 Thank you very much for the side by side. It was very helpful. I'll let each senator speak for themselves about any concerns with the House version. I will just state the biggest concern. I have several concerns. And I shared them with Senator Baruth earlier today. And so I guess I'll call on Phil to express your concern about the feeling of the crime. I believe a feel of the crime. The sunset. Yeah. So I, I think that some sets are sometimes useful in terms of getting a bill out of committee or getting it to the floor or whatever. But if you look at it in terms of what it does, we're having a very painful national conversation now. And I think that's why we're having a very painful national conversation. And I think that's why we're having a very painful national conversation now. Out of that, our committee decided to create prohibited restraints. And we felt that it was important. To attach penalties to that. Which are on a graduated scale, but which go up to. To legal penalties, including prison time and. And fines. The house agreed with that language didn't change it at all. And I don't know why we would do that unless. And I'm not putting this intent. On the house committee. Because I don't think it was their intent. But if you wanted to. Kick this out to a place when the national. Conversation had died down. And the protesters were no longer in the streets. And when perhaps the governor had. Moved past his last reelection. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. This sunset is exactly what you would do. So it's the one piece of what the house did that. I don't understand. And I couldn't agree with the rest. I think is. Is workable. I'll just express that I was troubled by the body cam delay. Having worked for almost six years, trying to establish. The police department. The police department. The police department worked. On the model policy law. With extensive testimony in this committee. And I can. Visualize the, I believe it was the Windsor police department that came in with photos. It might have been Springfield, but it was one of the Windsor County. Police departments that photos of various stops and what. A major difference it made having body cameras. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how to do it to delay that until we have. Policies that are acceptable to such a diverse group of. People that are listed in the intense section is troubling for me. And then Senator White, you had. Some issues. Yeah, I have, I have the same concerns about the body cam one. And I think that. In one 24. I just, just so I. I share Senator Bruce's concern too. Just so. I do too. And I also have some of the same concern about the body cam one. And we currently do have a policy. And in one 24, we asked for those people to come in with suggested changes. To the policy that may need to be. Addressed in January, but I also have a real concern. And although I know it's just in the intense section, I think there are two things in there that are very bothersome to. To me, and one is requiring accreditation from the, that organization within five years. And it doesn't specify. Who's going to be, have to be accredited within five years. Each agency has to do its own accreditation and the academy has to do a separate accreditation. So it doesn't specify it just says that. Everybody will be accredited within five years that that's the intent. And the other thing that is. Very bothersome to me is that the, it says the intent is to move. The training council to department of public safety. And in one 24, we asked for there to be a study of. Where physically the academy is located and. Where the organizationally it should be located. And it may not be that the best place is the. Department of Public Safety. It may be, but it could be, for example, VTC and it isn't the training council that would be. Located under DPS because what we heard is that. Regardless of where the academy lives. That there should be an into somewhat independent. Training count advisory training council. So I, I have very. I know it's just in the intent, but it says that the intent is to move it to the, to DPS. Yep. Other concerns that have not been mentioned. So the other, the only other thing I would note is that. On. On the front, the prohibited restraint crime. They've moved the date out to October 1st. Yeah, I don't understand that either. I, I, my guess is that it was meant to allow for. The possibility that we might. Repel or change our work in August. But I'm, I'm fine with that as long as we can get rid of the sunset. So that might be a potential way to compromise. Well, it's interesting because the reason that we split the use of force bill. And these other. Things that are in us to 19. Was because the house didn't feel that they could have time to deal with. Use of force. And I had. Was not understanding, I guess, that they were going to make also changes today, which is the last day. So. I wrote representative grad and email. And gave her reasons for the two changes I mentioned the body camera. And I'll, I'll read them to you when I can get them up on my other screen here. And find them. But. So I talked to Brent about concurring with further proposal amendment. I'm not sure that's going to mean much, but. And I had to write the proposal. For the body cameras and the. The repeal of the. New law. So for you, you all. I'll read what you, I'll read what. Dick, I appreciate your concerns. There was a lot of concern around the new crime. Many folks didn't want it in at all. Even folks who supported a new crime. I don't know why people supported new crime didn't win. The sunset was a way to commit to continue to work on it as well as justifiable homicide. I know your committee knows that law needs to be revisited certainly. And without the sunset and changed effective date, the crime would most likely have come out in the vote would not have been as strong. In terms of body cameras, there was a concern that a policy be in place. To make sure that a policy be in place in the strong policy of the ACLU's. What read that again, but. In terms of body cameras. The delay in body cameras. There was a concern that a policy be in place before we require state police. A body cameras. And we've asked for them to look at that and bring back changes that might need to be made, but we do have a policy, the state police do. I did not write her of your concerns. I'm assuming that those changes that you pointed out, Senator White, are things that were done by the House Government Operations Committee. I don't know. I don't know that, but so that's where we're at. I would suggest that for purposes that Brynne can do it, we concur with further proposal of amendment unless Senator Benning or Senator Niccio, do you have any comments? I'm absolutely opposed to delaying the body cameras. If we can somehow get by that. Joe, I know you spoke about that part of the justifiable homicide. They did repeal that, but that's a year out, which I don't have an opposition to. I don't really have any opposition to that either. I'm just wondering about the body cameras, whether their concern was having the policy specify when the camera is supposed to be on. The policy is very clear about that. If you want to, the current policy is I have it here. Is it generally when there's contact between the officer and somebody else? When they're on law enforcement duties with the police, I believe. And it's a shall, it says they shall have it activated. Yeah, I don't know. It is, they shall, they have, well, first, it is when they have to have it on. It is, it's a very long policy. And I am looking to see exactly. I think it says shall when they're, when they're in there typing up something in the barracks or wherever, they don't have to have it on. They're interacting with the public, they do. I believe that's the. I think that identifies what I heard from some of the house members that they also want the cameras on when police are talking to each other, not necessarily interacting with the public. And I don't know if that's been identified yet. You may have heard last night on the news, there was, I think Wilmington. Okay. Delaware was talking about the three officers who were talking between each other and talking about how they wanted to pull a bullet in somebody and there were all kinds of racial epithets going on. So the house members have picked up on that and said, we've got to have a policy that requires them to be on when the officers are just talking to each other. On the other, but on the other hand, Burlington and other police departments around the state have body cameras or state police don't. So. There's cameras already and seem to be doing fine. Here's what it says, all calls for service in which citizen contact is made, all traffic stops, all citizen transports, including ride-alongs, all investigatory stops, all foot pursuits when arriving at law enforcement events or citizen contacts initiated by other officers, other incidents where the officer reasonably believes that there might be an adversarial event afterwards. And it's arrest of any person, searches, seizures, requests for consent to search, Miranda warnings, citizen statements made by citizens and defendants, canine searches, vehicles and issuance of written violations. And it does not say officer to officer contact, but that would mean that if you're sitting in the barracks having coffee, you have to have your. Yeah. The point that I'm trying to make, Jeanette, especially after last night's newscast is that systemic inherent ideas come out from police officers when they are simply together in a group. Yes. And the policy that you've just read does not include that scenario. So people who are concerned about the systemic involvement are believing that these internal conversations between police officers are likely to expose that systemic belief. I'm not sure that we're actually opposed to that. My concern is should we wait for new policies to get our state police with body cameras under current policy so that they're equal with Burlington and Springfield and whatever other police departments have body, I mean, Winnall had body cameras. Even Lutlow has body cameras. I'm not suggesting we delay. I'm suggesting that this might be- No, I understand. I appreciate that perspective, Joe. So we have asked for any changes to come in January. Any suggested changes by people to come to us in January around the policy and the changes that should be made. And I think that something like that might be a request that comes in for a policy change. And it will take some additional testimony because that really means that they have them on all the time, all the time while they're on duty. Because they are constantly going to be having conversations with each other even in an off-handed manner. If they're sitting at the, if they're sitting doing paperwork and somebody walks by and they have a comment. So I think that that change needs to have additional testimony. And I think that to delay it for that purpose is they're using them now. Yeah. Yeah, I think that the only way that I can see somebody objecting to having the cameras go on now is if they feel as though it would produce a worse situation than we have. And I can't see how that would be the case. Even if it's not ideal, we'll have more than we have now. And then it'll get better in January. But if we delay, we have nothing until January. So it's like the sunset of the other crime. It doesn't make sense to me other than advocates were in a general way saying that they wanted, and you see the language about in the intent section that says we agree to engage in a meaningful dialogue. And so I think in part maybe it's to say let's create this space where nothing happens until that dialogue occurs. But there are some things that just make sense to do now. And one of those is to ban choke holds. Another is to turn on body cameras. And that makes us all safer in the meanwhile. And I don't get the arguments for why you would delay those things. Okay, so I'm going through this. Bryn, oh, somehow I shut my video off. Can I just ask a question too? Yeah, but don't forget, we've only got about five more minutes. So I'm wondering why we can't, we don't know that they even read that list that Jeanette has. Why don't we send that over as part of the proposal? Okay, I guess we could do that, but Bryn needs to be able to draft something. Yeah, send that. Well, there's seven, five, there's 12 different things in the list that we did. I don't know that, and it's in a separate bill. And they're going to take that up in August when we come back, House GovOps is. So I don't... I want to, I would like to concur with further proposal of amendment. And Bryn, you've already drafted Senator Baruch's concern, the body camera language. Can you draft, go ahead? I just wanted to make clear what I think makes sense is to get rid of the sunset on the new crime, but to accept their October 1st timing as a give and take. And if you're able to present it to Representative Grad as we can't accept this, but we'll reluctantly accept that, maybe that's enough in that instance. I'm not sure at this point that I could do that. That we'll get that. Phillip? Well, I don't mean for the whole. I mean, just for that part of... Yeah, I don't think that's the problem. I wouldn't even, I just think we... Every state needs, not every state. Almost every state has come out to ban a state, you know, New York asked it a week ago. We should be passing it today. It should be effective today. Okay, I'm all for that. I'm really troubled by the idea that we're going to delay that, that prohibited restraint language for another two months, three months. Yeah, three months. Okay, can I make the suggestions that I would have for Bryn? Yes. On the part that says, that talks about the accreditation, just take out within the next five years, because we can be continuing to look at whether or not we should be asking people to be accredited. But there they're saying that they want it done within five years and it isn't clear about who it is that they're, they want accredited. So I can certainly do that. I did want to point out that the sentence that that language appears in is talking about what standing committees of jurisdiction are currently studying. So it says that the standing committees are currently looking at that as an issue. It doesn't actually say that it's the intent of the general assembly to do that. But regardless, I'm still happy to do that. Okay, and then I would take out the intent one to move it to DPS, to move the training council, because it isn't the training council that would be moved anyway, it's the academy. I thought when, yeah. I'd take that out completely. I mean, that can be, we've already got that in 124 to be looked at. And if we want to put it in there that we should have a review of where it should physically and organizationally be situated, the academy, not the training council, it's the academy itself. We can put that in there, but I don't know, that'll make them happy. I don't know either, but at least we try. Is that it? So where are we with the body cameras? We don't, we want them the way we had them. Okay. Give them the list that Jeanette read of when they have to be turned on. Perhaps they don't realize those circumstances. Oh, that's the current policy. The policy is very long, it's like five pages. We could send it to them. So I think that they know about the policy, their concern, they hear it's quite a bit of testimony from the ACLU and it was, I think that their concern was that they didn't, there were stakeholders that didn't like the policy. And so that was why they put in the intent section that everybody would work on the policy. And I'm not, it's not a problem to have everybody work on the policy. The problem is delaying the purchase of them. And the implementation of them. If the concur with further proposal of amendment leaves the intent language in, I'm okay with that. As long as we are clear that they can buy them tomorrow or as soon as the- And use them. As soon as, because they need to buy them first, then they need to deal with the storage issue in the third, in the big bill that's coming up in August. And that's why we put in the language. So I may have misled you on, if they want to continue to study it, it's fine with me. I just want to study, I want to get them damn things on the cops right now, our troopers. No reason why Winhall should have body cameras and the trooper in the Shaftesbury barracks who covers Winhall doesn't. I agree. Oh, I'm getting some- That's one of the smallest towns in the state. I'm sorry. No, I didn't mean to interrupt. I'm getting some messages and I think that their house would just like to make sure that the committee understands that the legislative intent section is just legislative intent to work on these issues and nothing greater than that. I think what Senator White has a problem with that. Yeah, I think that that is wrong. It says the intent is to relocate it. It doesn't say the intent is to study it. It says the intent is to relocate it to the Department of Public Safety. It commits to working on, yes, it commits to working on resituating. Yes, it makes, it already comes to the conclusion that that's where it should be. So it's C2 that you have a problem with. Is that what it is? Yeah, yes. Re-instituting the Criminal Justice Training Council of Jurisdiction. So are the rest of them okay with you? Yeah, I mean, all of this stuff should be studied, but we can't come to the conclusions until we've studied them, in my opinion. So all we need to do then, I think, is those three things. Okay, so the amendment that you have posted to your website returns the body camera, all the body camera provisions to, as they exist in the Senate version. Yep. And it also removes the repeal for the new crime, but it does leave the effective date as October for the crime. I think it should, with a crime, it's okay, I guess. No, wait a minute. The crime of prohibited restraint? Yeah, they moved the date out to October. So if somebody were to, assuming that we could pass this, and someone were to die in a Floyd case, we would have set an October 1st date and it occurred in the month of August. I guess, Dick, I completely agree with you. It's just, I'm thinking this may be the only shot we have at concurring with further proposal of amendment. I don't know that there's gonna be time to have another round. So I'm willing to give them that if they will get rid of the repeal. Okay. That's fine. Are we agreement? Senator Nicar and I have to rush over to the Appropriations Committee. We do? Yeah, 130. That all sounds good, what we've discussed so far to me. Yes, I'm good with it. Can everybody live with that, Bern? Yes. Are they past third reading yet? No, it hasn't been on the floor yet for debate. If you send me a copy of that, I would at least send it to Representative Grad and say, would you be willing to amend the bill before third reading to do these things? Yeah. And I'll send a note to Sarah Copeland-Hanses in case some of that came out of their committee. I would guess that the Criminal Justice Training Council piece came out of their committee. Probably. All right. Thank you all very much.