 to throw phone to him or we didn't even have any shields at the time. And he made Giffin change the dynamics on that that that that moment. He approached, he came around, you saw part of a distorted part of the video for Channel 3 that we all saw. Then at this point I'm now a just resetting a command when it shots fire from Matt Nice calling that in. He came around, he did go down, he did come up and I was captured on a dash cam video of Corporal Nice's car clearly holding the gun in the direction of where Corporal Nicely and Inspector Welch were standing when our officer shot, he was already shot, shot him again, one shot and then it stopped the threat, the immediate threat. It is a horrible thing to see, it's a horrible thing to be part of and also the bouncing on him so there's no opportunity to grab anything else or whatever. You don't know what's going on, you don't know if there's another gun or a waistband or what have you. Later there was also a getaway driver and it was later arrested. So my point on that one that's what they, what the Suicide.org would refer to as a spontaneous suicide. The plan was to rob a bank that day and so we looked at so now in our department we have shields in every one of our cars because if we had to make an approach we could do it safe. There was no safe way to do that approach. I also did not, by giving the command to not approach, was not to precipitate something on our end. He's staying there, we've got communication with one person, our negotiator, let's just keep going. He did not give us the opportunity. He did not surrender. And I know, you know, on ski patrol, this was very hard. Thanks. Just to follow up on your statement that there haven't been any unjustified in the Grailbar area, where would you do people in the church at that time? According to them, there was never a time that anyone else except Woody threatened himself. So Attorney General justified it, but it was a difficult situation. Appreciate hearing how the recognition of people in crisis right now is a greater recognition of awareness. Thank you. Yeah, after we've considered opportunity, I just want to go over the rest of the VPA positions. So thank you all for having me here today. I believe I've submitted a pair of testimony specifically on age eight away, but I'll speak quickly to age 464 at the end as well. I just got some notes so you can just leave it up. And I think there's at least one slide that's just referenced in there that I'll kind of show you a visual so you can see as well. So thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to speak about these two pieces of legislation. In short, the ACLU of Vermont supports both pieces of legislation. I'll speak to age eight away first. So age eight away would create a statutory standard for the use of deadly force in Vermont. Vermont currently lacks a statutory standard. Well, at the same time, we do have a statutory standard for the use of less deadly force in the form of tasers. And so we would support instituting a statewide standard that says that it requires an officer to use deadly force. Only one is necessary. So this would be the necessary standard. As you know, recently adopted by the state of California. And the necessary standard established in age eight requires officers use other techniques and resources other than deadly force when recently safe and feasible to do so. Then also the bill also determines that the priority of deadly force can be used when decision and when, excuse me, sorry, misrepresent. So the bill requires that when determining the propriety of the use of deadly force, decision makers must consider the conduct leading up to the use of force. And so this bill is especially timely right now just because we've seen a consistent rise in the number of officer-involved shootings per year. So this is referenced in my testimony, but this is just a very simple graph. This is compiled by the Vermont State Police. It shows officer-involved shootings between both with the Vermont State Police and other state departments. So you'll see it's a pretty standard linear progression increasing over the last couple of years. There's been, I think, nearly as many shootings in the last decade as there are in the previous three decades. And if you look at 2019 compared to 1999, there's a fourfold thing. So we have been seeing an increase in officer-involved shootings and think that this would be a time to create a statewide standard for consistency. So another reason that this is something that we believe would be helpful is the number of folks that interact that are most often involved in these type of incidents are often people who have diminished capacity in some way. So it's individual, as Bill says, individuals with physical mental health, developmental, and intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to be involved in these incidents as their disabilities may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from law enforcement and officers. And the de-adoption of a necessary standard could help address this disparity by prioritizing the use of de-escalation tactics. And I think this is one place that as we listen to the testimony, this is a place where there's agreement between the ACLU and the law enforcement. We've heard from them many times that they are prioritizing de-escalation tactics. This is something they say they use in their training and we think that this Bill codifies those values. Importantly, the requirement that the force be necessary means that if de-escalation is possible, that the force is not necessary. It requires decision makers to examine whether the officer's escalated situations may have to use the force or fail to de-escalate it when it could have been reasonable to do so. So also another important aspect of H808 is that it creates a definition of imminent threat and that it's not merely a fear of future harm, but it's one that from appearances must be instantly confronted and addressed. So we think this creates some clear statutory standards which don't exist at this point in time and we support adopting this into law. And then when it comes to age 464, we are very supportive of better data collection around the use of force. Generally, the lack of data collection in the criminal justice system is something that is a very large problem that we've been trying to speak quite a bit about. I will say that actually law enforcement is providing probably some of the more comprehensive data around these things now, so in terms of police stops and other pieces of information, but I think this is one more piece of information that would be helpful to have. And as 464 speaks to the process of creating more training and programming in collaboration with other stakeholders, we think that that collaborative approach is something that could be helpful. It sounds like something like you were describing in your comments earlier and think that that could be helpful to get those different perspectives. So we would support that legislation. So that is our testimony today and I'd be happy to take any questions. I've heard the reference to this California model a couple of times that they just implemented. Why would we point to that as an example of success when there's no data? We have absolutely no idea how it's going to turn out. Couldn't that wind up forced than what we've been dealing with? Well we think that bill says and we think that this bill says that deadly force would only be used when necessary and that's why we're supportive of it. I know that is a bill that as passed, I believe, law enforcement originally objected to it. They withdrew their objection, they didn't throw it at least support it. They understand there's a difference and I think working in this building you all understand there's there's difference between that and but it is one that it says deadly force was only going to be used when necessary and we support that. So is it the ACI use position now that deadly force has been used when it wasn't justified? Well I think as you heard that under the current standards that there are times that we have not seen any of these shootings been declared unjustified but going forward we're looking prospectively. You know this is what this legislation will do. It's not going to go re-litigate anything that happened in the past. It's going to say prospectively this is the standard we'd like to see used when officers are deciding to use deadly force. I'm trying to restrain myself but you gave me an opening. I did. I can also go to Marsha. It's just so unusual that you're not first out of the game. It's Friday. Thank you for your testimony. One of the things on 808 in the California language that was real clear to me was from law enforcement's testimony the other day was words matter. So I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a law enforcement official. I'm a legislator so I get the help. Why is law enforcement? I mean it was very clear that words matter. I heard that from the commissioner. I heard that from the hallways afterwards and I heard it from the training deputy director whatever drew at the place of academy. It was very clear what changes with the California. Why is this the new model we should embrace? Well I mean 100% agree that words matter. I think that is something that probably everyone here holds very very dear and when looking at this one I'll say we don't have a statutory standard right now. So those words are not on paper in statute and in terms of those words we believe that necessary is the correct standard. I think that's something that people can agree on and by doing that implementing that standard it does prioritize the use of deescalation in these interactions and that is something that we're not saying that law enforcement is not doing but it sets that standard in statute. About 15 minutes. So in the order that they ask for permission you can jump right in and then we will get to Beth in a moment. My name is Stephen Wettaker from Montpelier. I want to call your attention to overlap. I'm specifically speaking in memory of Mark Johnson which is the most recent shooting in Montpelier that you heard about. We have had no shootings and we have two shootings in as many years and both of which involve a mentally distressed individual both of which involved what appeared to be a dangerous firearm. So I think we need to be very careful in recognizing that justified is a term subject to interpretation. I would encourage all to look at watch the video is disturbing as it is watch the video of the Mark Johnson shooting last August. Here's a mentally distressed person who had locked himself out of his own building trying to get back in with a knife allegedly I haven't there are some public records overlaps but I'll speak to here. I've not seen all the records that are I need to see on this. He flees he's apprehended or challenged on the bridge by the only two officers and the crews are on he attempts twice to jump into the river from either the south side of the Spring Street bridge or the north side of the Spring Street bridge instead of allowing him to jump into the river he might have broken a leg he might have gotten a little water in his lungs he would not be dead so instead our officer orders him down repeatedly you know and ends up putting two fragmentation rounds in it because we didn't have the 12 gauge beanbag shotgun in that cruiser if you've only got one cruiser on the road maybe that should be the one with the beanbag shotgun in it you know we could have waited this this was a this it appears to me and I'm not an expert on psychiatry that this appears to be an intentional suicide by cop a very distressed individual waving a toy pistol or a pellet pistol there the individual was known to the police department prior there may he may the police department might have known that he had a pellet pistol so there's a lot of abilities here that would have warranted to weight move slow de-escalate and instead we had two fragmentation rounds into his abdomen from a rifle you listen to the audio on the tape you realize that these people realize he couldn't hit the side of a barn from 20 yards he was that distressed and just waving a pellet pistol in the air so this the idea that this couldn't have waited on a mental health professional or waited on a backup cruiser with the beanbag shotgun or you know last resort take hit him in the leg you know but to basically kill someone unnecessarily who's facing a mental distress intending to get shot possibly is is unwarranted now there's a public records issue here and that I would ask the committee to consider clarifying that the independent investigation that would have been done by the Vermont State Police was undermined by a decision of our chief and I do respect our chief I see he's doing a tough spot here at the end of his career I want him to you know all do respect but there was a decision in the Burlington case where a judge ruled that the officer had the right to review the video before giving his statement that needs to be clarified because the state police warned the police department here to not let him review that video before we get his statement or even do a deposition I'm not privy to those communications but our chief overruled that and let him watch the video before he gave his statement so in effect we subverted independent investigation by the state police it would have done a lot to restore public confidence in this since then our city council has offered to hold a public forum and instead put five minutes on a number seven on an agenda and swept it under the route but pending public records requests for the affidavit that the state's attorney requested the state's attorney requested an affidavit from the chief it's been months and that still hasn't been produced our city council mayor city manager ignores appeals to the head of the agency on the public records appeal on this issue so we have a problem in the accountability the transparency and the undermining of public confidence so but the issue of whether or not a video of an incident should be withheld pending an investigation from the shooter uh it's clearly a public records issue that needs clarification uh possibly to avoid this ambiguity where a an independent investigation could be undermined yeah I'm gonna just cover my notes yeah the interpretation of a violent felonian you know when you've got a resident of an subsidized housing non-pillier housing authority you know trying to jimmy into a building that he lives in it's hard to characterize it may have been mischaracterized as a violent felony in progress so I would argue we don't have good policy I would support the bill requiring good policy be adopted to clarify the ability to restrain dealing with the video until the statements are made by an independent investigator it turns out the officer who did kill mark johnson unnecessarily in my opinion uh head prior uh in an incident of a teenager smoking pot broken a woman's ribs uh and then in a separate incident a distressed mentally distressed person snapped a guy's arm who was holding onto his wife who clearly understood and communicated that he was distressed the man died as a result so this is the third incident with this particular officer that should give us all pause thank you thank you wants to be on the record in support of a request from the vermont criminal justice training council and vermont police academy that was underway well before the bills were introduced here there is a a lot of well I think it's pretty universal support by all of law enforcement that we expand the basic training an additional four weeks and I think you'll hear from rick goth here I hope you do come in and sort of explain that to you a little bit more in depth you heard a little bit of it in that first hearing and we would support whatever this committee can do and this legislative body can do to support that appropriation and the second piece is he the academy is also going to be the criminal justice training council will also be asking to expand the reporting requirements under act 56 which I think was passed 2017 2017 I think later 2018 it requires that all law enforcement report to the criminal justice training council categories of misconduct and I think conduct b is a second report of unlawful force and my guess is or use of force not an awful force and law enforcement supports actually the expansion of that again something that they all agreed upon well before legislation came before this body so we would ask that this committee support that change I think it's a good idea so I wanted to get those two things on the record and also as you pay attention to the requests for the resources of the folks who are dealing with these community issues telling what they need to have better outcomes there's a difference between shit and county and the ability to share old resources when you're nearby Richmond near Williston near Burlington then in some of our more rural communities so I think it's worth paying attention to the disparate level of resources available last thing I just want to follow up some of the testimony around some use of force cases including the witty case it was actually general counsel of public safety and they did the investigation into that case you know no one in law enforcement jumps to a conclusion that use of force is justified and shouldn't until you complete an investigation because you can't properly make that determination until you undertake a real investigation you take a look at all of it and you finish it and then you have to look at it using what is the Vermont standard and has been a Vermont standard you're not standard-less in the state we operate under Graham DeConnor and the interesting thing about California and I'll just know that I'm not ready to get into California with you now but the interesting thing about California their problem was that they actually had a statutory standard it was outdated it was a constitution so the problem with codifying what you think is the standard today this is really comes from the constitution and the courts interpret it and you'll I'm sure representative Dan will will assist you this but you know courts are always examining this here in the second circuit it's under examination we are responding to that that information is in real time to law enforcement and then they make changes they update their training the bolting goes out and if it's standard or some interpretation gives them some guidance they act on it so I just want you to keep that in mind California had a unique reason for undertaking its effort the last piece of that puzzle is yeah law enforcement did object to it but they were in a legislative process as you all know when you're in legislative process sometimes you have to get to a point the process where you get something and you have to give something that support did not come at the beginning of the process it came after there was some back and forth and they were able to secure some language that made them feel a little bit more comfortable but I don't think it was the whole ask so I just want to keep that in mind and that's about as much as I wanted to share on that hopefully we can continue that conversation so quickly on your first part of your testimony you talked about the collection of information you referring to the type of force employed that's in 464 that goes to the we support that I advise the chair and I should put that on the record as well there's no objection from law enforcement fully support that data collection piece if you want to okay where are you in the second part we actually have not I have not looked at the rest of it because this is on a new model policy yeah four hours of training I think that we actually have a post basic I think drew touched upon this with post basic use of force training then is mandatory for all the law enforcement that's an additional block that they have to have that's already happening but we the organization and I think Tony touched upon it position in the wrong police association and I believe it was the testimony of commissioner charlie and I believe that's what you heard from your blooms these force training just director that it is not a good idea the legislative policy because policy is living reading document that is that is their their decision so at this time not supporting that piece of information about california actually comes off of their website it is the family to have a proper they have a process where they put information on the record in the senate senate public safety committees before on the bill they cite some history and specifically speak to the codification what they proceed to be an outdated and unconstitutional