All right, hello everyone, good evening.
I'm calling the Berkeley City Council meeting,
special meeting to order.
Today is Tuesday, September 29th, 2026,
and it is 4.08 p.m.
Can we please start off with a roll?
Thank you, Mayor, and before we get to roll,
I just want to mention that Council Member Humbert
is participating remotely this evening
under the Just Cause provision of the Brown Act,
so we're just gonna go ahead and go through that script
before we start the meeting.
Council Member Humbert is intending to participate
in the meeting remotely pursuant to the Brown Act
under the Just Cause justification.
A quorum of the council is participating in person
at a single physical location that is identified
on the agenda, open to the public,
within the boundaries of the agency,
and meets accessibility requirements.
This satisfies the requirements of the Brown Act.
Council Member Humbert has notified us of their need
to participate remotely.
Council Member Humber, if you would please provide
a general description of the circumstances relating
to your need to appear remotely at this meeting.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
I woke up this morning with a rotten cold,
and I don't want to expose my colleagues
or anyone else in the chambers to it.
Thank you, Council Member.
Sorry, I did hear you're not feeling well.
If you could also please disclose
whether there are any other individuals 18 years
of age or older if they're present in the room
at your location and if so, the general nature
of your relationship with such individuals.
There is no one else present.
Thank you.
Council Member Humber, you're reminded
that you must participate through both audio
and visual technology.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, and now we will move on to roll call.
Council Member Kesserwani, here.
Tapplin is absent.
Bartlett is absent.
the motion is seconded by the
gas for critical life-threatening incidents only and lifting the COVID-19 moratorium on
smoke and — oh, Laura Usen? How do you say that, Chief? O.C. Spray. Anyway, and from
Councilmember Kesserwani. And then item 1B, social justice implications of proposed use
of controlled weapons and other policing tools. Again, continued from the September 15, 2026
meeting from the Peace and Justice Commission.
So for folks that were not there during that meeting,
basically we had technical difficulties,
which meant that we really needed to stop the meeting,
and so we are here again.
But we will not be doing the presentations over again.
We will just be, and in fact, actually,
even though we had pretty much finished the public comment,
there were two or three more folks that were left online.
So we will take public comment again on this item.
And then we will also hear of course
from our council members for deliberation and then a vote.
So we will start us off with the public comment.
So if you have public comment on this item,
there's only one item on this special agenda.
Please come on up.
Come on up, yep.
Or if you're online, you can raise your hand.
I'm extremely concerned about this tear gas
addition to the police toy box
because oh, by the way, I'm from district five.
We have a good neighborhood big club
that's really concerned about things.
I'm particularly concerned because mental health,
one of the things that the police suggested
was there'd be a hostage situation
and this would be good in a hostage situation.
Now, I can't remember any hostage situations at all
in Berkeley ever, but I do know
that mentally ill people frequently
will lock themselves inside and cause a big ruckus
and be threatening, and I am afraid
that that's exactly the psychotic break,
someone who's having a mental health issue,
a serious mental illness, schizophrenic.
Those are the people who are gonna get tear gassed,
not anybody else.
I just don't see the need for this.
Help the homeless, help people who need it.
Thank you.
Hello, I'm Sally Nelson.
Why are we even thinking about allowing the spraying
of harsh chemicals on people?
Along with the harsh chemicals has enough lead
that is likely 80 times the amount
considered to be normal.
Tear gas is known to inflict long-term damage
on someone's lungs.
And that includes anyone who happens to be nearby.
Are the laws and ordinances passed in Berkeley
supposed to be in line with the US constitution,
including the First Amendment?
Also, we haven't heard a word about the cost
of reintroducing and maintaining tear gas and pepper spray.
Berkeley does have a budget deficit of $30 million.
Why add to it?
I urge you to vote no when removing the ban
the use of tear gas smoke and pepper spray. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, City Council, I'm Marilyn
Simons, District 1, and I also would urge you to think very seriously about rescinding the ban
on chemical weapons and tear gas. I believe when the police gave information at the last meeting
on this topic they could recall only I think three incidents in which tear gas or these
weapons might have been useful and in fact if my memory does not fail me all three incidents
were resolved without the use of tear gas because it was then banned.
Pepper spray is banned for use in war by article 1.5 of the chemical weapons convention which
the use of all riot control agency agents pardon me in warfare whether
lethal less than lethal or even non-lethal. It's a great harm to anyone it
comes in contact with. Thank you. Hi good afternoon my name is Mari Mendonza
running for City Council District 8. We've heard countless testimony on many
occasions around this issue. Piggybacking on the previous comments that were just
said you know the chemical harm that it causes.
We also need to highlight the accountability
that is not enforced in Berkeley around police accountability.
So putting the decision in the hands of the discretion
in the hands of our officers of which the city
nor the city manager holds them accountable
and nor do you let our police accountability board
do their work to investigate when things have happened.
I think you need to listen to the countless hours
of testimony of the community
that we are not in agreement and do not support this
and have asked you multiple, multiple times
to consider the humanity of everyone in our community
and the dangers of the substances that you're proposing
to allow for the discretion of folks
who are not accountable to decide to use.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi everybody, I've got a minute by from Lisa Teager, please.
A little background here, I'm 79 years old.
I've had congestive heart failure.
I have emphysema.
And I have a heart valve replacement.
If any of these fuckers tear gasses me,
theoretically, I could die.
And if I die, I'm gonna come back and haunt
every single one of you that voted in favor of this.
There's no good reason to have tear gas
used against people in this country at all.
I mean, it happens in the occupied West Bank.
They use tear gas there.
They also use white phosphorus,
which spurns through to the bone.
They use it on children.
It should not be happening here in Berkeley at all.
There's no reason for that.
And when I hear the consideration of something like that,
I'm saying, where is the humanity?
I mean, do people have calluses over their hearts?
Is there compassion gone to who knows where and why?
Has it gone there?
We are people and we won't respond.
We won't resist any type of situation like that,
whether you pepper spray us.
I've been pepper sprayed before in Oakland.
Tear gas, I've been tear gas in Berkeley and Oakland.
There will be opposition to that.
And the way things are escalated in severity in this country,
The escalation will grow as I'm not going to say anymore.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Alexander Nicely.
I was going to say a bunch of stuff,
but the ones previous to me kind of said it all.
And also, I want to point out that we're
having this thing in the beginning.
We all get to get our grievance out in the beginning,
but y'all get the last word.
I think that's hilarious.
I think we should point that out too.
That's it.
Yes. Chief, do you mind sharing a mic over for the speaker? Thank you.
I've been in a domestic violence situation
where I was struggling to breathe because of being choked.
and had I also been being held hostage,
being tear gassed along with my assailant,
one of the situations that was brought up
by the police last meeting, it wouldn't have helped.
All of the three situations that they brought up
that they would have wanted to use tear gas
or would have considered using tear gas
had been available were able to be resolved
without the use of tear gas.
Furthermore, giving the police access to care gas
that's supposed to only be used in severe situations
can tempt them to use it,
even if it's explicitly prohibited,
tempt them to use it as crowd control
or otherwise interfere with protests.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chief.
Now, Chris Taft, a longtime preschool teacher in Berkeley,
I pose the reauthorization.
Let's look at the details.
For one thing, I wanna agree with all the comments
people said before me, but it also maintains
the use of tear gas solely for the use of crowd control,
but we don't trust cops.
And as the current authoritarian political climate ramps up,
they will use tear gas to control our protests
and just declare that a demonstrator was unruly
and it warranted it.
So let's zoom out to the bigger picture.
This is the kind of decision we look back on
and rule our mistake.
We will wonder, how did we let police state power
grow so out of control?
Instead, we should be redoubling our restraints
on police power, especially at this time.
If we relinquish our power, excuse me,
Benjamin Franklin said,
if we relinquish our liberty for order,
we will lose both, okay?
Thank you.
Kelly Hammergren.
You have to get to page 84 in your packet
to read the paragraph from the PAB
and I'll just read it to you.
The PAB previously informed council
in our January 26th, 2026 correspondence
that the PAB questions the necessity
of reauthorizing tear gas given the undisputed facts
that the BPD has only used tear gas
three times over the last several decades
and two of those times occurred in crowd control context
that would be prohibited by the council members resolution.
We continue to question whether the proposal
reintroduces a tool associated with significant
community concern for marginal operational benefit.
And I think that's what we should be considering.
this is marginal.
Now we do have good representation
from our police department tonight
and their gray shirts behind me.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Good evening, madam mayor
and honorable members of the council.
My name is Derek Rady.
I'm a police sergeant with BPD
where I've served for 15 years
and a current member
of the Berkeley Special Response Team.
Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf
of the Berkeley Police Association
in support of restoring this essential tool
for our special response team.
As a member of our special response team,
my job is to step directly into our city's
most volatile and high-risk situations
to protect everybody involved.
Our goal in driving philosophy during any high-risk incident
is to preserve life and a peaceful resolution, excuse me.
In order to accomplish that goal, our team needs options.
Just as we wouldn't send firefighters into a house fire
or a wildfire without essential equipment,
We shouldn't send our tactical team into critical incidents stripped of a proven tool.
Tear gas is an industry standard de-escalation tool that allows us time, distance and a higher
level of control so we can work towards our goal of a safe resolution for all.
I have two to resume.
Thank you.
To my knowledge, BPD is the only department in the nation whose tactical team is prohibited
from using this potentially life-saving tool.
It's not the first time I've
been able to do this.
It's not the first time I've
been able to do this.
The tool that will be reserved
for those extremely high risk
low-frequency incidents where
lives are at risk.
Situations where the danger to
the community is so high we
can't just walk away situations
like on barricades or hostage
incident.
I've experienced tear gas on
numerous occasions.
Yes, it is unpleasant but it's
brief.
required because we haven't been afforded the tools
or the ability to slow down an incident.
As a son, father, husband, and an officer,
I care deeply about this community.
The proposed policy before you tonight
is thoughtfully crafted and narrowly tailored
in close collaboration
with the Berkeley Police Accountability Board.
It will not be used during first amendment,
first assembly, first,
it will not be used during first amendment assemblies.
the city of the city of the
city of the city of the city.
The city of the city of the
city of the city of the city.
It will not be used during in
can't. Abatements. It will be
reserved for highly dangerous
situations restoring this
option cost the city virtually
nothing. But it demonstrates a
clear commitment to the sync it's
sync to see sync to see of human
life protecting our officers,
victims and the individual we're
called upon safely apprehend.
months of public comment from small meetings
in the building in Milvia and we're still talking about this.
As the speaker, the pig before me said,
this is a weapon of war.
This is a weapon of war.
And you call it a tool?
It is a weapon of war.
We heard other speakers talk about
how it is against international law.
And what does Berkeley do?
Well, on June 4th, 2025, they used smoke bombs,
pepper ball sprays on the on-house community.
In that very dangerous situation where people were sleeping,
aroused from sleep.
That's what the city of Berkeley does.
The city of Berkeley needs to listen to its citizens,
not the cops, to its community who says no,
and we've said no and no again.
And you see our voices, you hear our voices,
because we are incensed that you're not listening to us.
Thank you.
Today we're witnessing the cowardice of the council scheduling a meeting at four
o'clock when the majority of people of the community can't come here and speak.
It's cowardice. Cowing to the police lobby. That's cowardice. This is about
this is about creating a police state when you have a government that doesn't
listen to the public. That's what we got. That's why we got Trump. That's why we
We have a democratic party that goes for war.
That's why we have a citizen that don't show up to vote, because they no longer believe
in the system.
And you're going to prove that the system is broken today if you pass this legislation
that's going to give tear gas, a tool for torture to the police.
That's what it is.
It's a tool for torture.
It internationally recognizes a tool for torture.
When you make torture legal,
when you make it okay,
what else is, what's gonna come next?
What's the next thing?
You're gonna have police dogs?
You're gonna have, what are you gonna have next?
Think about that.
Thank you.
Thank you, George Litman,
representing Pastor Twain,
Chair of the Peace and Justice Commission.
You've already heard enough from me and from us,
but I just wanna underline two hopefully useful points
that we made and we didn't get to.
The commission reminds the council of the precautionary principle that it adopted in
2006.
The principle is an approach to decision making that prioritizes harm, preventing harm to
human health and the environment.
The principle shifts the burden of proof, requiring actions to be proven safe, rather
than waiting for proof of damage to restrict them.
We recommend that lacking proof of safety, the proposal to authorize CS, pepper spray,
and smoke should not be approved.
Secondly, positive suggestion,
we request the city manager to engage
in an academic institution such as UC Berkeley
to study the health impacts of tear gas
and other chemical weapons and investigate possible
alternatives to the use of chemical weapons.
Thank you.
Thanks, George.
I'm back here again.
Can I get a minute from the crowd?
Anybody wanna give a minute?
Thank you.
Just a gentleman right here.
I'm back again, so I will repeat what I said last time so that everyone can remember.
Two minutes, thank you.
I'll be playing about the situation facing us.
It's easy to cast the first stone when you're the last person who would be impacted by this change of policy.
It is people like me, it's the student population who will face the brunt of these attacks.
My name is Derek Rodriguez.
I'm not only a student at UC Berkeley, a community leader, but I'm also an army veteran and a part time national guardsman.
If you resume use of chemical weapons, perhaps I'll have no choice but to educate my fellow students on how to neutralize CS gas or tear gas.
All you are doing is wasting time and money on resources that aren't just foolproof, just putting the public in unnecessary danger.
And I know how fiscally irresponsible it is to buy contracted equipment like this.
It's a racket from the private sector to overcharge law enforcement and the military on inflated contracts.
the same way you are wasting money on mass surveillance against our people.
Let's say you try and pull this on a peaceful demonstration, because I will be there and we will be undeterred.
You want to waste money?
That is your prerogative.
Use it against harmless civilians, we will truly make sure that money is wasted.
This is not a method to keep us safe, this is a method to keep us down.
If this passes tonight, I invite any resident in this room to come see me.
invite you all to a small discussion on how to protect ourselves because we as a community
look after one another. I don't know where your ideas come from but here in Berkeley
we defend our liberty. You can try and shut our demonstrations down with weapons of war
but you can never silence the voice of the people.
Hello. I understand that there's a person named Ray back there who is offering me an
an extra minute, thank you.
I'm Laura X from the Women's History Library
and a whole lot else in Berkeley,
National Clearinghouse on Maradona and Date Rape.
But I came here in 63, which means I was aware
of the tear gassing at 1960 with the HUAC demonstration.
In fact, I was adopted by the family
that one of, that that happened at one of,
not grammar, but you get the point.
Okay, the next was we were tear gassed
in the Free Speech Movement on the campus,
if you can imagine the horror of that.
And the next I want to tell you about,
I didn't already tell you previous comments
about Birmingham and how it burns
in everyone's soul in this country.
But in Berkeley, there was an inadvertent tear gassing
and the following way.
During the Vietnam War protests there was a particular line
of march which caused us to have a place for toddlers
and other children to be far away from it on Benvenu.
And the male leaders, so disconnected from their own children
and others, changed the line of march without checking in
with the women about where the children were,
and so the babies were gassed.
I will never get over that as long as I live,
and not just because it's your basic male chauvinism,
but because I am chemically sensitive myself,
genetically and every day,
and it's one of my disabilities.
So I very much worry for the people
who were two and three back in 1967,
And then, of course, we were gassed from the helicopters.
Whoops.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
1969 and 70.
I beg your pardon?
Sorry.
I think your time, I think the timer just dropped.
Yes, I get it.
I'm going.
Thank you.
I just wanted to put the dates on.
Thank you.
You have already spoken, actually.
So you can't actually.
He's already spoken.
If you had given it to him before, he could have used it.
But he's finished now.
Come on up.
Thank you for your time.
Hi everyone, you know, familiar
face.
Gordon Gilmour at the Burke
of the outreach coalition.
And there we go.
First, if you're able to
consider spending funds like
this on chemical weapons to
perpetuate the looming threat
of potential violence by the
city, then you can't use the
budget deficit as a
rationalization for cutting
services that can care for our
of magnanimity and kindness toward your citizens
while seriously considering lifting this ban
and investing more in potential for city-enacted violence
instead of investing in care for community
as nearly unanimous testimony
from the community is calling for
is an arseistically abusive relationship
to your constituency.
Don't allow your relationship to Berkeley
to become pathological.
Thank you.
I have an extra minute from this good woman over here.
started to cry walking up here.
Because I deeply respect the police officers
who are trying to do a good job.
We need police officers.
We need all of you.
We need all of us.
But who defines what a crowd is?
Is it three people, five people, 10 people?
I don't know, is somebody going to have the time to count?
So crowd control, it won't be used.
But then there's serious threat of injury and maybe even death.
Oh, who's gonna decide that?
It's like we're relying on what
and the consequence is what.
I need tools in construction
and I need to know how to use them properly
and then if a beam is falling, I might not.
I might slip and oops, then it's too late.
And part of me also started to cry
Because all of us have heard all of this before.
And it's kind of like speaking to a,
it's almost like why bother?
Except the third reason why I started to cry
is that it's not just our lives,
it's the police officer's lives.
It's everyone's lives.
And it's the precedent that we are setting by saying,
it's okay, it's okay.
We can just continue this way, and if it goes off the cliff,
at least everyone will go off together.
I would rather come together and prevent
this escalation of militarism because of fear,
and perhaps start to recognize the power of love
and cooperation mutual aid instead.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
tear gassed. If you haven't been tear gassed, I think you should think long
and hard before considering just casually giving a police department that
has violated their own policies multiple times before, as said last
time, weapons that will be turned on college students, on high school
students in Minneapolis and in L. A. When the community came out to defend their
neighbors from the ice raids, their own police took apartments were turned on
them. Thank you. And they ended up getting tear gassed not just by ice, but
by their own police departments whose their own city
governments had put weapons in the hands of the police
department, who then got called by ICE to defend ICE, who
were the invaders in that situation,
because that's what ICE are.
They're not part of our community,
whereas immigrants are.
they went out and sided with ICE against the community against the community who
were coming out to defend their neighbors from Trump's Gestapo. Why should we put weapons in the
hands of the Berkeley Police Department that will be used against us when we defend our neighbors?
because they will be.
Hey, I have a day job, so I just ran over here really quick.
But I just wanted to come here and mention
if any pharmaceutical drug, any vaccine you've ever taken,
has been tested by USP-467.
What that is is basically a residual solvent test.
I read through a few of the pepper spray,
I've never made it myself, but it
seems like multiple hazardous chemicals are
going to be found in there.
they may be using some sort of military exemption
to just avoid that.
But if we really mean non-lethal,
if we really mean that,
then at least require that USP 467
is at least tested for whatever product.
So, thanks.
Thank you.
We are gonna move to public comment online.
All right, our first speaker online is Janice Schroeder.
Janice, you should be able to unmute.
Thank you.
As a health educator for 49 years,
please vote no on the simulating bans
based on the documented harms
from exposure to these chemicals.
I urge you to follow Berkeley's precautionary principle
because it states that a proponent must prove
that a programmer tool will not endanger health
or the environment.
The harmful effects of chemical weapons
are far greater on sensitive receptors,
infants, toddlers, elderly, pregnant people,
those with physical mental disabilities
or respiratory illnesses.
CS, pepper spray and smoke can travel
to other than the intended person.
And in some cases, a significant distance
harming uninvolved people.
Also importantly, this resolution states
that smoke and pepper spray can be used
for crowd control.
Adopt the PIP Peace and Justice Commission.
Sorry, I'm very much of your comments.
Our next speaker is Leslie.
Leslie, you should be able to unmute.
This is Leslie Firestone.
I'm in district eight.
I've lived here for more than 10 years.
I think that's you, Mr. Humbert,
and in Berkeley for decades.
I'm absolutely opposed to allowing the police
to have chemical weapons again under any circumstances.
These are considered weapons of war
as we've heard over and over again.
These are not necessary or safe to be used against people.
I personally have asthma and I could die if exposed
as well as many others could.
Gas doesn't stay in one place.
Just because something is available
isn't a reason to have it in the arsenal.
Do not allow this.
Stop asking us to show up over and over
until you know, not now, not ever.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Mickey Duxbury.
Hi, good afternoon.
Thank you.
I've got 40 year resident of Berkeley in district four.
I've seen many demonstrations in San Francisco
and the East Bay since the early seventies
where the use of tear gas and pepper spray
escalated the situation creating total chaos
with more people running,
more people throwing things and more people highly agitated and freaked out and more likely to do
harm and escalate and not be in a peaceful situation because they feel as though they're
totally bombarded with poison. I strongly encourage the City Council to not approve
rescinding these restrictions. I agree with everyone that said either the University of
California or other reputable institution should study the impacts and report back to the council
to not seek additional information right now seems unconscionable to me. I don't know what
the rush is. If Berkeley police is concerned about massive demonstrations because the president is
going to disrupt an election, maybe we should be working. All right, thank you. Our next speaker is
Cheryl Davila, Cheryl Davila from the Councilman.
Hello, I'm on the radio right now,
but I'm calling in because I am just so upset that you all didn't vote last time.
Now, you're having a four o'clock meeting to vote on tear gas.
When tear gas is a weapon,
We do not need it.
City of Berkeley does not need it.
Our citizens do not need it.
The BPD does not need it.
That cop was really being a pig.
We don't need tear gas.
It's not something that they can use against us when they want.
I have another minute.
My husband is on my computer,
so I have another minute from him,
and I can't even see my time.
But-
Is he available to-
Can you hear me?
his time?
Hello. Is he able to speak,
to say he's ceding you his time?
Yeah. Hold on a second.
I'm also on the radio right now,
so I had to leave the radio to get on to this.
hold on a second. Rob say yes that you can cede your time. Yes. Did you hear him? Yes,
you have one more minute. Okay so yeah tear gas was banned unanimously previously not just because
of COVID because it's bad for us it's bad for humanity. No one we don't need tear gas we have
asthma, COVID and all these things are still upon us. People are still getting sick.
More people have asthma these days than ever before. And now we have measles and we have
other things. We don't need to have something that's going to impact our lungs, our breathing,
our air, because you can't contain it to one area. It gets dispersed.
so please please please vote no vote no everyone with me vote no to tear gas thank you
our next speaker is barb atwell yeah hi thank you uh my name is barb atwell i'm a resident of
district one and speaking on behalf of the berkeley friends meeting also known as the quakers
uh we ask that the council retain the existing ban on chemical weapons and recommend that the
council's motion and recommendation to incorporate the policy language approved and agreed upon
by both the Police Accountability Board and the Police Department. It's just wrong. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Marilyn Cleveland.
Hello, my name is Marilyn Cleveland and I'm a resident of District 1
and I'm also a member of the Berkeley Friends meeting, the Quaker meeting, and speak for them.
We support the Berkeley, the proposal by the, I'm sorry, losing my page here, by the Peace and
Social Justice Commission, and just to repeat their conclusions that CS and OC are dangerous
weapons that are properly considered less lethal, not non-lethal. CS and OC are particularly dangerous
to the health of persons with disabilities, especially respiratory or environmental
sensitivities and also those suffering from mental and behavioral disorders.
Approval of chemical weapons such as CS for any use opens the door to the possibility of use.
Thank you. Thank you. Your time is up. Next up is Zipporah Collins.
Yes, I'm Zipporah Collins. I've lived in Berkeley since 1962 and I'm now 87 years old.
You have an alternative here on your agenda. There's, I'm speaking against item 1a and in
favor of item 1B, as others have pointed out, retain the ban and get more information on the
impacts from a reputable institution such as UC Berkeley, UCSF, or Stanford to study the impacts
of tear gas and other chemical weapons and canine support. Long-term, short-term. As
an elderly person, I worry about the harms that I will sustain. It doesn't stay in one place.
That's another speaker's name. I'm sorry your time's up. Our next speaker is Steven Roble.
to the city of Toronto. Thank you.
vote to keep the ban because we don't need these chemicals in our air and we don't need tools of
war in our police department. Thanks. Thank you. Samir Kunal. Hello, thanks. My name is Samir Kunal.
I serve as a city counselor in Portland, Oregon. I'm one of a group of counselors working on a ban
on the use of chemical letters in the city of Portland. I'm grateful to the Peace and Justice
Commission and all the other testifiers who've come out in support of retaining the ban and I
strongly encourage you to retain the ban on tear gas and smoke. The use of
indiscriminate chemical weapons is not just about the people who are
ostensibly targeted by the weapons themselves, but the people nearby. We have
an immigration and customs enforcement facility in Portland. Nearby there used
to be a K-8 school. Through the volume of chemical weapons used by federal law
enforcement, the school was unusable and had to move. We have a nearby affordable
housing facility that's been contaminated too. As the Commission quoted
from physicians and human rights, chemical irritants including both CS and
NOC can spread to other people, to affect people other than the intended target.
Lie back away from something that Berkeley does that is a model for other jurisdictions.
I encourage you to retain the ban and when you do, please know that there are elected officials
in other cities looking at your work as a source of strength for our own fights against,
for our own fights for a clean environment, for civil rights, for accountability,
ultimately for safer communities.
Thank you, council member.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Cindy Shamben.
Yeah, hi, my name is Cindy champion. I'm district four.
And, uh, I want to say that I really have not heard.
A good reason for bringing these weapons back.
They were, um, uh.
Canceled a number of years ago for good reason and there's no good reason to bring them back now.
and I strongly support so much of what other people have said.
So I'll stop right there. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Avery Arba.
Good evening, council members, Mayor.
My name is Avery Arba.
I am the chair of the Berkeley Tenants Union,
and I'm protested quite a few times in Berkeley in my years living here.
And luckily, because of the current laws in place,
I have never been tear gassed in Berkeley.
But I have been tear gassed in other cities.
The first time I was ever tear gassed
was in Washington DC after the Dobbs decision.
I and hundreds of peaceful protestors were tear gassed
walking through the streets of Washington DC.
And I remember my friends getting hit in the face
a tear gas canister and walking her to the hospital. She still has stitches and a scar
today as a result of that. I would love to see that not come to pass in Berkeley and I would
love for us to not move towards a future in which that's possible. Thank you for your time.
Our next speaker is Della Luna. Yes thank you. I would like to agree with a previous speaker and
say that I haven't heard a single reason why these weapons should be brought back.
I did hear the officer in line today say that these weapons bring distance and time to the
officers in these situations. And I just wanted to bring up a scenario in real life with
Uvalde, Texas. They had 376 law enforcement officers respond to a school shooting,
and none of the officers breached the door, and the shooter was active for 77 minutes.
So the distance in time that that officer was, like, championing, didn't actually help in that
situation. And then you could ask, how could tear gas help in that situation? Well, it couldn't. It
would have gassed all the children as well. So I also would like to hear about the technical
difficulties that the meeting had and how it was resolved. And I think that should be disclosed to
the public because it seems a little convenient that with such opposition the meeting just
was working fine and then was suddenly disrupted without any explanation.
Thank you.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Leah M. Hello?
Hello.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
We can hear you.
Hello.
This is Leah Martins.
I'm a local pastor.
I'm also a leader with Singing Resistance in the East Bay and last time I came by I
not sing for you but I was told that maybe that would be appreciated so here I go.
We have come with a force more powerful than the tech in our government's hands.
It's our love for our community that will liberate this land.
We have come with a force more powerful than the tech in our government's hands.
It's our love for our community that will liberate this land.
Please retain the band. Thank you. Thank you, Leah. Thank you for the song.
Our next speaker is the caller with the number ending in 501.
Caller with the phone number ending with 501. You should be able to speak.
Caller with the phone number ending in 501. You should be able to.
Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Oh great, thanks. Yeah, my name is Phil. I'm a
resident of Berkeley. I grew up in Oakland.
And anyways, I don't know what to say other than
why are we even here? Why are we even discussing this issue?
No one is, no one is in favor of it, as a previous caller pointed out.
I guess if this is what we've come to.
Yeah, I don't know what to say.
How much time do I have if you don't mind me asking?
Any seconds left.
Okay, great, thanks.
Yeah, I support continuing the ban if that's not clear.
Thank you.
I don't see any other hands raised online.
So that will be the end of public comments.
We will move to council comments
and starting with council member Tapwin.
Thank you, good evening everyone.
People are concerned about the adverse health impacts
of chemical agents and they're worried
that within the bandwidth impede their ability
to participate in enforcement activities.
That's not what's being proposed tonight.
And I don't subscribe to some of the doomsday scenarios,
but I think the tactical utility is opaque to people
community. So whatever happens tonight, I am happy to work with the department, the
union, the PAB, and the community to better understand special response and
the needs of that area of operation. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Thank you. Thank you, councilmember. Councilmember Kesserwani. Folks, please.
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, and I want to thank the public for sharing
their comments tonight and I know this has dragged on and I'm glad that you
know I hope we can have an up-or-down vote tonight I know we will so I and I
want to thank my colleagues for attending again because I know it's not
easy to to get here at 4 p.m. and I especially want to thank Chief Lewis
Deputy Chief Tate and Captain Oakes for being here and your service to this city
I also want to acknowledge the officers who who are here who serve our community and
You know what when we were putting this item together. I was thinking about our officers
Who you know, they are always there
whether it's a noise disturbance or somebody who
who you think may may be armed and
You know as has been said
this is a less lethal tool,
this is about trying to protect life.
And you know, I want to talk about asthma
because I agree with the public commenters
who are saying tear gas should not be used ever
in a crowd control situation.
That is exactly what this item spells out very clearly.
So the debate we are having tonight is not about that.
We all agree, I think it's unanimous.
That is not what is up for debate tonight.
What we are asking for is narrowly tailored.
This is for the special response team.
It's not appropriate to yell out when people are speaking,
who's left the council not to speak.
Put their lives on the line
for critical life-threatening incidents.
And we're talking about three in this case.
We're talking about a barricaded subject.
This can be an armed barricaded subject
in an enclosed area, potentially an active shooter
in a classroom, serving a high risk warrant
when a subject is actively threatening death
or serious injury to officers or civilians
or hostage situations.
This is somebody with a gun to somebody's head
in our community.
No, it doesn't happen every year.
It doesn't happen six times a year.
We shouldn't have to meet a frequency threshold
to save somebody's life.
It happened, it was used once
for a barricaded subject in four years.
Well, to me, it is worth my political capital
to save that person's life.
I am asking my colleagues to put politics aside
and think about the possible future life
that could be saved if we allow a less lethal tool
for a special response team.
And I believe the officer said that he's not aware
of any jurisdiction in the country
that doesn't allow a special response team
to use a less lethal tool like this.
We're not aware of any city in the Bay Area.
You know, the chief has said that, I have asked her.
So our only goal is to ensure
in these low likelihood situations
that our special response team has a less lethal tool.
All three tools that we're talking about tonight
remain governed by policy 300 on use of force,
policy 303 on control devices and techniques,
and policy 428 on First Amendment assemblies.
The proposal now reflects agreed upon language
negotiated by the Police Accountability Board
and the Berkeley Police Department.
And you know, for those of you who took the time,
who bothered to read the report,
we talked about how the prior body,
the Police Review Commission actually supported the use
of tear gas for the special response team.
That was a vote of, I believe it was 7-1-0,
we can check the report to see what that vote was.
So for the purposes of discussion,
I would like to move Councilmember Black
of these version of the resolution.
And I did have one additional clause.
This is around what we talked about in the report.
I want to make it really clear about the reporting.
So I'll just read off.
This is an additional clause.
So it's be it further resolved that upon the posting
of any public summary required under policy 428,
section 428.14c or California Penal Code section 13652.1,
the Berkeley Police Department shall notify
the city manager who shall provide that information
to the city council and to the police accountability board
within 10 days of such a notice.
That language was in the report,
but it wasn't in the resolution,
so I just wanna make that clear.
That's the motion.
Second.
Thank you very much.
And I respect differences of opinion,
and I do look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Councillor Blackby.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Thanks, Council Member Casuwani.
I too, as my colleagues have said,
I appreciate all the advocates who've come today
and in the previous meeting and the meetings before that
to speak out against the broad use of tear gas,
including for crowd control,
especially those of you who shared personal experiences
of being exposed to tear gas and what that's like.
You're right, I can't speak to that,
and I appreciate that testimony.
And I agree with you.
You're right.
We absolutely should not allow indiscriminate use
of tear gas, especially for crowd control.
The good news is, as Council Member Casarwani mentioned,
that's not what's being proposed today.
Most of our decisions don't easily fit on a bumper sticker.
Nuance and context are important.
Details are important.
And this is another one of those occasions.
The primary question for me is, will the narrow use
of tear gas in these targeted high risk situations
keep us safer?
And in my view, the answer is yes.
In a tense high risk situation, what can we do?
What can officers do to make it safer for the officers,
for the suspects who are being targeted and apprehended,
for members of the public, when the risk of violent confrontation
is high, what other tools should be in the toolbox
to resolve these situations without the use
of potentially lethal force?
I'm open to any and all reasonable tools
that will reduce the chance
that we'll have a violent confrontation
that will lead to loss of life.
No one up here, no one supports
the widespread use of tear gas.
We are explicitly banning it,
as Council Member Castor-Juan, Council Member Taplin said,
we're explicitly banning it in all other circumstances
other than the three narrow carve-outs
described in the resolution for barricaded subject,
for hostage, for high-risk warrant delivery,
never for crowd control, never for encampment abatement.
And all of us hope this option is absolutely never used
because it would mean that we don't have officers
and members of the public in these kinds of situations.
But odds are at some point in the coming months,
in the coming years, in the coming decades,
this scenario will present itself again.
And when it does, in this kind of very narrowly targeted
high risk circumstance, I want, and I think we all should,
want our police department to be able to resolve it
as safely as possible using the reasonable tools
necessary to do that.
Of note, as folks have mentioned,
no other California city except Berkeley
maintains an outright ban on tear gas in all cases.
In fact, if you look at the 20 biggest cities in California,
They all allow tear gas in these narrow height risk scenarios.
Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco,
Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield,
Anaheim, Stockton, Riverside, Irvine, Santa Ana,
Chula Vista, Fremont, Santa Clarita, San Bernardino,
Modesto, Fontana, the list goes on, I checked.
Not, and the pattern's clear.
In short, Berkeley wouldn't be and is not the outlier
by allowing tear gas use in very narrow circumstances.
we're currently the outlier by not allowing it.
I don't celebrate its use, I don't celebrate the fact
that we have to consider using it,
but in order to protect the public, protect our officers,
to attract and retain the very best personnel
to come work here in Berkeley for the police department
and feel that they're supported and safe,
to reduce the likelihood of violent confrontations
in these three very narrow circumstances,
I do support the proposal today.
Thank you.
Councilmember Tregeb, folks, booing is inappropriate.
We will move on to the next person
who's speaking order.
Councilmember Tregeb?
I think Councilmember O'Keefe may have been ahead of me.
Is that right?
I don't know who was ahead but mine has said
either one or 30 years.
The parliamentarian says that Councilmember Tregeb is next.
Okay.
So, I don't know if you would like
to go first Councilmember O'Keefe.
You can.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I would like to begin by acknowledging
everyone's serious effort that has gone
into developing safeguards around the use of tear gas.
Not the least, the human's work
that the Office of the Director of Police Accountability
and the Police Accountability Board have done
in narrowing the circumstances
under which their use would be permissible.
Nevertheless, this proposal, in any form,
gives me considerable pause.
There may be circumstances in which the use of tear gas
appears justified in the moment,
but Berkeley's own experience
gives me significant reason for caution.
We have seen determinations about whether its use
was appropriate come only afterward,
when the consequences could no longer be undone,
and community trust had already been damaged.
For me, safeguards are most meaningful
when they prevent harm to begin with,
rather than only allowing us to evaluate it afterward.
For these reasons, I cannot support
lifting the existing ban on tear gas,
and will be voting no respectfully on this item.
♪ Woo ♪
Go ahead, Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Earlier speakers have already done a really good job
outlining and explaining the extremely narrow circumstances
that tear gas has been contemplated.
So I appreciate that.
I just wanna add two points to the conversation
just to sort of address some of the themes
that we've heard in public comment.
One is many people spoke about how dangerous
and harmful tear gas is and nobody is refuting that
as a substance, it's extremely, extremely dangerous.
However, the dangers of the gas are actually contemplated
in the items text.
It says that in addition to various other requirements,
a determination must be made that the risks of deploying it
outweigh the risks of not deploying it.
So it's acknowledged that it is a risky
and violent thing to do.
However, the situations where we're contemplating
allowing its use are also extremely dangerous.
And in cases like that, I am very open to allowing police
a non-lethal option to address it.
It makes sense to do that,
even though it is very dangerous and caustic.
What is that, thoughts?
Many other people have also talked about,
well, we're allowing police to use it here,
but they're gonna use it on crowd control.
I know they're going to.
Many people expressed some version of that.
And there's no logic to this argument
that we can use up here.
We already allow our police to carry guns,
which are much more dangerous than tear gas.
Could an officer choose to use their gun
in a non-authorized way to cause a great deal of harm?
Absolutely, they could.
If that happens, God forbid,
we have accountability structures in place
and we would deal with that appropriately,
but we have to trust our police to do their jobs
and follow the rules that we as the council lay out for them.
if we don't have that trust, we have way bigger problems.
So the item is written, it's completely reasonable to me,
and I'll be voting in favor of the motion.
People, this is not you at home in front of the television,
this is you in council chambers,
where we're trying to have a meeting,
and I wanna hear my colleagues and what they have to say.
So we have time that's set aside for public comment,
we are listening, we're respectful, believe me,
we have sat through hours of comments.
I really wanna hear my colleagues
and understand the arguments that they're making.
So I would appreciate it if you would all be respectful
and be quiet so that we can hear everyone.
Okay, we have Council Member Bartlett
and then Council Member Lunapara,
the parliamentarian's massive again.
So if you would like to speak again,
Council Member Taplin, you can.
Yeah, but Council Member Bartlett first.
Thank you, thank you, Madam Mayor.
And I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward
and thank everyone for their positions and the activists
and the people who are concerned.
I know everyone is doing their darn best
to make people safe.
And whatever vantage point they have, I know it's sincere.
And I want to say I respect our officers tremendously.
I went on a ride along a few weeks ago.
It was a lot of fun.
We did a lot of good work.
We helped a lot of people.
And I'm still haunted by the people
who couldn't help that night.
But I did notice that night the amount of goodwill
that people felt towards the work we're doing,
and that was really, really heartening.
And so that experience taught me that policing
is profoundly human work.
It's a human job.
And officers walk into situations
that are dangerous and painful and complicated
and impossible a lot of times.
And so as a result, I definitely do
want to double down on my support for the work you do
and for yourselves and give people
the training and the staffing technology,
the wellness support and resources that
help them do this human work safely and well.
Unfortunately, I don't think tear gas gets us there.
So I was there when we banned it and I remember
the pain that people testified to,
that they felt and the seniors inside their homes,
there are secondary effects of it.
Just the sheer emotional heft that comes with being impacted by it.
And the fear that it generates, as we see now,
it's generating tremendous fear.
And so this is serious, serious chemical, banned,
lots of places, a tour of warfare.
And understand it's a very narrow circumstance.
You contemplate using it.
But that same sort of narrow circumstance
and its frequency, or its lack of frequency,
it kind of makes it work against this agenda tonight.
because I have to go explain to my constituents
who to the person, all of them oppose this without fail,
100% of them.
And if I were to vote for this,
I'd have to explain to them why.
And it's difficult to make that explanation
when it's been used once in 40 years, right?
It feels like a waste of goodwill
when we could use the goodwill
for more important things that we need for BPD,
for the community.
So for that, I cannot vote for this.
I just don't feel the burden's been met to justify the rank
or justify the fear, justify the erosion of goodwill.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member.
Council Member Lunafar?
Thank you.
And I wanna thank everyone who came to speak today
and I wanna thank the advocates that put this ban
in the first place in 2020.
I have yet to see an argument that bringing tear gas back
into our city will make our residents safer as a whole.
There's article after article about long-term health impacts
of tear gas, tear gas getting caught in the wind
and harming people far from where it was deployed,
tear gas being deployed improperly,
and tear gas being used to crush dissent.
Tear gas is not a reasonable tool.
It is banned in international warfare,
but they are still commonly used against Americans
by their own law enforcement agencies.
I also want to push back on the idea
that the tear gas ban was a temporary pandemic error policy.
Even today, almost six years later,
we still have people getting COVID.
We still have people who are immunocompromised
by something other than COVID,
and we still should not have to worry
that we could be inadvertently tear gassed
while walking down the street.
Tear gas is not a precise tool.
Tear gas guns do not have a manual setting
that controls the distance it is fired.
Once deployed, the air can carry it for blocks.
So even if BPD only deploys it in situations deemed necessary,
it is very likely that it will quickly spread
and harm others.
While tear gas is considered less lethal,
many people have been killed or seriously injured
from being struck directly by a tear gas canister
launched at high velocity.
As resistance for the Trump administration continues to grow,
adopting these changes would send a clear
and disturbing message about our city council's priorities.
Even with the amendments made in the supplemental,
passing this item tonight will still deter people
from speaking out, from going to protests,
and defending their rights.
To me, it is clear that the risks far outweigh
any possible benefits.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
Council member Taplin, did you have something to add?
Yes, thank you very much.
And you know, I understand the rationale
of my fellow council members,
Kasirani and Blackaby and Vice Mayor O'Keefe.
I, you know, I try to understand how each tool works
and what it's for, but I, you know,
need the community to understand and as a city you know we have a new PAB
director we have a new PAB it's very important that we leverage that
infrastructure to help the community understand what's being proposed and to
bring them along you know and it's it might take time but I think I think that
there is will to do that but it is a major decision and it's important that we
as a city evaluate it very carefully and we take our time with it and we because
people don't understand where our options are or whether they're
alternatives. And I agree with Council President Parra, people are going to see
this and they're gonna second-guess our ability to exercise speech.
And people, you know, bad actors around the country are gonna weaponize
that against us. And they're gonna, you know, I think we just have to be really
careful what the message of sense. And in order for us to land this
policy, it needs to be crystal clear to every stakeholder why this is a tactical
necessity and why there's nothing else. So I think you know well we'll take the
vote and I think the work will continue and I'm happy to be involved in that
I mean, it's a question of
what's happening in the
community.
It's not a question of
what's happening in the
network.
But I think tonight is not the
night that we take this action.
Councilmember humbert is online.
I'm sorry, councilmember.
I know you did raise your hand
at one point.
So I want to make sure you get
a chance to speak.
Folks, please.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
we can. Thank you. First, I want to thank the Police Accountability Board, Chief Kitano,
Chief Lewis, Deputy Chief Tate, Captain Oakes, Arlo, and everyone at BPD, as well as staff
in the City Manager's Office, and everyone who spoke here tonight. I, of course, also
want to thank Councilmember Kesarwani for bringing this item forward and Councilmember
Blackaby for his constructive and extremely helpful recommended amendments, as well as
Council Member O'Keeffe who offered recommendations at the Public Safety Committee. I know these
are tough issues. Indeed, I think some of the toughest issues that we face as a Council,
and I truly appreciate everyone's dedication and constructive, collaborative approach.
I believe there's broad agreement on the most important aspect of this proposal. Before
us tonight BPD will not use tear gas as a means of track of crowd control period. I'm going to
repeat that because I think there's been confusion on this point. The main proposal under consideration
this evening with which our police department is in agreement would prohibit the use of tear gas
for crowd control and I agree that this prohibition is the right thing to do. Tear gas is an
indiscriminate and potentially very harmful chemical that we have seen increasingly abused
across the country in our dangerous political climate. I suspect that I'm the only council
member on the dais, or virtual dais, that has been subjected to tear gas for purposes of
crowd control. For me, it was many years ago at a protest on the streets of Washington, D.C.
This use should never be permitted. Maintaining a prohibition on the use of tear gas for crowd
control in Berkeley makes it unambiguous, using it in that way would be a violation of our city
policies that would carry severe consequences, period, full stop. Now, I'm going to say that I
understand where the people who are still against it are coming from. They look at what has been
going on with ICE, CBP, and other police departments across the country, and they say
that just having these tools on hand creates opportunities for abuse, and therefore we shouldn't
have them at all. I disagree with this position for multiple reasons. A simple reality is that
people committing crimes often have guns which are often semi-automatic and sometimes even
essentially machine guns with the application of what are called Glock switches and law enforcement
needs tools to deal with this. I would love to live in a world where no criminal has a firearm
or other weapon or explosives but that's not the world we live in. Again as the only council member
who has been tear gassed, I think I want to emphasize that I do not take these considerations
lightly. I also want to say I have a high degree of trust in our police chief and our police
department, and I believe BPD is very dedicated to following our policies. But if some hypothetical
police department were determined to violate policies against using tear gas on a crowd,
they would also be willing to violate policies against having it in the first place. I have
confidence that this will not happen with BPD. Assuming zero trust and presumptive police
misconduct is not a reasonable place from which to be making policy. We should base our choices
on the needs and conduct of our police department, BPD, the police department that we rely on here
in Berkeley, not some department, somewhere else, or some imagined one. With respect to smoke and
pepper spray, I likewise believe that Cesserwani's item with Councilmember Blackaby's most recent
Amendment represents an appropriate approach with adequate safeguards for the use of these other
less than lethal tools. I believe that the lower degree of harm and the greater
targetability of smoke and pepper spray render them appropriate for the very limited set of
circumstances that these policies spell out. I want to thank everybody who's worked so hard
on these policies, and I'm prepared to support the approach in the Kesir-Wani item with the
the Black Navy amendments and supported by PAB and the BPD.
Thank you.
Thank you, council member.
I wanna agree with council member Chaplin's sentiments
that now is not the time.
I think it's really important to take a look
at where we are in our history.
We have a federal government who has been sending
officers after unarmed civilians.
We've seen the use of tear gas being abused
across the country and yet we're having
conversation right now about lifting a ban on tear gas that we have here in our
city. I want to make sure it's really clear that you know I don't think that
our police officers are gonna misuse this. I also went on a ride along
recently it was just there last Friday and one of the things that I was really
proud of is that they were talking about a situation in which they needed to use
de-escalation tactics and they were able to be successful without having to use
news tear gas, I think it's really important
that we as the city of Berkeley continue to uphold
our values around this.
I think it's something to be proud of.
We oftentimes like to brag about how we're the first
in the country to do things, and this is a way
that I see us leading across the country.
As was stated before, not only by people
who are coming to public comment,
but also by council member Lenapara,
this is considered a weapon of war.
It is literally banned, and we are not allowed
as a country to use this in warfare,
and yet we use it on our civilians.
I understand the concerns that people have
around protecting our officers
and making sure that they're kept safe,
and I'm not convinced that we're in a situation
that it's a drastic need,
that we don't have other tools
that could fulfill that need.
I'm really not seeing the urgency.
I'm disappointed, honestly,
that we're having this conversation right now
with this current historical context and, you know,
I do wanna just also, though, acknowledge the work
that the Police Accountability Board
and our Berkeley Police Department did
to come together to try to find a compromise.
I do recognize that this is a compromise
and I do wanna thank our Police Department
and our Chief and D.C. Tate and also Captain Oakes
for being here, for presenting, for the work that you do.
I have immense amount of respect.
It is not an easy job and you do put your lives
on the line every single day and I am grateful for that.
I wanna thank everyone for being here.
I recognize that a 4 p.m. meeting
is not the best time to have this conversation
and in special meetings, scheduling-wise,
I recognize our council is trying to hear this
as soon as possible.
Believe me when I say I wish we had not had
technical difficulties last meeting.
I would have preferred to be able to vote on this
and have that conversation be finished.
But we are here this evening, and so if it wasn't clear,
I will be voting no on this item, so thank you all.
So, I think we should take the roll on it.
All right, on the motion, Councilmember Kesterwani?
Yes.
Councilmember Tapwone?
No.
Bartlett?
No.
Traged?
No.
O'Keefe?
Yes.
Zachary?
Yes.
Unepara?
No.
Humbert.
Yes.
Mayor Ishi.
No.
Motion fails.
Motion to adjourn.
Thank you.
It's removed.
There's a motion to adjourn.
Is there a second?
Second.
I'm sorry, Tina.
How would the council like to dispose of item 1B?
Oh, yes.
I move to take no action.
Second.
Yeah, can we.
The motion, council member Kester-Wani.
Yes.
Tapplin.
Yes.
yes trachea yes okay yes black abhi yes moon a para yes humbert yes mayor ishi
yes and is there another motion to adjourn so moved second all right you
take the role in that place to adjourn councilmember keserwani yes tapwin aye
Bartlett trachea aye okay yes black abhi yes moon a para yes
Humbert. Yes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. We will be back for our
regular meeting at 6 p.m. Recording stopped.