Thank you very much for being here this morning, Mr. Elliott. However, I must say that I don't understand much of what you are saying. I understand very well, however, that we have invited you today because you have a former policy that was a kind of warning. I'm going to take the time to read it; it was your section 3.1.3:
(1) 3.1.3 Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject. (2) Unless situational factors dictate otherwise, do not cycle the CEW repeatedly, no more than 15-20 seconds at a time, against a subject.
So it was clear. Now we find ourselves with a new policy, dating back approximately two months, which reads as follows:
(3) Multiple deployment or continuous cycling of the CEW may be hazardous to a subject.
So the warning in your new policy is less precise. In fact, there isn't any warning. It simply states that it may be hazardous. That's not a tightening. On the contrary, it's a broadening of the possibility of multiple deployment. What I understand is that you chose not to explain it to us in your opening statement, whereas you should have explained it to us more precisely. I sense that you're beating about the bush.
Tell me why you changed your mind and why that change was included in your policy.