The Board of Supervisors is today voting on a contentious new proposal that would cement the San Francisco Police Department’s authority to kill alleged criminals using robots. The policy also defines how the SFPD can use the rest of its military-style weapons.

The meeting starts at 2 p.m., and the policy is agenda item 28. You can find more details in the meeting agenda, or watch along online.

We are not expecting this item to be open for public comment, because comment was heard while the policy was being drafted in committee.

Stay tuned for our live updates from City Hall.

Follow Us

DATA REPORTER. Will was born in the UK and studied English at Oxford University. After a few years in publishing, he absconded to the USA where he studied data journalism in New York. Will has strong views on healthcare, the environment, and the Oxford comma.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Do we have any data or evidence that the following statement made by Stefani is true?

    “Stefani is reading details of police officers who have been attacked with military-style weapons, suggesting that the police need to respond by getting their own military-style weapons.

    ‘A police officer versus a semi-automatic rifle doesn’t give the officer the best odds,’ she said.”

    1. I don’t know what Stefani said, but the 1994 shooting death of SFPD officer James Guelff would be the likely incident to be highlighted, along with the infamous 1997 North Hollywood shootout. Both were game changers.

    2. I attended the meeting (hoping to speak against the policy). It is true. There was so much hand-wringing and hot air in support of militarizing the police from self-described “progressives”.

  2. If legislation is re-written between committee and the full BoS meeting, they don’t have to take public comment? That seems like a pretty big loophole, which could lead to abuses like the “gut and amend” process we see all the time in Sacramento.