The San Francisco Police Commission voted 4-3 late Wednesday against drafting a policy to allow officers to use Tasers, after hearing from several researchers and advocates who warned the panel about the lethal risk of the electric stun guns.

Commissioner Petra DeJesus, a leading Taser opponent on the panel, said she refused to be a "rubber stamp" for the department - namely Chief George Gascón, who has pushed for the stun guns to save lives and spare injuries.

Tasers, she said, "haven't been vetted to a level I think is required." She said San Franciscans need to be asked if they want them, given the $1 million plus price tag and the possibility that the devices could cause sudden death of unarmed suspects.

"If we do want Tasers at all, the commission should be a partner along the way - but it has not been," DeJesus said.

It was the second time in two weeks that the commission, consisting of four mayoral appointees and three appointees of the Board of Supervisors, had rejected the proposal to draw up a policy under which officers would be allowed Tasers. The panel also voted down the idea in 2004.

The panel's president, Joe Marshall, said he supported Gascón's effort to come up with a policy after years of delay. "I believe this man knows what he is doing," he said.

But Commissioner Jim Hammer, who voted against Tasers, cited research showing that in-custody deaths increased in the first year of Taser deployment in 50 California cities.

"I will not rush into this tonight," he said.

DeJesus and Commissioners Vincent Pan and Yvonne Lee joined Hammer in voting against Tasers. All but Lee are supervisors' appointees. Marshall and Commissioners Thomas Mazzucco and David Onek, all appointed by Newsom, voted for the devices.

Gascón said he had intended to impose strict conditions on when officers could use Tasers. He said he was dismayed by the commission's vote, but was not as sharply critical as when the panel voted down the devices last month. Then, he called delays in giving the stun guns to officers "unconscionable."

Most cities use Tasers

San Francisco is one of only a few major cities in the United States whose officers are not equipped with the weapons, which incapacitate suspects by stunning them with an electrical charge.

After becoming chief in July, Gascón commissioned a study of officer-involved shootings in San Francisco over five years that found that as many as one-third could have been avoided had police been able to use Tasers.

Critics, however, cite studies that indicate a possible connection between the stun guns and the risk of sudden heart attack in people hit with them. They note that manufacturer Taser International warned police last year not to fire the devices at suspects' chests, after one of the company's scientific advisers concluded that at least one fatal heart attack in an otherwise healthy person had been caused by the device.

John Burton, a lawyer who won a $5 million judgment against Taser International in the case of a man who died after being hit with a police Taser in Salinas, urged the commission to reject the stun guns as "very dangerous" and largely untested and unregulated.

"Departments are relying on training and representations of the manufacturer, which has a built-in conflict of interest," he said, adding that Taser had "covered up a real health risk."

Burton said the company has known since 2005 that the devices could stop the hearts of animals and, later, humans, but failed to warn officers until late last year about not firing at the chest and against multiple uses.

"This is a company that simply refuses to sell its product with advice about how it could be used most safely," Burton said, adding that the "hidden dangers" outweigh the utility of the device.

Taser International did not send a representative to the meeting.

ACLU weighs in

Kelli Evans, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, urged the panel to reject the proposal as ill conceived and premature. "The first step is to back up," Evans said. "You've got the cart before the horse."

She said the Police Department should first reach out to community groups, particularly mental health experts, before the matter goes to the commission.

"What needs to happen is a community dialogue - does this really make sense in San Francisco right now?" she said, suggesting that the community distrusts the police and the department's use-of-force tracking.

Evans pointed to Memphis, Tenn., where officers do not have Tasers. She said the police department there has opted instead to create a mental health response team, reasoning that most unruly suspects who would be hit with the stun guns have psychological problems.

She said that if San Francisco does deploy Tasers, it is "important not to do it carte blanche."

But 38-year SFPD veteran Vince Repetto, who joined a contingent of officers waiting to speak in favor of Tasers, said before the meeting that the Taser proposal is literally "a life-or-death decision."

"It's not if, but when, a Taser is used to stop a knife-wielding suspect and a life is saved," he said. "Then you will see the results of your decision. Let us hope that same suspect is not shot dead because an officer lacked a valuable option to deadly force."

Police Officers Association Gary Delagnes told the commission that a no vote would be essentially expressing no confidence in the chief. "He's not an idiot - he knows what he is doing," Delagnes said.