hear
that
can
say,
I
don't
want
that
to
happen
to
me
and
they
can
disperse
if
they
so
make.
The
decision
to
do
so
and
they
are
taken
out
of
harm's
way
and
they
are
given
an
opportunity
to
leave
harm's
way,
and
I
don't
think
two
minutes
is
too
much
time
for
somebody
to
leave
that
setting
I'd,
note
their
exceptions
and
we
can
get
to
that
when
we
get
there.
A
B
Thank
you
so
I
I
know
that
there's
exceptions
built
into
this,
but
I
think
if
the
goal
is
to
stop
ongoing,
you
know
negative
behavior.
There
should
be
a
de-escalation
process
and
that
de-escalation
process
should,
at
a
minimum
begin
with
a
warning,
should,
at
a
minimum
begin
with
giving
people
an
opportunity
to
stop
what
they're
doing
there.
B
B
So
I
I
guess
the
question
is:
there's
a
way
where
you
can
create
enough
exceptions
that
the
warning
is
rendered
meaningless
and
so
in
terms
of
giving
warnings
in
terms
of
ensuring
the
protection
of
constituents.
You
know
that's
the
focus
here,
because
I
can't
ban
it.
I
don't
think
I
have
the
ability
to
do
that
here
and
so,
if
I
know
and
own
that
and
accept
that
and
know
that
this
is
not
doing
that
at
a
minimum.
B
And
then
you
know
I'd
like
to
just
see
that
conversation
flow,
but
I
think
I
think
I've
made
the
intent
clear
and
I
think
I've
made
the
intent
clear
in
the
sense
that
this
is
very
limited
as
to
what
it's
able
to
do,
and
I'm
sorry
for
that.
But
it's
also
what
I
think
is
the
most
important
thing
we
can
do,
which
is
protect
our
constituents
in
the
in
the
instance
where
we
can't
completely
ban
this,
and
so
that
that's
it
for
me.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
K
Had
you
know
cars
burned
a
lot
of
issues
that
were
clearly
in
the
range
of
what
I
would
consider
significant
violence
when
we
remove
the
ability
for
them
to
even
take
a
can
of
pepper
spray
off
of
their
belt
and
spray
it
at
a
crowd
of
people
throwing
frozen
water
bottles
and
throwing
in
the
crowd
throwing
their
own
cans
of
sea
ass
gas.
An
interesting
note
for
that
night
is
people
in
the
crowd,
use
cs
gas
well
before
the
police
did.
So
how
do
we
respond
to
that?
K
You
know,
there's
a
question
of
what
fills
this
void
and
I
haven't
heard
anybody
relay
any
information
to
how
we
are
going
to
change
our
tactics
to
be
effective
at
controlling
crowd
violence.
There
is
that
side
of
crowd,
violence
that
will
also
cause
trauma,
will
also
cause
injury
will
also
impact
residents
of
the
city.
This
is
a
proven
method
of
dealing
with
violent
crowds
and
I'm
still
curious
as
to
what
we
are
going
to
use
to
fill
that
void.
F
Campbell,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
and
as
a
co-sponsor
I
lift
up.
You
know
what
council
arroyo
has
said
in
in
in
that
this
you
know.
We
have
been
intentional
on
striking
a
balance
here,
understanding
what
the
deputy
superintendent
is
talking
about.
We
had
a
long
conversation
in
august
about
this
and,
frankly,
don't
want
to
take
two
hours
and
waste
time
talking
about
the
same
thing.
What
has
been
disappointing
is
that
when
we
sent
the
language
we
have
not
received
anything
from
bpd
or
the
administration
with
specific
redlined
language
changes
to
the
language.
F
If
the
two
minutes
was
too
long
well,
we
asked
what's
reasonable,
and
so
if
the
position
is
bpd
is
just
not
for
this
ordinance,
fine
then
say
that
so
that
we
can
then
move
on.
So
that
was,
I
don't
have
any
questions.
I
I
hear
what
the
deputy
superintendent
is
saying.
We
talked
about
the
importance
of
striking
a
balance
at
our
initial
hearing.
We
talked
about
the
importance
of
striking
this
balance
when
we
were
co-drafting,
this
legislation,
council
roy
and
I
went
back
and
forth
on
total
ban
versus
partial
band,
etc.
F
A
A
A
L
So
we
have
had
trained
legal
observers
who
are
supervised
by
attorneys
at
every
major
political
demonstration
that
has
occurred
in
boston
since
at
least
2010.
we've
been
doing
it
sporadically
before
then.
But
since
then,
we've
had
observers
at
every
major
demonstration,
and
so
we're
part
of
what
the
legal
observers
are
trained
to
do
is
to
observe
police
behavior
and
crowd
behavior
at
these
political
demonstrations
and
as
a
result
of
that,
particularly
what
occurred
on
may
29th
and
may
31st
of
this
year.
L
In
response
to
the
murder
of
george
floyd,
we've
had
reports
from
our
legal
observers
as
to
the
effect
of
the
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control,
weapons
and
kinetic
impact
projectiles,
and
I
wanted
to
say
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
superintendent,
deputy
superintendent
mcgoldrick
talked
about
the
fact
that
he
has
a
long
history
with
the
bpd
in
which
they
have
not
used
these
weapons,
and
now
he
says,
but
we
have
to
have
those
weapons
in
order
to
prevent
violence
by
crowds.
L
L
Nobody
has
been
arrested
or
charged
with
the
use
of
cs
gas
as
a
result
of
any
demonstration
in
boston
that
has
taken
place
period
that
has
not
occurred.
We
would
have
been
the
the
lawyers
who
defended
people
who
got
arrested
there.
That
has
not
occurred,
so
maybe
there
was
use
of
it
maybe,
but
we
have
no
evidence
of
that
that
the
police
arrested
anyone
for
doing
that.
L
L
The
guidelines
under
the
department
of
corrections
say
that,
before
the
use
of
chemical
weapons,
the
medical
director
of
the
prison
shall
review
the
inmates
medical
file
to
determine
if
any
medical
contra
indications
exist
in
using
chemical
weapons.
It
says
that
inmates
in
adjacent
cells
shall
also
be
checked
for
contraindication
the
department
of
correction
and
the
state
understand
how
dangerous
these
weapons
are.
L
L
Not
just
any
officer
correction
officer
can
use
them
at
their
own
discretion,
despite
the
fact
that
the
regulations
also
require
specific
training
of
correction
officers
in
the
use
of
chemical
weapons
like
this,
so
they're
trained
in
it.
Just
like
police
officers
are,
they
have
to
use
discretion
when
they're
faced
with
emergency
situations,
just
like
police
officers
are,
but
the
superintendent
of
this
prison
has
to
authorize
this.
L
Can
specifically
authorize
such
use
of
these
weapons
in
response
to
specific,
ongoing
acts
of
violence
or
destruction
of
property,
that
the
supervisor
witness
and
has
determined,
cannot
be
controlled
or
quelled
through
any
other
means.
So
there
is
an
exception
for
the
use
of
these
weapons
to
defend
them
others
or
for
self-defense.
L
Regulations
and
again,
I
think,
deputy
superintendent
mcgoldrick
said
this
is
clear
that
they
have
not
needed
to
use
them
well.
If
they
have
not
needed
to
use
them,
then
there
should
be
no
objection
to
having
some
strict
guidelines
as
to
when
they
can
be
used
and
the
fact
that
that
we
have
good
officers
now
who
have
not
used
them
and
that
we
have
a
good
superintendent
who's
not
used
them
doesn't
mean
that
things
can't
change.
L
L
There
needs
to
be
some
strict
guidelines
again
about
de-escalation
and
about
giving
warnings
in
order
to
protect
the
vast
majority
of
protesters
and
demonstrators
who
are
engaged
in
what
are
constitutionally
protected
rights,
to
protest
to
free
speech,
to
free
assembly
and
to
petition
the
government
for
redress
of
grievances,
and
I
think
that's
what
the
ordinance
is
designed
to
do.
It
is
not
a
ban
in
any
way
for
using
these
weapons.
L
K
So
I
would
just
say
briefly
that
the
ability
of
a
deputy
superintendent
to
to
authorize
protection
of
others
or
defensive
self
is
not
an
exception
that
actually
allows
for
protection
of
people
who
are
in
danger.
The
odds
of
a
deputy
superintendent
being
in
the
right
place
at
the
right
time
to
exercise
that
authority
and
allow
that
exception
to
be
implemented
is
fairly
remote.
So
it's
it's.
K
It's
not
a
sufficient
exception
and
I'd
also
say
that
in
the
corrections
setting
that
those
are
probably
certainly
reasonable
protections,
but,
unlike
in
a
crowd,
control
situation,
prisoners
in
a
department
correction
facility,
don't
have
the
ability
to
move
away
from
the
effects
of,
say,
pepper
spray,
where
or
in
a
crowd
control
situation.
They
can
certainly
leave.
L
L
You
cannot
target
it
and
you
cannot
limit
it
and
if
people
are
not
given
a
warning
and
an
opportunity
to
leave,
they
will
be
affected
by
these
weapons,
and
we
have
reports
from
physician,
after
physician,
of
the
dangers
of
these
weapons
being
used
on
people
who
have
medical
conditions
on
young
children
on
the
elderly,
on
people
with
respiratory
conditions,
people
who
may
be
suffering
the
after
effects
of
covet
19.
Now
there
are
many
reasons
why
innocent
people
will
be
harmed
by
the
use
of
these
weapons.
K
And
then
the
question
still
remains:
what
fills
that
void?
Then?
What
fills
the
void
of
the
impacts
of
a
violent
crowd
that
does
not
want
to
disperse
yeah.
I
mean
you
obviously
admit
that
there
are
some
elements
or
crowds
that
sometimes
are
violent,
that
we're
trying
to
protect
the
people
who
are
not
violent.
How
is
that
going
to
be
done
when
these
tools,
and
as
you
mentioned,
we've
only
used
them
a
very
limited
number
of
times,
but
that
doesn't
that's
not
this
positive,
that
they
are
not
needed.
K
The
reality
is
that
these
tools
are
needed
in
very
limited
circumstances,
and
I
use
very
judiciously
so
I
I
just
don't
see
how
that
argument
translates
to
the
fact
that
we
shouldn't
have
them
when
they
are
crucially
needed
to
protect
lives
and-
and
we
do
see
the
effects
around
the
country
and
including
death
when
crowds
are
not
controlled.
When
violence
erupts,
we
need
to
control
the
violence
some
way.
This
is
a
tried
and
true
process.
L
What
what
fills
the
void
is
all
of
the
techniques,
de-escalation
techniques
and
all
of
the
other
techniques
that
the
boston
police
have
used
successfully
over
the
last
35
years
so
that
they
have
not
needed
to
use
these
weapons.
As
you
said,
we
have
had
violent
demonstrations
here
where
these
weapons
have
not
been
used.
L
You
yourself
say
it:
they
are
used
very
infrequently
and
you
have
been
successful
in
controlling
demonstrations
in
boston,
including
demonstrations
in
which
5
000
counter
demonstrators
have
shown
up
to
fight
against,
or
protest
against,
a
white
supremacist
group
or
a
a
nazi-oriented
group,
and
you've
been
successful
in
controlling
those
crowds
and
in
controlling
violence
and
in
preventing
property,
destruction
or
anything
else.
Those
are
the
techniques
that
you
can
use,
which
we
don't
avoid
to
be
filled,
because
you
have
been
successful
in
doing
that.
You
have
not
needed
to
use
these
weapons.
K
We
would
not
have
been
successful
without
these
weapons
on
may
31st
of
controlling
the
violence
that
that's
a
fact
we
would.
We
would
not
have
been
successful
in
controlling
the
violence
as
quickly
as
we
were
able
to,
and
I
think
we
saw
the
results
in
other
parts
of
the
country
where
they
were
not
able
to
do
so.
So
you
know,
unfortunately,
we
have
to
use
these
one
time
in
my
career.
L
No
one's
taking
that
option
away.
No
one
in
this
ordinance
does
not
take
that
option
away
any
more
than
the
doc
regulations
takes
that
option
away
in
prisons.
This
this
ordinance
merely
puts
reasonable
restrictions
on
it
to
protect
the
other
people
in
the
demonstration
who
are
not
acting
in
an
illegal
or
destructive
or
violent
manner,
and
that's
the
vast
majority
of
the
people
who
are
involved
in
the
demonstrations
even
on
may
31st.
K
And
those
are
the
people
we're
trying
to
protect
as
well.
So
you
know
it's
it's
not
that
this.
Isn't
this
isn't
a
one-sided
issue?
The
other
issue
is
who
protects
people
from
the
crowds?
Sometimes
it's
not
just
going
to
be
a
crowd.
That's
angry
and
against
the
police
sometimes
could
be
a
crowd
against
another
crowd
and
and
how
is
that
going
to
be
resolved
without
actions
that
can
be
forced
multipliers
for
the
effects
of
the
police?
K
You
know
if
there
are
thousands
of
people
on
both
sides
of
both
sides
of
a
particular
geographical
area
and
they're
against
each
other's
perspectives,
and
they
become
violent.
We
need
effective
tools
to
prevent
violence.
We've,
fortunately
not
seen
the
effects
of
that
type
of
violence
in
boston.
I'd
prefer
to
learn
from
the
lessons
of
other
places
where
they
realized
that
they
were
ineffective
at
dealing
with
crowd,
violence
and
and
how
to
adjust
their
tactics.
K
Oc
or
cs
gas,
and
that
extremely
limited
number
of
times
that
we
have
to
use
those,
I
think
they
should
be
able
to
be
used,
and
I
think
there
should
be
restrictions
that
are
not
unduly
restrictive,
that
that
do
not
in
fact
limit
the
police
officer's
ability
to
judge
when
someone
is
at
risk
individually,
like
even
a
captain
out
there
with
a
group
of
officers,
cannot
make
the
determination
to
even
use
his
individual
can
of
oc
spray
under
these
rules.
If
someone
is
being
violently
assaulted,
I
find
that
problematic.
L
All
you
have
said,
deputy
superintendent
is
that
we
shouldn't
have
this
ordinance
and,
as
councillor
campbell
pointed
out,
if
you
have
constructive
ideas
about
how
the
language
in
this
ordinance
can
be
modified,
I'm
sure
the
council
would
be
interested
in
hearing
that,
but
what
you
have
said
is
no.
We
don't
want
this
ordinance.
A
A
But
what
it
looks
like
is
that
we're
ending
in
a
and
we're
coming
to
head
essentially
and
what
that
means
is
that
the
council
very
likely
will
just
push
through
something
that
it
wants
to
get
done
over
the
bpd,
which
is
not
ideal
more
than
what
I
would
hope
again
and
I'm
asking
imploring
of
the
bpd
with
your
legal
department
with
with
within
yourself
with
the
mayor's
office,
whoever
it
is.
If
there
could.
You
come
up
independent
of
this
policy
independent
of
this
one.
A
If
you
can't
look
at
this
one,
can
you
come
up
with
something
that
codifies
the
crowd,
control
methods,
the
non-lethal
method
methods,
the
one
you
you
hear
our
goals?
It's
a
warning!
It's
protecting
the
safety.
You
also
have
your
own,
the
discretion,
the
the
defense.
Could
you
come
up
with
something?
A
Even
if
you
don't
write
a
full-on
ordinance,
if
you
came
up
with
four
or
five
bullet
points
that
we
could
support,
something
that
does
this,
I
I
would,
I
would
put
it
back
on
you
because
it
what
I'm
here,
what
I'm
going,
what
I'm
seeing
in
the
experience
I've
been
here,
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
is
something
will
be
put
before
them
and
they
could
vote
it
without
you.
That
is
not
ideal.
A
A
K
The
last
thing
I
want
to
do
is
authorize
use
of
these
weapons
because
I
know
the
liability
and
the
risks
that
that
incur,
and-
and
I
know
that
that
that's
a
challenge
that
we
will
eventually
look
at
in
in
in
terms
of
public
relations
with
our
community-
we
do
not
take
this
lightly.
We
we,
frankly,
don't
need
an
ordinance
to
tell
us
not
to
do
this.
We
don't
want
to
do
it.
It's
a
situation
where
we're
looking
at
curtailing
violence.
K
That
needs
to
be
curtailed,
and
I
you
know
I
I
just
I
wish
there
was
a
a
magic
wand
that
we
could
wave
or
some
other
tactic,
with
no
risk.
No
liability,
no
discomfort,
no
harm,
but
the
reality
is.
These
are
the
tactics
that
work?
These
are
the
tactics
that
are
trained
and,
and
without
these
I
just
don't
know
if
you
have
a
crowd
committed
to
violence.
A
A
The
ordinance
is
to
us
is
to
is
to
codify
so
that
when
we
don't
have
an
administration
with
that
good
will,
when
we
don't
have
a
superintendent
with
your
perspective,
that's
what
laws
exist
for
it's
for
the
moments,
that's
why
we
have
civil
liberty
laws
so
on
and
so
forth.
It's
not
when
government
is
working
well,
it's
when
government
is
discriminating
or
hurting
or
causing
pain
that
people
have
something
there
to
protect
them.
A
A
The
question
is
when
it's
not
you,
the
question
is:
when
you're
gone
moved
on
retired
living
in
florida,
I
don't
know
wherever
you're
gonna
go.
The
question
is
for
us
and
the
legacy
that
we
set
with
the
circumstances
that
have
surrounded
at
this
moment.
Our
world
has
changed
pandemic.
George.
Our
world
has
changed.
A
A
A
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
reiterate
your
last
point,
madam
chair,
about
what
is
in
place
in
the
absence
of
the
people
with
the
good
will
and
the
good
reputation
and
the
history
of
good
work
and,
to
the
extent
that
there
are
internal
policies
within
the
bpd
that
govern
this.
I
I
That
would
be
impacted
by
the
deployment
of
kinetic
impact,
projectiles
or
criminal
cr
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
where
impacted
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to
the
direct
effects
of
these
items
or
their
indirect
effects
by
creating
a
panic
or
other
dangerous
conditions
in
a
crowd,
and
I
can
submit
all
this
to
you
as
as
well.
We
would
create
a
3ac
or
excuse
me,
3a
sub,
3.,
that
the
on-scene
supervisor
witness
specifically
authorizes
the
use.
I
That
is
creating
the
imminent
risk
of
death
or
serious
bodily
injury
and
and
what
is
currently
three
a
sub
two.
We
would
make
that
now
three,
a
sub
five,
that
the
on-scene
supervisor
witness
gives
at
least
four
separate
warnings
over
a
loudspeaker
system
that
can
be
heard
by
all
in
the
area
that
may
be
affected
by
the
possible
use
of
force.
I
I
think
it's
also
important
to
consider
another
de-escalation
in
the
process
of
de-escalation
and
determining
whether
to
deploy
the
agents
ensuring
that
the
people
have
a
way
to
exit
after
the
warnings
have
been
issued
and
making
sure
that
other
law
enforcement
op
officers
that
operate
with
bpd
other
agencies
that
operate
with
bpd
not
only
know
about
these
restrictions,
but
are
subjected
to
this.
These
restrictions.
I
I
I
can,
you
know
again
share
this
in
writing
or
we
can
hash
it
out
now
as
we
as
this
is
a
working
session,
but
I
think
those
are
key
points,
but
again
going
back
to
madam
chair.
Your
your
point
is
if,
if
bpd
is
doing
well
with
this,
now
make
the
recommendations
and
proposals
that
codify
it
for
who
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
in
the
future,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
rely
on
the
goodwill
of
the
folks
who
may
no
longer
be
there.
A
L
That's
what
the
court
ordered.
So
this
is
happening,
but
this
is
a
fairly
new
movement
in
the
united
states
as
more
and
more
information
was
gathered
by
people
like
physicians
for
human
rights
as
to
the
effect
of
these
weapons
to
protect
people
who
are
engaged
in
constitutionally
protected
activities
like
free
speech
and
free
assembly.
So
those
are
the
two
that
I
know
of
maybe
rasan
has
further
information,
but
I
know
that
the
court
order
in
denver,
which.
E
A
B
B
So
one
thing
I
will
say
here
because
I
do
want
to
get
right
to
the
language,
is
you
know
everything
that
you
have
said,
madam
chair,
for
the
most
part
about
wanting
to
do
this
in
a
way
that's
collaborative,
but
also
with
the
intent
and
the
goals
that
we've
stated,
I
think
is
true,
but
what
I
would
say
is,
I
don't
believe
it's
a
good
defense
to
say,
look
at
what's
happening
in
other
cities
with
you
know,
crowd
control.
They
are
using
tear
gas
in
those
cities.
B
They
are
using
kinetic
impact
projectiles
in
those
cities
and
that's
the
result
we've
seen
so
to
say.
This
is
what
prevents
that,
when
it's
not
preventing
that
there
seems
like
a
falsehood
to
me,
it
doesn't
seem
like
something
that
actually
adds
up,
because
I
think
in
every
single
one
of
those
places.
What
we've
seen
is
the
use
of
tear
gas.
B
I
recognize
that
that
is
illegal
activity
that
I
do
not
want
to
see,
but
I
also
recognize
that
something
that
could
fatally
strike
that
person
or
something
that
could
end
that
person's
life
or
disable
them
forever
is
not
a
equitable
use
of
of
force
right.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
it's,
not
the
correct
method
to
address
that,
and
so
you
know
I'm.
I
understand
the
idea
of
violence
and
violent
crowds.
I
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
a
crowd.
B
B
K
Would
I
so
we're
in
agreement
there
anyways,
the
illustrations
from
elsewhere
are
not
not
to
compare
crowd,
control,
track
tactics
to
one
municipality
or
another,
but
it's
to
illustrate
what
happens
when
crowd.
Violence
goes
unchecked
and
people
lose
confidence
and
the
fact
that
the
police
are
going
to
be
able
to
control
crowd
violence.
You
know
it
refers
specifically
to
kenosha,
where
people
put
out
a
call
to
have
others
come
in
to
protect
their
property
and
that
resulted
in
death
and
shootings
and-
and
you
know,
significant
problems
for
them.
K
A
Thank
you
so
now
we're
going
to
go
in
order
of
arrival,
the
questions
can
be
to
any
one
of
our
panelists
and
to
the
co-sponsors
again
with
council
royale
having
a
hard
stop
at
12.
So
if
anyone
has
questions
specifically
for
him,
they
should
lead
off
with
that
counselor
blin
just
check
he
may
have.
Actually.
I
know
people
had
so
many
meetings.
Counselor
flynn
may
have
okay,
I
see
he
had
to
go.
My
apologies,
counselor
bach
may
have
also.
H
So,
but
I
would
just
I
I
would
thank
thank
everybody
for
the
testimony
and
just
say
that
I
would
love
if,
when,
when
the
the
specific
suggestions
shared
by
the
acil,
you
are
shared
with
a
chair.
If
you
could
just
circulate
them
to
all
of
us,
so
that
we
have
those,
I
was
sort
of
trying
to
track
them
in
my
head,
but
it's
always
useful
to
have
it
down
on
paper,
and
then
I
would
just.
H
I
would
just
echo
your
urging
to
bpd
to
you
know
think
about
what
what
their
sort
of
counter
proposal
would
be
here,
because,
because,
obviously
I
I
don't
think
for
me,
I
share
very
much
your
view
that
this
is
something
that,
like
we
should
be
codifying
in
a
way
that
we
know
that
we're
protecting
people
consistently
as
important
as
goodwill
is
that
we're
not
relying
on
it
legislatively
so
so.
Yes,
those
are
just
my
comments
and
no
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
So
I
really
would
love
to
get
a
place
that
we
can
codify
this
and
that
the
use
of
these
weapons
would
be
really
essentially
a
last
resort
and
that
you
know
I
don't
want
to
see
sort
of
creep
in
practice.
Have
we
do
that
that
it
becomes
sort
of
the
norm
that
they're
used
without
very
careful
consideration?
D
E
C
L
The
ordinance
the
ordinance
does
deal
with
civil
actions
for
injuries
caused
by
this.
It
says
that
any
person
injured
or
harmed
by
a
violation
of
the
ordinance
can
bring
in
action
of
seeking
damages
and
attorney's
fees
and
other
relief
and
if
they
are
harmed
and
by
this
they'll,
be
entitled
to
recover
damages
and
attorneys
fees
in
a
civil
action,
including
a
a
treble
damages
penalty.
For
that.
C
A
B
B
Is
leaving
me
any
any
sort
of
force
that
should
be
in
the
dashboard,
and
I
know
that
bpd
sent
us
all,
I
think
about
10
or
15
minutes
before
this
hearing
their
records.
I
think
for
like
the
last
seven
years
of
use
of
force,
which
I'm
I
haven't
obviously
had
a
chance
to
dig
through
and
go
through,
but
I
think
if
they
keep
those
records,
those
records
should
be
public
without
having
to
make
a
public
records
request.
Those
should
be
public
facing.
We
should
have
that
kind
of
dashboard.
C
C
F
I'll
just
quickly
add
on
the
public
safety
dashboard
beast,
which
has
been
in
conversation
for
years
to
have.
The
department
reveal
critical
information
around
their
diversity
numbers,
their
spending,
etc.
That
continues
to
be
just
a
policing
reform
point
that
we
keep
pushing
and
wanting
to
have,
which
of
course
would
include
this.
Definitely
the
points
that
council
mejia
raised.
F
Definitely
the
points
that
counts
are
royal
raise,
because
the
lack
of
transparency
is
is
a
problem
and
we've
heard
that
from
various
folks,
and
so
this
is
sort
of
incorporated
in
into
that,
and
so
I
agree
with
council
arroyo,
but
I
do
think
we
don't
want
to
limit
it
to
just
this.
There
are
separate
conversations
happening
with
respect
to
the
creation
of
a
public
safety
dashboard,
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
that.
A
A
So
maybe
the
conversation
on
this-
and
this
is
a
great
conversation
council
mejia-
thank
you
so
much
to
the
co-sponsors
is
this
something
you
think
should
be.
It
might
be
bigger
than
the
ordinance
in
terms
of
the
data
collection
and,
and
it
might
be
bigger
in
terms
of
we
need
a
separate
one,
which
is
fine,
there's
not
a
question.
It's
not
a
bad
thing.
If
you're,
not
the
second
one,
I
just
hit
the.
B
Two
I
would
defer
to
counselor
campbell
on
this,
who
I
know,
has
been
dealing
with
these
issues
for
longer.
But
to
me
that
sounds
like
a
separate,
a
separate
ordinance
to
get
that
dashboard
collection,
but
I
would
I
would
defer
to
like
co-sponsor
on
this
counselor
campbell.
I
know
she's
been
the
chair
of
public
safety
and
she's
been
on
this
for
a
longer
time,.
F
F
Now
the
question
is:
what's
going
to
be
included
on
that
public
safety
dashboard
and
there
are
a
whole
host
of
ideas.
I
know
some
commitments
from
the
administration.
I
don't
think
I
have
quite
yet
an
expansive
view
of
what
they
want
to
include,
but
this
is
definitely
one
of
the
things
they
should
include
and
that's
been
on
the
table
for
a
while,
along
with
a
whole
host
of
other
issues
or
sort
of
data,
points
that
many
folks
and
advocates
have
been
wanting
to
see
for
a
long
time.
C
Okay,
could
I
ask
one
more
question:
counselor
edwards,
I'm
just
curious.
If,
if
there's
a
way
for
us-
and
I
think
I
mentioned
this
in
august-
that
you
know
there's
some
officers
who
have
some
mental
emotional
issues
but
they're
deployed
oftentimes
to
protest
just
because
of
we
might
have
a
limited
force.
I
don't
know
why.
C
But
I'm
just
wondering
if
this,
if
this
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
really
be
super
mindful
in
terms
of
who
are
the
folks
that
we're
deploying
into
these
protests
and
ensuring
that,
if
they're
going
to
make
any
decisions
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
use
tear
gas
that
we
are
vetting.
Folks?
Who
who
can
who
can
do
that?
C
And
I
don't
know
if
that's
worth
mentioning
here
or
even
considering,
but
to
the
co-sponsors
of
this-
I'm
just
really
curious
about
the
mental
and
emotional
well-being
of
some
of
these
officers,
who
are
in
the
front
lines
of
the
pro
of
these
protests.
I'm
deploying
these.
You
know
rubber
bullets
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
I'm
just
curious
if
this
is
a
conversation
worth
having
in
this
space.
K
If
there
are
any
any
types
of
interventions
that
may
be
needed,
so
so
it's
an
ongoing
process.
Obviously
it's
it's.
It's
in
the
context
of
a
crowd.
Control
situation
have
that
conversation,
but
that's
obviously
something
that
we
want
to
be
aware
of
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
to
know
our
people
and
know
that
they're
in
in
in
the
proper
fitness
for
the
duties
that
they
are,
they
are
going
to
have
to
undertake,
especially
in
this
climate,
where
there's
a
lot
of
negativity
towards
police
officers
at
all
levels
of
society
and
government.
K
C
You
thank
you.
Do
you
have
a
running
list
of
of
officers
who
you
are
monitoring,
and
and
is
there
a
list
somewhere
where
you
say
well,
these
particular
officers
should
not
be
deployed
to
certain
protests,
just
because
they've
been
known
to
have
aggression
and
things
of
that
nature.
Is
that
something
that
you
have
at
your
disposal
and
readily
available
in
terms
of
information.
K
Well,
I
don't
think
we're
using
the
the
peer
support
unit
as
a
as
a
punitive
measure
like
that,
and
I
don't
think
that
there's
necessarily
in
any
psychological
review
for
people
that
whether
they
can
perform
a
particular
function
or
not.
Rather
we
do
what
what
most
public
and
private
sector
employers
do
with
their
people
and
then
with
their
staff
that
are
crucial
to
include
you
know.
The
medical
medical
people
in
the
covid
situation
are
under
a
lot
of
stress
as
well.
K
It's
designed
to
where
people
can
be
confident
in
the
process
that
they
can
get
help
and
that
they
can
be
fit
to
perform
their
functions
as
needed.
So
so,
no
not
not
to
my
knowledge.
We
don't
keep
a
running
list
of
people
who
seek
help
from
the
peer
support
unit.
I
think
that
would
be
counterproductive
and
probably
would
violate
some
of
the
some
of
the
professional
obligations
of
people
that
that
staff
that
unit.
K
However,
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
have
engaged
supervisors
at
every
level
that
that
are
certainly
well
capable
of
noticing
any
problems
that
someone
might
be.
Having
and
they're
fully
within
their
rights
to
raise
those
duty
status
determinations
within
the
department
and
we'd
make
the
appropriate
adjustments
as
needed.
J
Asabi
george,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
everyone
for
being
here
today.
Have
we
have
we?
Some
of
the
conversation
that
I
am
interested
in,
that
I
think
counselor
edwards
brought
up
was
a
look
at
what
other
cities
are
doing,
especially
cities
that
are
similar
to
ours.
I'm
most
curious
about
any
analysis
of
changes
like
this,
and
these
are
pretty
significant
changes
in
policies
and
procedures.
J
What
impacts
that
has
had
on
those
those
cities,
in
particular,
if
we
can
analyze
sort
of
what's
happening
within
crowds,
what's
happening
at
both
rallies
and
demonstrations
and
protests,
and
I
think,
there's
a
difference
between
some
of
those
activities
and
the
response
of
local
police
department
sort
of
those
impacts.
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
looked
at
that
or
if
there
is
any
analysis
yet
at
this
point
to
look
at
that.
I
L
This
is
a
letter
from
human
rights
watch,
amnesty
international,
physicians
for
human
rights
and
human
rights.
First,
they
wrote
that
in
125
separate
incidents
in
40
states
and
the
district
of
columbia
between
may
26th
and
june
5th
of
this
year,
there
was
125,
documented
incidents
of
police
using
excessive
force
against
protesters,
including
misusing
tear
gas,
pepper
spray
and
inappropriately
and
indiscriminately
firing
less
lethal
projectiles
against
protesters,
and
then
between
may
26
and
july
7.
J
So
I
I
do
know
that
letter,
I
think,
vaguely
or
a
letter
similar
to
that.
I
made
a
note
to
make
sure
that
I
pulled
that
up.
My
question
is
really:
when
we've
had
these
bans
or
strict
restrictions
around
certain
uses,
is
there
an
analysis,
or
has
there
been
an
analysis
around
what
has
happened
so
what's
occurred
afterwards,
both
positive
and
negative?
How
has
that
impacted
both
policing
and
sort
of
the
activities
among
again
rallies
demonstrations
and
protests.
L
L
J
Right
right
and
then
what
about
you
know?
One
of
my
concerns
is
we
are
disarming
the
police
with
from
some
tools
and
leaving
them
with
very
few
tools
which
the
service
weapon
and
themselves
are
there
other
other
protocols,
other
tools,
other
pieces
of
equipment
that
would
replace
the
use
of
whether
it's
the
kinetics
or
the
chemicals.
E
L
That's
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
leads
to
these
injuries
and
the
misuse
of
these
weapons
and
indiscriminate
use
of
them.
There
is
no
attempt
at
all
to
take
these
away
from
the
police
and
say
you
can
never
use
them.
That's
that's
not
what's
occurring,
so
there
is
no
need
for
another
set
of
weapons
to
be
put
in
their
place
because
they
can
use
these
weapons
when
it's
appropriate.
K
Yeah,
I
would
say
there
really
is
nothing
else
out
there.
I
mean
that
this
is.
This
is
something
that's
been
adopted
and
used
these.
You
know
the
kinetic
weapons
have
have
developed
over
time
and
we
use
them,
as
I
said
one
time
in
my
career
at
a
crowd,
control
situation
that
you
know
the
type
that
we're
using
now
that
the
sponge
round,
it's
it's
safe
and
effective,
but
not
you
know
not
without
risk,
certainly
as
far
as
oc
and
ces
again
very
sparingly
have
they
been
used.
K
But
beyond
that
I
mean
those
those
are
kind
of
what's
built
into
some
of
the
crowd
control
training
when
it
gets
to
the
point
where
it's
a
violent
crowd,
that's
committing
acts
of
violence
within
the
crowd
and
against
others.
There's
there's!
No.
You
know
that
there's
no
great
solution
that
takes
the
place
of
that
I
wish
there
were.
I
wish
there
was
an
extreme,
extremely
low
risk,
low
liability
option
that
would
prevent
violence
if
that's
if
that's
developed,
we'd
certainly
want
to
adopt
it.
K
There's
always
new
products
coming
on
the
law
enforcement
market,
but
there's
obviously
significant
risk
in
being
an
early
adopter
of
those.
We
saw
those
with
the
early
adopters
of
tasers
before
they
became
a
refined
product.
That's
that's
much
more
safe
and
effective
now
than
when
it
first
hit
the
market.
J
L
As
far
as
I
know,
no
again,
denver
has
the
court
order
restricting
them.
Seattle
did
have
a
ban,
but
that
was
a
temporary
ban
and
the
city
council.
There
is
working
on
that.
I
also
know
that,
because
I'm
working
with
them
now,
the
city
council
in
cambridge
and
the
city
council
in
somerville
are
considering
similar
ordinances
to
the
one
being
proposed
here
in
boston.
A
A
It's
about
10
minutes
to
12,
and
I
I
feel
my
I'm
feeling
myself
I'm
doing
back
to
my
two
hours
of
getting
hearings
and
working
sessions
done.
I'm
feeling
myself,
I'm
not
gonna
lie
I'm
bragging.
Yes,
I
am
doing
getting
this
done
in
time,
but
with
the
remaining
10
minutes,
I
I
mean
I
have
for
me
my
working.
A
What
I'm
walking
away
going
to
do
is
probably
research.
The
court
order
that
jeff
brought
up
if
there
is
somebody
in
denver
to
contact,
I'm
going
to
still
contact
them
to
see
what
what
can
be
found
out
about
the
implementation
or
or
the
reaction
or
just
doing
some
research
in
general.
I'm
curious
denver
is
about
kind
of
the
same
size
I
feel
as
boston.
Maybe
I'm
wrong.
We
compared
in
terms
of
size
when
it
came
to
our
cannabis
ordinance.
A
So
maybe
I'm
wrong
very
similar
to
boston
okay,
so
I
think
I
mean,
while
they
would
have
what
this
year
may
or
march,
something
if
they
won't
have
much.
I
think
it's
still
worth
doing
some
initial
research
and
I
can
work
with
co-sponsors
on
that
as
well
and
in
terms
of
the
language
from
the
aclu
I'll
absolutely
send
that
out
to
everybody
to
look
at
and
and
again
I
really
do
hope
there
is
some
some
protocol
that
the
bpda
can
lead
on,
even
if
it
is
nationally
lead
on
and
say.
A
This
is
something
that
we
are
comfortable
with.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
what
we're
proposing,
but
something
that
you
are
comfortable
with
would
be
more
than
ideal.
It
would
be,
it
would
be
an
incredible.
I
think,
olive
branch
to
demonstrate
where
you
guys,
even
if
you're
codifying
what
you
do
anyway,
but
it
would,
it
would
mean
a
lot.
So
that's
those
are
my
my
concluding
remarks.
I
will
check
with
the
co-sponsors
about
finalizing
the
language
and
possibly
having
this
voted
on
this
year,
though
we
have
very
few
sessions
left.
A
If
it
is
not,
then
it's
a
matter
of
just
perfecting
the
language
and
having
the
co-sponsors
reintroduce
it
early
next
year,
and
then
it
could
easily
also
be
voted
on
then.
So
this
is
where
we
have
a
clock.
We
have
time
it's
it's
it's
going
to
very
likely
be
put
before
the
body
I'll
say
I
can't
see
if
it's
passed
or
not,
because
my
colleagues
have
to
vote
on
it,
but
it's
likely
to
be
put
before
the
body.
B
L
A
A
Thank
you
very
much,
so
I
am
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
out
this
working
session
unless
somebody
absolutely
has
something
they
need
to
say
right
now.
I
think
you
know
normally
in
a
hearing
we
have
everyone
do
concluding
remarks,
but
this
is
not
a
hearing.
It's
a
working
session.
So
with
that,
thank
you
all
for
attending.
Today
we
will
follow
up
with
any
documents
we
receive
and
any
research
have
a
good.