 Right now we're going from one controversial bill to another, which is H-145. And I'm pleased that several folks who were invited to join us this morning have done so. I think a basic issue for this committee right now is the change that allows in certain situations for the user. We did not hear from, I think our first witness is Dr. Eaton. Eaton, I'm sorry, Dr. Eaton, I know that. The rest of it I stumble with. And I hope you will excuse my effort. Eaton, thank you for joining us this morning. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you. And Dr. Nazrin Longo is the chair of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning to you as well. Shall I start then? Yeah, please do. Okay, I think this can be fairly brief and I know that that would be preferable given what you have on your schedules today. The RDAP has largely concentrated upon later moments in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Moments quite soon after an application of use of force would generally for us be an issue, but we have not in particular looked at these very early moments of engagement. After initial engagement with the criminal and juvenile justice system has in general been our purview as that 2019 report makes clear. The enabling statue asked the panel to consider firstly, how to institute a public complaint process to address perceived implicit bias across all systems of state government. Secondly, whether and how to prohibit racial profiling and three whether to expand law enforcement race data collection practices to include data on traffic stops by law enforcement. We did go further. Obviously you've seen that report. And we got much broader than that. And looked at other moments of engagement with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. A quote from that report. The panel recommends developing laws and rules that were required data collection that captures high impact, high discretion points that occur during the judicial processes within and there's a whole list there, as well as the administrative processes within DCF and the Department of Corrections unquote. Arguably, a moment of force is the highest impact and highest discretion moment imaginable, but I'd submit that our enabling statute did not in spirit direct us in that direction. So we don't have a lot to offer at the moment. Nevertheless, at our meeting that roughly 36 hours ago some thoughts were shared. These do not it is important for you to know necessarily represent consensus as conditions have not and did not allow us that level of discussion or formality. I think we have a lot of people you've heard from already because of course the R DAP consists of governmental actors as well as community members. You've heard, I believe from Judge Greerson, who is our representative from the judiciary and he cannot comment upon policy. David share who I know you know reports, of course, that the AGO supports the bill. And she's from the R DAP and she is of the root social justice center down here in Wyndham County and she had a good deal of commentary. She found that it was very triggering as do I, for a black person to listen to the bill in the current environment, given that extra judicial killings of black people are still very much in evidence as the shooting over the weekend of Dante right in Minnesota makes sense. And in this year, there's a lot of painful information in this bill as is evident. It speaks of when one can harm and kill. Ms. Linton's points were in some wise made from the 10,000 foot level, which is in fact the level from which the R DAP's initial report submitted on the 4th of December of 2019 were that the R DAP is still operating under white supremacist culture. And she questions the act of operating within that framework as H 145 does and critiquing a use of force bill. While being in that framework, Ms. Linton's comments are rooted in a deep awareness of the widely perceived bias of the law against the concerns of people of color. And so there are policies on the books that H 145 does nothing to question. Yet, this is a bill that helps refine the already extant permission given for use of force in a culture that largely works against people of color. This makes her uneasy to say the least. Other concerns had to do with policy implementation. And we are as a panel aware that the Department of Public Security is currently writing that policy. Ms. Linton was further concerned with the process for unlearning policies that are currently in place. Of course, this always happens. But as a community member deeply invested in advocacy, she wanted to know what unlearning policy looked like. Clearly, there are questions on the panel concerning the policy and its implementation. Again, Ms. Linton is very concerned and brings up often on the panel and is in some ways, the panel's conscience on this, the issue of accountability. After implementation, who holds people accountable? Who does this? How does a process of accountability work? She was quite pleased to hear about mental illness accommodations. I won't speak to great length on that because I know that Will the White is here this morning. She was also pleased that there's no bystander status allowed for cops who witnessed wrongdoing on the part of their colleagues. An issue that has come up at other moments on the panel that certainly has come up culturally for many people since 1989 is the definition of reasonable and reasonableness. Yes, people are aware that this was defined by the Rehnquist Supreme Court in Graham versus Conner. But some folks on the panel who are people of color are not settled about this. The idea of definitions is very much present here and something that needs to be asked. Again, this seems to be a vestige of white supremacist culture. The objectivity seen by the Supreme Court in the term reasonable is not perceived by many people of color and has not been since Graham versus Conner was argued in 1989. In short, to be blunt, what a white person sees as reasonable and what a person of color sees as reasonable are not necessarily the same thing. Have not necessarily been the same thing. Just because the Rehnquist court did not recognize the potential differences in definition does not speak to a perceived truth. Certainly not for people of color. We are pleased on the panel to have a lot of members who are actually not on the panel officially come and speak with us and work with us. One of those would be representative Martin LaLonde. He informed us certainly that DPS is forming policy on training as regards H-145. He opined that perhaps the R-DAP should weigh in on the policy. As chair of the panel, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that that would likely be a welcome gesture and certainly so to the community members of the R-DAP who have not had a very great voice on this. Lastly, I would like to know Rebecca Turner's comments. You know her. She is an appellate defender from the office of the defender general. Her office supports I believe H-145 in general, but not in totality. She echoed Sheila Linton's concern. She also was concerned about the interpretation of terms that are used. Again, the creation of a new crime is as she points out a problem in general for the defender general. She also said that she thinks that the law is perhaps too narrowly focused. It doesn't look at a system, but rather as bad actors within that system. There was some question about police disciplinary records as well. Are they public? Are they not? There's a sense that they need to be. She was pleased again about mental health protections but didn't feel that there was enough here. And that is something that of course, our depth covered in far greater depth in its report of 2019 and we'll take up again as it seeks to deepen the work that it did on that initial report. And that's all I have to tell you this morning. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Couple of questions that anyone's focus on the rewrite of the. Sections regarding. I lost. Section for justifiable homicide. The committee was somewhat concerned about. When. Using the terms burglary or robbery. Was there any discussion? If not, that's fine. We, we kind of looked at that. And I mean, everybody kind of understands. Pression of somebody to commit murder, sexual assault, but robbery can mean a lot of things. Oh, you're, I'm sorry. You said the committee and I think you're the committee. I'm sorry, the judiciary committee and your, yeah. Did anyone on your committee. Look at section four and have any comments. That's difficult. Yeah. This committee Senate judiciary is a little concerned about the use of the term. Burglary or robbery, which would allow the use of. Justifiable use of. Deadly force on the part of any citizen. We did not get, we just did. We didn't get into that level of. I guess concerns us. And it's awful that I forgot the man's name. Short shot in Georgia. Going into a vacant building. To get water. Shot. Being in the neighborhood. Like. A man and his son. Right. That incident. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. He triggers this, you know, he wasn't robbing anyone is that, you know, he was in a vacant building. Even if he was taking something out of the building. You know, Why would he be shot? Yeah. Which should he be shot. Or. Yeah. No, we did not again, get that specific. Okay. Senator White. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to say that some of the issues that you brought up. Both from Sheila and from Rebecca. Are they're not, while they're not in this bill, they are being addressed by the council, not by the department, but by the newly constituted council. And we now have the council is made up of. A majority of non law enforcement. And they're not being addressed by the council, but aren't specifically part of this bill. And I will take that back to the panel. Thank you, senator. And I can give you the details on what they're doing because we're listening to this in law and for in government operations now, because we cover law enforcement. So. I give you details. Yep. Thank you. Further questions. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Absolutely. Thank you. You too. Always helpful. Will the white is our next witness. And. I've got to step away for about five minutes. One good thing about YouTube is I can review. Good morning. Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Will the white. And I am currently the founder of an organization called mad freedom. Which is a. National civil rights and human rights organization whose mission is to secure political power in order to end the oppression and discrimination against people based on their perceived mental states. I'm also an attorney. Not licensed in Vermont, but licensed in California, New York and Massachusetts. I'm the former. Executive director of the Center for social justice at UC Berkeley school of law on my alma mater. And I'm also was the inaugural chair of the mental health crisis response commission here in Vermont. Where we investigated the law enforcement killing. Of a Phil grinning in his, in his home. And finally, I was the former, I'm a former executive director of Vermont psychiatric survivors. And I do consider myself. A psychiatric survivor. And I bring all of that to bear on my testimony here today. And particularly I, you know, I, while. While, you know, being, being black is not for the front and my identity. It is how I am identified by this society. And I've had certain experiences based on that. And I've had certain experiences. And I've had certain experiences based on that. And I, that also influences my testimony here on this bill today. Overall, I mad freedom. Supports H one 45 as it left the house judiciary committee. We think that it represents a very good compromise. And, you know, oftentimes I think since last summer, when the house, when the, when the general assembly adopted. The use of force bill, what I found myself doing in the intervening year is every time I hear of a. Police killing or attempted police killing. And so I feel like this use of force, the action that happened in some other state. If it had happened in Vermont, it would have been an unlawful use of force. And it makes me really happy to have seen that bill passed here in Vermont. And so I do feel like if it is heated by law enforcement, H one 45 is a really good bill and really can save lives and restore confidence in law enforcement. I think this one for H one 45 is an improvement upon what was passed in the last legislative session because it gets rid of this. Prohibited restraint word because it really wasn't a prohibited restraint because it was because the law does allow law enforcement officers to use it. If their lives are in jeopardy. And it also really clarified the definition of a prohibited restraint. It both renamed it a chokehold and it clarified the definition so that in a way that the law enforcement officers would not have the same kinds of proof problems that you would have had on the earlier definition. So I do think it's a much improved bill and we do support it. I am concerned, however, about the Department of Public Safety wishing to insert the words to the extent feasible in subsection B five. Mad freedom work very, very hard to include this length of and the bill because there's research to suggest that the people who are at the highest risk of being killed by police officers or people who are at the time experiencing a mental impairment. And these are people who are often killed in and around their homes. The police have been brought to their homes because a loved one is called and said, Hey, my police officer, the loved one is called and said, Hey, my, my loved one has a mental illness or and they're acting in a certain way because of that mental illness and we need some help. And because our society doesn't have a lot of resources for responding to this, the police are sent to respond. And in the course of responding to this person who was committed no crime. The person often ends up dead. And so mad freedom worked very hard to include this provision in the bill because it tracks current language that has been adopted by the second circuit about how police should respond to people who have who are in a mental health crisis. And I mean, and I want to take the time to read to you what the court says so you can see how closely this language tracks direct quote from from the second circuit, which is the federal court that covers Vermont. So in the in the most in a recent case called Chamberlain versus city of white planes. The second circuit of court of appeals adopted the rule that the use of force against an individual whom the officer knows or reasonably should know is suffering from a mental illness should not be evaluated in the same way as the use of force to apprehend the person suspected of a serious criminal wrongdoing. And they quoted cases that explain and I'm quoting here, the level of force that is constitutionally permissible in dealing with a mentally ill person differs both in degree and in kind from the use of force that would be justified against a person who has committed a crime or who poses a threat to the community. Consequently, a subject's mental illness is a factor that a police officer must take into account in determining what degree of force, if any is appropriate. So this very much tracks that be five very much tracks. All of that constitutional jurisprudence. In fact, it's actually more restrictive and more limited than the constitutional jurisprudence because it only applies when you know the person has a mental illness, you know the conduct that is problematic is caused by that mental illness. You don't have to make any assessment, you just know it. And the only thing you have to do is take it into account, which means simply you consider it along with other factors. That's all you have to do. And it's the position of Matt freedom that even this really minimal requirement on the law, a part of law enforcement would save many lives. For example, Phil grinning who was killed by Burlington police department when he was in his apartment, they knew that he had a mental illness. They could have known that he because of his mental illness, he was in a psychotic state. And he had said that the police come to my apartment. I am going to, I believe they're coming to kill me. And I am going to use knives and self-defense. All we're saying in a case where you know that the person is has a mental illness. He's psychotic. He believes that you're coming to kill him. And he's going to act in self-defense that you consider that before you storm into the apartment. That's all we're asking that you consider it. That's all the law requires. Now, I know you heard an example from Julio Thompson, who said that this was an unreasonable. That you needed the word feasible because what happens if the police officer knows someone has a mental illness, knocks on the door and the and the opening and the person kills them. Now, this example is not implicated by this language because first of all, the officer has to know they have a mental illness, but also that the conduct is caused by the mental illness. In the example that Julio Thompson gave you, the officer had no idea what the conduct was. It was a split second. He opened the door and the conduct happened. And so this, the officer would not be asked, did you consider whether the person had a mental illness? Because that's not the only question. You have to know both that they have a mental illness and the conduct that is problematic is caused by that. And it doesn't require you to diagnose its information that had been supplied before arriving. So I really urge the committee to resist the temptation to dilute B-5, which is already, I think, as Senator Baruth really astutely observed, it doesn't require very much at all. But we feel that it requires just enough to save the lives of people like Phil Brennan. And I will say that one of the things that was troubling about this bill was that it, you know, affirmatively states on its face that the chokehold is in jeopardy. And while I feel like a police officer should be able to use any means necessary to save their lives when their lives are in jeopardy, it is problematic seeing the law so explicitly state that you can use a chokehold, particularly when we're saying we're not going to teach a chokehold. And in the Judiciary Committee, I suggested that even understanding that a chokehold is permissible, I probably would prefer not to see it so plainly stated that you could use it, but let the work be done by the justifiable homicide statutes. For example, if you felt like you had to use it, that defense would still be available, regardless of whether the statute explicitly stated that you could use it. But in the spirit of compromise, we still support the bill, particularly because we felt like it was really more important to have B-5 survive intact than to argue so forcefully against removing the chokehold thing. So H-145 is very much a compromise bill. And given that, I still think it's a good bill. It's good for Vermont. It makes me feel safer in this state. It makes the people who are my constituents feel like they call the police about a loved one. There's a chance that their loved one won't be shot. And I heartily urge you to pass H-145 as it came to you unamended in its current form. And I'm available for questions if there are any. You're muted, Dick. That'll be one thing. I mean, even if we do zoom when we get back to normal, we won't have to mute ourselves. Even if you monitor through YouTube, you wouldn't have them. I guess my question, both you've really answered my concern about B-5, the idea that the office, it's only when the officer knows. So that is the clarifying language. Am I hearing you correctly? Yes. Those two things knows the mental illness and knows that the contact is caused by the mental illness. Because remember, not everything a person with the mental illness does is because they have a mental illness. And I say that as a person who has been diagnosed with a severe mental illness who suffered a protracted period of psychosis. And not everything I did was because I was psychotic. Regarding the chokeholds, some of us have believed that if we don't do H-145, then the current law takes effect. And what I heard you saying was that it's important to move forward with 145 rather than having current law take effect on the arrival of the bill we passed last year. Yeah. H-145 is a better bill than the bill you passed last year, particularly because of the clarification around chokehold. Getting rid of the term prohibited restraint is a very much a step forward. I explained in House Judiciary that as a former trial lawyer, juries get really hung up on words. And if you were to go to a jury and say, this officer used a prohibited restraint to save his life, is he not guilty under justifiable homicide? I've talked to so many jurors and they would say, well, of course he can't use a prohibited restraint. It's prohibited. And so that's why I encourage the Judiciary Committee to get rid of that prohibited restraint because it would not, it would confuse certain jurors who are literalists. So I think using the word chokehold is much better. The other thing about the existing bill that will come into effect if H-145 is not passed is that the way it defines prohibited restraint, it's like you put your hand here, you put your hand here, your hands here, you cut off this. That creates major proof problems for a prosecutor. It's like, well, where exactly was his hand? And was oxygen stopped? Was blood flow stopped? You would have to call an expert witnesses who would just be surmising. This is a very clear explanation. It's a greatly improved definition of a chokehold. And it, it, it borrows some of the language from the, the bill that was passed at the end of December, 2020 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And so while it's not identical, it's, it's, it's as artfully drafted as that Commonwealth of Massachusetts statute. So yes. And I think law enforcement, when you heard from Commissioner Schilling, if that's his title, I believe he said that he felt like this was much improved and he, and he fully supported it over what was passed in the last legislative session. Thank you. Other questions, Senator Benning. Good morning. I'd like to go back to be five for a moment and talk about eliminating the feasible language phrase. Using your scenario of somebody going to the home of somebody who is in a mental situation that's problematic. If dispatch informs the officer on the way. The dispatch has learned that the individual has said, if a police officer comes to the door. They're coming to kill me and I'm going to react accordingly. The police officer goes to the door, knocks on the door, announces. So-and-so law enforcement agency open the door or whatever. If that word feasible is not there. The door is opened by somebody who is. Thrusting a knife in the direction of the officer. Is the jury deprived of something in that flow of deliberation about what the officer's actions. Should have been. Well, I do not believe so, Senator Benning. Thank you for the question because, you know, the question is not. In that case. Let me say what the question is, the question is, officer, you heard from the dispatcher that the person hasn't been to illness because of that illness, believe that the police were coming to their apartment to kill them. And they would act in self-defense with knives. And the question would be to the officer. Did you take that information into account before you approach it? And if the answer is in the affirmative. The officer has met the requirements of the statute. And you may want to ask the officer, well, what did you do to take it into account? You know, hey, I considered it, but I also believe that there might be someone in the apartment who a person was going to harm. And so I didn't think it was. I didn't have the time to call another resources that I might call someone else in the apartment who might have been in danger. If we knew that the, you know, if you know that the person's alone in the apartment, not harming anybody, then yeah, you would call another resources you would use. Many, I know Burlington has a really good policy on how to handle people who are in mental distress. Unfortunately, they haven't followed it. But if they did, you know, that policy requires them to slow down, slow down and do not crowd the person, right? Give the person space, set up a command center away from, so out of sight and out of hearing, use communication, bring in a, you know, a hostage negotiator or whatever the 21st century term for a hostage negotiator is. And, you know, so that's, and that's all we're saying is like we want, we want law enforcement to do what we want B5 to do is to have law enforcement officers take it into consideration. And when time allows, implement your policies, implement your policy, you know, follow use time to your advantage, get resources that would help you. And that's it. So I hope Senator Bending that I've, I've answered your question. Yeah, you actually have and I appreciate that response. And one of the handicaps, I guess of being in a very rural part of the state is that we don't have the resources that you just mentioned. But if I understand you correctly, what you're really looking to have happen is the officer approaching the door to begin with should be making decisions about whether it is necessary to bang on the door in the first place. Yes. And I understand and appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions. Well, thank you so much for joining us this morning. Actually, you've been extremely helpful and for me anyway, in terms of the, the if feasible language should be by recommended. Also, you asked about the justifiable homicide statute. Yeah. You know, that language has been in Vermont's just for a homicide statute for a long, long, long time. And I think that those, those justifiable homicide statutes, you know, are similar in many, many states arising kind of from the common law definitions of burglary and robbery. And, you know, robbery always in the definition of the common law definition of robbery involves, you know, threat of force or use of force. And so it's, you know, it was understood that, you know, somebody is robbing you because by definition it means they're using some kind of force that you were allowed to respond in kind. And burglary by definition is just breaking into a place with the intent to commit a crime. We usually think that burglary just involves theft, but by the common law definition, it means the intent to commit any crime. And, you know, I'm kind of intimately familiar with this because one night in San Francisco, I was asleep and I was awakened by a man in my apartment who was naked. And, you know, we managed to get him, scare him away, but the police came and they took it so seriously, much more seriously than I thought they would, because they said people who break into your home when they know you're there are extremely dangerous people. And so I think that is the mindset behind, including in the justifiable homicide statute, the crimes of burglary and robbery. Now I say that, not saying that I supported or not supported, I'm just trying to give you a sense of why those might be there. For myself, I'd feel a lot more comfortable. There was at least burglary into an occupied wealth, using the example of the man in Georgia who walked into a construction site, a building that was under construction. Presumably getting some water. I guess there was water available there and was out jogging or walking. Apparently he was just apparently he wasn't even getting water. And it would be interesting whether that would even be considered a dwelling. I mean, it was something that was under, I think the most, I don't think he was, I don't think he could have made, he definitely could, you could not have charged him with burglary. He had no intent to commit a crime. He didn't enter with the intent to commit a crime. I think he entered out of curiosity. I think, you know, whatever his intent was, it was not an occupied dwelling. And I think that using the term occupied dwelling would help. Yeah, that's a policy decision up to you. Yeah. When you were in San Francisco. Any other questions? Thank you so much. Appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. A number of folks are here on the. The zoom. If you would like to comment now as we start to mark up the bill. You're welcome to do so. Based on any of the conversation we've had so far. If not, I'll begin. I'll begin at the end at section four. I just asked a question about it. Would the committee feel more comfortable if the term in section four two were burglary into an occupied. Yes. No. I mean, you could be in your garden shed working. And someone doesn't know you're there. They break in and then you. In turn harm them. I'm not saying you kill them. But say you harm them because they've. Suddenly been in your private space. And you turn around and harm them. You, you could be. I think in your private shed or wherever it would be. If you're in there, then I think it is a dwelling. How about your garage? Well, I mean, you can. Maybe we should ask Bryn. Yeah, I think we should ask. So the definition of an occupied dwelling. It's actually in statute. It's a 12. One B two. So if you'll just give me a moment, I'll read that for you. So occupied dwelling means a building used as a residence, either full time or part time, regardless of whether someone is actually present in the building at the time. So I think because it's defined as a residence. I'm not, I'm not sure that a shed would count. If you were hearing from prosecutors, whether a shed that's on your property would count. If it's on your residential property, whether that would count or not. But I suspect that it would not, since I don't think it would, it could be defined as a residence. So. If this has been on the books for a long time and it hasn't been caused an issue. Is there a need to change it? I guess it's my question. I don't know. The courts would rule on whether or not it was justifiable. But I'm thinking of it. There's no reason to believe a similar. Set of circumstances wouldn't occur. Man in Georgia. Maybe they'd have to prove he wasn't. I don't know the outcome. I don't know. This is when you can use justifiable. Well, I don't adjust. Yeah. I don't adjust. Right. Well, let's. I personally think there should be some kind of a modifier on the term. Robert's been explained. And I think. We could hear some testimony on that next week. Going back to. Be five. Just went through with us. Julio Thompson and. Mike shirling or commissioner shirling asked us to consider. Language if feasible. Personally. So I have a question, Dick. I don't know. I don't know. When. When we're talking about that, I remember commissioner shirling. Wanted to add to the house pass bill. The phrase. If. If feasible or when feasible. But then in this house pass draft. On page five. Subsection five. It says when feasible. The request to add. When feasible. Are we talking about eliminating that clause? That's already. You're looking at, I believe the bill is introduced. And I'm looking at the bill is passed by the house. No, I've got it as passed by house. Mine says in B five. When a law enforcement officer knows the subject conduct. Mental condition or mental impairment. That's right. I was. Sorry, I was looking on page five. And it already says when feasible, but that's a different issue, I guess. Yeah. Okay. Where, where's the line with the other one. That it won't. Page. Page three. I don't have a line, but it's B five. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. When an law enforcement officer knows the subject conduct is a result of medical condition. Mental impairment, development, disability, physical limitation. Language barrier drug or alcohol impairment or other factor beyond the subject. The officers and take that information into account. Determining the amount of force appropriate to use. On the subject. I don't know. I just want to quickly say again. I. I just don't think that this is asking. A lot of the law enforcement officer. So we're all agreed that they know about this. Mental condition. I can't imagine a circumstance where a person would say. I knew about it, but I didn't take it into account. I think any officer that is told about that. I don't think that other factors were. Loomed larger in my decision making like the knife. So, so it's really. It's really just. Stating something that's really. I'm kind of smiling because, you know, it includes somebody's. Drunk. Yeah. By drugs. It was a recent issue down here in Bennington County. It was. A person being arrested slipped on the ice and the two officers fell down and then a struggle ensued. And one of the officers been charged with. Salt. But the charges didn't come from the individual who was. Fell. Because he was too drunk to know. What was happening, but it was two other officers that were at the scene. It's interesting. I mean, it's, it's interesting in this case. I was just a little. This is when you're zooming by. At home. Okay. Anyway, I'm comfortable with leaving as is. Where's the rest. I thought we'll do. Sorry. Underwhite. No, I just thought, uh, will that gave a really good. Um, Helped me understand that better and I'm okay with it. All right. I'm trying to go over where there were questions. And one of those was. The chokehold. Definition. I think everybody agrees. Is a good thing. The question is, should they. Yeah. Now we go to. Page five. Number five and six. Um, you just mentioned when, when feasible, prior to the use of force, to identify himself. Or the deadly force may be used and then a long course. Shall not use a chokehold. Unless justified. Excuse me. Unless deadly force and justified. Subdivisions one to four. That's the question. So. If I can just start on five. I think here when feasible makes perfect sense. Because. You can. It's, it's when feasible shall do, shall actually do these actions. Identify him himself or warn that deadly force may be used. And there might be circumstances where. It can't be done. The action happens too fast and they can't issue the warning. So when feasible makes sense there. Um, so I'm fine with five. Um, And then I. I suppose if the purpose of the bill. Is to clarify. What, um, Uh, Wilder was saying is, is now contradictory. In what we passed last session. This makes it clear. That a law enforcement. Can't use it under any other circumstance, but this. So I, I appreciate. That the house. I don't know if you remember, but one of the early versions of. I want to say it was, um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. One 19. Permissive language where it said a choke hold may be used in this situation. I appreciate that they framed it this way. A law enforcement officer shall not use a choke hold unless. So. That's, that's better. I still don't, don't. Actually like it, but I could, I could probably live with it. I actually think that our house colleagues did a good job. Articulating this. Please don't let anybody in the house know that that was just. Actually, I was specifically saying that for the purpose of YouTube recording it and preserving it. Okay. Maybe I should have said, I appreciate how Bren. You know, phrased this language. It's articulated very good. And that I would agree with the house along with it. That's. Bren did a great job on that section. Like we're making progress. It was some discussion. So people are okay with that. Being there. Yes. And by the way, anybody who wants to. Jump in from. I'm. I'm a bit confused. I was here on the call. Notice that Matt Valerio, Zana Davis. Well, it is still here. Julio Thompson is here. Shilling. Feel free to raise your hand. Or just pop on. As we discussed. There was some. Discussion. discussion of the timeline. Bryn, do you remember what that discussion was? I haven't noted. So the bills that came over from the House amended the timeline from Act 165 so that it would take, these standards would take effect on September 1st instead of July 1st. And yes. I do have a question about that. And I'm going back to Commissioner Sherling's testimony in appropriations. Correct me if I'm wrong, Alice. You might remember this. We OK'd $400,000 for additional overtime training. And I thought that was in either budget adjustment or 315. And Commissioner Sherling's testimony was that if we gave them that money, they could train to the standard by July 1st. And so I'm wondering two things. First of all, if that's true, do we need to change the timeline? And if they want a later timeline, do they still need the $400,000 for overtime? I don't remember. I see that in Act 145, we had changed some of the sections, not even September 1st, but to October of 2021. Yeah. In regard to, well, the section, well, there were a couple of sections that would be effective on September 1st. But this one, well, the remainder of the bill would be effective October of 2021. And I have to find that. I remember that discussion in October, Alice, but I don't have a note in part of me. Jeanette has a question. Yes. Bryn, who had a question? Oh, Jeanette. No, I didn't. I have notes about the change today. Could you ask, Bryn, could you ask Commissioner Sherling to join us next week? Yeah, that's. Peggy and Bryn. That's my only question on the timeline is, is that money and will it still be needed? Yeah, I'd also like to talk to Julio, maybe Julio, but certainly Savage Chair, John Campbell, and Matt or Becca Turner regarding the burglary issue and the justice problem. The next time we take up that specific area, are there other issues in the bill that we should look at next week? Could we just go back to the dates in section eight again? Yeah, that's why I was asking for Commissioner Sherling to be here to discuss the date. Right, so the house version has definitely different dates earlier than our dates that we had decided upon. So yeah, so if we could just both of those dates review. Sherling is coming now. Oh, well, Jennifer Harris is here too. Oh, Commissioner, thank you. And Jennifer, thank you. Could you discuss with us the dates? One of you, either of you. Sure, I'm going to be more likely to be able to discuss dates than the money issue that Senator Baruth raised relative to appropriations, because I wasn't part of that. But good morning, Senator, and thank you all for the hard work that you've been doing on this. We do agree with Will DeWight that this has been a great compromise, a lot of work done on the House side. H-145, as it came to you, is a vastly better bill with more clarity in order for us to operationalize it, which is really, at the end of the day, where the rubber meets the road, is being able to take the law and put it into practice. So we agree that H-145 is a vast improvement to S-119. The implementation date is currently listed in this draft of September 1. The commissioner testified previously that we would request it be moved to October 1. Again, I don't know anything about overtime money. This is simply a matter of we're being very, very mindful of the process to develop the policy. So the legislation, of course, is the chassis, and now we're building the car to deliver the training. So the policy, as soon as we get a good sense of where this legislation is going, maybe even by the end of today, this meeting, we'll begin to produce the second draft, and then we need to post it forward-facing to and allow significant period of time for feedback on that. And eventually, we need to arrive at a final draft. And once that final draft is created based on all the stakeholder input and other things, legal review, then we need to get with the training curriculum developers and develop a statewide training. I don't know exactly how many weeks that would take to develop the training, but then we have to figure out a way to train 1,200 police officers before the implementation date. So as you can see, it's trying to guesstimate working backwards how we could deliver the best possible training based on the best possible policy without racing to a deadline that could be just eight or 12 weeks from the time the bill is passed. So that's the request from the policy development team is that the implementation date be pushed October 1. And I will stop talking so the commissioner can address Senator Burr's money question. Commissioner? Good morning. Apologies for no video. I pushed the wrong button as I was getting on, so rather than jump off and back on, I'm going without video. Your voice is a very recognizable commissioner, so we know it's you. Thanks. For the record, Mike Shirley, Commissioner of Public Safety. I had to jump off at the tail end of Will de White's testimony, so I'm aware there's a question, but I don't have the full scope of the question. Senator Burr, do you want to repeat your question? Sure. So commissioner, you will remember, I think, when you were in appropriations. And at that time, we weren't 145 wasn't really on the table, although it was percolating in the house. So we were thinking about the July 1 implementation, and you asked for an appropriation of 400,000 something for overtime in order to allow that to occur. And so I'm wondering if we push the implementation back to October as Jennifer Morrison was just saying she would prefer, do you still need that overtime money? I believe we will. Just the pace of operations is such that trying to add this amount of training for this many people, the only way we can come up with a methodology to do it is to add hours to their schedule, which of course cascades into overtime. I think the original ask was something on the order of 439,000 and one time carry forward or budget adjustment, excuse me, money. At this stage, whether it's in budget adjustment or it is in the FY22 as a one-time fiscally that's at the legislature's discretion. We'll certainly try to minimize the impact of overtime. And one of the things I think I testified to was that putting language in that appropriation, should it come, indicating it can be used only for this purpose and then any residual returned to the general fund would be fine as well. Thank you. Appreciate it. OK. That's clarified. Not totally. I don't think. Go ahead, Senator Nick. Well, there still is the piece, whether it would be the 8A on the effective dates. We had changed it in our bill to September 1st. Is that still in play as September 1st? The House still has that. I think our proposal would be to change it to October 1st as Jennifer, of course, just testified. Yes, that's section. That's the little B. But I'm talking about A in Section 8. There's two things there. One has to do with the repeals and the other has the remainder of the Act taking effect. So I see the October 1st. That's very good. But I'm wondering, what's the ruling on Section A? We had changed it to September 1st. So in the House bill, it's July 1st. I think I can answer that. Yeah, please do. So that's really procedural. It means that the effective date section takes effect on July 1st. And the repeal section takes effect on July 1st. If you don't repeal those former standards that were passed in Act 165, then they'll go into effect on July 1st. So they have to be repealed. So that's what Section A and the effective date section is about. Why had we changed it to September 1st in our bill? You changed. Well, the House changed the effective date to September 1st for the use of force standards. Yes, on B, but on A. On A, we had changed it to September 1st from July 1. And on B, we had changed it to October. But I'm wondering. What bill are you referring to? Because H145, but we had to. I'm sorry. We never changed the A. Section 8A was never changed and that I'm aware of. We did. We changed that one to September 1st. I don't know if I can see it. But anyway, we had changed that one to September 1st and the other to October. I don't think we can change it because then you'd have two months of different standards. I don't believe so. That worked. Leo, did you want to comment? Well, I was not able to log on earlier this morning, although I did. I did hear that one of the witnesses talked about my prior testimony. That was Will DeWyte. She talked about some of what I talked about, but not all of it. And I thought I would just, for the record, mention that again. And then the committee can decide what to do with it. If the committee would like to do that. And then I'm available for questions about the justifiable homicide statute if the committee wants to take that up today or at a later point. I think we're going to take that up next week when we do our final vote on the bill. But you're welcome to make your decision on B5. I believe it would be B5. Yeah, so the point of my testimony really was about the feasibility language, which I think was in the original draft of the bill. It struck our office as a reasonable qualification because all the situations that we've been describing, we've been looking at instances where we all agreed that it was feasible for the officer to take the information into account. So the Chamberlain case, which is a very important case out of the Second Circuit arising on a very tragic number. And also I believe there was questions regarding B1 perhaps adding the benefit of, without benefit of hindsight, in B1. B1 on page two was another issue that we would take up next week. Oh, I see. I wasn't planning on that. But whether it was object, if you read B1, that was a suggestion. I don't remember whether it was Commissioner Shirling or himself. That was Commissioner Shirling's suggestion without benefit of hindsight. So we're going to take those up next week, and hopefully have you would represent the Attorney General's office on the burglary. You know, I'll check with our criminal division chief, Mr. Chair, and see whether she's got a better understanding. If we could invite Matt Valerio or Rebecca Turner on that, as well as Locco or anybody else who has comments, and John Campbell. We're going to take a seven-minute break until maybe it's more than seven minutes, 25 minutes of 11. We can get back.