 Okay, welcome back to rent House Judiciary Committee we are continuing our discussion on h 145 and we do have a new draft. 4.1. And if you could please do a quick walk through and show us the changes. That would be helpful. Thank you. So for the record Brent here from Legislative Council, does everybody have 4.1 on in front of them or no need to share my screen then. Okay. This changes it to this version from the last version that you looked at 3.1. You can find in section one, if you scroll down to page. To halfway down the page is subsection be and these are the use of force standards. And we've moved the language that was formerly in before up to be one. So what I actually did is I swapped the order of be for and be one. So what was formerly and be one is now in before, and what was formerly in before is now and be one. So we start out with that language that you have been looking at so closely over the last few weeks, the standard by which law enforcement conduct will be evaluated. And then following that is the requirement that law enforcement only use force objectively reasonable necessary and proportional. And then if you scroll down to page three subdivisions three and four are that kind of broad stroke language about the authority of law enforcement to use force is a serious responsibility that should be exercised judiciously. And decision by the officer to use force should be evaluated carefully and thoroughly. And then if you scroll down some more you get to subdivision be five, which is the directive to you for law enforcement to use information that they know that the conduct of the subject is due to some type of impairment or condition. The remaining subdivisions are are in the same order. The self events language in subsection six, and the duty to intervene in subdivision seven, if an officer observes another officer using a chokehold. And then subdivision C is the use of deadly force standards these haven't changed at all. It's all the same. So, the only other change that was made is to correct the cross references that exist elsewhere in the bill. Okay, and then thank you and then 3.1 though had great yep and I can talk about we never got to the difference between 3.1 and 2.1. So what we can find on page seven, which is the justifiable homicide statute. So we put this in to this bill because we needed to change the cross reference after you added the provision and the use of deadly force section about the officer use of the chokehold. So we had to correct the cross references here. So you can see at the bottom of page seven is the is the provision that law enforcement who use force or deadly force and compliance with the standards are are guiltless. If they kill or wound another person. That's on 4.1. Yep for so page page seven of draft 4.1 section four is the justifiable homicide statute. Got it. Okay. Yeah, and that didn't appear in draft 2.1 because what you did and with draft 2.1 was to add that language about chokeholds the provision about chokeholds and the use of deadly force. So that's the definition of the standards. Specifically that law enforcement shall not use a chokehold unless deadly force is justified. And so because you added that provision. Unless deadly force is justified, we change the justifyable homicide statute to include that subdivision as a part of the as a as one of the cross references and in justifiable homicide. So it's been draft 3.1 and it also appears here in draft 4.1 because you you still got that provision that says law enforcement shall not use a chokehold unless justified. Thank you. Thank you bring questions for for bread. Tom. So, so Brent say the situation where chokehold is used. Wouldn't it, would it be potentially that an officer. You said something about being found guiltless but wouldn't there be quite a process between the incident and when they are found guiltless. Not necessarily I think you heard testimony from the prosecutors that because this justifiable homicide statute exists. They may choose not to charge a person if based on their analysis of the use of force. It fell within the standards. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you. And one other question. So you moved four to one and then one to four up above. Correct. Just curious. Because my think my thought process was that you're just going to move four up to one and renumber everything. Did you do it that way. So you didn't have to renumber everything. I did it that way so I had to correct fewer cross references. And also, if you look at that page I think it's page seven. Is that right. Oh no it's page. If you scroll back to page two and you look at the provision and be to it makes sense for for you there. Yep. It makes sense for that language and be to to follow be one in my perspective, because it provides the law enforcement it's another it's it's sort of the general standard by which law enforcement has to conduct themselves. So it uses the force objectively reasonable, necessary and proportional to affect an arrest so it makes sense that that would follow the reasonableness analysis in be one. Okay, right. That way really for two reasons. Yeah, great. Thank you. Jen, if you're in a, you're in a position to respond to this, or do you need a little bit of time. No, I can say that we feel this is an improvement over 3.1. I will say candidly that I had not seen the language and justifiable homicide I had a quick glance I looked at it, and it looks fine but the version 4.1 that we just walked back through is definitely an improvement and we would support it if the goal is for it to leave this committee today. But as the commissioner said, it does not mean that we would not necessarily ask for other minor tweaks along the way but I really do appreciate the work of this committee and I feel this is much clearer. And thank you representative Donnelly I sometimes you're too close to something to see how simple something can be. So I really appreciate this restructuring I think it makes a lot of sense. Yes, thank you. Yeah, thank you Kate and I know it's really, really helpful. Well thank you Jen that's, I appreciate that and because we have crossover deadline. I think you need to vote on this to move it today so. Okay, Tom your hand is not any. Anybody else any other. Any other questions but it. Nope. Okay, I do realize it's the lunch hour but I just want to, if we can, if we can continue with this and wrap it up. Yeah, that would be great. I just see that getting I want to check a text from from Barbara that's an appointment so actually I'm let me take a break for just to make sure that I can respond to Barbara so just we don't have to go off YouTube or anything. Okay, so thank you. Thank you so much for this juggling meetings and being a number of different places so certainly appreciate everybody trying to be here as much as I can so okay, so I, I think we're in a great place I think this 4.1 is certainly a good, good balance of the testimony and the concerns that we that we heard. I think we're going to open up for discussion now, before we, before we vote Selena. So much. I have a, I have a proposal for the committee and I have a sense that I'm, I'm probably really in the minority on this but it felt important to just have the discussion and kind of go on the record. And that's what I'm at so I think we've done really good work in this bill to clarify things I've really appreciated the testimony on all sides in support of the bill. I continue to struggle a bit with one provision and that I'm just looking at what I hope is the right version of the bill on page five in the section on so I'm looking at 4.1 again still on page five in section on use of deadly force. And be, I think it's be six lines 14 through 16. So this is the, this is the language that clarifies that a choke hold can be used pursuant to, you know, the, that a choke hold can be used under the deadly force standards. So subdivisions one through four of the subsection, and I believe that, you know, I really understand the reasons for wanting to clarify this, and I also think this is already true under current law. I'm concerned a little bit and have been concerned just seeing some of the reactions to our discussion, a couple weeks back that it gives the impression that we're actually walking something back here that where I saw I've already seen folks refer to this bill as the choke hold loophole bill at times, which I just want to state really clearly I don't think is true and don't think this is the intent of the bill I think that this what's outlined in this language is already is already quite true and quite possible under the current law and I understand that the intention here is to make that ever more clear for all parties and can see the value in that and at the same time I really really worry about the message that this provision sends and that it may be signaling to folks that we're walking something back that we're stepping back from the commitment we made last year around this issue. So, I recognize that I'm probably an outlier here but I would make a motion that we strike that provision from the bill prior to passage. Okay. Martin. Yeah, I understand that that you're raising Selena. However, I definitely oppose oppose this emotion. So, I think what we're doing with the choke holds provisions of this bill. There's a few, there's a couple main points I would want to make. First of all, it's the transparency and tried to do this a little bit last year but just didn't work out that I don't want to have provisions in our law that are not as clear as can be. And I don't want to hide. No, not it's not really hiding behind but but the fact is that yes and yes in fact choke holds can be used in a situation where there's a life and death struggle where deadly force is justified under I think the current law even if we don't do this, but it's not transparent. One has to kind of go through kind of a convoluted process to get there by looking at a whole different area of law in the justifiable homicide as opposed to embedded in our use of deadly force standards. I think what we're doing with this is making it much more transparent that in these very limited circumstances choke hold is an appropriate maneuver for law enforcement. And that is the clarity and we heard from law enforcement. I've heard from various, not not just from DPS, we've heard from law enforcement that it's not clear, it's not clear enough that we're not telling law enforcement to use their firearm instead of a choke hold and a choke hold is something that may be a better, a better action so so it's kind of interesting I just want, I've looked at some other laws, dealing with choke holds, and whether they're how transparent or clear they are. And I think that that we're taking a great step of really being transparent because I think some other laws are not quite as transparent or clear that choke holds are in fact, huge so, or can be used. So just for example the social equity caucus on Wednesday we heard from Congressman Welch, and he was talking about the George, believe it's called the George Floyd justice and policing act, which the house passed, and it's been sent over to the one of the things that he stated and it's also in a document that talks about the law that they're banning choke holds, and yeah they are, they're banning choke holds in a non lethal force situation, because if you read the bill which I did read the appropriate notes, the definition of deadly force includes using a firearm, or using a choke hold or you know they have a whole definition of what a choke hold is that they define that as deadly force and we understand that that's deadly force here as well. And then in a provision regarding the standards in this in this bill it's not law yet hopefully it will get there. It talks about the standards for using deadly force, which would include a choke hold in those limited circumstances. So we've also looked to Massachusetts law and Massachusetts law to help us define choke holds. And the thing with the Massachusetts law and they may be saying they're banning choke holds as well but their definition of choke holds includes the provision that it's a choke hold if you if you if the move restricts breathing or blood flow and causes death or serious bodily injury, or there's an intent to do so. And we don't have that we don't have the intent we don't have that result. We're saying it's the actual maneuver that counts here and I think that's very important we want to make clear that, you know, unless deadly forces is something that's justified a choke hold absolutely can't be used. And I think that that we've really struck the balance here, I think we're being transparent. And I think we're being very consistent with how other states are addressing this so I would oppose this I think it's a very important part of the clarification and transparency that we have in this bill. So thanks. Will. So, after, in regards to the law we already passed that this, this bill tweaks. You know I heard from my local police department, and they weren't arguing for doing away with the law, it's like they understood that that some uses of force were going to be regulated and minimized and done away with it in as many circumstances as possible. And they weren't arguing that what I heard from my chief of police was just clarity on what is allowed, what isn't allowed. And there was concern that an officer in a life or death situation, who employed a choke hold could potentially go to prison, whereas an officer in the same situation who pulled out his fire, their firearm and discharged it would not run afoul of the law. And I realized that's not what we passed but there was a lack of clarity. So, you know, I see this is is as has previously been said I see this as just being a clarifying part of this change, you know we passed 133 h 133 out of this committee and it was just approved for third reading on the floor today. And one of the points we made was that it didn't actually change existing policy or practice it clarified it so that judges throughout the system, clearly understood what was available what was at their means. And that's what I want this bill to do and that's what I want to do. And that's what I want this provision to do and that's why I want to keep it in, because what I want to make clear to every law enforcement officer from you know one part of the state to the other is that if they are in a situation where their life or another's life is in danger, and a 22nd chokehold could take care of the problem, resulting in much less harm to the person they need to subdue, then pulling out a firearm and discharging it. You know I think that's a good message to get out I think that's important clarity to have. You know I think it is a relief for law enforcement officers, and at the end of the day it is also to the benefit of the people that they are interacting with in these situations. So yeah I certainly do not support this amendment. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that representative not and I, you know, I have been really torn on this provision for the past couple of weeks. And I guess I would just say as a counter to that. Because you know I, I think what you said is very logical. And I think there's other people that what we do is sending a message to, in addition to law enforcement, and so I worry about the message that this provision sends to folks who have been historically at risk at times and their interactions with police in our state and beyond, and that that's just I just want to state really clearly that's where I'm coming from on this. Right, you know I appreciate that and I, having this discussion puts on the record, you know, our, our, our intent. Any, anybody else want to wait in on this, not seeing any other hands so, so I appreciate your concern up. Ken. Okay. I'm really struggling with us to find the proper balance for law enforcement to do their jobs and to keep all of us safe when needed, and also keep keeping themselves protected. And I think we can protect us but I feel, I feel like I'm very passionate about this. I think we've gained, I think we've got a better balance out there for everyone involved. And I'm certain I'm a lot more certain to. I'm a lot more. I'm in a different place to where I'm actually maybe supportness. And, and I guess I have the paper right behind me. If you want to call the vote and you see exactly what I do. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you Selena. I think you probably know where I'm going to come on this but so I really don't need to say it but one thing that I'm impressed by is people, whether I agree or not is people and their principles and, and, and really not just sticking to hearing to them and you know with with super glue almost and, and, and I like that I like that in a person that has a has a belief in, you know, no matter the circumstances isn't afraid to bring it up. And, and, and I know that you know sometimes, you know situations like this it's not, it's not easy to do. And, and you're doing it and I'm just impressed by that you know no matter who it is. And I just want to thank you for that. Yeah, I agree. Thank you. Appreciate it. Selena and Ken I'm assuming that your hand is still up from last right. I mean, they hadn't taken it down that you don't have anything new at this point. Only if you want to vote. Right. Well, we're getting there. Okay, so, so as I was saying I do appreciate your concern Selena. I do think we've, we've taken a lot of testimony I think I think we're at a point where we're at a very good balance in this bill to move forward and I do think by having this discussion we certainly have created the record and can continue to talk to our, our colleagues about about this bill and really what our, what our intent is and what the bill does and doesn't do. And I do think that clarity and transparency is, is very important. So I am going to ask for a motion that your amendment be treated as unfriendly, and I started to do that but this is what we do. So, this is expected. Right. Right. So, I, somebody to move and a second here. We'll move. Okay. Okay. Okay, Bob with a second. Okay. Any discussion. Okay. So I'm going to declare on a vote, a vote means we do not want this amendment, a vote no is that we do want the amendment just to clarify. Right, right. Thank you. I appreciate that that Martin. So do. Okay, great. Everybody understands that. Okay. Great. So, um, we don't want the amendment. If you don't want the amendment, you vote yes. We don't want the amendment you vote no, because the motion is to treat it as unfriendly unfriendly. Yeah. Selena. And to be clear, we're not voting on the bill and the, the language that DPS, you know, brought forward and that we sort of went back and forth on that bring just brought to us at this point we're just motive voting on the motion to remove subsection C. And we're not voting on the bill. We're not voting on the bill. We're not voting on the bill. We're not voting on the bill. We're not voting on the bill. We're not voting on the bill. But it's really clear to people what they're voting on. Right. Right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Right. So we'll, we will, um, we'll do this amendment. And then we will go to, um, to 4.1. And it's not C six just to be very, very clear. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ken, if you could. Okay. This is on the. Selena's amendment, right? Do we need a roll call on this or. I was expecting just hands, but. Well, I think, I think for Selena, maybe just. I think you probably prefer to be, I think it'd be good to be on the record. Okay. Right. Yeah. Well, that's fine. Hey. So, and I'm letting Barbara know, but we can go ahead. Yeah. Okay. If you. If you disagree. With Selena's amendment and you want to leave the language in there. Then you want to vote. Yes. That yes, it's unfriendly. Just this, just. Just her amendment on taking out that language. Yes. Okay. No, I didn't think that through. So. Donnelly. Yeah. Go slant. Yes. LaLon. Yes. Left. Yes. Norse. Yes. Not. Yes. Barbara. Yes. Yes. Christy. He's coming. Yeah. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. And we'll hold this. Nope. I think it's okay, Barbara. She's on an, she has another meeting and I did let her know that we were voting on the amendment. So I think. I think we should move on. Okay. So thank you. So that means the, the amendment fails. And so now I would like to vote on draft. 4.1. So. So this isn't proofed correct brain. Is that, I just want to make sure that. That we can draft 3.1 was proofed. And because this one just moved some. Move some language around. I think it's good to go. Great. Thank you. So. I think Barbara is, yep, here she is. Okay. You want me to go back to the amendment? No, I think that's okay. I think. Okay. I think we can move to, to 145 to, to draft 4.1. So. Thank you for coming back, Barbara. So. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, okay. Well, I would entertain a motion to support. Draft 4.1. Of 145. So moved. Second. Any, any discussion. Madam chair. Yes. Sorry. No, I'm sorry. My earlier question. About, you know, additional conversation. Actually with the prosecutors. Was actually answered during attorney. Here's discussion. Because she spoke clearly to. Guidance. Offered to. Judiciary. And so that is good enough for me. As far as that conversation. So I just wanted to let you know. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I also see in the chat. From Jen Morrison that she. Was in conversation with will do white and that. You know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Concur is moving. Before up as agreeable. I'm not sure if people saw that. Tom. Yeah. I just want to thank the committee for, you know, the. The continued and. Constructive and. You know, the number of other adjectives, I guess you could say. Yeah. I certainly appreciate the. You know, the last minute changes, you know, and again, the continued discussion and with this change. And I'll certainly be supporting this bill. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your support. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion. Okay. Ken. I'll take a minute. So, first shell. Commence to call the role, please. Auburn. Yes. Donnelly. Yeah. Go slant. I didn't hear your vote. Because I haven't said it. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes. North. Yes. Not. Rachel Sun. Yes. Christie. Yes. Burdick. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. Well, thank you everybody and Jen, thank you so much. And Bryn, I really wasn't sure we'd get to this place. I knew it would pass, but having such a strong vote, I really, really appreciated it. Martin, I appreciate your, your leadership on this. So thank you. Thank you. And Martin, I assume you would like to report it, correct? I'd love to. Okay. No surprises. Okay. And again, thank you, Selena. And I think, and I really appreciate your support of the bill in the end. Yeah. I really wanted to report it. As I said, I don't think the inclusion or exclusion of the provision changes, you know, current law. And so I'm able to support the bill even with it in there, because I think we heard very compelling testimony from Ms. White, the ACLU, Vermont and others that this really is an improvement on the law that we, as well as law enforcement, that this is an improvement on the work we did last year. Great. Thank you. Tom, your hand is up. Yeah, that figures. Okay. All right. Great. Well, let's take a, take our lunch break. I forget to do we say one or 115 for Michelle? One. Yes. Okay. I believe it was one. Yeah. Okay. All right. Great. Okay. So we'll be back in about half an hour. Thank you, everybody.